(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

In a new report on the spending plan, the Legislative Analyst’s Office said Jerry Brown’s proposal to use cap-and-trade funds for high-speed rail is unlikely to maximize greenhouse gas emission reductions, which was the entire stated purpose of AB 32 and the cap-and-trade program.

Under AB 32, the California Air Resources Board created a regulation that establishes
 a cap-and-trade program, to help lower carbon emissions in California. AB 32 is the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006 by the state Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 1990 levels by 2020.

Cap-and-trade was established to help achieve this goal. The regulation places a “cap” on aggregate greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and entities responsible for approximately 85 percent of the state’s emissions.

In the implementation the cap-and-trade program, the California Air Resources Board allocates a certain number of carbon allowances to the businesses. According to the CARB, each allowance equals one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. The CARB provides some allowances for free to designated businesses. Other businesses are required to purchase allowances at auctions. Once the allowances have been allocated, entities can then “trade,” buy and sell the allowances, in order to obtain enough to cover their total emissions for a given period of time.

From the LAO report:

In order to minimize the economic impact of cap-and-trade, it is important that auction revenues be invested in a way that maximizes GHG emission reductions. Maximizing emission reductions (specifically in the capped sectors) reduces competition for allowances, thereby putting downward pressure on the price of allowances. This, in turn, reduces the overall cost for covered entities to comply with AB 32 and the potential negative economic impacts of the program on consumers, businesses, and ratepayers. It is, however, unclear to what extent the complement of activities proposed by the Governor maximizes GHG emission reductions.

college essays writing servicesThe LAO warns the Legislature there are legal risks with Brown’s plan to use cap-and-trade auction funds for funding high-speed rail:

Based on an opinion that we received from Legislative Counsel, the revenues generated from ARB’s cap–and–trade auctions are considered “mitigation fee” revenues. Thus, the use of these revenues are subject to certain legal criteria. Specifically, we are advised that their use is subject to the so–called Sinclair nexus test. This test requires that a clear nexus must exist between an activity for which a mitigation fee is used and the adverse effects related to the activity on which that fee is levied. Given this legal requirement, the administration’s proposal to fund activities (such as high–speed rail) could be legally risky. While the high–speed rail project could eventually help reduce GHG emissions somewhat in the very long run, it would not help achieve AB 32’s primary goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2020.

High-speed rail will not reduce carbon emissions

The Legislative Analyst’s Office warned in 2008 that the high-speed rail project would initially increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for many years.

Following up, a greenhouse gas emission analysis done by the High Speed Rail Authority in 2013 indicates that once the high-speed rail system is completed and operational in 2022, it would contribute a relatively minor amount of GHG emission reductions.

The bullet-train project was touted as a way to dramatically reduce these emissions. Yet even after contrary reports, the governor still insists the project is green. “The high-speed rail is a reducer of greenhouse gases, an enhancement of the quality of California life and a bringing together of our various communities around the state,” Brown said at his budget press conference Thursday. He said because the state's population will grow by millions of residents, “we need alternatives.”

But as the LAO has consistently warned since 2008, and has does again with its new report, the construction of the project would actually produce additional emissions:

Despite these findings, roughly 30 percent of the funding in the Governor’s proposal goes to the high–speed rail project. Compared to a different mix of investments that could be made with the cap–and–trade revenue, the governor’s proposal is unlikely to maximize GHG emission reductions. Therefore, the Legislature will need to consider the most effective use of the cap–and–trade auction revenue.

Santa Barbara is ground zero for the environmental movement in California after the infamous Union Oil Company oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel in 1969.  Almost 45 years later, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission approved 136 new oil wells on 32 acres in the unincorporated area of Orcutt in Santa Maria Valley.

The Orcutt project signals that local governments are now willing to overcome environmental opposition in return for jobs and tax revenues.  Over 80 percent of Santa Barbara County’s debt comes from unfunded pensions.

Gone are the days when mainly overwhelming numbers of environmentalists showed up at County Planning meetings to oppose oil projects.  Climate Group 350 in Santa Barbara collected 2,700 signatures in opposition to the Orcutt project.  On their website, Climate Group 350 branded as “Project Deathstar” the Santa Maria Energy Company Orcutt Oil Field project. The reference was to Darth Vader's world-destroying Deathstar in the 1977 “Star Wars” movie.

But those who favored the project also presented a petition to the County with 2,500 signatures.  Groups like the Economic Alliance of Northern Santa Barbara County have also sprung up.  A spokesperson for the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce advocated the project for the taxes that could be generated for local public schools.  The local Chamber of Commerce endorsed the oil project for the potential taxes it would generate.

The project was approved by a narrow 3 to 2 vote by the County Planning Commission.  The major issue was how many tons of greenhouse gases the steam generators that loosen the oil for extraction would emit into the air. The project is estimated to create 88,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year.

Under AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Santa Maria Energy would be required to lower emissions to 10,000 tons, which would be 16 percent of usual production; or mitigate the emissions by buying pollution permits on the quarterly cap-and-trade auction of the California Air Resources Board.

The Orcutt Oilfield will produce oil and taxes

The Orcutt oilfield is named after William Orcutt, a former manager of the Geological, Land and Engineering Departments of Union Oil Company.  Orcutt discovered prehistoric fossils in the La Brea Tar Pits near the core of the City of Los Angeles.  Today, the town of Orcutt, a former home for oil field workers, has a population of about 35,000.

The proposed 136 new oil wells will produce 3,000 barrels of oil per day.  Today’s spot price for oil is $142 per barrel.   Twenty-six pilot wells are already in operation. So, the Orcutt field would generate a $426,000 dollars per day; or over $155 million per year.

California does not have an oil severance tax.  Instead, it has a corporate tax from 15 to 35 percent on oil depending on gross revenues.  This would equate to $23.3 to $54.4 million per year in tax revenue.  The 8 percent sales tax in Santa Barbara County could generate $1.8 to $4.3 million in additional taxes.  Combined corporate and sales taxes generate more revenues than a typical oil severance tax would.

Ironically, in 1910 Orcutt opposed a 1/8 oil royalty proposed by President William H. Taft on oil field leases in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.  Today, it is the prospect of new taxes at a rate of about 1/7 to 1/3 of gross revenues that is opening up new well sites.

The County Planning Commission authorized exceeding the AB32 emissions threshold of 16 percent.  This left Santa Maria Energy with having to buy emissions allowances from the state’s cap-and-trade program for the 78,000 tons of emissions exceeding 10,000 tons.  At the going rate of $10 per ton at recent cap-and-trade auctions, that would equate to $780,000 in additional taxes imposed on the project.  When emissions allowances increase to $25 per ton, the cap-and-trade tax would rise to $1,950,000 per year.

Paradoxically, Santa Barbara Channel has the largest natural oil and gas seeps in the Western Hemisphere. About 86,000 barrels of oil seep from the ocean bottom each year, the equivalent to the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill.   Since 1970, there have been the equivalent of 43 “1969” oil spills.  About 6,075 tons of Reactive Organic Compounds (natural gas) seeps into the air every day from the Santa Barbara Channel and has done so since way before the Industrial Revolution and the development of carbon-based energy.

Additionally, the Orcutt oil field would provide 50 to 75 high-paying jobs.

(On a larger scale beyond just Orcutt, the U.S. Energy Information Agency says the Monterey Shale Formation could add 1.4 million jobs for California. As of August there were 1.62 million workers unemployed in California.)

Overall oil production is slightly down in last decade

Santa Barbara County’s oil production has fallen in half since its peak in the 1980s.   The County has about 20 operators with active leases.  The expansion of the Orcutt field would increase the county’s total production by one-third to 12,000 barrels per day.  Forty new drilling projects have been proposed in the last three years. Statewide, however, the number of drilling permits substantially declined in 2012.

Tupper Hull of the Western States Petroleum Association stated he doesn’t see a boom coming, however, due to the regulations and obstacles, especially in Santa Barbara.  Santa Barbara is the only county in California with its own energy department with jurisdiction over drilling.

No local water use or fracking

Water for drilling will be supplied to the Orcutt oil field from an 8-mile-long reclaimed water pipeline from the Laguna County Sanitation District.  So no water would be taken from local agriculture or groundwater basins.  Oil extraction by steaming would occur below the water table, some 1,000 feet below the ground surface.

Hydraulic fracturing — called fracking — of subsurface rock would not be used to extract oil.  Instead, the Orcutt oil field operator, Santa Maria Energy, would use a steam injection process that heats the oil in a well to produce sufficient oil flow.

What Turned the Tide in Santa Barbara County?

What turned the County Planning Commission to passing the proposed project amidst environmental opposition?   According to Noozhawk.com, it was about 25 people who showed up to speak in favor of the project, along with the 2,500 signatures on a petition expressing support for the project.

Santa Barbara County has a population of about 425,000.  It took about 0.5 percent of the population to overcome environmental opposition to new oil production at the Orcutt Oilfield.

For decades environmentalists have thwarted oil production in California.  If there is a prescription for change in California from the Santa Barbara example, a similar small margin of supporters will need to be active at each public hearing for new oil well installations.

Construction of the new oil wells in Orcutt will begin in about a year.  That is, unless the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center appeals the County Planning Commission decision to the County Board of Supervisors.

Even if an appeal occurs, the Santa Barbara situation marks a change in the mentality in favor of drilling in California.