Tag: PPIC Statewide Survey

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.

 

Video: Survey Looks at Taxes and Pensions

As interest groups work to turn their ideas into initiatives for next year’s statewide ballot, the September PPIC Statewide Survey examined Californians’ views in two areas that may be put before voters in 2016: taxes and public employee pension reform.

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, and Dean Bonner, associate survey director, presented the findings at a briefing in Sacramento last week.

Among the survey findings:

  • Half of likely voters favor extending the tax increases in Proposition 30 temporarily, but just a third favor making them permanent.

  • There is bipartisan support for raising taxes on cigarette purchases.

  • A majority of likely voters favor changing Proposition 13 to tax commercial properties according to their current market value.

  • Solid majorities of Californians see public pension spending as a problem, and most think voters should weigh in on changes to the system.

  • Most likely voters favor placing new public employees in a defined contribution system, similar to a 401(k) plan, rather than a defined benefits system.

The survey shows that Californians give their state leaders—the governor, legislature, and their own legislators—high approval ratings at the close of the legislative session. Baldassare offered his explanation at the briefing: there was little drama around the budget, the economy’s going well, and very few respondents in the survey mentioned fiscal issues as the most important ones.

Congress, on the other hand fares far less well in Californians’ eyes. Its 17% rating is not only much lower than the ratings likely voters give their state leaders, it is much lower than those of President Obama, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and Californians’ own representative in the US House.

“Congress is a government institution that needs work, according to most Californians,” Baldassare said.

Californians and Congress

The recent announcement of Speaker Boehner’s resignation comes at a time when national approval ratings of the US Congress are in the teens (14% in September Gallup Poll). With the early talk of majority leader Kevin McCarthy stepping into the Speaker position, what are Californians saying about the powerful federal institution that the congressman from Bakersfield is well-positioned to lead?

In the latest PPIC Statewide Survey, we asked Californians to rate eight state and federal elected leaders and legislative bodies—interviewing was completed just before Pope Francis’ speech to Congress and Speaker Boehner’s surprise announcement. California likely voters give their lowest approval by far to the US Congress. Just 17 percent say they approve of the way the US Congress is handling its job.

Surprisingly, there is overwhelming consensus about Congress even in this era of hyper-partisanship. In the recent PPIC Statewide Survey, California likely voters of different political stripes are united in their low approval of Congress. By contrast, other political figures in Washington elicit highly partisan responses—including President Obama, Senator Boxer, and Senator Feinstein. Remarkably, approval among Republican likely voters of President Obama (13%) and Senator Boxer (15%)—both Democrats—is about the same as approval of Congress (17%), while Republican approval of Senator Feinstein (27%) and Governor Brown (29%) is higher than approval of Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Republicans (36%) are less likely than Democrats (62%) and independents (50%) to approve of their own House representatives—this may be related to their low approval of a Congress controlled by their party.

The 53 members of the California House delegation may take some solace in the fact that Californians are much more approving of their own representatives to the US House than of the Congress as a whole. And California’s US senators have approval ratings around 50 percent. Still, the California State Legislature has recovered from several years of low approval ratings while the US Congress has not. Moreover, the members of the California congressional delegation are working in an institution that is mostly seen as not doing its job. This raises doubts about their political futures, especially given the top-two primary—which takes away the certainty that candidates from both major parties will appear on the November ballot—and more competitive elections through independent legislative redistricting.

Low approval ratings of the US Congress have been a consistent feature in PPIC Statewide Surveys throughout this decade. Approval ratings of Congress among California’s likely voters have been in the mid-teens each September since the Republicans (and Speaker Boehner) took control of the House in January 2011. Under Democratic control (and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, beginning in January 2007), approval ratings were somewhat higher. This could be partly because the California electorate leans Democratic, but it is worth noting that approval ratings of Congress under Republican leadership 10 years ago were higher than they are today.

Clearly, low approval of Congress is a national phenomenon tied to intense media focus on legislative gridlock and government shutdowns. But Californians do have fundamental policy disagreements with the current Congress that also affect their views of its job performance. Specifically, the recent PPIC Statewide Survey finds that Californians are more likely than people nationwide to express support for immigration reform, abortion rights, and stricter gun laws. The actions of Congress in recent years are at odds with California public opinion in all three of these controversial policy domains.

In the California context, immigration reform stands out as a special case. Sixty-nine percent of California likely voters—compared to 60 percent of adults in a national ABC News/Washington Post Poll in July—say that undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States should be allowed to live and work here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. Moreover, majorities of likely voters across party groups (83% Democrats, 66% independents, 51% Republicans) support a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the US legally. Importantly, 68 percent of those likely voters disapprove of Congress want there to be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the US legally. And among likely voters who support a way for undocumented immigrants to state in the US legally, 77 percent disapprove of Congress.

The next Speaker will face the major challenge—critical to the nation’s future—of restoring public trust and confidence in Congress. Our poll sheds light on the need for Congress to show leadership in addressing the complex problem of immigration, which is surfacing early and often as the defining issue for the Republican presidential candidates. The view from California is that the path to higher approval of Congress runs through immigration reform. It won’t be easy, but there is a way forward for a new leader who seeks to improve perceptions of the way that the Congress handles its job.

California’s Renters in the Dark on Drought Targets

Californians have been asked to cut back their water use since last year, but June marked the first month under the mandatory conservation mandate. Now the numbers are in, and the news was good: statewide we exceeded our goal.

While meeting the mandate is likely on the top of the minds for water managers, most Californians don’t know the details of what is being required of them. It’s not a straightforward cut: each urban water agency has a different conservation target, ranging from 4-36%, depending on a number of factors. While most agencies successfully met their June targets, many will need to conserve more.

The July PPIC Statewide survey found that only 30% of adults know the amount they are being asked to conserve. And it turns out whether you are a homeowner or a renter plays a significant role in your awareness. Notably, homeowners (44%) are more than twice as likely as renters (18%) to report knowing the amount of conservation required. On the other hand, of those who are aware of their conservation target, about half of homeowners and renters (53% each) say it is the right amount. We also find that while solid majorities across both groups say their local water supply is a big problem, homeowners (77%) are much more likely than renters (60%) to hold this view.

In general, renters are less connected to their water use. They often do not pay the water bill, so they may not know how much water they use, and they lack financial incentives to conserve. In addition, renters use less water. Renters are often not responsible for outdoor watering, which accounts for more than half of water use in cities and suburbs. During this drought, state and local agencies have focused more of their effort on reducing outdoor watering, but renters’ water conservation must come mainly from indoor behavior. Since renters make up about 45% of California’s households, this is not a group of water users to ignore as the drought continues.

The more people know about how much water they use, the more likely they are to conserve. Renters often live in multi-unit buildings with one main meter to record the entire building’s use, making it very difficult to parse out how much water is used by individual units. Requiring sub-metering on new multi-unit buildings may help reduce future water use, but it is an expensive investment that won’t result in significant reductions in the short-term.

Infiltrating renters’ awareness and reducing their water use will require different incentives and education efforts—especially since renters are much less likely to follow news about the drought. For example, water agencies should expand public outreach campaigns focused on indoor use and feature them in urban areas with high renter populations. Renters should be encouraged to check for leaks in their toilets and request that their landlords perform leak-checks on the rest of the property. Landlords should also be encouraged to take advantage of available rebates to upgrade to efficient appliances, toilets, and shower heads. There may be more that most homeowners can do to reduce water use, but as a large portion of the population, renters can also play a role in getting us closer to our goals. The drought provides an opportunity to change perceptions of this scarce resource by all Californians.

Regulating Marijuana

In all likelihood, California voters will be asked to decide the legal status of marijuana on the 2016 ballot. Advocates of legalization are hoping to build on the momentum in four states (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) and the District of Columbia that made the recreational use of marijuana legal. Two national advocacy organizations—the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project—have made California a major focus for the 2016 election year.

Will a legalization initiative pass in California? Our May PPIC survey suggests that support is relatively high among likely voters: 56 percent said that marijuana should be legal. When we first began asking about legalization in May 2010, California voters were sharply divided. While support for marijuana legalization has fluctuated, since March 2014 we have seen an incremental trend toward support for legalization among likely voters. Among likely voters today, majorities of Democrats, independents, younger voters, and parents favor legalization. However, among some key electoral groups—including Latinos, Republicans, and older voters—legalization fails to get majority support. The success of any initiative aimed at legalizing the recreational use of marijuana is likely to depend on whether supporters can make inroads among these groups.

Would marijuana legalization be good public policy? That is an even more difficult question. This week a Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy—chaired by Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom—made a series of recommendations to consider in crafting an initiative. The list includes ways to limit children’s access, reduce illegal activity and regulate sales.

Should an initiative pass, a significant degree of implementing legislation and regulation are likely to follow. In short, the devil is in the details.

These details may not only determine whether legalization is good public policy—they may also affect the electoral fortunes of any marijuana legalization initiative on the 2016 ballot. In our March 2015 survey, Republican (51%) and Latino (56%) likely voters were among the most likely to say they would be bothered if a store selling marijuana opened up in their neighborhood. Similarly, in our May 2015 survey, Republican (58%) and Latino (55%) likely voters were among the most likely to say that they are very concerned about more underage people trying marijuana if it were made legal. The details of regulation and implementation are likely to play an important role in addressing some of these voters’ concerns.

In the coming months, PPIC plans to contribute to the discussion surrounding the legal status of marijuana in the state. As always, our aim will be to provide essential information and help frame the debate. By identifying some of the key issues the state will have to address, we hope to help policymakers—and, ultimately, the voters—improve California’s marijuana policies.

Tax Increases and Voter Distrust

The California budget passed on time and without much drama this June, as tax revenues once again exceeded expectations because of the improving economy. The new budget will increase education spending, restore some human services funding cuts, pay down the government’s debt, increase the rainy day fund for future recessions, and support drought emergency funding—all without any new taxes. Still, many lawmakers and advocacy groups argue that the state’s tax system must change in order to generate adequate revenues for current spending while making future investments. In this context, the governor has called for special legislative sessions to find new funding for rising health care costs and transportation projects. At the same time, several interests groups are preparing tax initiatives for the November 2016 ballot.

Many political experts believe that the upcoming general election will be the most opportune time in the next four years to ask California voters to raise their taxes. The presidential race is likely to produce a high voter turnout and, specifically, a more youthful and liberal electorate with pro-tax leanings. Voters are currently in a relatively good mood about state leaders and their own finances.

In our May poll, we tested support for five tax proposals that are being considered by the legislature and tax proponents. Support among likely voters for four of the five proposals was underwhelming (41% sales tax extension, 46% Proposition 30 tax extension, 47% oil and natural gas severance tax, 50% commercial property tax increase, 67% cigarette tax increase). What explains voters’ reluctance to increase state taxes?

For one thing, despite improved fiscal conditions the widely-held perception that “the people in state government waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes” has hardly budged in four years (58% May 2011, 57% May 2015). Today, across all political and demographic groups, large proportions of likely voters say that there is a lot of wasted tax money.

Meanwhile, the perception that the state’s budget situation is a “big problem” is down sharply from four years ago (82% May 2011, 52% May 2015). Still, a majority holds this negative fiscal view even during these exceptionally good times. And there is an important connection between these two fiscal perceptions: among the likely voters who say the state’s budget situation is a big problem, 78% say that the people in state government waste a lot of tax money.

Notably, support for all five of the tax proposals is significantly lower among those who say that the state government wastes a lot of money. Even for the cigarette tax increase, two-thirds favor falls to 58% in this group, indicating that support for this popular tax proposal could erode in an election campaign. In sum, voter distrust will be a big hurdle for gaining majority support for new taxes in 2016.

Tax proponents may take solace in the fact that a majority of likely voters say that the state and local tax system is in need of major changes. However, support for making major tax changes has declined as the state’s budget situation has improved (65% January 2011, 54% May 2015). And the desire for major tax changes is tied to distrust: 70% with this view say that the state government wastes a lot of money.

Majority support for the Proposition 30 tax increase in November 2012 offers a textbook example of how the stars can align in a presidential election. But the PPIC poll tells us that voter distrust is a major obstacle even in good budget times. Voters will want assurances that current funds are well managed but inadequate—and that new taxes are needed for essential purposes. The special sessions could be a unique opportunity to begin a public dialogue about the fiscal ingredients necessary for creating a better future for all Californians.

Californians and Water Conservation

In our May statewide survey, we found that 60 percent of Californians think people in their part of the state aren’t doing enough to respond to the current drought. The prevalence of this belief varies somewhat across regions. It turns out that Californians’ assessments of their neighbors’ efforts generally align with their area’s water conservation levels.

Earlier this month, the State Water Resources Control Board released conservation statistics for April 2015, showing how much each of the state’s ten hydrologic regions reduced its monthly water use compared to April 2013. This data shows that statewide water use declined by 13.5 percent in April, and that reductions ranged widely across the state. The South Coast region, which includes Los Angeles and neighboring counties, had a reduction of 8.75 percent, while the northeastern North Lahontan region (on the Nevada border) had a reduction of 37.5 percent.

For our survey, we interviewed at least 80 residents in 5 of the state’s hydrologic regions (the Sacramento River, San Francisco Bay, San Joaquin River, Tulare, and South Coast). When we compared survey responses about water conservation efforts with the water use reductions in these regions, we found that perceptions and reductions are aligned in almost all areas.

In the Sacramento River region, which had the biggest cut in water use among the five regions considered, residents were most likely to say that people in their area are doing the right amount to respond to the drought. These residents were also least likely to say people in their area aren’t doing enough. Responses in the region were split about evenly between “the right amount” (41%) and “not enough” (40%).

In contrast, residents of the South Coast—the region with the smallest cut in water use—were most likely to say that people in their area aren’t doing enough to respond to the drought and the least likely to say people are doing the right amount. In this hydrologic region, residents were more than twice as likely to say people aren’t doing enough (63%) than they were to say that people are doing the right amount (25%).

This pattern holds across the state, with one exception. The San Francisco Bay hydrologic region’s conservation rate is second best, yet its residents are the second most likely to be critical of conservation efforts in the area. This contrast between satisfaction with conservation efforts and conservation results might be attributable in part to ideology. Statewide, liberals (67%) were more likely than moderates (60%) or conservatives (52%) to say people in their area aren’t doing enough, and the San Francisco Bay region has a relatively high concentration of residents who identify themselves as liberals (41%). Also, water use in the Bay Area is historically lower than in other parts of the state, so conservation may be a deeply ingrained positive value.

What this comparison of survey responses with water use statistics tells us is that many Californians seem to have a good sense of how well their communities are doing in addressing the drought. Whether this sense comes from observations of neighbors, knowledge of their own behavior, or signals from local government and agencies, it suggests that Californians know what is needed to combat the drought.

Chart note: Survey responses are sorted by county into hydrologic regions. Counties that fall into more than one hydrologic region are assigned to the region where most of the population lives.

Video: Californians and K-12 Education

The annual PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Education comes at a time when there are major policy changes underway in the state’s K–12 system. They include implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula, Common Core standards, and the Smarter Balanced standardized tests. The survey was released last week and presented at a briefing in Sacramento by research associate Lunna Lopes.

The survey offers a good look at public reaction to the changes and attitudes toward education more broadly. About three-quarters of adults said they knew nothing about the Local Control Funding Formula, which gives districts more flexibility in spending state funds and gives additional money to districts with more English language learners and lower-income students. When survey respondents were read a description of the funding formula, most favored the idea.

About 58% said they had heard about Common Core, the new set of English and math standards. But only 47% favored the idea and 31% opposed it. The poll also found a high level concern more generally about the quality of K–12 education and funding.

The Importance of California’s Tax Ranking

California voters are often asked to make important tax and spending decisions at the ballot box, yet their mastery of basic fiscal facts is poor. PPIC’s surveys have consistently found a “knowledge gap” between what voters know and budget realities. In our January PPIC survey, just 8 percent of likely voters correctly named both K-12 public education and the personal income tax as the top state spending and top state revenue areas. The voters failed to grasp the state’s budget details even when the fiscal crisis took center stage and California grappled with massive deficits, spending cuts, and tax increases.

But survey respondents just passed another fiscal pop quiz with high marks. With the April 15 tax deadline approaching, seven in 10 likely voters in the March PPIC survey say that California currently ranks “near the top” (45%) or “above average” (26%) in state and local tax burden per capita compared to other states. Large majorities gave this response in earlier PPIC polls. In this area, the public’s perceptions are in line with fiscal reality.

California’s tax ranking varies depending on data and methods, but we are always on the high side in national studies of the 50 states. Recently, California ranked #4 in the Tax Foundation report and #15 in the Tax Policy Center report on state and local tax burdens. The reasons include our high cost of living and the public investments that we are making in our education system, environmental quality, and infrastructure.

What is most striking is the growing share of likely voters who say that California’s state and local tax burden is “near the top.” In the March PPIC poll nearly half (45%) express this view. The increasing number of voters who perceive the tax burden this way runs counter to other trends: the governor’s and legislature’s approval ratings are rising, more Californians say that the state is headed in the right direction, more say the economy is experiencing good times, and fewer say the state government is in a budget crisis.

Interestingly, the growing perception that California’s state and local tax burden is “near the top” is taking place in the years since the voters passed the Proposition 30 tax increases in November 2012.

Two groups known for their anti-tax sentiment—Republicans (50%) and conservatives (52%)—are predictably among the most likely to say that our state’s tax burden is near the top. Surprisingly, though, this view is widely held in more politically diverse circles—those annually earning $80,000 or more (58%), independent voters (52%), those living in households with children (51%), college graduates (49%), Latinos (48%), and homeowners (47%). About four in 10 Democrats (38%) and liberals (44%) also say that their state’s tax burden is near the top.

Importantly, the view that California is a national leader in high taxes has implications for fiscal preferences. Likely voters are closely divided on a Proposition 30 tax extension (48% favor, 45% oppose). But the majority (55%) of those who oppose a Proposition 30 tax extension say the state’s tax burden is near the top. Most likely voters say they want major (53%) or minor (31%) changes in the state and local tax system. The majority (52%) who want major changes also say that the state’s tax burden is near the top.

There are many reasons why tax proposals are a tough sell even in Blue California. They include high government distrust and little fiscal knowledge. We have identified a major force to be reckoned with as tax initiatives take shape for the 2016 ballot: a widely held perception that Californians are among the most burdened with state and local taxes in the nation. Tax proponents will have to convince voters that their plans will improve California’s ranking—as the state with the most promising future.

Californians and Immigration

While the courts, and perhaps Congress, decide the future of President Obama’s actions on immigration, the most recent PPIC Statewide Survey shows how Californians view the issue. Most Californians (69%) supported the president’s executive order protecting as many as 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation; while 30 percent were opposed. Californians are much more likely to support executive action on immigration than adults nationwide (52% support, 44% oppose).

Across California’s political, regional, and demographic groups, support falls short of a majority only among Republicans (35%). By comparison, most Democrats (83%) and independents (63%) support the president’s actions.

Looking more closely at the January survey findings, we see results consistent with California’s reputation as a blue state. More than 60 percent of Californians across regions and gender, age, education, and income groups support the administrative action on immigration. Considering that Latinos are by far the largest group affected by the executive order, it’s not surprising that nearly all Latinos (89%) support presidential action on immigration; however, 55 percent of whites also voice support.

Support for the president’s action is consistent with favorable opinions on recent reform proposals that have been debated but not enacted by Congress. The Senate passed a plan in 2013 that would have provided a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants if they met certain requirements. Our September 2014 survey showed that a strong majority—82 percent—including more than 55 percent across parties supported this plan. In fact, more than 65 percent across regional, age, education, income, and racial/ethnic groups were in support.

Beneath Californians’ support of both the president’s executive action and the Senate’s comprehensive immigration plan is a generally favorable view of immigrants. In our January survey, a majority of Californians (63%)—as they have in past surveys dating back to 2000—viewed immigrants as a benefit to California because of their hard work and job skills; 32 percent viewed them as a burden because they use public services. Most Californians across political, regional, and demographic groups view immigrants as a benefit—Republicans (27%) and adults age 55 and older (49%) are the exceptions.

Our survey results help explain why California hasn’t waited for Congress to act on immigration reform. The state has passed a number of laws in the last two years that pave the way for undocumented immigrants to get student loans and financial aid, professional licenses, and, most recently, driver’s licenses. Home to the largest share of immigrants in the nation, California has the most at stake in immigration debate and has consistent views on it.