(1) CA is much better positioned to straighten out the land use issues. It needs to use the existing I-5 right of way, it needs to tunnel through some mountains, and it probably needs to eminent domain some additional bits of land for pylon bases where I-5 curves too sharply. No matter what, this is a project that has to pass the legislature in order to get built.
(2) A CA-sponsored bond issue must be by far the lowest cost way to finance a $7B infrastructure project that's amortized over 30 years.
Can't (1) and (2) be solved by additional $1b to cover "cost" the Government might have? Just make it easier for them to move it through legislature, mountains, and such ;-)
You can already get the same effect by having a private investor agree to "pay back" the Government if there are really private investors who want to do that.
It's called a "public-private partnership" and it's not completely impossible but it does require some person or persons to cough up the cash.
(2) A CA-sponsored bond issue must be by far the lowest cost way to finance a $7B infrastructure project that's amortized over 30 years.