The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Wednesday explained in a notice to the Federal Register that it will explore the impact of fracking in the state, setting off alarm bells among environmentalists.

“[T]his document announces the beginning of the scoping process and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria related to hydraulic fracturing,” the notice reads.

Specifically, BLM will prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine what environmental impacts the technology will have on the region.

The land in question includes “approximately 400,000 acres of public land and an additional 1.2 million acres of Federal mineral estate,” according to the agency, and spans across multiple counties including Fresno, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura.

Fracking is a technique by which water, sand and additives are injected deep into the ground at high pressures to crack open rocks and release the oil or gas trapped inside. It’s led to drilling booms in places like Texas, North Dakota and Pennsylvania.

Proponents argue that it’s a safe technology that is increasing America’s energy independence and creating jobs, while opponents say it poses environmental risks and recklessly promotes an energy policy centered around fossil fuels instead of alternative energy resources.

“This step toward opening our beautiful public lands to fracking and drilling is part of the Trump administration’s war on California,” said Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We desperately need to keep these dirty fossil fuels in the ground. But Trump is hell-bent on sacrificing our health, wildlife and climate to profit big polluters.”

The administration has already faced backlash over similar moves. This spring, for example, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke postponed a sale for leasing public lands for drilling near Livingston, Montana, following heavy outrage due to its proximity to Yellowstone National Park.

“I’ve always said there are places where it is appropriate to develop and where it’s not. This area certainly deserves more study, and appropriately we have decided to defer the sale,” Zinke responded in a March statement.

More broadly, the development is just the latest high-profile fight between California and the Trump administration, as the state has challenged the president’s agenda on nearly every hot button issue, including immigration, climate change and health care. 

And just last week, President Trump issued a series of tweets lambasting the state’s environmental regulations, claiming that the rules are hindering the ability to effectively fight wildfires, remarks that drew wide condemnation from state officials.

What happened to CA oil exploration?

Good morning. Hopefully everyone enjoyed the return of NFL football this weekend and is excited about the Rams/49ers game tonight.

But that’s tonight. This morning we’re talking about oil. 

It took some time, but a 2011 report by the Federal Energy Information Administration that estimated that California’s Monterey shale underground land mass formation had 15.4 billion barrels of accessible oil and a follow-up study that put the figure at 13.7 billion barrels of oil — about twice as much as the rest of the nation combined — got plenty of folks’ attention.

Advances in hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, made extracting the oil cost-effective. … But it’s been all downhill ever since for those enthusiastic about oil exploration in the Golden State.

It’s not just that low oil prices have left energy companies facing a “world of hurt,” in the words of the Houston Chronicle, and without the resources to pursue large new drilling programs in California or elsewhere. It’s specific, daunting developments.

CalWatchdog has more.

In other news:

• “When key bills aimed at reforming the California Public Utilities Commission died last month, much of the blame was placed publicly at the feet of a Republican floor leader — someone not typically seen as a make-or-break figure in a Democrat-dominated Legislature. It turns out, the CPUC itself had some last-minute concerns about the overhaul that contributed to its demise.” The San Diego Union-Tribune has more.

• “In a sign that California’s pot initiative is getting national attention, a Pennsylvania millionaire has contributed $1.3 million to a nonprofit group that is raising money to oppose Proposition 64 on the November ballot,” reports the Los Angeles Times. Meanwhile, “California supporters of the statewide measure to legalize marijuana filed a complaint late Friday with the state’s political ethics watchdog alleging that an outside committee opposing Proposition 64 filed campaign finance reports months after the deadline,” reports The Sacramento Bee.

• The Orange County Register looks at the curious alliance between Republican Rep. Darrell Issa and Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez. The two Southern Californians are gambling on bipartisanship helping them through tough races.

• “Dr. Robert Sears is one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccination world, a hero to parents suspicious of childhood immunizations that public health officials say are crucial to preventing disease outbreaks. So when the Medical Board of California announced last week that it was moving to pull the Orange County pediatrician’s medical license, it immediately set the stage for a new battle in the long-running fight over whether schoolchildren should be vaccinated.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone ’til December.

Gov. Brown: 

• Presenting Medal of Valor to eight public safety officers in his Capitol office at 11 a.m. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @Sachealth

It took some time, but a 2011 report by the Federal Energy Information Administration that estimated that California’s Monterey shale underground land mass formation had 15.4 billion barrels of accessible oil and a follow-up study that put the figure at 13.7 billion barrels of oil — about twice as much as the rest of the nation combined — got plenty of folks’ attention. Advances in hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, made extracting the oil cost-effective.

Excitement about a possible oil bonanza was stoked by a 2012 City Journal analysis. That continued to build in early 2013 after word spread that oil companies were already buying land above the 1,750-square-mile shale formation, which extends across much of central California to the Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo coast. Then came a 2013 USC study that estimated development of the Monterey shale could boost the state’s economic activity by 14.3 percent and had the potential to generate nearly $25 billion in new state tax revenue by 2020.

In January 2014, Gov. Jerry Brown made headlines when he said he was open to allowing fracking in California, getting blasted by environmentalists as a result. Fracking, which involves the use of underground water cannons to eradicate rock formations and allow access to previously unreachable oil and natural gas reserves, has been targeted by green groups on safety and health grounds for a decade.

But it’s been all downhill ever since for those enthusiastic about oil exploration in the Golden State. It’s not just that low oil prices have left energy companies facing a “world of hurt,” in the words of the Houston Chronicle, and without the resources to pursue large new drilling programs in California or elsewhere. It’s specific, daunting developments.

Last week, Los Angeles-based U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald halted plans to allow fracking of the Monterey shale on public lands in central California and rebuked the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for failing to do a full review of the environmental effects of the extraction technique.

In July 2015, state officials released final rules on fracking that were billed as the toughest in the nation. They were seen as much more onerous than the tough-but-manageable draft rules released in fall 2013 to the applause of energy companies.

And in May 2014, the federal Energy Information Administration — the same agency that triggered the interest in the Monterey shale in the first place — cut its estimate of how much oil could be recovered from the underground rock formation by 96 percent, to 600 million barrels.

Obama administration still backs fracking in state

Who remains enthusiastic about oil exploration in California? U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who last year criticized local governments in the Golden State for adopting fracking bans.

“There is a lot of misinformation about fracking,” Jewell told KQED in an interview. “I think that localized efforts or statewide efforts in many cases don’t understand the science behind it and I think there needs to be more science.”

That may surprise some, given the Obama administration’s aggressive pursuit of a global climate-change strategy that is based on much less use of fossil fuels. But President Obama campaigned for re-election in 2012 on an “all of the above” strategy for energy production and has continued with the approach in his second term.

Jewell endorsed the fracking plan for California public land that was blocked last week by the Los Angeles federal judge. The Bureau of Land Management, the agency the judge criticized, is part of the Interior Department.

Given that 11 million residents rely on these power supplies, that shows the gravity of the problem.

Now the Environmental Defense Funds and other green groups are using the disaster to make the case against fracking in California, arguing that the inability to stem the Porter Ranch leak shows that energy exploration companies and regulators alike are overconfident in their ability to keep energy production safe.

The DeSmogBlog, which is heavily visited by greens around the world and has been quoted and generated stories in many leading world publications, made the case in a recent post:

The SS-25 well itself was not fracked, state records show, but it is not uncommon for companies to frack gas storage sites to help compensate for damage to underground caverns from injecting gas underground. Another well near SS-25, SS-40, was in fact fracked, but that fracking took place at depths of over 9,000 feet, while the SS-25 leak is believed to be far closer to the surface.

 

“About two times a year on average, operators of gas storage facilities use hydraulic fracturing to enhance storage, mostly in one facility serving southern California (Aliso Canyon),” The California Council on Science and Technology noted in a January 2015 report.

Methane leaks depicted as natural result of fracking

Contrary to the many claims that natural gas is the clean form of fossil fuel, environmentalists cited by DeSmogBlog say the picture is much more complex:

The development roughly 15 years ago of high-volume hydraulic fracturing, combined with horizontal drilling, also spurred a shale gas rush nationwide — and researchers say that overall, the shale gas rush has leaked methane at unusually high rates.

 

Prof. Robert Howarth has been researching methane leaks from the shale gas rush for years, after co-authoring a landmark paper in 2011 that showed that natural gas production could be even worse for the climate than burning coal if enough methane leaked out.

 

Howarth now estimates that the shale gas rush has been remarkably leaky.

 

“Gov. Jerry Brown plans to lead a delegation of eight lawmakers, including Eduardo Garcia, one of the Coachella Valley’s representatives in the State Assembly,” the Desert Sun observed. “They’ll be joined by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, and many other environmental advocates who want to see world leaders draw inspiration from California.”

Among official delegates set to join him on the trip, the Los Angeles Times reported, Brown brought together Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León, Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, and Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, her replacement in the next legislative term.

For the governor, the talks represent an opportunity to shift away from haggling with legislators — many in his own party — and toward more expansive conversations with closer allies. “Brown has been working to widen an international pact among cities, states and provinces pledging strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions,” the Times noted. “The agreement, initiated by California and the German state of Baden-Württemberg earlier this year, now has more than 50 participants representing more than 500 million people.”

Commitment and criticism

To cement the deal, however, Brown has been obliged to do some retail politics of his own. For the past year, as KQED has noted, an international tour took Brown from the U.N. to the Vatican, landing him in meetings with Chinese, Indian, Canadian and European officials.

Touting his achievement, Brown recently drew attention to the significance of his multiregional deal. The total economic size of the included areas, according to KQED, has surpassed the Gross Domestic Product of the United States as a whole. “Parties commit to either reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 or achieve a per capita annual emission target of less than 2 metric tons by 2050,” according to the pact’s terms; “regional governments have agreed to cut their emissions 80 percent or more by 2050.”

But Brown has faced his share of criticism from environmentalists further to his left. Activists, the Huffington Post reported, are demanding he “take a stand against hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, in the Golden State. Brown, who is one of the nation’s leading environmental advocates, has faced criticism for years for not opposing fracking,” saying a ban “doesn’t make a lot of sense.” Critics have launched a statewide ad campaign designed to pressure the governor. In it, according to the Huffington Post, community activists, artists and comedians are featured making a plea for Brown to crack down on the practice.

Talking terrorism

Although the climate conference had attracted major attention from the outset, its profile has increased dramatically in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks inflicted on the city of Paris. French president Francois Hollande has overseen a curtailment of the massive program planned for the event, designed to reduce public risk while ensuring attendees could still convey an attitude of unbowed defiance.

In the face of the attacks, the Obama administration expressed its resolve in attending. The president has depicted climate change as a paramount threat to national security. “Impacts of climate change on public welfare also include threats to social and ecosystem services,” asserted the Clean Power Plan, a new set of emissions regulations promulgated under EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. “[T]hese impacts are global and may exacerbate problems outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, trade and national security issues for the U.S.”

Meanwhile, although Brown’s attendance was not jeopardized by the terror attacks, details of the California delegation’s visit may be tweaked. “It’s unclear whether that would affect any plans for California’s presence,” the Times reported separately. Gary Gero, president of the nonprofit Climate Action Reserve helping organize Brown’s delegation, told the Times officials were “still assessing and haven’t made any decisions yet what changes may be necessary.”

But the honeymoon could be over for millions of Southern California residents served by municipal utilities. Moody’s Investors Service warns they will be hard-hit by the state’s latest edict on increased use of renewable energy to supply electricity:

On Oct.. 7, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill requiring all California utilities to generate 50 percent of the electricity they sell to retail customers from renewable energy by 2030. The legislation will be credit negative for municipal utilities if ratepayers balk at higher prices that come with the transition to renewable energy from coal-fired generation.

 

Municipal electric utilities in Southern California would be particularly affected given their reliance on coal-fired generation. Coal-fired generation has historically supplied cities like Los Angeles and Anaheim with more than 40 percent of their electricity. In contrast, Northern California cities such as San Francisco and Sacramento derive all of their electricity from sources other than coal such as solar, hydroelectricity and natural gas.

 

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and other Southern California municipal utilities have thus far managed the shift to other sources from coal without major ratepayer protest, allowing them to increase rates and maintain a sound financial performance. But Los Angeles ratepayers are facing a likely 3.4 percent annual water and power rate increase over the next five years to help support the further transition to cleaner energy.

 

For utilities, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 increases the percentage of electricity coming from renewable energy to 50 percent by 2030 up from the current 33 percent by 2020. We expect the utilities will meet the 33 percent requirement. However, ratepayer affordability and technical challenges will become increasingly difficult as utilities reach towards the more significant 50 percent renewable standard.

Infrastructure costs also likely to buffet ratepayers

Moody’s says another factor could also yield future rate shocks:

[Municipal] utilities will face another major challenge in whether the transmission grid can adequately handle the intermittent renewable resources that will begin to dominate California’s power supply mix. LADWP benefits from owning and operating its transmission system and has variable resources such as a pumped storage facility and gas-fired units to balance the system. The city of Anaheim recently added the Canyon natural gas fired unit and Southern California Public Power Authority financed the Magnolia unit in Burbank to help compensate for shortfalls in solar or wind energy. In the long term, the need to successfully integrate more renewables into the grid will likely require similar additional capital investment.

But while customers of the region’s two giant investor-owned utilities — Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric — won’t be as hard hit by the latest state edict, they will also pay unique bills in coming years not borne by customers of municipal utilities. Unless a California Public Utilities Commission decision is overturned, customers of the two utilities will pick up 70 percent of the $4.7 billion cost of shuttering the broken San Onofre nuclear power plant. SCE owns 80 percent of the plant, SDG&E 20 percent.

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A strong majority of Californians say they support tougher limits on greenhouse gas emissions and more ambitious renewable energy goals to combat climate change, according to a statewide poll released late Wednesday.

Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said global warming is contributing to California’s ongoing drought. About half said global warming is a “very serious” threat to the state’s future, according to the poll, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, a San Francisco-based nonpartisan research center.

“At a time when many Californians are making a connection between the current drought and climate change, there is strong support for expanding the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Mark Baldassare, the institute’s president, in a news release.

Results of the survey — titled Californians & the environment — are based on phone interviews with 1,702 California adult residents from in July.

Of those who took part, 44 percent said they were registered Democrats; 28 percent were Republicans; and 24 percent independents or decline-to-state voters, according to the institute.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said they believe there’s a connection between the drought and global warming, while 28 percent said they saw no link.

Spray irrigation on a field in the Imperial Valley in southern California. This type of irrigation is more efficient than flood irrigation that is popular in this region. Still, in the high temperatures of this desert region a lot of the water evaporates, leaving the salts, that are dissolved in the Colorado River water that is used, on the soil.

The institute has not asked that question in the past, said PPIC spokeswoman Linda Strean.

California is mired in its fourth straight year of severe drought. While not going so far as to say climate change has caused the drought, recent scientific studies have said global warming exacerbates the extreme high pressure systems that block rainfall in the Western United States.

PPIC’s past surveys have found strong support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including majorities across party lines a decade ago who favored California’s landmark emissions reduction law, AB32. That law requires the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

It was signed into law in 2006 by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“A strong partisan divide has opened up since then,” the institute observed in its release.

Now, 79 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of independents favor the law compared with 46 percent of Republicans, the institute said.

The poll also found that large majorities of Californians favor new, more aggressive goals for combating climate change.

Eighty-two percent of those polled said they support a proposal to require half of California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2030. And 73 percent favor cutting petroleum use in vehicles by 50 percent.

Those are key pieces of Senate Bill 350, a bill introduced earlier this year by Senate leader Kevin de Léon.

Other findings from the PPIC survey include:

• 88 percent of adults favor building more solar power stations in California.
• 78 percent want to boost tax credits and other incentives for rooftop solar panels.
• 49 percent favor building the Keystone XL pipeline, while 38 percent are opposed.
• 56 percent oppose increased use of fracking to extract oil and natural gas. It’s the highest level of opposition since PPIC started asking about it in 2013.
• 53 percent approve of Gov. Jerry Brown’s job performance, while 47 percent approve of the way he handles environmental issues.
• 39 percent approve of the California Legislature’s job performance.
• 57 percent approve of President Barack Obama’s job performance.
• 29 percent approve of Congress’ performance.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno

Here’s the Bakersfield Californian’s account:

Brown launched a no-nonsense defense of hydraulic fracturing on “Meet the Press” Sunday, dismissing host Chuck Todd’s concerns that the practice uses too much water and could be dangerous. Brown noted California oil companies have been fracking for decades, safely, and that the practice does not use excessive amounts of water. He also reminded Todd that California imports 70 percent of its annual oil consumption, and banning it would hardly make a dent in consumption but force the state to import yet more oil on rail cars.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, in sharp contrast, has accepted the contention of greens that fracking is a grave environmental threat. That California’s governor parts with Cuomo and sides with energy companies led liberal bloggers Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine to vent on their Calbuzz blog. This is from an item entitled, “Say It Isn’t So: Is Jerry Brown Really A Fracking Whore?”

On the one hand, he calls for – and even leads – a “crusade to protect our climate”; on the other he allows oil companies to engage in a practice that science and common sense insist is destructive, wasteful and unsafe to the environment and to Californians.

So, more in sadness than in anger, we must ask: Why is Brown acting a fracking whore?

Quid Pro Quo? Oh No. Surely, it can’t be that Occidental Petroleum gave $500,000 in 2012 to help Brown pass his crucial Proposition 30, which raised taxes on wealthy Californians and increased spending on public education. That would seem oh too quid quo pro for this political Jeremiah who self-righteously thunders that climate change denial “borders on the immoral.”

And yet, whenever he is challenged on his approval of fracking – he called it a “fabulous economic opportunity” in May 2013 – Brown slips the punch by citing all the other good stuff he’s set in motion to combat climate change.

Governor blasted for ‘lack of integrity’

On Friday, a Huffington Post writer — Paul Y. Song, a California physician who once helped advise the Brown administration — weighed in with a post headlined,”Governor Brown, We Urge You to Do What Is Right for Our Water and Our Environment!”

The Governor stated on Meet the Press last Sunday that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the drought is no reason to ban fracking.

Worse, while Gov. Brown called out Senator Mitch McConnell for advocating on behalf of coal development amid concerns about climate change and drought, Brown refuses to stand up to fossil fuel development in California in the face of irrefutable evidence that fracking wastes California’s water. In so doing, Governor Brown sells out the needs of the people of California in order to serve the greed of the oil industry.

The consequences of Gov. Brown’s failure to halt fracking and protect California’s fragile water supply does not just represent a lack of political integrity, but bears dire consequences for California’s future.

Neither the Calbuzz or Huffington Post pieces noted that President Barack Obama and his administration have a long record of arguing that fracking is safe and welcoming its success in triggering the brown energy boom.

The administration is also in the process of adopting rules to govern fracking on leased federal lands.

In a January interview with KQED, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell specifically knocked California fracking critics as misinformed.

Last June, I wrote a column forecasting which tax increase measures might be on the Nov. 2016 ballot given the conversations going on then.

Time for an update.

As is nearly always the case in the political world, situations and strategies change. What’s being discussed most heavily today is not necessarily what will be pushed to the ballot for voters to decide in 2016.

By measuring fact, rumor and innuendo, I’ll offer my reading of the top five tax possibilities for the Nov. 2016 ballot.

First, a word about those that did not make the list this time. Previously, a soda tax was on the list, but that possibility seems to have faded for the moment.  Instead, advocates are considering labeling sodas with more information about the sugar content.

There is a constant buzz about restructuring the entire tax system and that has been heightened by the introduction of Senate Bill 8, by state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys. The bill would re-do the tax system, cut some tax rates and introduce a service tax.

Hertzberg hasn’t developed the plan in full as yet. Both the Left and the Right have attacked the idea. However, he also is working closely with the Think Long Committee for California, which has the resources to qualify a measure for the ballot. As of now, the idea is not ready for consideration.

To the list, then:

5. OIL SEVERANCE TAX. Previous Ranking #3.

Whether the oil severance tax initiative moves forward depends on one man – hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer. He said he would rather work through the legislative process, but the bill would be unlikely to pass the Legislature.

Steyer also is said to be interested in promoting an initiative that would require a two-thirds vote in local communities to approve fracking for oil. While he has the resources to do more than one measure, the odds are he would focus on just one, if any.

4. SURPLUS! NO NEW TAXES. Previous ranking: Unranked

Okay, this is obviously not a tax-increase measure. However, with the recent announcement of an unexpected $1 billion in the state treasury many experts predict the state budget will have a surplus of $2 billion dollars or more. Under such conditions, some observers suggest new taxes won’t fly with the voters, so why try?

A lot will depend on the fiscal situation heading into next year’s budget. But even if the economy holds steady and the budget is in good shape, it is hard to imagine there won’t be at least one tax-increase measure on next year’s ballot. Still, the chances are more likely today than they were a year ago that a surplus could stall the tax-increase movement.

3. SPLIT ROLL. Previous ranking: #2

There still is an ongoing grassroots effort to promote a split-roll property tax requiring business property to be taxed on a different basis than residential property. While that’s going on, big players have yet to commit to funding such an initiative.

Certainly, there would be big money spent to oppose such a measure. So both sides are considering the issue carefully. The school establishment would have to step up to support a split roll and consider how a property tax on the same ballot with an extension of the Proposition 30 taxes would play.

Also, a state school bond measure may be on the ballot, attracting attention from the school folks. A couple of sources tell me a little air has come out of the split-roll effort. So while it certainly hasn’t gone away, it drops to #3.

2. CIGARETTE TAX: Previous ranking: #4

The possibility of a cigarette tax on the ballot has moved up simply because some of the items in front of it moved down in the rankings. There really hasn’t been a change in the emphasis of a cigarette tax by proponents.

They will try the legislative route, but if unsuccessful will consider going to the ballot, where they were very close to passing a measure the last time they tried. In 2012, Proposition 29 failed, but by a narrow margin of 50.3 percent to 49.7 percent.

1. EXTENSION OF PROPOSITION 30. Previous ranking: #1

No change here. Many insiders believe Proposition 30, the $7 billion tax voters passed in 2012, would be the easiest tax to pass since it is already levied. Especially if the sales tax piece is removed, many voters would not directly feel the tax’s pinch. That would leave only the tax increases on high-incomes, including the 13.3 percent top tax on millionaires.

All the spending interests may not be happy, since schools get most of the money. But extending Prop. 30 still stands as the most likely tax measure to be on the ballot. The biggest question: What will Gov. Jerry Brown say about continuing the “temporary tax”?

Follow Joel Fox on Twitter @1JoelFox1