SACRAMENTO — With the deadline for lawmakers to finish their work less than two weeks away, Gov. Jerry Brown and state Senate leader Kevin de León are working feverishly to pass what they call the year’s most important legislation — measures that both men believe will enhance their political legacies.
The bills, which would dramatically reduce the state’s reliance on oil and help to combat climate change, have been praised by everyone from Pope Francis to President Barack Obama to the world’s leading scientists. If enacted, the legislation would set international precedent and cement California’s reputation as a leader in the fight against global warming.
But standing in the way is one of Sacramento’s most powerful lobbies, the oil and gas industry, which has spent millions of dollars on advertising that paints a dystopian vision of the future: an out-of-control bureaucracy that would have the power to ration gasoline, punish SUV owners and limit the number of miles Californians drive.
After passing the Senate by a wide margin in June, the bills face a much tougher test in the Assembly, which is expected to take them up as early as this week. Some moderate Democrats, charging “coastal elitism,” say the bills will harm the middle-class families they represent in the Central Valley. And others are trying to shake down legislative leaders for handouts that benefit their districts.
“The oil companies are overstating their case by a lot, but there’s at least a grain of truth to what they’re saying,” said Jack Pitney, a political expert at Claremont McKenna College. “And that creates political problems for this legislation.”
In recent days, Senate Bill 350 — sponsored by de León, D-Los Angeles, and Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco — and SB32, sponsored by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agora Hills, have drawn praise from Obama, U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and members of the state’s congressional delegation. Still, without more support from moderate Democrats in the lower house, the ambitious climate legislation can’t move forward.
Some lawmakers take issue with the measures’ toughest goals: cutting petroleum use by cars and trucks in half over the next 15 years and slashing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels over the next 35 years. Others want greater legislative oversight of the California Air Resources Board, a longtime target of conservatives that would be responsible for implementing the legislation. De León last week said he would support amendments adding oversight provisions, but the industry pooh-poohed his promise.
“Not every Democrat is a wild-eyed, liberal enviro,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a veteran political analyst at the University of Southern California. “They don’t always march in lockstep with legislative leadership.”
Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, said he supports SB350 in concept because he wants the state to have clean air. His children are among the many who live in the Central Valley and suffer from asthma. Still, he’s skeptical of the bill’s lack of specificity and fears his middle-class constituents will be the ones paying for the transformation it seeks.
Asked if he believes advertisements paid for by the oil industry that suggest the legislation could lead to gas rationing, Cooper said he’s not sure about rationing but finds plausible the argument that the state would be “punishing people” by forcing up gas prices.
“No one has told me what we’ll do to meet these targets,” said Cooper, who hasn’t decided how to vote on the bill. “Show me something that’s believable.”
Speaking at a Capitol news conference last week, de León said emphatically that the legislation doesn’t permit gas rationing or any of the other doomsday scenarios the Western States Petroleum Association is spending millions of dollars to promote. Most of the ads are running on TV and radio stations in the Central Valley and Southern California, home to most of the Legislature’s moderate Democrats.
“Of course the usual suspects want to stop us,” de León said. “But I say we’ve had enough of their lies and their scare tactics. Enough.”
One group of moderate Assembly Democrats who have no qualms with the substance of the bill are trying to take advantage of the situation by withholding their support and seeking favors that benefit their constituents, said one source with knowledge of the negotiations in the Democratic caucus.
Some have asked for funds for roadway repair funds to be earmarked for their districts. Others have asked for help relaxing the rules that dictate how much water farmers can use during the drought. One lawmaker said he would feel “more comfortable” supporting the bill if a new sheriff’s substation were built in his district with state money.
Jeffe, the USC political expert, isn’t surprised.
“Compromise has become a dirty word in politics because of concerns about ethics, but logrolling and strong-arming to get what you want has always been part of the game,” she said.
The trade association for the oil and gas industry hasn’t reported the price tag for this latest advertising blitz, and a weakness in the state’s financial disclosure laws stipulates it won’t have to until several weeks after lawmakers cast their final votes on the legislation. But de León said he believes the cost of the ads will easily top $10 million.
The financial information the oil companies have reported about their activities during the first half of this year reveal they spent roughly $1 million a month on lobbyists between January and June. Chevron distributed nearly $235,000 in campaign cash to members of the Assembly, giving more than twice as much to Democrats as to Republicans.
Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-San Ramon, is the only Republican being targeted by the oil industry. Ads running on television and radio in her suburban East Bay district urge her to vote no on the bills.
But Baker, the liberal Bay Area’s lone Republican legislator, said she’s tuning them out and focusing on what her constituents have to say. And many of them, she said, have serious concerns about the measures.
“I think we need to be leaders on the environment in California, but we need to be smart about it,” Baker said. “From what I’ve seen so far, I think it’s going to be a really tough sell to get me to support these proposals.”
In the end, environmental advocates seem confident a majority of lawmakers will support the legislation — but acknowledge that the vote could be a squeaker.
“Are you going to protect public health and the future of California — or are you worrying about your next election?” said Kathryn Phillips, executive director of Sierra Club California. “There are few times in these lawmakers’ careers when they’ll face something this big — and history doesn’t look kindly on those who turn away from the public interest.”
Contact Jessica Calefati at 916-441-2101. Follow her at Twitter.com/Calefati.
HOW THE LAW WOULD CHANGE
CURRENT LAW: Under Assembly Bill 32, signed into law by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, California must cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
CLIMATE BILLS APPROVED BY SENATE: Under SB 32 and SB 350, California would be required to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The measures would also cut petroleum use in cars and trucks in half, require California to generate half of its power from renewable sources and boost building efficiency standards — all by 2030.