Let's take the example noted in the article, California's goal of getting 20% of it's energy from so-called "renewable" sources. Say by some miracle they reach that goal. OK, fine, so where do they go for the other 80% of their needs? This is what really irks me. We haven't addressed the vast majority of the problem. We've solved one-fifth of it. The other four-fifths have to be supplied by "other" sources.
Of course, it's all the more ironic because the solution is staring them right in the face. We could increase our share of nuclear-generated electricity to something close to 60% in a single generation if we'd turn loose the power of industry and capital, lower some of the artifically-created barriers to expanded use of this resource, and retire as many carbon-emitting coal and oil and NG plants as we can. We have the technology. We know how to do it. We need to put in place a legal and regulatory system that instead of being adversarial and a hindrance is one that is helpful and facilitating for new ventures.
I will answer your question about the 20% solution. This solution leads us to high costs and shortages. Since the timing for the mandates is somewhat in the future, the current czars may not be around when the future bites. The new czars will undoubtedly find a scape goat unless the taxpayers boot them out. The new czars will also preach conservation to make us feel guilty for consuming so much energy.