Just shy of 60 percent of respondents to a survey conducted by Probolsky Research threw their weight behind the Golden State’s upcoming referendum on pot, which would dramatically shift the public debate around state and federal drug policy. A supermajority of Democrats (69.4 percent) said they would support an initiative okaying the recreational use of marijuana, “while a majority of Republican voters (57.8 percent) would vote against it,” Probolsky noted in a release.

Other cleavages emerged from the polling. The 18 to 34-year-old cohort of likely voters turned in the greatest level of support, nearly reaching 80 percent. “And, while 79.8 percent of those who describe themselves as ‘liberal/progressive’ and 55.3 percent of ‘moderate’ voters would vote yes, an initiative would capture the support of 38.4 percent of self-described ‘conservative’ voters. That said, 58.9 percent of conservatives vote no.”

The prospect of legal pot in California has been a polarizing one, the poll confirmed. Just 3.4 percent of respondents were unsure how they came down on legalization or refused to state a preference.

A pendulum swing

The news marked a significant psychological victory for pro-pot advocates, who suffered a narrow but stinging defeat the last time a similar initiative went up for a vote. “Californians rejected a ballot measure that would have made their state the first to legalize marijuana for recreational use in 2010, with 53.5 percent of California voters voting ‘No’ and 46.5 percent voting ‘Yes.’ The measure also would have allowed local governments to regulate and tax the newly created cannabis market,” as KESQ Palm Springs recalled.

Preparatory policy shifts have very likely affected the change in public mood. “Last October, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the historic Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) that created guidelines to regulate the growing and selling of cannabis in California,” as the OC Weekly noted. Ironically, however, the statewide reaction to the liberalizing approach also triggered a scramble to crack down on the drug at the municipal and county level. Included in MMRSA, the Weekly observed, was Assembly Bill 21, a bill that imposed a March 1st deadline on cities and counties to exercise “the option to regulate or prohibit marijuana activity within their jurisdictions.”

That bill has now been amended, however, to lift the deadline:

“According to the California Legislative Information, the revised bill ‘deletes the provision that grants the [state] the sole licensing authority … [and] does not limit or prevent a city and/or county from exercising its police power authority under a specified provision of the California Constitution.’  In other words, the dreaded March 1 deadline is no longer in affect, meaning weed ordinances […] will still be governed by city officials, rather than the state.”

Growing legitimacy

As policy has nudged public support forward, the atmosphere of emerging consensus has led to more institutional support. The organization behind the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) recently announced the backing of the California Council of Land Trusts, a key environmental stewardship group.

“According to an analysis from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, the ballot measure could raise state and local revenue of more than $1 billion annually,” according to an AUMA release. “Under the measure, 20 percent of these revenues will be disbursed to the Environmental Restoration and Protection Account, which will be used for environmental cleanup, remediated and restoration of public lands damaged by cultivation, as well as environmental enforcement against illegal water diversion, illegal cultivation, distribution and use of marijuana on public lands. This represents a strong, targeted investment so that public lands that had been taken over and abused by drug cartels will be restored and become safe and accessible for all Californians.”

The adverse environmental consequences imposed by illicit marijuana cultivation were pushed to center stage last year amid California’s severe drought and widespread wildfires.

“Under pressure from environmental groups’ lawsuits, the U.S. Forest Service has begun a comprehensive environmental review of Switzerland-based bottled water giant Nestle’s Corp. continuing operations in a San Bernardino Mountain canyon,” the San Bernardino Sun reported. “Since its permit expired, in 1988, Nestle has been drawing what now amounts to millions of gallons of water from the rugged Strawberry Canyon in the San Bernardino Mountains, north of San Bernardino. Under Forest Service regulations, expired special use permits, like what Nestle has, remain in effect until they are either renewed or denied.”

According to the lawsuit filed against Nestle, that policy led to an explicit green light for its unique consumption arrangement. “The Forest Service has allowed pipeline operators to continue transporting water about four miles, from a series of bore holes and tunnels to a storage tank near California 18, without more stringent review required after the original permit was issued in 1976,” the Los Angeles Times observed at the time of the suit’s filing.

Sharp demands

That arrangement incurred the wrath of environmentalists. Even though Nestle’s renewal application is pending — meaning it’s legal for the company to continue its operations — its impact on the state’s ecology amid the current drought became the focus of a sweeping lawsuit, pressing the federal government to take action. “The Forest Service was sued in October by environmental and public interest groups who allege the Swiss-based company is operating its Strawberry Canyon pipeline on a permit that expired in 1988,” the Associated Press noted. “The groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity, said the prolonged drought in California combined with the water operation is affecting wildlife.” According to the wire, the CBD and other groups “believe species, including Least Bell’s Vireo and California spotted owls, could see their numbers increased with improved water supply, the lawsuit said.”

The CBD counts The Story of Stuff Project and the Courage Campaign Institute among its fellow plaintiffs. Warning that Nestle has siphoned off “between 50m-150m gallons of water each year from a creek in the southern Californian forest to use in its Arrowhead bottled water brand,” the Guardian reported, those groups asked the Forest Service “to immediately turn off the water spigot and conduct a permit review, assessing the environmental impact of Nestlé’s operations.” Courage Campaign environmental director Eddie Kurtz called Nestle’s consumption of “public water” both illegal and immoral, according to the Guardian.

Managing protests

For its part, the Forest Service has sought to placate activist groups while initiating the review process. When pressed by CREDO, a self-styled progressive activist organization, the Forest Service responded that it had cautioned Nestle about the prospect of future restrictions on its water consumption. According to CREDO, the Forest Service indicated that, “should the drought continue, as we all expect it will, the state or local authorities may make further demands for conservation measures from all water users.”

Nestle had the local California media to blame for the initial scrutiny surrounding its arrangement with the Forest Service. “The legal action comes on the heels of an investigation this year by the Desert Sun,” as the Los Angeles Times noted. “Jody Noiron, supervisor for the San Bernardino National Forest, told the paper afterward that re-issuance of the permit would become a priority for the agency.”

After the Sun’s coverage, the story quickly gained steam across the state and the country. Protesters gathered to challenge Nestle face to face, while a nationwide movement to push bottling operations out of California succeeded in causing Starbucks to relocate its sourcing. “But others have continued to bottle water despite the drought. Wal-Mart, for example, still bottles water in California, as do companies at more than 100 other plants that are still licensed to bottle water in the state,” Business Insider noted at the time.

Trying for a reboot

“In 2017 we will launch an all new orca experience” focused on the whales’ “natural environment,” SeaWorld CEO Joel Manby recently announced, according to the Guardian. “2016 will be the last year of our theatrical killer whale experience in San Diego.” But the traditional performances will continue at SeaWorld’s other locations in Texas and Florida.

“He said the decision to end the orca shows in California was in direct response to customers, who he said had made it clear that they want less of a theatrical experience and would rather see the whales in a more natural setting,” the Guardian added. “Attendance at the San Diego park is falling fast. Visitor numbers dropped 17 percent last year to 3.8 million, according to city authorities, and Manby warned investors last week that numbers are still falling and would contribute to a $10 million hit to SeaWorld’s profits this year.”

Activists and critics, to little surprise, welcomed the change but swiftly demanded more. “Animal rights activists applauded SeaWorld’s plans to end its orca shows at its San Diego park but said the company should phase out its captivity of killer whales altogether,” the Associated Press reported.

Growing opposition

The root of the crisis traced back to the debut two years ago of a harshly critical documentary film. “Attendance has plunged, and company shares have fallen in half, since the 2013 documentary ‘Blackfish’ made a compelling case that the confinement and exploitation of killer whales inflicted physical and psychological stress on creatures that thrive on socialization and vast expanses of the ocean,” as the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle noted. Tim Zimmerman, co-writer of the film, told CNN SeaWorld’s abandonment of the San Diego shows was a “first step.”

“That film, shown repeatedly on CNN, had a profound impact on how the theme park is percieved by the public. SeaWorld has spent millions of dollars on ads and social media to restore its reputation,” as NPR observed. ‘Blackfish’ took as its point of departure the 2010 death of SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau, killed by one of the captive orcas at the company’s Florida location. SeaWorld withdrew its trainers from orca tanks after the incident, NPR added; but the damage to its reputation was done, as activists began to focus in on its treatment of whales and the psychology of the animals in captivity.

Legislators and regulators have also chipped away at the company’s fortunes. “SeaWorld suffered another blow last month when the California Coastal Commission approved a SeaWorld plan to expand its orca enclosures in San Diego but added the condition that the park must end its killer whale breeding program and halt the transfer of new whales to the park,” the Los Angeles Times recalled. “The conditions would eventually put an end to the park’s most popular attraction.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has forged ahead with a plan to federally prohibit the captive breeding of orcas. “The fact still remains that as long as SeaWorld holds orcas in captivity, the physical and psychological problems associated with their captivity will persist,” he said, according to the AP.

Added troubles

In a grim irony, SeaWorld’s troubles have not been confined to their featured marine animals. “A Wilsonville man is suing SeaWorld in San Diego, California after a trained hawk attacked his service dog,” KATU reported. “His dog may have contracted an aggressive disease as a result. Robin Revel has mounting veterinarian bills for his service dog Yogi that he didn’t expect after the attack happened in February. That’s why his attorney e-filed the liability lawsuit in San Diego on Wednesday.”

Inadequate support

The unanticipated struggle threw supporters of the bill, including Gov. Jerry Brown, onto the defensive, with lawmakers scrambling to appease holdouts without gutting their bill. “Senate Bill 32 seeks to ramp up the state’s emission reduction goals by cutting greenhouse gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below the 1990 mark by 2050,” the Sacramento Bee reported. A raft of amendments tightening legislative oversight over the mandate-enforcing Air Resources Board was granted by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, but recalcitrant Democrats still balked, either abstaining or voting against the bill “on a 25-33 vote, with 21 members abstaining, that featured no debate. ”

Pavley and company get another bite at the apple, however, teeing up some potentially marathon negotiations. But the bill’s showing augured trouble for SB350, the biggest piece of emissions legislation on offer, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. That bill “would set 2030 as the target for the state to cut petroleum use in half, boost energy efficiency in buildings by 50 percent and require the state to get half of its electricity from renewable sources,” the Chronicle noted.

Redoubled efforts

The divide has driven Brown, often poised between the party’s liberal wing and legislative Republicans, into a different negotiating mode. Along with Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, he huddled with Senate leader Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, for over two hours, as the Los Angeles Times reported, declining to answer reporters’ questions on the way out of de Leon’s office.

Aside from the substantial practical effects of the bill, its Democratic supporters were poised to work overtime to secure its passage because of its outsized symbolic and political value. Gov. Brown has emerged as one of the world’s most vociferous advocates for using policy to curb carbon emissions; around the country, policymakers and observers have placed great weight on California’s ability to demonstrate a workable model for taking that kind of aggressive action.

As the Wall Street Journal observed, “California produces about 1.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions. But the state has long been a bellwether on environmental regulations, passing landmark laws that are copied by other states and become templates for federal environmental rules.” Leading Democrats have been well aware of the level of expectation set for the latest round of emission legislation.

“The rest of the world is watching very closely what is happening in California,” de León told the New York Times, “and I think so far they see a success story. Our economy has grown — we are adding jobs, and we are reducing our carbon emissions. Therefore it is absolutely crucial that this measure passes, because it will be a big blow to the rest of the states and the whole world if it doesn’t.”

But as the Times observed, those sentiments were not as broadly shared as he and Gov. Brown had hoped — especially within their own party. “The concerns have come not only from Republicans, but also from moderate Democrats who represent communities in central California,” the paper noted. “Many of these communities are struggling with high unemployment and slow economic growth.”

Ironic progress

Despite his last-minute scrambling, Brown has expressed confidence that California will continue to lead in accordance with his policies regardless of how the legislation fares. But that reflected the ironic way in which changing emissions standards already hardwired into law could give wary Democrats an out in voting against SB32 and SB350.

As Paul Rogers noted in the San Jose Mercury News, California will reach key environmental goals “even if it does nothing. That’s because of federal rules put into place in 2009 by President Barack Obama to double the gas mileage standards for new U.S. vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.”

What’s more, covering other ground within the scope of the new legislation could be achieved “simply by enforcing — and in some cases strengthening — existing laws passed over the last 15 years to boost electric cars, promote mass transit and reduce the amount of carbon in fuels, according to experts who have done the math,” Rogers argued.

An uneasy partnership

With the prospect of a big ballot initiative on recreational marijuana coming next year, attention in Sacramento has resulted in new regulations and designated regulators. “Amid the state’s prolonged drought, Gov. Jerry Brown last year approved $3 million in funding to dispatch oversight officers and environmental scientists to identify and inspect water-thirsty pot gardens in sensitive natural settings,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “Officials from the State Water Resources Control Board and Department of Fish and Wildlife so far have visited 150 sites with growers’ approval. They have issued instructions on water conservation and filed 50 notices of environmental violations.”

The changes inaugurated a new compliance program that draws together officials from the state water board and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, according to the Bee. “Under pending legislation, the program stands to be expanded statewide,” although its reach is restricted to private farmers, not “outlaw growers surreptitiously using public lands[.]” Those illicit growers have come under fire in recent months for their very high rates of water consumption.

Trial by fire

Other drought-related circumstances have helped push the pot industry and state officials into closer company. Wildfires, for instance, have extended the threat of economic destruction to growers, who face their own particular problems as gray-market producers. “Marijuana farms suffer the same risks as other farmers in California — facing the potential loss of their crop, on top of the strain of the drought,” according to Alternet.

“The profitable Napa wine industry, too, is threatened by wildfires, with winemakers concerned that smoke-infused grape skins will alter the flavor of the wines. But some of those impacts are exacerbated for marijuana growers, who won’t get subsidies from the state if their crop is lost, and whose value per plant is much higher than that of many other plants.”

In from the shadows

At the same time, some California officials have set about trying to incorporate marijuana farms into a system of standardized water regulations. “California’s four-year drought has prompted authorities to broaden their approach to regulating cannabis cultivation with the aim of protecting sensitive watersheds,” the Bee noted. “In addition to the environmental compliance program, the state has begun issuing marijuana water permits and ramped up efforts to target environmental offenders through civil lawsuits.”

This month, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board overwhelmingly voted in fresh rules requiring farms in excess of 2,000 square feet either to register with itself or approved third-party agency or organization, the Guardian reported. “A number of issues including erosion control, water and wetlands buffers, irrigation runoff, chemical contamination and waste will be regulated under the new rules.”

Although the rules announced another substantial regulatory advance into marijuana farming, which has long operated under the radar, they also reflected the state’s increasingly accommodating attitude toward the once-illegal crop. “Those who don’t register but are discovered to qualify will be notified with 30 days to enroll before enforcement actions, including financial penalties, are pursued, board personnel said,” according to The Press Democrat.

Although some growers welcomed the opportunity to come out from the regulatory shadows at the state level, others cautioned that the apparent liberalization could have more dangerous consequences. “A major concern is that due to marijuana being illegal on the federal level, those farms prepared to comply and register could expose their activities to criminal charges on a federal level,” added the Guardian.

Notably, the regulations do not distinguish medical from recreational marijuana. Expectations have already arisen that the North Coast pilot program will “serve as a model for other regions, beginning with the neighboring Central Valley, whose board takes the matter up next month,” The Press Democrat noted.

Underscoring the disruptive effect of the often libertarian sensibility behind auto innovations, the controversy has pitted Republicans against wealthy coastal elites and Democrats against the automakers pushing the industry toward a zero-emissions future.

Republican populism

The problems started with the handsome benefits granted by the Golden State to buyers of lower-emissions vehicles, whatever their earning power. “Hundreds of Californians with household incomes of $500,000 or more have collected state subsidies for buying electric and hybrid cars under a program that is criticized as a taxpayer handout to the wealthy,” the Los Angeles Times reported:

“State regulators, in response, are restricting the subsidies to Californians who earn less than $250,000 or couples taking in less than $500,000. But that standard is also under fire from some lawmakers and anti-tax activists, who ask why subsidies worth up to $5,000 are given to people who can already afford the cars.”

According to some Republicans, the giveaway reflected the willingness of Democrats to shower privileges on the wealthy if their spending habits reflect liberal ethics.

Burgeoning business

But the electric car industry has also come under fire from the other side of the aisle — for taking advantage of pricey state programs designed to subsidize companies with outsized economic potential.

Last year, Tesla raked in $15 million in credits — a hefty share of the $150 million in total divided up among 212 companies — “drawing criticism about whether the electric car manufacturer deserved the money,” according to the Sacramento Business Journal. This year, the Journal noted, legislators signed off on $200 million for the so-called California Competes program, which chooses winners based on “employee wages and the industry’s importance to the California economy,” among other factors.

The economic stakes, already high for Tesla and a recovering California, have recently been ratcheted even higher: Tesla competitor Fisker has inked a deal returning the once-bankrupt luxury electric car company to California shores. Bought up last year by the China’s Wanxiang Group, Fisker “signed an 11-year lease worth an estimated $30 million” in Riverside County’s Moreno Valley,” the Times reported, “giving California its second electric car manufacturing plant after Tesla’s Fremont factory.

What’s more, a low-profile new entrant into the electric car market has announced the possibility of a California headquarters of its own. Gardena’s Faraday Future said “it’s scouting several locations for a new factory, fueling speculation about a state tax-credit race similar to last year’s push for Tesla’s gigafactory,” the Journal reported. “The company hopes to announce a location for a manufacturing plant sometime in the third quarter of 2015, and would bring cars to market in late 2017,” according to a spokesman.

Environmental pressure

Adding to the sense of chaos, the big climate change bills headed to the Assembly have activated opposition from lawmakers who find themselves caught in the ideological crossfire — or opportunistically seeking a quick serving of pork for their constituents. “Some moderate Democrats, charging ‘coastal elitism,’ say the bills will harm the middle-class families they represent in the Central Valley,” the San Jose Mercury News observed; “others are trying to shake down legislative leaders for handouts that benefit their districts.”

The legislation, added the Mercury News, would put gasoline-powered vehicles in the crosshairs — “cutting petroleum use by cars and trucks in half over the next 15 years and slashing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels over the next 35 years.”

The electric car companies, of course, have an interest in seeing standards rise. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, Tesla has pushed to ensure Sacramento’s mileage and emissions regulations could become “even more stringent,” while laboring “to keep other auto makers from loosening regulations in California.”

In an interview on Meet the Press, Brown cautioned that he did not “rule by decree,” working “through the Legislature,” but promised to move regulations further ahead than current law provides. “California now has groundwater management for the first time in its entire history, so we are much more aggressive” than in years past, he said. But, citing a new study claiming the state’s drought is connected to climate change, Brown warned “we’re not aggressive enough. And we will be stepping it up year by year.”

As the plight of California’s Central Valley residents has grown, political dividing lines familiar to voters and residents have begun to blur. Traditionally the Republican-leaning part of the state, with interests broadly opposed to the wealthy deep-blue elite concentrated on the coast, the poorer Valley has become a growing source of dismay for liberals as well as conservatives upset with Democrat-led water policy. Better-off towns and cities have weathered the Valley’s water cutbacks. “For less wealthy communities, however, the inconveniences quickly turn into catastrophes,” the Nation recently reported.

“In hundreds of poor rural spots — places too small to qualify as towns, too isolated to be incorporated into larger cities, and oftentimes condemned as “nonviable” by their county’s General Plan — the drought has literally meant the end of water. These settlements have long been at the mercy of ramshackle delivery systems, which pump unsafe water laced with arsenic, uranium, nitrates, and pesticides into family homes; now those wells are dry, too. And despite the passage of the state’s largely aspirational Human Right to Water Act in 2012, the large-scale investments needed to link these communities into the water systems of bigger towns, or to dig wells deep enough to allow them to survive off their own water supplies, haven’t materialized.”

Local controls

As legislators faced the prospect of more protracted water negotiations, some localities began taking matters into their own hands. In San Luis Obispo, the Tribune reported, county supervisors recently voted in favor of a parcel tax that would net $1 million for a water management district covering the Paso Robles basin, where aquifer levels have been falling.

Bishop, CA

Gov. Jerry Brown suffered another setback in his effort to gain the upper hand over California’s persistent drought. New details on alterations to his massive pumping plan, which would change the way the Delta region distributes the water that flows into it, revealed major changes that have aroused major opposition.

In a harsh editorial, the San Francisco Chronicle underscored that the altered scheme “will cost more, provide less water than originally envisioned (but more than pumped south now), restore less than half of the delta habitat than proposed, take longer to build and, most notably, lack the 50-year guarantee of water deliveries that made the old plan attractive.”

For that, Brown had federal regulators to blame. Environmental agencies objected that his half-century assurance “would lock in water deliveries without regard to shifting environmental conditions,” the Chronicle reported. Since that fact was inherent to any such promise, Brown had to drop it in order to proceed.

Measurement problems

The problem has been compounded by a simple dilemma: “nobody can say with certainty how much Delta water is actually being used by Delta farmers,” as the Sacramento Bee observed. “The state allows thousands of water rights holders to divert water directly from rivers and streams, but in most cases has no metering system in place to gauge just how much they take.” What’s more, relying on a meter system could simply produce unclear results, the Bee added, “because of the complexities of the estuary itself: a fragile natural ecosystem that’s been replumbed and reconfigured to deliver water to farms and cities to the south and west.”

The Delta drama played out amid state regulators’ first issuance of a fine for unauthorized water use in a farming district. “The proposed fine, which the district will likely contest in a coming hearing, is the first fine sought by the Board under a new structure in which water rights holders can be penalized for past unauthorized use of water, even if they have stopped diverting since,” Mother Jones noted.

Regulators, farmers, and others have clashed over measurements involving other sources of water, too. “California still doesn’t require that water pumped from underground be measured at all, much less factored into an overall assessment of total water resources,” according to a ProPublica reporter writing for the New York Times; “it’s merely an option under a new law signed last September.”

“California’s new groundwater legislation does require local water authorities to come up with sustainable groundwater plans, but they don’t have to do that until 2020, and they don’t have to balance their water withdrawals until 2040.”

Regulatory wrangling

Meanwhile, in Washington, Congressional Republicans have centered around a fresh push to reform the federal rules around how much California’s pumps can flow. The Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015 boasted the support of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “We designed the bill to move as much water down south to our farms and to our cities as possible without making any fundamental changes to the environmental law,” said McCarthy.

“A bill by Republican Rep. David Valadao set for consideration Thursday would require that federal regulators maintain certain pumping levels unless the secretary of the Interior Department certifies that level would harm the long-term survival of the Delta smelt and no other alternatives to protect the smelt are available,” the Associated Press reported. “The 170-page bill also sets deadlines for the completion of feasibility studies to build or enlarge five dams in the state and ends efforts to build up salmon populations in the San Joaquin River.”

Observers expected the bill to meet the same fate as two previous attempts by the House GOP to pass federal drought relief for California on terms amenable to state and national Republicans, many of whom view strict environmental regulations as a major source of residents’ water woes. But Valadao, in a news conference covered by AP, said the legislation’s Senate outlook was “still up in the air,” with “some support” fueling hopes of a possible win.

As CBS Los Angeles reported, Brown tied his support for the legislation to his broader climate agenda, which has seen him praise Pope Francis’ recent encyclical on environmental matters and earn a trip to Vatican City to push for global change.

“‘We’ve got a serious problem here,’ he told KCAL9 Political Reporter Dave Bryan via satellite. ‘Burning oil and gas and coal and diesel is a big part of the problem. We’ve got to find new bio-fuels. We have to be more efficient. We’ve got a lot to do. And by the way, if we do nothing, the cost is unimaginable.'”

Brown has done his best to use his final term in office to amplify that message whenever possible. His trip to the Vatican, Sci-Tech Today noted, will be just “the latest of several international trips the governor has taken to urge others to do more to curb global warming. He’s also been rallying states and provinces to sign an agreement to match California’s target for reducing emissions by 2050.”

Stricter standards

While Brown has pushed the message, Democrat allies in Sacramento have crafted the content of regulations to match. De Leon’s bill, SB350, “imposes three significant clean-energy goals by 2030,” U-T San Diego’s Steven Greenhut observed: “Reducing the use of petroleum products in automobiles by 50 percent; increasing to 50 percent (from a current 33-percent goal) the amount of energy that uses renewable sources such as solar and wind power; and doubling energy-efficiency in current buildings.”

In fact, the legislation was crafted around achieving the outsized goals Brown set for ratcheting down California’s statewide emissions levels. As an interim step, the governor has proposed that the state “cut emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. It’s an ambitious target that members of his administration insist is achievable,” according to Sci-Tech Today.

De Leon himself has not shied away from using aggressive language to characterize the bill’s sweep and ostensible urgency, as Greenhut noted. “We need to break the stranglehold the profit-driven oil companies have on our economy and give consumers better options to power their homes and cars in cleaner, healthier and more sustainable ways,” de Leon said in remarks posted to his website.

Brown, for his part, has openly acknowledged the level of industry outrage the bill guarantees. “Well, of course, the people who are gonna sell 50 percent less petroleum are not only gonna have questions, they’re gonna have a fierce, unrelenting opposition,” he told KCAL-9.

But the coming regulatory shakeup has made for some strange industry bedfellows. “One of the issues both utilities and solar installers have raised,” according to GreenTech Solar, “is that distributed solar should not be treated any differently than utility-scale solar as the state crafts the rules around meeting the new 50 percent target.

A legislative scramble

Part of the urgency behind SB350 has been driven by environmental regulations voted into law years ago. AB32, the big climate bill passed in 2006, “established a goal of cutting the state’s greenhouse gas emission to 1990 levels by 2020. To meet that goal, emissions need to fall by six percent between 2013 (the latest year for which figures are available) and 2020,” CalMatters reported. “Brown and other political leaders expect that to happen,” according to SCPR, although, to date, “emissions have fallen only slightly since 2009, when the recession ended.”

The minor dip has been attributed to the difficulty involved in pushing California’s energy usage much lower than it is already. “Greenhouse gas emissions in California dropped by 7 percent from their peak in 2004 to 2013, compared to 9 percent nationwide over the same period,” according to CalMatters. “Reducing emissions is harder here because the state’s economy is already relatively energy-frugal.”

A play for leadership

Gov. Brown was intent on taking the opportunity to speak more to a national and even local audience than to the planet at large. “With mayors from San Francisco, San Jose and eight other U.S. cities in the audience, Brown gave a glowing review of his own achievements in cutting emissions in California, offering it as a template for mayors around the world to follow,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

But the governor did make plain his ambition that others around the world might look to the Golden State for a blueprint, or at least an inspiration. Well-known as a former Jesuit seminarian, Brown leveraged his reputation to connect up California’s climate policy to the possible policy agenda of Catholics around the world.

“I believe what people at the Vatican are looking for is some hopeful news and reports that yes, climate change can be dealt with,” Gov. Brown told Bloomberg. “My message: that even though this is a very profound and difficult problem, California is showing a way whereby the countries of the world can actually do something very positive.”

He singled out Pope Francis for moving the Catholic church in what many observers have described as a markedly more assertive direction on economic matters. “”I’m very impressed with Pope Francis and where he’s taking the church — I see the hand of Jesuit training and inspiration in what he’s doing,” Brown told reporters with the Contra Costa Times. “The pope is engaging in moral authority and calling people to reflect on the basis of those considerations. This is desperately needed to counteract the iron logic of the marketplace, which is only dealing with profit.”

Gov. Brown emphasized that his Vatican visit was a prelude to the larger United Nations conference on climate change soon to be put on in Paris. “To achieve anything in Paris, we’ll need grass-roots efforts by religious leaders and states and provinces,” he said, “to intensify the pressure on these national leaders to get more done than is currently on their respective agendas.”

Politicking religion

Senate Democrats ensured Brown had a token of appreciation to take with him. SR37, passed with what the Los Angeles Times called near-unanimity, called upon the state to “consider the implications of the papal encyclical and climate change in their policy and fiscal actions to prevent further environmental degradation.”

The bill’s language foreshadowed what top Sacramento Democrats hoped would become a big new raft of state energy regulations. Senate leader Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, has advanced a sweeping piece of legislation drawing some fire, but not enough to blunt its progress. “Oil companies have ramped up opposition,” reported the Times, “and utilities are angling for changes in the bill that would make it easier for them to fulfill requirements to produce renewable energy. But so far, no one has been able to stop the legislation, which has passed the state Senate and is advancing in the Assembly.” De León told the Times “the world is watching what happens in Sacramento very closely.”

The remarkably — but selectively — church-friendly resolution did draw some skepticism. As the Times reported, Sen. Joel Anderson, R-San Diego, “criticized a ‘cafeteria attitude’ to the encyclical, where statements on climate change are endorsed and opposition to abortion is ignored.” As Francis has attracted increasing appreciation from those further to the political left than usually praise the Church, Catholic conservatives have often insisted that his economic views cannot be endorsed in isolation, while other  conservatives nationwide have questioned his economic credentials.