Paul Wellman (file)
Pedro Nava
Pedro Drills Arnold
Nava Wins Big Battle Against Offshore Oil Plan, But Oil War Goes On
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The shameful spectacle of California’s latest budget brawl produced legions of losers last week-and a very short list of political winners that was topped by Assemblymember Pedro Nava.
In a nationally watched legislative battle, the Santa Barbara Democrat led the fight to defeat Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s bid to resurrect the controversial Tranquillon Ridge oil drilling project, off the coast from Lompoc. When the deal went down, he had scored a political triumph that boosted his fledgling primary campaign for Attorney General by raising his visibility and stature in a crowded statewide race filled with little-known contenders.
Capitol Letters
“This vote was a very forceful expression of our opposition to the governor’s insidious proposal,” Nava said in an interview. “But I firmly believe we aren’t through yet-this ain’t over.”
The battle of Tranquillon Ridge was one scene in a sprawling political drama that played out over efforts to fill a $27-billion hole in the budget, the third time in 10 months that Capitol denizens moved to stem the tide of recessionary red ink. Amid billions in spending cuts, Schwarzenegger coveted the project for its revenue: nearly $2 billion during the life of a state drilling lease, and $100 million in the first year.
The senate passed his plan by one vote, but up against Nava, he was battered 43-28 in the Assembly, where a ginned-up coalition, including more than 50 environmental groups and the state Democratic Party, pressed legislators to keep intact California’s 40-year anticoastal- drilling policy.
“The plan,” Nava thundered after the vote, “would have unraveled critical environmental protections, put the coast at risk, and set a terrible precedent while the federal government is considering its five-year drilling plan for the outer continental shelf.”
State and national media framed the vote as a simple referendum on offshore drilling, but for Santa Barbarans, the swirl of politics and policy was filled with nuance and complexity.
“It was really, really, really frustrating,” Linda Krop, chief counsel of the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), said of the fight. “There were so many people spreading misinformation, from Pedro on down.”
Last week’s battle began with a 2008 legal agreement that EDC negotiated with PXP oil company. Backed by many regional officials and environmentalists, the deal offered the company a lease to slant drill into state waters from Platform Irene, from where it’s already extracting oil in federal waters. In exchange, PXP agreed to end all drilling off Irene and three other platforms in 14 years, and to a host of other pro-environment concessions. However, in January the State Lands Commission rejected the deal, questioning whether the end dates for drilling were enforceable.
Then, in May, Schwarzenegger jumpstarted the plan, using the budget crisis to push legislation to resurrect the deal and hand control of the lease to his state Department of Finance. An attempt to end-run the Lands Commission, the power play unified environmentalists, as even those who backed the substance of the proposal -including the EDC-rejected Arnold’s bid to usurp the process.
That backstory-including the environmental benefits that EDC and others saw in the original agreement-was buried in the Sturm und Drang of the Sacramento smackdown. Krop told me it was “incredibly sad to us” that the agreement’s original aims and benefits were clouded. Shortly before the decisive vote, EDC circulated a press release in a futile effort to clarify the issues and separate the merits of the PXP plan from Arnold’s hijack of the process.
Meanwhile, another subplot played out in the Democratic primary race for the 35th Assembly District seat, which Nava is vacating because of term limits. Among those fighting to beat Schwarzenegger’s bill was Susan Jordan, a top contender for the seat and a coastal advocate who fiercely opposed EDC’s agreement from the start-and who happens to be married to Nava. Jordan’s chief Democratic rival is S.B. City Councilmember Das Williams, who backed the original PXP agreement and cited Jordan’s opposition to it in his decision to enter the race.
Williams rejected the governor’s attempted bypass of the State Lands Commission while still supporting the deal’s substance. Had Arnold prevailed, Williams would have been in an awkward stance, with Jordan positioned to argue that his half-a-loaf opposition gave sustenance to a Republican who rammed through California’s first offshore lease in four decades.
With the deal dormant for now, that’s a murkier argument to make, although it seems likely the issue will resurface. PXP issued a statement this week saying it “intends to continue pushing for the project based on its merits to the State of California.”
Says Nava: “Round Two is coming up.”
Related Links
Comments
It is not clear to me why anyone thinks that this oil company would honor any agreement. They just got the governor to push a bill for them and then senate to pass the bill. Why wouldn't the oil company just do this again whenever they want?
greensoftshell (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This shows what a hypocrite Governor
Schwartzenneger, the would-be environmentalist, really is.
jgzeger (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What strange days these are. Thank goodness for Pedro Nava's willingness to take on the EDC-Schwarzenegger-PXP machine. Had Nava not taken the time and effort.... and made the sacrifices, the Assembly would not have realized the clear and present danger associated with the fake PXP oil deal.
Whether EDC realizes it or not they are now the poster child for offshore drilling nationwide. Who would have thought?
It remains to be seen if California's other 60 environmental organizations can overcome the bias created by EDC's still secret deals w/ PXP.
The fact that EDC continued to lobby on behalf of PXP, and was joined by members of the Board of Supervisors, even after Arnold began to throw the supposed, illusory 'benefits' of the deal overboard, is reprehensible.
4Oceans (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Awesome, instead of safely extracting a local resource we need, let's close the state parks and run our hybrids off our smuggness. The wacko NIMBY/environmentalist in this town are living in a dream world. I'm all for green energy, but being completely oil free is just an insane pipe dream. Powering jets with tofu is not going to happen overnight. It is a complete injustice to the tax payers that blow hard, out of touch politicians like Nava prevent these resources from being developed. He should be ashamed!
ilovesb09 (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with ilovesb09! I'm so tired of listing to all of these "pipe dreams" these wacky environmentalist have! Drilling off an existing oil platform (Irene) is the way to go. With slant drilling technology, drilling for new sources is the best way to go (for the environment and the so called eye sore people keep complaining about). Pedro Nava, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein..etc are the big part of the CA budget problem! Look at their record and give me some examples that have not caused massive land closures, policy that prevents revenue streams, and policy that have caused the average tax payer more hardship. Now they even want to close land use to renewable sources (solar panels in the desert due to a turtle and frog). Pedro Nava is helping nail the coffin closed to having CA residents eventually pay $10.00/gallon of gasoline, $8.00/btu of Natural gas, and $6.00 per kwh of electricity. Say buy to jobs and look to CA being the next Michigan and New York with 15-20% unemployment (which, by the way are being run just like their legislatures).
rager27 (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nava's a master at political rhetoric. But in reality, his efforts have been a blessing for the long-term offshore oil drilling industry.
Thanks to Nava, gas processing plants in Lompoc and Gaviota will remain open indefinitely. When new Federal drilling begins farther offshore without state regulation, the Santa Barbara County coastline becomes more vulnerable to oil spills. New pipelines will be developed and more tankers will be used.
Thanks to Nava, oil platforms in federal waters located off the coast of Point Concepcion (Pedernales, Hidalgo, and Hermosa) will remain open indefinitely. Thanks to Nava, good ol' oil platform Irene will now stay open indefinitely.
Nava like's to say he's fighting on principle for no new drilling, but the biggest threat for future oil spills comes from unregulated Federal waters that need local infrastructure to thrive. Nava's protection of this infrastructure will in reality preserve oil drilling off our coast.
East_Fork (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
East Fork:
Hard to tell what your point is. Sounds like you're rooting for the fossil fuel crowd. Based on your logic, we should hurry up and build more nuke plants simply because PG&E might someday refuse to decommission Diablo Canyon?? Where does thinking like that get made up, in the PXP boardroom??
4Oceans (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bravo to both Pedro and Susan. They are doing what is best for coastal protection without considering their political aspirations, a rarity among politicians.
The only ones handing out mis-information are PXP, EDC and TPL. This 'deal" is ill conceived and will atually bring more oil drilling to Santa Barbara and the rest of the coast. No one but the proponents say it is enforceable, but everyone thoughout the US said if approved it would open up the coasts of the U.S., including California to new federal drillintg. The State AG and the State Lands comission attorneys all agree only Minerals Management Service could enforce this and they say they will not. There are now 67 environmental groups who oppose this because they realize that off shore oil drilling inevitably leads to pollution and the cost to our coastal economy will be more than anything allowing it will earn.
Lwan22350 (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Linda Kropp should know all about spreading "misinformation." As 4Oceans said, EDC is now the nation's poster child for offshore oil drilling. With 67 environmental orgs now adamantly opposing new offshore oil drilling one would think Kropp might want to reconsider her position.
coasthugger (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pedro is a fool. He hasn't yet figured out that the environazis are paralyzing California. Fortunately he's termed out and hopefully will retire quiety to the real world after he loses the Attorney General race. Wonder how he'll make a living?
It's no longer 1969, for Chrissakes, technologies have improved (do all you enviros out there know that blowout protectors were not used on the well that blew in 1969, even though they were required. One might consider that the real problem is not the "greedy oil companies" but rather the incompetent state regulatory and inspection bodies). As for those of you derogating the "fossil fuel crowd" if you had the slightest understanding of physics, thermodynamics and economics, you would understand that such supposedly enviro-friendly sources as sun, wind and water have rather severe limitations (for example, the sun rarely shines in the midwest during the winter). Take a balanced view for once in your incredibly opinionated lives. Better yet, get some scientific education to temper your political rants.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah shucks, I guess my Texas accent gave me away. Yup I'm the president of PXP. I love Willie Nelson music and watching the Dallas Cowboys.
Anyway, it feels like the politicians have caught on to these news chat boards and are jamming them with rhetoric so I am signing off for good. It was fun while it lasted. Thanks Indy for great reporting.
East_Fork (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnLocke says, "Take a balanced view for once in your incredibly opinionated lives." Pot, kettle, etc.
Can I assume that all of you supporting this project because we need the revenue also support an oil extraction tax?
SezMe (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2009 at 1:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If everybody who opposed drilling stopped driving and flying, then maybe we would not need more drilling. Stop being such hypocrites. When Pedro Nava and Das WIlliams stop flying in jets to Sacramento, I'll start listening to their concerns about the environment. Of course Al Gore and Tom Friedman will still need their energy-sucking mansions.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2009 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Good move there, 'PEDRO', lets keep paying through the nose for foreign oil "
gdude (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes on oil extraction tax. Should have done it 50 years ago.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PEDRO NAVA YOU FOOL - YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO TOM McCLINTOCK'S SPEECH ON THE HILL... NO OIL SPILLS IN 40 YEARS!!!!! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??? WE NEED OIL AND THE COUNTY NEED JOBS!
"...You can trace the collapse of California's economy to several critical events: the rise of environmental Ludditism beginning in 1974; the abandonment of constitutional checks and balances that once constrained spending and borrowing; and the rise of rule by public employee unions. There are other factors as well: litigation, taxation, illegal immigration - but for the sake of time let me concentrate on the big three.
The first was the rise of environmental Ludditism with the election of a radical new-age leftist named Jerry Brown as governor of the state - an election that also produced overwhelming liberal majorities in both legislative houses.
Like Obama today, Brown lost little time in pursuing his vision of California - an incoherent combination of pastoral simplicity, European socialism and centralized planning:Conservation replaced abundance as the chief aim of California 's public works:Brown infused his vision into every aspect of public policy, and it is a testament to his thoroughness and tenacity that its basic tenets have dominated the direction of California through both Republican and Democratic administrations.
He canceled the state's highway construction program, abandoning many routes in mid-construction. He canceled long-planned water projects, conveyance facilities and dams. He established the California Energy Commission that blocked approval of any significant new generating capacity. He enacted volumes of environmental regulations that created severe impediments to home and commercial construction, empowering an incipient no-growth movement that began on the most extreme fringe of the environmental cause and quickly spread. This movement reached its zenith with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the enactment of AB 32 and companion legislation in 2006. This measure gives virtually unchecked authority to the California Air Resources Board to force Draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.
This has dire implications to entire segments of California 's economy: agriculture, baking, distilling, cargo and passenger transportation, cement production, manufacturing, construction and energy production, to name a few.
We, too, were promised an explosion of "green jobs," but exactly the opposite has happened.
Up until that bill took effect, California 's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But since then, California 's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California 's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941."
maximum (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2009 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)