But the article does address both the in-state generation and consumption. It doesn't do a great job of clearly separating the two, but it mentions that both ar

But the article does address both the in-state generation and consumption. It doesn't do a great job of clearly separating the two, but it mentions that both are down dramatically. Here it explicitly refers to all power fueled by coal as different from power generated by coal in-state: "Second, in a report that the agency released last week, California saw a 96% decrease in coal-fueled electric power consumption during the same time frame." And goes into the reasons why this shift is affecting not just in-state generation but consumption of out-of-state coal power: "“What the bill basically said is, if you’re going to sell power in California, you have to be as clean as the power that we burn here in California,” said Dan Jacobson, legislative director for the advocacy group Environment California." It even calls out a plant in Nevada as one of the plants providing power to CA that was taken offline: "For example, the 1,636-megawatt coal-fired Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nev., shut down at the end of 2005. Southern California Edison had a 56% interest in the plant." Even the article that OP links to supports the LA Times article, rather than refuting it.