Category: Climate Change/Energy

We monitor the state’s leadership in climate change and energy policy through analysis of public opinion, local government actions, and industry trends.

State Struggles to Enact More Robust Climate Targets

California’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions thus far have made the state a national leader. But the momentum may be slowing. A struggle over recent climate legislation resulted in a less-ambitious version of the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350) being signed into law by Governor Brown last week and the deferment of a bill (SB 32) that would have strengthened the state’s 2006 climate law.

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) established the foundation of California’s plan to address climate change by reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state is on track to meet the 2020 limit, and now policy efforts are shifting to longer term goals. Emission-reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050 are already set forth in executive orders (former Gov. Schwarzenegger’s S-3-05 and Gov. Brown’s B-30-15) but have not yet been incorporated into law.

SB 350 is seen as a major step toward reducing GHG emissions in the longer term. It mandates that half of the state’s electricity come from renewable resources and that buildings double their energy savings by 2030. But a third piece of the original plan, which proposed to cut petroleum use in cars and trucks by half over the next 15 years, was dropped. Since the transportation sector is a major contributor to GHG emissions (37% in 2013), this is could make it more challenging to meet long term emissions reductions. To make up for the loss, the Air Resources Board adopted a modified version of its Low Carbon Fuel Standard that requires a 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2020.

The second slowdown was the deferment of SB 32 until at least next year. The bill would amend the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 to include the 2030 and 2050 emission-reduction targets from the executive orders. It failed to pass in the assembly.

Our July PPIC Statewide Survey found that solid majorities of Californians (69% adults, 62% likely voters) favored the proposal to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. When asked about the original goals of SB 350, 82 percent of adults supported the increase of electrical generation from renewables, 70 percent favored doubling energy efficiency in buildings, and 73 percent supported reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50 percent by 2030. Although Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support these goals, majorities of Republicans support the goals of increasing renewables and energy efficiency. Overwhelming majorities who favor these policies also view global warming as a serious threat to the economy.

The state’s approach to reducing GHG emissions has achieved important results. The mix of policies has resulted in a cleaner economy, while population and GDP have continued to grow. Looking ahead, a study for the California Energy Commission shows that with the mix of technologies and practices proposed by state agencies, emission reductions of 26–38 percent below 1990 levels could be achieved by 2030 at a cost of $8 per household per month (or $14 if commercial and industrial costs are all passed on to households).

California’s multi-faceted approach to combating global warming has placed it in the vanguard of worldwide policies. Yet 2020 is just around the corner, and clear targets to reduce GHG emissions for the longer term still evade us. To remain on the leading edge of global climate regulations, the state will need to adopt more robust and forward-looking policies. It would also be worthwhile to explore a new narrative to reduce the partisan divide on this issue, given Californians’ widespread support for the state’s energy goals.

Learn More

Explore PPIC’s climate change page.

 

Managing Wildfires Requires New Strategies

Severe wildfires have been dominating the news this summer, with good reason. The persistent drought, coupled with the legacy of poor forest management practices, has produced historic fire conditions in California and much of the West.

In the month since the publication of our report on the California drought’s major repercussions—which projected a growth in extreme fires if the drought continues another few years—California has experienced several new fires that are among the largest or most damaging in recorded history.

Since this drought began in 2012, California has experienced two of the three largest fires on record, and four of the top 20, as measured by number of acres burned (see table). The newest “top 20” is the Fresno-area Rough Fire, which continues to spread and rise in fire rankings since its start in July. From September 11-17, the Rough Fire consumed around 20,000 additional acres and rose from eighteenth to fifteenth largest wildfire on record.

As of mid-September, this year’s Valley and Butte fires ranked third and seventh on the state’s list of most damaging fires, as measured by number of structures destroyed (see table). At this writing, neither fire was fully contained.

All three of these wildfires continue to burn despite a massive fire-suppression effort by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).

UC Berkeley wildfire expert Scott Stephens explains that the current statewide drought has affected the frequency and behavior of recent wildfires. Hotter temperatures and dry conditions have “reduced moisture in both live and dead trees, as well as shrub leaves and tree needles, which allows for more efficient fire initiation and high intensity burns,” says Stephens.

A century of wildfire suppression and inconsistent fuel reduction efforts—such as thinning out trees and introducing more frequent, low-intensity fires—has increased the risk of major wildfires in California’s forestlands. Unnaturally dense forests create ample fuel for wildfires once they ignite.

One new drought-induced characteristic is that wildfires are continuing to grow throughout the night, Stephens notes. Historically, lower temperature and higher relative humidity at night would slow wildfire growth and give firefighters a chance to suppress the burn. The Moonlight (2008), Rim (2013), King (2014), and Valley (2015) wildfires burned intensely throughout the night.

Stephens warns that that we need to rethink our approach to forest management. Intense fires have the potential to convert forests to shrublands, permanently altering their ecology. To avoid this, the state must increase fuel-reduction efforts to ten times the area that is currently treated. “The good news is this is possible,” Stephens says. “We have the techniques and research to show forest restoration treatments are in line with the ecology of these ecosystems.”

Short-term fire suppression is extremely important for protecting human life and property, but experts agree that California needs to take a longer range view of forest management to limit damage from wildfires as the climate warms, and reduce the ever-growing cost of fighting fires. Fuel reduction efforts require sustained application over large areas for decades. The fractured ownership of California’s forestland makes implementation difficult. Some efforts are underway on private lands in California, but this has proven more difficult on federal lands (roughly half of our forestlands) due to permitting constraints. Until private and public forestland owners coordinate long term fuel-reduction efforts, California can expect to experience larger, more frequent, and increasingly severe wildfires.

Table notes: *Number of acres burned or structures destroyed may increase until wildfire is fully contained. Wildfires in bold started since the drought began in 2012.

Table source: CAL FIRE, Top 20 Largest California Wildfires (updated by PPIC with current wildfire information as of September 23, 2015); CAL FIRE Top 20 Most Damaging California Wildfires (updated by PPIC with current wildfire information as of September 23, 2015).

 

Video: Senator Boxer Comes to PPIC

In more than 20 years in the US Senate, Barbara Boxer said there have been good changes (more women today) and bad (the “chasm” that divides the parties). But sometimes, despite the gridlock and insults, there is common ground, she told an audience at PPIC yesterday. She and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell found it in teaming up on a multi-year highway bill.

“Working with Mitch McConnell was unexpected,” she said. “We actually hadn’t talked too much in 20 years.” Bringing senators from both parties to an agreement—particularly on how to pay for the bill—was tough. But the bill got the votes. It passed the Senate and is now pending in the House.

Boxer told this story and others in a wide-ranging conversation with Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s president and CEO, that touched on climate change, California water policy, the presidential race, and the nuclear deal with Iran.What’s next? For the record, Boxer says she is not retiring. She’s just not running for Senate again.

The Drought and Californians’ Views on Climate Policy

The California Legislature is considering bills that would expand state efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One, SB 32, would require that California reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Another, SB 350, would require that petroleum use in cars be reduced by 50 percent, half of the state’s electricity come from renewable energy sources, and buildings double their energy efficiency—all by 2030.

Our July statewide survey examined support for the goals of these bills. We found that strong majorities of Californians favored each of these proposals but that support varied among partisans, with Democrats and independents more likely than Republicans to be in favor. However, a closer look reveals that party registration is not the only driver of these views.

Within the parties and among independents, registered voters who think global warming has contributed to the drought are far more likely to support the ideas in these bills than those who don’t. Among Republicans, solid majorities of those who think global warming has contributed to the drought also support SB 32 and SB 350. Meanwhile, among Democrats and independents who do not think global warming has contributed to the drought, support for SB 350 drops to about half or less.

By the same token, Californians who think climate change is having an impact today are more likely to support these policies than those who don’t think it will have an impact until sometime in the future—and much more likely than those who think climate change will never have an impact.

These findings suggest that Californians who make a connection between climate change and their daily lives are much more likely to support policies to address it. They also suggest that attitudes toward ambitious climate and energy goals are not simply partisan, but that they are related to individual beliefs about the impact of climate change.

Californians and Climate Change

It’s been nine years since the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” had its debut and AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” was passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature and signed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Since then, Republicans and Democrats at the federal level have sparred over the scientific evidence on global warming, the government’s role in regulating greenhouse gases, and energy policies that will promote economic growth and well-being. Still, California likely voters’ strong support of AB 32—through good economic times and bad—has barely budged (66% PPIC July 2006, 63% PPIC July 2015).

The July 2015 PPIC poll finds that Californians’ economic fears are part of the reason for their steady support for AB 32—which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. Among California’s likely voters, 69 percent say global warming is a threat to California’s economy and quality of life.

Another reason for likely voters’ support for AB 32 is their hope that it may improve the jobs outlook. Asked about the economic impact of state actions to reduce global warming, they are more likely to say the result will be more jobs for people in the state (34%) than to say that the result will be fewer jobs (24%) or that there will be no impact on jobs (29%).

Our polling finds a strong link between likely voters’ fears about the impact of climate change and hopes about state action to address it. Among those in favor of AB 32 today, the overwhelming majority say that global warming is a serious threat to the state’s economy. And a plurality of the supporters of AB 32 say the state’s actions to reduce global warming would lead to more jobs (44%). Less than a third (30%) say these actions would have no effect on job numbers. Just 14% say the result would be fewer jobs.

Californians have not only expressed consistent support for the state’s current goals to curb greenhouse gas emissions, they favor expanding those efforts. Solid majorities of likely voters strongly support three ideas proposed by Governor Brown earlier this year and reflected in SB 350, which is under consideration in the legislature: reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50% by 2030, increasing the use of renewable energy for the state’s electricity to 50% by 2030, and doubling the energy efficiency in existing buildings by the year 2030. Most likely voters also support the proposal in another bill, SB 32, which would require the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Once again, strong support of these more ambitious climate goals is tied to the perceived economic effects of both climate change and the state’s actions to address it. Overwhelming majorities of likely voters who favor the new proposals say that global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy (88% reduce petroleum use; 82% increase renewable energy; 85% double energy efficiency; 87% reduce greenhouse gas emissions). Among likely voters who favor these new proposals, pluralities say that California’s actions to reduce global warming will lead to more jobs. Small minorities who favor the new climate change proposals say there would be fewer jobs as a result of actions to reduce global warming.

To reach California’s goals to curb emissions, the state will need to find ways to drastically reduce its greenhouse gases and reliance on fossil fuels. On this topic, the poll finds strong majority support for policies that encourage more electric vehicles and solar power. Overwhelming majorities who favor these policies also view global warming as a serious threat to the economy. Pluralities of those who favor these proposals expect that actions to reduce global warming would lead to more jobs.

PPIC’s surveys have consistently shown that most Californians are aligned with the state’s current efforts and proposed policies, and that they have made up their minds about the perceived economic impacts of climate change and state actions to curb it. Still, the ongoing political debate over what steps to take relies on partisan talking points borrowed from the national arena. There is a shortfall of factual analysis to help leaders—and all Californians—understand the costs, benefits, and trade-offs they are being asked to make. Specifically, will climate change take a greater toll on poor and disadvantaged communities? How will climate change policies improve job prospects in these communities?

As one of the most important issues facing California’s future, climate policy is certainly deserving of a well-informed discussion and a thorough public hearing as new climate-oriented proposals make their way through the legislative process this summer.

Video: PPIC’s Annual Survey on the Environment

As California pursues its goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—and considers still more ambitious ones—PPIC’s annual survey on environmental issues asked the state’s residents their views on climate change and energy. At a recent event in the capital, PPIC researcher Lunna Lopes provided the survey findings. Among the key points:

  • Californians see global warming as a serious threat—and most do not think action to reduce global warming will lead to fewer jobs.
  • There is strong support for the greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements in AB 32 and SB 32.
  • Californians favor the energy goals in SB 350, and they also favor state support for solar power and electric vehicles.
  • Many say water is the state’s top environmental issue—but most do not know the reduction targets of their local water district.

Governor’s May Revision Continues Cautious Approach

Governor Brown released his revised 2015–16 budget last week. It includes $8 billion more in new spending than his January proposal but continues his cautious approach to taking on new spending commitments. The new funding proposals are the result of setting modest expectations for future revenue growth. Because actual growth from the improving state economy has far exceeded forecasts, the administration has significant additional funds available.

Only about two-thirds of the $8 billion increase comes from the General Fund. The other third stems from increased special funds and revenues from bonds.

  • General Fund. General Fund revenues are estimated to increase by about $6.3 billion—$4 billion to reflect the major influx of tax receipts collected since January 2015 and $2.3 billion next year. Almost all of that—$5.8 billion—must be spent on K–12 education and community colleges. This leaves little room for spending in other areas.
  • Cap-and-Trade Funds. The May Revision proposes to more than double spending of cap-and-trade revenues, going from $1 billion in the January budget to $2.2 billion today. Under the state’s greenhouse gas reduction program, businesses pay fees for the right to emit carbon into the atmosphere. In 2015, producers of transportation fuels joined the program, significantly boosting revenues. As a consequence, revenues are expected to jump $1.2 billion above the level proposed in January. The additional funds would be spent for transportation, housing, energy, and natural resources programs—consistent with the long-term expenditure plan approved by the legislature in 2014.
  • Proposition 1 Bond Funds. The May Revision also significantly increases spending for water quality and conservation projects. Proposition 1, approved by voters in 2014, includes $7.5 billion in bond funds for a variety of water quality, flood protection, and storage programs. The budget proposes to dedicate $1.8 billion in bond funds over the next three years. This increase builds on $1.9 billion in spending (from a variety of funding sources) approved by the legislature in the spring of 2015.

The $8 billion growth in revenues and expenditures represents a 4.8% increase from January, and an 8.1% increase from the 2014–15 budget passed by the legislature last June. So how can this be considered cautious? The answer is that the administration uses modest assumptions about future growth in revenues—until there is solid evidence of additional available resources.

The pattern of projected revenues for 2014–15 reveals how this strategy works. The following chart illustrates how recent budget projections have grown as revenues have increased.

In January 2014, the administration estimated revenues of $106 billion—up 6% from 2013–14 anticipated revenues. The 2014 May Revision boosted that figure to $107 billion. Actual revenue collection was up significantly in the fall of 2014, which led to a January 2015 estimate increase to $109.7 billion. From January to April 2015, revenues exceeded expectations by $3.2 billion, bringing the most recent estimate of General Fund revenues to $112.9 billion. This is truly exceptional revenue growth. Compared to 6% growth projected in January 2014, the May Revision figure for 2014–15 translates into General Fund revenue gains of 12.8%.

Despite the projected gains for this year, the current May Revision continues to take a cautious approach to revenue estimates for the coming year. The administration’s initial revenue estimates for 2015–16 are quite modest—the May Revision anticipates 4.1% growth in General Fund revenues. This low growth estimate limits the amount of new spending that can be added to the base budget. At the same time, the large increase in current-year revenues gives the governor flexibility to boost support for education and other critical areas. In this way, Governor Brown can significantly increase spending today while maintaining a cautious approach to the future.

Chart Source: California Department of Finance, 2015-16 May Revision.

Video: PPIC Statewide Survey Briefing

As discussions continue in Sacramento about drought relief, funding for higher education and transportation projects, and an extension of Proposition 30 tax increases, PPIC surveyed public opinion on these and many other topics. At a briefing last week in the capital, PPIC researcher Jui Shrestha provided the survey findings. Among the key points:

  • Two-thirds of Californians say the regional water supply is a big problem, and two-thirds say people in their part of the state are not doing enough to respond to the drought.
  • While most adults say that spending money on the maintenance of California roads, highways, and bridges is very important, there is little support for increasing the gasoline tax or vehicle registration fees to do so.
  • Half of Californians favor extending the Proposition 30 tax increases, and about a third favor making them permanent.

Climate Change and California’s Future

Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s president and CEO, opened the PPIC conversation on climate change this week with these remarks. We invite you to watch the video of the event.

California has found its way to broad, bipartisan agreements on environmental issues for decades. The state has been a leader in efforts to improve air quality, conserve open space, and protect the coastline. The public has typically embraced these “green” policies. In a PPIC poll in 2014, majorities of Californians said that “stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost,” while fewer said they “cost too many jobs and hurt the economy.” Despite increasing evidence that climate change poses a major threat here and abroad, the federal government and international community have been slow to act. California, on the other hand, has been responding since the early 2000s with some of the most far- reaching policies in the world.

Most notably, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Democratic legislators and signed AB32 – the Global Warming Solutions Act—in 2006. It committed California to reverse the trend of rising greenhouse gas emissions and to lower those emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. It was hailed as a watershed moment in California history that would also have far-reaching consequences nationally and internationally.

In the years that followed, the governor and legislature worked to comply with the law by adopting a number of major policy changes. These include efforts to expand renewable energy, change community development, and create a market price for carbon through a cap and trade program. In 2010, a campaign led by Democrat Tom Steyer and Republican George Shultz persuaded voters to soundly reject Proposition 23, an initiative to suspend AB32. Voters then passed Proposition 39 by a wide margin. This 2012 initiative closed corporate tax loop holes to pay for clean energy projects.

The state’s response to climate change has had consistent support from a broad coalition that cuts across racial/ethnic, economic, and regional groups—while the amount of support has varied along partisan lines. In the PPIC annual environment survey last July, 68 percent of adults said they favored the emission goals identified in AB32. Strong majorities have expressed support for the law since we first asked about it in 2006. Sixty-five percent of Californians are also in favor of the state government making its own policies to address global warming—separate from the federal government. Majorities have expressed this preference since we first asked about it in 2005. And sixty-one percent say that the state government should act right away to reduce global warming rather than wait for the economy and job situation to improve.

One reason the state’s response to climate change has had such strong support is the high level of concern about the issue among Californians. In a PPIC poll last December, 76 percent of adults said that global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California. More than seven in 10 have expressed this view since we started asking this question in 2005.

Another explanation for Californians’ support is the perceived economic benefit of the state’s policies. In the PPIC poll last December, 43 percent of adults said that California’s efforts to reduce global warming will result in more jobs for people around the state. In contrast, 29 percent said the state’s effort will not affect job numbers, and only 21 percent said it will result in fewer jobs. Californians have always been much more likely to say that taking action on global warming will result in more jobs— rather than fewer—since we began asking this question in 2010.

Today, California climate change policy has reached another pivotal moment. Last year, the state Air Resources Board declared that California is now on track to achieve its greenhouse gas emission goals by 2020, just five years from now. Earlier this year, Governor Brown and state legislators proposed that California recalibrate its climate change policies with a new set of goals reaching farther into the future. As before, the new goals are ambitious and contentious.

In January, Governor Brown proposed three new goals to be accomplished in the next 15 years: increase the amount of electricity produced from renewable sources from one-third to 50 percent; reduce today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent, and; double the energy efficiency of buildings and make heating fuels cleaner. SB 350 by Senators Kevin de Leon and Mark Leno reflects the governor’s new goals for 2030. And SB 32 by Senator Fran Pavley would set California’s greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2050 at 80 percent below the level reported in 1990.

There is much to consider in setting these goals and we know that change of this magnitude is not easy. Governor Brown said in his inaugural address: “Taking significant amounts of carbon out of our economy without harming its vibrancy is exactly the sort of challenge at which California excels. This is exciting, it is bold, and it is absolutely necessary if we are to have any chance of stopping potentially catastrophic changes to our climate system.”

California can benefit from the innovation, technologies, and new jobs generated by the state’s leadership on climate change policy. Achieving the goals, however, will also have costs and require lifestyle changes around transportation, employment and housing decisions.

The climate change policies in place today and the proposed goals will affect every Californian. To talk about some of the experiences so far and the issues raised by a new set of climate change goals, we have put together a bipartisan panel that reflects several key perspectives. The panel includes state and local government representatives, as well as business interests from different sectors of the economy.

The state’s climate change policies are among the most difficult and important issues to surface this year. We hope that a public dialogue about the challenges that we face, the goals under consideration, and the trade-offs involved in upcoming policy choices will help California to achieve its brightest future.

Managing Drought: Conference Videos

After a day of discussions about the drought, PPIC senior research fellow Ellen Hanak, was asked to sum up.

“This drought, as challenging as it was—as it still is—has really provided the opportunity for folks from different agencies that have different management objectives to work together to make the most out of the little water that we’ve had available.”

“It was not as bad as it could have been,” she said. “And I think that that is going to continue.”

The keynote speakers and panelists at PPIC’s Managing Drought conference this week emphasized that there is much to do to make California more drought resilient. Climatologist Mike Anderson’s description of the state’s future made the challenges clear. Panelists throughout the day discussed the difficult tradeoffs California has yet to make in managing urban and agricultural scarcity, conserving ecosystems, and allocating water.

But the discussions also highlighted a path forward. Keynote speaker Jane Doolan described lessons California can learn from Australia’s experience with its millennium drought. Our legislator panelists pointed out that California has begun to make reforms in water management that—with diligent oversight—the state can build on.

We invite you to watch the videos of the Managing Drought conference. We hope you find the discussions constructive and useful.