Special Episode: CA vs. Donald Trump – Panel 2, Climate and the Environment

CAPITOL WEEKLY PODCAST: This Special Episode of the Capitol Weekly Podcast was recorded live at Capitol Weekly’s conference The Resistance: California vs. Donald Trump, which was held in Sacramento on Wednesday, February 26, 2025

 This is PANEL 2 – CLIMATE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Panelists: Kip Lipper, Chief Policy Advisor on Energy and Environment to the Senate pro Tem; Catherine Reheis-Boyd, Western States Petroleum Association; Victoria Rome, Natural Resources Defense Council

Moderated by Rich Ehisen, Capitol Weekly

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

RICH EHISEN: Well, hello everybody, and welcome to panel two of Capitol Weekly’s conference, Trump versus California or California versus Trump, however you prefer to look at it. This panel, we’re going to be focusing on environmental issues between California and the new administration.

We are joined today by a really great panel, and I want to say how much I appreciate everyone being here. I also need to give a note, we had Wade Crowfoot scheduled for the longest time here, but he had to bail out on us, so we will miss having him here. I apologize if you are tuning in specifically to see him, there’s nothing I can do about that now, but we have three of the best consolation prizes, if I may use that… possibility… and, of course, you guys know you are not consolation prizes at all.

I’m Capitol Weekly editor in chief, Rich Ehisen, and I’m happy to be joined today by three great experts in the areas of the environment here in California. Victoria Rome, who is the director of state government affairs and legislative work for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Kip Lipper, who if you’ve been paying any attention to California politics over the last four decades, you know he has been one of the leading consultants on environmental issues for the California legislature and the Senate in particular for quite a long time, as I said, 40 years. And Catherine Reheis-Boyd, who is the president and CEO of the Western States Petroleum Association, has been for what, 15 years now I believe, is one of the most respected voices in California’s energy issues, and particularly where it relates to oil and gas. So welcome, everybody. Thank you for joining us here today.

CATHERINE REHEIS-BOYD: Thank you for having us.

RE: Absolutely. I will remind everybody, we will save ten minutes or so at the end of this to take some questions. Please, if you have a question put it in the chat, Tim Foster and myself, we will be looking at the chat and we will try to pick the best ones that we can and run them past our esteemed panel here.

I want to say, too, I want to focus very specifically here on what the new administration and the president has said and done since coming into office, and how that affects California and how California may respond. Whether it’s positively or negatively. I really want to keep our focus and our efforts there.

It’s probably really worth noting, this is maybe the most dynamic situation I think any of us have ever done as a panel, because as we were talking before we started up here, I mean, things seem to be changing ,as I said daily, but it’s actually more like hourly at times. So, as Kip I think said really well, it’s a snapshot. That’s really what we’re doing here, but we’re going to do our best to give you the most conclusive look at some of these things that we can.  So let’s get started here.

And as I say, we’ve seen a tidal wave, literally, of executive orders and other policy actions. They touch on a wide variety of environmental issues, from water to energy, climate policy, even national park personnel, over these last five weeks. And so much so that it’s really challenging sometimes to suss out what all these policy changes actually even do. So we’re going to get into some specific areas here coming up. But I want to focus at least right now on maybe the macro, so Victoria, let me just start with you.

I’m going to start on my, on my upper left here and we’ll move clockwise. Give us a macro view, just the short version, I guess, of, of where you see we’re at with all of these, this wave of, of orders as it relates, I should say, to California environmental policy.

VICTORIA ROME: Sure. Thanks, Rich, and thanks, everyone, for tuning in to this really important topic. And we’re trying to track all these activities in real time as was noted. I would say there have been a lot of executive orders, several pronouncements, but not a lot of authority to make policy changes. But that’s not to say that all the executive orders aren’t harmful. They give an indication of the priorities of the Trump administration, and to date, it seems that they plan to deliver on those campaign promises and the roadmap laid out in Project 2025.

RE: Absolutely. Kip, let me ask that same question to you. What’s your assessment on the macro of where we’re at with this wave of orders?

KIP LIPPER: Well, it’s a great question and it’s a good table setter. And I also, like Victoria,  want to say thanks for including me on this panel, and also very honored to join these two distinguished panelists as well.

One other thing. Unlike Victoria and Kathy, I have to issue a standard disclaimer that is that the statements of me, this speaker, do not necessarily represent the views of the pro tem, any Senator or the Senate as a house of the legislative branch. I’d just like to say that because people tend to tweet or say things that are said publicly, and I want to be very clear, I’m speaking for myself here and not for Senator McGuire or for the Senate.

The third thing I would say is your question is great, and you mentioned this, things are literally changing by the hour, and they are. The reality is so much is coming at us. Even this morning, the president had a cabinet meeting and was making new statements and pronouncements on some of the actions that were coming from the administration. It’s hard to sort of stop the water flow for a few minutes and to talk about this stuff, but let’s do our best.

As of today, you know, again, we’ve seen a number of actions, not just executive orders. We saw rescissions of the Biden executive orders, we’ve seen new executive orders, we’ve seen freezing of federal spending, freezing and firing of federal workers, new direction to the US Department of Justice on litigation, withdrawing from lawsuits or changing positions.

We’ve seen just today a submittal to the Congress to undo some of the Biden climate regulations under the Congressional Review Act. And then we’ve seen international actions and directions to our military that directly affect the environment as well.

And so, you know that’s a lot to look at. And it’s more than just executive orders. And you also know that there have been, you know, the responses so far have been litigation, obviously, public comment, federal worker revolt in some cases. Some very modest congressional blowback, state level organization and national organization… I mentioned that Bernie Sanders is doing a tour now. And then the thing I want to talk about the most is the reality of market forces.

And you know what what Trump’s pronouncements say and what’s really happening in the markets and around the United States. One last thing I would just say is I did a quick tally. Trump rescinded 11 Biden environmental and natural resources executive orders, including ones that prohibited offshore oil drilling and affected the Infrastructure Investment Act. And also, according to the Sabin Center at Columbia University Law School, he’s issued a grand total of 70 or so executive orders, but that spans across all subject areas, including immigration, reproductive health and other issues. At least a third of those, though, do touch on natural resources, clean energy, climate, public health or the environment.

RE: Thanks, Kip. Catherine, let me again, I’ll toss that same question to you. Maybe your macro level view of what we’ve seen so far.

CRB: Yeah. Thank you. Rich and Cath is fine. No, “Catherine.”

RE: Fair enough.

CRB: But I am also honored to be with Kip and Victoria and joining you on this conversation, because it’s a really important one. And not to belabor the point, but it’s a lot to take in, right?

And it’s fast and furious. And, you know, I always try to look for the opportunities and anything that’s fast and furious because you usually can find some. So, I’m very excited to get into the discussion on the energy space, which of course is more my expertise. And I think that some of the conversation that has been going on and some of the conversation coming out of some of the executive orders in this space is encouraging relative to the conversation that we need to have.

“There were 40 refineries in the state in the early ’80s, and now we have nine that produce gasoline and diesel, and by the end of the year we’re going to have eight” – Catherine Reheis-Boyd

And so that’s what I’m taking away from a lot of it, is it has raised the attention on what I think is a very important issue for California. And I will obviously, later on in some of your questions, Rich, raise some of the concerns that I see from my lens for the state and things that we really need to be focusing on if we’re going to talk about where we are and where we want to go and meet California’s goals. So, I think it’s a great conversation, and all I can say is it’s changing every… as we said earlier, not only day by day, but sometimes, you know, minute by minute. So, yeah.

RE: Well, before we get too much further, one of the things that intrigued me was that the president had declared a National Energy Emergency. And I think this is important because it allows a lot of other things to happen, that’s a triggering thing. So Cath, let me stay with you because this is your area. What exactly does that mean? What is it that allow the president to do, or what does it set in motion that maybe somebody like me is not aware of?

CRB: Yeah. And again, for what I represent obviously is the five Western states. So that’s really what I’m going to be focusing on. Not as much what it may mean nationally. But the implications I think for California and what I want to tee up for this conversation is some of the concerns that we have been expressing on where we are in the infrastructure investment on both the molecule side and the electron side. And if we are actually going to have a plan to get from where we are to where we need to go, we have to start addressing some of these issues. And they’re getting to a tipping point.

And that’s what, you know, I kind of want to get into a little bit. And I don’t know when that is Rich, but just in general the existing infrastructure in California, on the traditional oil and gas side, and the existing infrastructure on the electricity side, those curves are not matching up. And that’s okay, I mean, there are times when, you know, projections don’t kind of come out the way we all had hoped, and you have to have some thoughtful adjustments. And we’re talking very seriously about those adjustments because of what we’re seeing on both sides. And in the traditional oil and gas side. When I started this and, you know, Kip, I don’t know how long you’ve been doing it, but about the same time as I have – way too long. There were 40 refineries in the state in the early ’80s, and now we have nine that produce gasoline and diesel, and by the end of the year we’re going to have eight. And we still have 40 million people driving 36 million cars and trucks every day.

And the infrastructure is not prepared to deal with that if we lose one more refinery, which frankly, the Turner Mason Report that we did shows is very, very probable… that is going to put California in a very difficult position.

And for me, I want to make sure that everything we’re doing can make those thoughtful adjustments in that equation so that we don’t go backwards in trying to meet the goals of California, because I always say, you know, technical realities, if not addressed, can get in the way of aspirational goals pretty fast.

So we’ve got to identify them. We’ve got to address them. I’m happy to talk about each of those points that I see problematic for the state if we don’t put some attention on it. And I think, again, what I take away from that federal conversation is that it is raising the attention on this topic, like in ways that I have not seen. And that for me is very beneficial because I think we’re at a very critical tipping point.

RE: That being said, Kip, let me let me come to you and Victoria, I’m definitely going to ask you to weigh in on this as well. Maybe expound on that a little bit in terms of, because my understanding is that there’s probably going to be litigation on this. If there isn’t already litigation from environmental groups. What what else does this mean, though? Is there any specific California… you know, policies that this is going to affect or is it just a gateway to do something else?

KL: Well, let me say, first of all, again, you know, these executive orders and I might say, in fairness, if I want to be fair to the president you know, governors, Governor Newsom uses executive orders all the time, and they’re kind of this mishmash of messaging and policy sometimes. And so it gets a little confusing.

The declaration of a national emergency, you know, it has 8 or 9 different provisions in it. Notably, by the way, it declares the emergency primarily based on high energy prices. And, you know, that’s… so the idea is more production means lower prices, which may or may not be accurate, but that’s the premise.

Also, notably, the executive order defines the term energy to mean pretty much everything other than wind and solar. So, you know, it’s very pointed in terms and not, by the way, not just oil and natural gas, it includes biofuels and geothermal power and other kinds of things, kinetic movement of flowing water, which I think is pumped storage or hydroelectric power, so it does include a lot of other categories. It’s not a clean divide between sort of oil and gas or fossil fuels and everything else.

A lot of it is hortatory. In other words, it kind of says, do this or do that, or use the authority. In fact, it uses the words “use any lawful emergency authority” to facilitate the identification, leasing, siting, production of domestic energy resources. So, you know, again, it’s sort of confined in some ways to what the law already allows.

“Gas prices are set on the international market, so drilling for more oil and gas doesn’t necessarily bring down prices at the pump” – Victoria Rome

Now he has done some things in here that are a little bit, you know, that do push into the area of California law or into the impinging on, on federal law. For example, I think the use of the emergency authorities under the federal Clean Water Act and under the Endangered Species Act raise some serious issues with respect to how those activities are undertaken by both federal agencies and state agencies as they relate to energy projects.

He says things like use the construction authority of the Army Corps of Engineers. Again, I don’t know what that means. We already use the Army Corps of Engineers for a lot of construction… you know, those kinds of things. So, it’s a little bit hard to suss out exactly what those mean, you know, precisely.

The only other thing I noticed, and this is, by the way, this is something that the legislature entertained and that I think state agencies may consider, and that is, he has issued emergency fuel waivers to allow more of more ethanol into gasoline, or E15, as it’s called. That was the subject of a state bill last year that did not move forward. I think it’s the subject of a new bill that’s been introduced, and it’s an issue that’s being discussed currently at the Energy Commission and at the Air Resources Board.

RE: Thanks Kip. Victoria, again, maybe the same question. But maybe also from the perspective again, we’re talking about how forces here in California may resist or even elsewhere, may counter some of these things, you know, from your perspective. Is this something that you expect litigation on, or have we heard anything from Rob Bonta or anyone else that would indicate that there’s, you know a pushback effort? I assume there’s going to be… But, you know, what does that look like?

VR: Yeah, actually NRDC, along with other groups and Earthjustice filed our first lawsuit against this Trump administration, Trump 2.0. And that was around this Unleashing American Energy executive order and the administration’s ambitions to ramp up offshore oil drilling. And, you know, we’re challenging that because once a president, which Biden and Obama took ocean areas out of contention for oil and gas leasing, those protections can’t simply be undone by an executive order. So that’s a little bit about the lawsuit.

And I would also add that it’s just not true that we’re in a national energy emergency. The US has been the leading producer of oil and gas and a leading exporter too. So liquefied natural gas export in particular is on track to more than double by 2028 from 2024 levels.

As Kip was noting, gas prices are set on the international market, so drilling for more oil and gas doesn’t necessarily bring down prices at the pump. And of course, increasing oil and gas production isn’t great news for our fight against climate change or for people’s health.

“On electric vehicles and the transportation transition that I was just mentioning… NRDC and other environmental groups are gearing up for litigation” – Victoria Rome

California is leading the way, and we need to be mindful of the transition, as Cath noted, but we also are mindful that the market is moving. Kip noted the market forces and economic forces. So we’re seeing transition to cleaner energy across the US. We’re expecting to see continued growth in solar and wind power. Nearly all of the large scale electricity capacity in 2024 came from solar, wind and battery storage that supports renewable energy. So, we expect those forces to continue, and we think it’s just shortsighted, and again, bad for California and bad for people’s health to reverse course and look at, you know, more drilling.

RE: Well, Victoria, let me stay with you here. We’ll just keep we’ll keep going back and forth clockwise and counterclockwise here. But as we noted, a lot of executive orders have come down and other policy possible changes and definite changes.

What other areas maybe are we seeing in these orders that are concerning to you and where maybe you can see that there is going to already be litigation, which sorry… I missed that you guys had already filed that suit …and other potential stuff that we could see in the near future.

VR: I’m hoping Kip will talk a little bit about water, but where I can.

RE: Definitely be talking about water. Yes.

VR: Yeah. Where I can weigh in is on electric vehicles and the transportation transition that I was just mentioning. And I think that’s where we’re… NRDC and other environmental groups are gearing up for litigation. We’ve already seen the Trump administration move aggressively to undermine California’s unique authority to set our own emission standards, which have been adopted by other states.

And I think, again, that’s a concern and a huge threat to climate progress and health, since transportation continues to be one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Electric vehicles and plug in hybrid electric vehicles are where we need to go.

So, you know, I think the moves, it’s interesting because in some cases Trump wants to put things back to the states. But in the case of many of these executive orders and what we’re expecting from him, they’re actually trying to intervene in states rights to protect their own residents health and well-being. And I think that will be the subject of litigation for the next several years.

RE: Kip, let me ask you to weigh in on that, and we will get to water in just a minute. But the EV thing is really big. We know this is a really, really big deal. I mean, those of us who, you know, we’re Californians, we live in our cars, you know. Now everywhere you go, you’re seeing these charging stations and, you know, so many you know, members of my family have EVs. It just seemed like the, you know, the momentum was growing so much stronger, and now we’re seeing, you know, lots of rebates, etc.

“The hallmark of the success of California’s programs…. The climate is not just an environmental policy, it is now an industrial policy” – Kip Lipper

What’s your perspective on how California may respond to these kinds of changes? And really, do we know if we can even know if any of this is already permanent or, you know, is it going to stay this way? I mean, what do we know about this?

KL: Well, I mean, you know, again, this is a really great question, and it’s why this is such a good topic for this conference. A lot of this is messaging.

As Victoria said, you know, here’s the Trump administration saying “drill, baby, drill.” But if you look at the facts on the ground, the Biden administration did more drill baby drill than any administration previously. Now they were… it was different, of course, on on public lands and offshore oil and things like that. But in terms of output, you see these kind of interesting juxtapositions between the messaging and the reality on the ground.

So I would also make the point, and I know there’s a lot of attention to California’s climate programs, and that is very important, as Victoria mentions. But, you know, there’s other issue areas like, you know, endangered species and water that we’ll get to that are also very important that need to be taken into account.

But the thing with climate that I find really interesting is and this is to me, the hallmark of the success of California’s programs…. The climate is not just an environmental policy, it is now an industrial policy. In the state of California, and frankly, the rest of the country is investing in clean energy, whether it’s in the transportation sector or in the electricity sector, more so than ever.

It’s funny, you hear rhetoric from states like Texas or Iowa or other red states about you know, voting for the policies of more fossil fuels. But the reality is, you know, Texas, I believe, is number one in wind energy generation in the United States. It’s certainly big into renewable energy, and they’re looking at adding more, in part because their grid has all sorts of problems, as we’ve heard in the past.

So there’s kind of this soundtrack of what the administration is doing in Washington, D.C. and then there’s the reality on the ground. And I sincerely doubt that these major corporations who, frankly, are now the people who lobby us in the Capitol, more so than some of the environmental groups, I might add, you know, that are coming in and want to invest in electric vehicle infrastructure and charging infrastructure, in renewable energy, wind, solar, geothermal and other kinds of things.

That is embedded in the state’s economy and, frankly, the nation’s economy. And, you know, Trump’s messaging may say one thing, but the reality on the ground and in the marketplace of energy in California seems to suggest it’s a pretty different message.

RE: Cath, I want to just, I know you’re going to say something here real quick, but let me ask, because I think your perspective on this part of the question may be really cogent here.

You know, obviously the automotive industry, which is vastly spread out across three countries really, but they have invested so much money in the last decade or so for electric vehicles. Is there a role that could play in this whole picture? And I know obviously, you know, oil and gas drilling, these are areas, this is your area. So please address what you’re going to say. But maybe anything you might know about, you know this the investments we already have in this transition away from oil and gas.

CRB: Thanks Rich and appreciate… I’ll cover both of those. And I’ll start just with to Kim’s point, on the ground reality that we are facing in California because it’s a very important one at this moment.

“I keep saying we have a great strategic petroleum reserve in the state of California. It’s called Kern County” – Catherine Reheis-Boyd

So we don’t have any pipelines that bring crude oil or gasoline to California. I mean, some people call us an energy island in that respect. Why? Because we always had enough crude oil and refineries to meet California’s demand. And that’s what we have to do 24 over seven meet California’s demand. We don’t make up demand. Demand is demand. And demand has not decreased in California for gasoline and diesel to the levels that the state had projected. So demand is still pretty high.

Yet our ability to meet that demand is declining because of the amount of refining capacity we have and the fact that we cannot… you may talk drill, baby drill… but in California there is no new drilling. There is no new permits being issued, not because we don’t have the crude oil resources, it’s just not the political will to do so.

So I keep saying we have a great strategic petroleum reserve in the state of California. It’s called Kern County. The amount of reserves in the Central Valley Valley are enormous, but we cannot access them. So, we cannot get crude oil from the state in any significant way that we could to these refiners that are geared to turn it into something useful to meet consumer demand in jet fuel, diesel or gasoline.

That is a fact that is on the ground. That is what is happening. So those refiners have to figure out where they are going to get crude oil, because as of today, we’re still going to need it regardless of views on fossil fuels, regardless of the transition, we still have to meet demand. And I’ll get to the electricity side where we’re not matching up.

So again, if we, the only other option is waterborne, and so now you have crude oil coming from faraway places because, you know, basically where we have to get it from is, you know, at mostly foreign sources because California is, you know, diminishing, Alaska, North Slope … still, it’s mostly foreign sources. And so, you’re putting it on a tanker to get it here, and that is not necessarily decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. And it certainly is increasing costs because of transportation.

Both of those are not good for the state of California. And how we meet demand and keep affordability for consumers. So for me it’s affordability. It’s pace and it’s scale. And we’re missing on those three in this conversation, and it is going to get worse before it gets better, and that is going to be sooner not later. So that’s kind of where we are in the California space.

And as we know, we’re going to lose another refinery at the end of this year in Southern California. That refinery is not going to be sold, it is retiring. So, things are going to get tighter, supply is going to get interesting, and then you have very congested ports of LA and Long Beach, so the idea that this is all going to be solved through more imports can be problematic as we sort of peel this onion. So that’s the on the ground reality that we’re facing in California.

On the electricity side, you’re starting to hear a lot from the car dealers, right? Because, I mean, the good news is we’ve got 2 million electric vehicles sold in California, which is a, I think a third of the sales in the United States. And it’s 22% of all the new vehicle sales in California, which is great. That’s wonderful news. The problem is, in 2026, 35% of EV sales… it has to be EV sales in 2026, that’s starting now.

So what you’re hearing from the car dealers is they don’t think they can make it. And so, they’re faced with choices of either not shipping cars into California or people buying them from neighboring states or driving their older vehicles. And so when you start peeling that onion, you’ve got to have those conversations to figure out what adjustments you’re going to have to make. Otherwise the… I think the unintended consequences that I hear from them are along those lines. And it’s, you know, well, “we have to ship in less because if we if we’re above that threshold, it’s $20,000, per vehicle, anything above that.” So you start calculating that out and it makes those choices very difficult if we’re not ready.

That’s why I say the molecules and the electrons have got to match up, and I don’t see where that’s happening. And I’m happy that we’re beginning to have the right conversations relative to both of those, because I think everyone is not quite nobody’s questioning the goals of California, it’s just pace, scale and cost.

RE: Well, okay, let me follow up on that, because, you know, I have several friends in the environmental space who have talked, of course, privately about the real challenge of meeting some of the climate goals that the California legislature has set out, some of which are coming up on us much faster than you think. And the real challenges of us trying to ever reach those goals.

Thinking about what the Trump administration has done in terms of all these orders and then thinking about that as a challenge we had anyway,,, is there… Are you guys hearing anything about the possibility of our lawmakers maybe taking another look at some of those deadlines?

Is that something that could be part of this conversation going forward? And if maybe the answer is no publicly, but are you hearing anything or is there any logic to the idea that that could be part of this response to what we’re seeing coming out of DC? And again, Cath, I’ll stay with you and we’ll just work our way back.

CRB: You know, I, I think those conversations are certainly happening. I think because of the affordability side, that is a big discussion at the moment. I think in the legislature, I’m sure Kip and Victoria can opine on that as well… But I certainly have heard that discussion on affordability being very cornerstone to how we approach things going forward. And, you know, we’ve got some big things coming up.

We’ve got, you know, the reauthorization of cap and trade, we’ve got low carbon fuel standard. We’ve got a lot of stuff that we’re going to have to deal with to keep on track to meet the goals, but to also be thoughtful of the facts on the ground, because I’m looking at them and I’m worried, I can tell you that. I’m definitely worried.

RE: Before Kip answers on this, I just want to reiterate, for anyone who came late, he is speaking for himself here today. He is… we all know who Kip is and what he does, but he he made a point of noting he is not speaking for the Senate pro tem or anybody official here. So in case you missed that earlier, Kip I’m taking you off to off of the firing line there so your boss doesn’t come after you later. But what’s your thought on this? I mean, is this is maybe one of those things where what Trump has really done is forced California’s hand on something, that was going to be a challenge anyway?

KL: Yeah. I mean, this is a great discussion, and I… you’re repeating of my disclaimer was very helpful at this particular point because I’m going to say something that probably will get me in trouble. And that is, I agree with Cathy on some of the things that she said.

“California needs to clean up its own house a little bit” – Kip Lipper

I mean, the purpose of this panel was more to talk about the national activities, but the impacts in California are something we need to watch closely. I also agree that affordability, both on your home energy bills and in the, you know, when you fill up at the pump, are absolutely important, home costs that consumers think about. I think NRDC just came out with a very good set of reports on what the costs of energy are, and it’s interesting to look at that.

It’s not clean energy and it’s not the climate policies so much. It’s much more things like wildfire mitigation or the construction of new transmission and distribution, which, by the way, is initiated by the utilities. And so I do think Cathy’s right that we do need to look at these things closely and certainly look at them as they affect California.

Now, I also want to call Cathy out on the carpet a little bit because I love her so much and she’s my friend… But I mean, to say nobody opposes California climate policies. I mean, give me a break. You know I know what WSPA does, and we watch the, you know, the astroturf groups that have been created to create this impression that consumers should be against clean energy and climate policy. I don’t begrudge you any of that. I think it’s perfectly fine. But I think there’s a very strong pressure that comes back, at least on the legislature and the governor you know, to, to weaken some of these policies or to roll them back. So I do think that’s a really important point to make.

The last thing I’m going to say, and again, Cathy may agree with me on this, and Victoria may not, but, you know, California needs to clean up its own house a little bit. And I think, you know, Cathy mentioned a couple of things, I think the cap and trade program, certainly the low carbon fuel standard. These are policies that have been created primarily and designed by administrative agencies like the Air Resources Board, and they have issues.

“Affordability is paramount. We need to keep that in mind as we drive toward these ambitious goals” – Victoria Rome

I mean, you mentioned earlier environmental justice, we talked about other kinds of things. You know, the low carbon fuel standard, I think it was rather embarrassing. The conversation about what the cost of anything would be on gasoline and having our premier state regulators saying nothing but silence.

So I do think, you know, we’re hardly without culpability in this discussion as well. But I do think in the main, these policies are going forward. I don’t hear people saying, let’s roll them back. I will say, I hear people saying, let’s find a creative way to count the greenhouse gas emissions that were reducing so that it looks like we’re meeting our targets. But at least in the legislature right now, there isn’t so much conversation about rolling back the overall standards, but how to get there and what we can do to get there.

RE: Oh, Victoria, I imagine you have something to say about all this. I mean, we’re again, you know, you are in the environmental protection space here, and this must kill you to to even think about the possibility that California might preemptively change some of its climate goals. But again, is that really where maybe a legitimate response from California could come, in terms of dealing with what we’re getting out of Washington, D.C.? Or is that something, is that a line, is that the hill you’ll die on?

VR: Well, you’re right. I’ve been eagerly awaiting my turn to answer this, and I think, you know, you asked about whether California would revisit some of the targets and the goals, and my heart broke a little bit, even just with the question, because I think ambitious goals are very important.

“On the EV infrastructure side, we’re ten times away from the charging stations we’re going to need. So it’s not like we don’t stop talking about it. It’s like realizing where we are and we’re not where we need to be” – Catherine Reheis-Boyd

I hope we don’t consider changing those goals because they help drive innovation. They give companies an idea of where we need to go and start making those changes and investments now so that we can get there, but that doesn’t mean we can be totally rigid. We need flexibility. We’re happy to have conversations about what’s working, what may not be feasible. But I would say, you know, we should see how far we can get towards those ambitious goals, keep them on the books, and then have those conversations about what may need to change.

Affordability is paramount. We need to keep that in mind as we drive toward these ambitious goals. And in addition, we are very open to conversations, but we can’t… it has to be in good faith. Like, we don’t want to be working together with Cathy’s members, with auto manufacturers on some of these, you know, possibly real challenges, while at the same time, those same groups are working to undermine climate policy in other states or at the federal level. So, I think it has to be, you know, a genuine conversation, and I hope that we can work on those things together as a state.

CRB: Yeah. And I would just opine Rich that, you know, and it’s, I think actually we’re agreeing on a lot more than perhaps people would anticipate. But I will take issue with one of Kip’s, because I do not believe that we don’t support the goals. What I do believe is that we have issue with how we get there and the steps.

Because I think it’s all doable, but I don’t think the path we’re on is the right one. I think it should be a much more diversified portfolio, and I think it should include many more things than are on the table, because I do think we have a tendency to pick some winners and losers in that conversation. But I would also agree with Victoria that this has to be that collaborative conversation. Because like I said, I’m not starting off with challenging the goals of California. I am starting off with saying what we are doing now will really prohibit us from getting there, because we are not dealing with the technical realities of pay, scale and cost, and that will set us back, that won’t move us forward.

So I mean, that’s how I’m approaching it and I agree, and I want to, I need to get your report Victoria, I didn’t even know you had that out, so I will be looking for that. But, you know, I do worry. I mean, even on the EV infrastructure side, we’re ten times away from the charging stations we’re going to need. So it’s not like we don’t stop talking about it. It’s like realizing where we are and we’re not where we need to be on either side of that equation….

RE: I’ll go back to my original question is what the president has done, is this helpful in us getting to this goal? And if it is, how, and if it isn’t, then what do we do to counter that?

CRB: I mean, are you asking me Rich?

RE: Yes. Yeah. Sorry, because I interrupted you. So yes, I’ll let you answer me.

CRB: But I think it’s helpful because it’s moving the conversation forward, that’s where I think it’s helpful.

I think we’re having more of the conversation we should have, because of some of this elevation of the conversation on energy space in general. And so I’m encouraged by that. Whether or not the issues play out or this plays out or that plays out, I’m just glad we’re having this conversation, because I am very worried of where we are in the state of California, where we’re going to find ourselves if we don’t… I’m not making adjustments on the goals, it’s adjustments in how we are approaching them. And we cannot lose another refinery in this state, in the short term, it will set us back from even thinking about those goals because affordability will go through the roof. So that’s… it’s not when, really not if, it’s how.

RE: Well, we can talk about that all day. But I do need to shift gears here because we’ve mentioned water. And if you know anything about water, I think Mark Twain is credited with saying, you know, in California, whiskey is for sipping and water is for fighting over. And we’ve been doing it since, basically, the Spanish got here 350 years ago. So let’s touch on that really quickly.

We all saw the president inserted himself into the water situation right after the LA fires, you know, essentially strong armed the Corps into releasing billions of gallons of water that was held in reserve for farmers for irrigation this year. It didn’t do one darn thing to ease the LA fire situation that has got all the attention of legitimately.

But it does bring up the bigger issue of how much power authority does the president have to get involved in California water? A lot of our water is on contracts, on, you know, it’s… etc. this is not just something willy nilly. We figure out every year how to do it differently. Kip, let me start with you. And we’re a little shorter on time than I would love, so maybe we can be succinct here, but where are we in terms of, again, what is the president’s power in terms of impacting California water? And what might we expect to see in response here in California, either from lawmakers, water contractors, what have you.

KL: Again, another great question. A couple of quick bullets, and I hope we can go back to some of the things that Cathy said, because I’d really like to come back if we have a chance. But anyway, on water. The federal government and the state government have perhaps the most intertwined relationship on water as any environmental matter in California.

And by the way, typically, even in adverse administrations where you have a one administration in California and a different party in DC they have worked together on a lot of water issues. There’s a lot of commonality in terms of trying to get the water where it flows to where it needs to go. There’s a lot of commonality and interest in how we approach water.

Obviously, issues like the Colorado River, which is, you know, a multi-state issue and the resource of water there, is a huge issue both for California and Southern California, but also for the federal government. So these are touch points.

The… I think and I won’t belabor it, but I do think the executive order that the governor [president], that the president issued about, I’m quoting now, “putting people over fish,” “stopping radical environmentalism to provide water to Southern California.”

Once again, I think the facts on the ground are, you know, this is a messaging kind of thing. And as you mentioned the actions that were taken had absolutely no impact on the LA fires and were not driven… The situation in California is not driven by radical environmentalism. I think, frankly, Governor Newsom and his administration put up a very good website on this, just fact checking it. And I do think, you know, to the extent California and the federal government stick to the facts and work on that together there’s some progress that will have to be made because we’re dependent on each other from the Central Valley Water Project all the way down to the Colorado River.

The other thing I would just say is, I think the flash point on these issues is going to be things like the federal Endangered Species Act and the undertakings there, and some of the water quality and water resources laws like the Clean Water Act. And again, there’s already been suggestions of litigation in that area where the state is going to come back and fight the federal government.

And then the last thing I would just say, Rich, is, you know, and I say this with great respect and admiration for a lot of what the governor does. But, you know, the governor is not on water… That’s it’s kind of a funny thing. And you may remember when Senator Feinstein was in the US Senate and others… you know, Democrats that are statewide are looking at the big picture a lot of times. And you know, they tend to look at, for example, Central Valley agriculture interests or Southern California water interests. And so the positions on a lot of these things are nuanced.

There’s some areas where you can be absolutely clear. But I noticed, for example, yesterday Governor Newsom put out a press release complimenting the Trump administration on providing additional… releasing funding for the Upper Sacramento Valley Sites Reservoir. So this will get to your other question, but there are areas of commonality where the administration and the Trump administration will work together. That doesn’t mean there won’t be dissent and there won’t be you know, discussions in the legislature about some of the more extreme actions that might be taken.

RE: I know everyone would love to weigh in on this, if you don’t mind, though, we really do need to go to questions because we’re actually getting a ton. And I think you may get a chance to address stuff here, anyway.

Here’s one, I love this question. I am a huge outdoor person, anyone who knows me knows this, and I’ve spent a lot of time in national parks. And so, seeing what’s happening with the national parks is pretty heartbreaking. This question is, “how do you see these national park UD, SDA and Forest Service layoffs affecting the environmental and public lands, especially in California when wildfires start?”

Or in relation, I guess the same with endangered Species and Conservation. Victoria, I didn’t give you a chance to answer the water question, so maybe we’ll let you tackle this one.

VR: Sure. I mean, I think it’s potentially disastrous. It’s, you know, people live in California, I know I do, because of our amazing natural resources and state parks and national parks and having reduction in staff. I mean, I saw someone quoted like, nobody goes to a national park and thinks, oh, they have too many staff.

So I think even further reductions are just going to mean, you know, worse protection of our public lands, lack of enforcement for illegal activities that may be occurring there, pollution or, you know, discharge of pollution into those waterways. And just a worse experience for the public, who I think, across the spectrum, really enjoy the opportunity to visit our public lands and national parks.

RE: Yeah, I’m with you on that. Another question here, oh, Kip, did you want to weigh in on that? You’re muted.

KL: Sorry about that. I just wanted to say the irony of the parks cuts too, as Victoria mentioned, you know, the constituencies that use the national parks and the federal open space and public lands for recreational purposes… those are not, you know Earth Firsters or Sierra Club card carriers only.

“I absolutely believe that the good policies balance the environment and the economy”

I was just at a conference over the weekend meeting with a group of academics from Idaho and Idaho is a very you know, their environmentalism is informed by hunting and fishing. They don’t talk about climate change, they talk about, you know, providing resources for hunting and fishing. And they are as shocked as many of us are about what has been done to the US Forest Service and to other really important personnel that oversee our natural resources and national parks.

The last thing I’d say is, again, everybody uses the national parks in the summer. They love taking vacations, and I’m sure you’ve seen, but Yosemite has announced that they’re no longer taking any reservations because they don’t have the staff to do that. So another example of kind of the law of unintended consequences may look good on paper, but doesn’t play out in the real world.

RE: Yeah, yes, I’ll just leave that alone. Cath, this might be something that you you’d be the right person to weigh in on. “How can we effectively balance preventative measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with adaptive strategies designed to mitigate the impacts of climate change that are already occurring with this current administration? What are key considerations and challenges in prioritizing one approach over the other?”

CRB: Yeah, and I think California does a decent job here, right? I mean, Adaptive Strategies has been on the table with California. And I mean, how many times we talk about it at CCEEB… I mean, or at the C conferences, right. I mean, adaptive strategies have been part of this conversation for quite a while in California, and I think they’re the right one to marry the two.

And I think you got to have both, right. There’s got to be the preventative measures, and there’s got to be the adaptive measures as well. And whether Kip believes, me or not, I absolutely believe that the good policies balance the environment and the economy, and I don’t think if you do one or the other, it’s a good thing. It’s got to be taking both of those into account, or we’re never going to get where we want to go, and so I’m a firm believer in that.

RE: And you know I hadn’t thought of this, we had another question asking essentially about Senate Bill 54,which, you know, if you’re a capitol watcher, you know, SB 54 was a pretty historic one of the heaviest lifts in terms of legislation in a long, long time, bringing folks together to adopt one of the most wide ranging recycling laws in the country. Maybe arguably the most wide ranging and with a lot of input from the recycling industry itself and the manufacturing sector, etc.

Kip, this might be one you want to weigh in or Victoria, what impact have we seen in anything from the from the Trump administration so far or that we might be hearing would in fact would impact SB 54? And if so, are there guardrails in SB 54 that give California a footing to defend the law?

KL: Victoria, do you want to go?

VR: I haven’t seen anything in particular from the Trump administration. The one thing I did see was something about removing mandates against plastic straws. So trying to bring plastic straws back where perhaps they’ve been banned… which again, I think is just taking away people’s choices. And straws are something that, you know, people have a visual personal experience where maybe they don’t need a straw.

With regard to SB 54, I think it was, it is, a historic law were waiting for those regulations to be finalized right now. And I think they they’re designed to really reduce the amount of plastic produced and sold into California in the first place, and that which does continue to be sold here needs to be recycled and greater recycling requirements. So I don’t know for sure. I don’t think there’s much the federal administration can do to mess with that, but our hope is certainly that those rules move forward as soon as possible.

KL: Yeah, I agree with with Victoria. You know, this is an area of law that’s a little more obscure in terms of any connection between the federal law and actions and state law. SB 54 was really a California undertaking to create an extended producer responsibility for plastics, and that law is being implemented. As Victoria mentioned there is a strong desire to get the implementing regulations out, which were due at the end of 2024, and that’s still a matter that’s pending.

It’s hard to see off the top of our head what the Trump administration could do, you know, affecting that law. And part of that is because the law itself is ramping up. It’s not like we know exactly what we’re doing or what they would challenge quite yet, but I do think it is an important law, I agree with Victoria. It’s a very important law, and its success is very important on a key issue that a lot of Californians care about, and that is waste plastics.

RE: We only have just a few minutes left. So, I’m going to ask you for to really be succinct here, and Cath, we’ll start with you. We’ve been talking about a lot of the contentious areas of disagreement and loggerheads. You’ve kind of mentioned one earlier in terms of, you know, maybe one of the benefits of all this is the starting conversations that need to be had.

What other areas, if any, is there a possibility of California and the Trump administration actually agreeing or coming together on something that could benefit California? Are there things that, you know, we’re so focused on resistance that we’re not seeing areas of possible progress and cooperation?

CRB: Yeah, and, you know, I’m a firm believer that we have a lot of common ground to work on, and certainly Victoria and NRDC and us have done some really good things over the years together. EDF as well. So I’m hopeful that there are things we can come together on. And I still believe it’s in this space of matching up where we are in the traditional oil and gas space, and using innovation and our expertise from everyone on how we’re going to get to where California wants to go and meet these goals. And what is it that’s keeping us from doing that, and then how do we address that?

And I really think if we sort of back into it that way, the conversations about how one could reach these goals really become real, because you’re talking about real, on the ground problems that are presenting themselves as we’re even sitting here talking about them.

And so I look at that as an important conversation. And I think, you know, perhaps in that space, the federal government and California, I believe in some of those areas can come together on what needs to be done. I’ve just started looking at even the military side of California. I mean, relative to the energy security issue. I mean, we’ve got 30 major bases in this state, and so are we talking about, from the energy landscape, how are we going to make sure that we’re still providing them what they need for energy security? Because we are we’re blessed with with them in California.

So, I mean, I haven’t even really delved into that much other than educating myself on how many are there, where are they? You know, is there infrastructure issues? Is there concerns? I mean, I think that is an area where the federal government and California can maybe dive in together to make sure were really looking at that issue.

RE: Unfortunately, we’re out of time and we have to stay on time. So, Kip, Victoria, I apologize, I would love to have gotten your thoughts on that too. Maybe we’ll talk afterward, but I want to say thank you to our fabulous panel for coming on today. Catherine Reheis-Boyd, Kip Lipper and Victoria Rome, and for everybody that joined us for this panel, if we didn’t get to your question, I’m really sorry, these things tend to be pretty packed, and so we just had to roll with it. But I know my colleague Tim will have an aneurysm if I don’t sign us off here pretty quick. So thank you all again. If you’re sticking around for the keynote in the last panel, we will see you in just a little bit. Thank you all so much for joining us today.

CATHERINE REHEIS-BOYD: Thank you all.

Thanks to our sponsors:

THE TRIBAL ALLIANCE OF SOVEREIGN INDIAN NATIONS, WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, KP PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PERRY COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, CAPITOL ADVOCACY, THE WEIDEMAN GROUP, and CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS