Photo: Getty Images

It's no surprise that the choice of Maldonado by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger faces a tougher, much more uncertain road in the Assembly than in the Senate. Last week's quick hearing before the Senate Rules Committee made it clear that, in the words of one Democratic senator, the "comity" of the upper house is going to prevail in elevating the senator from the Central Coast to the post.

Today, the lower house drama began to play out, with three Democratic assemblymembers summoning reporters to discuss the various reasons they plan to say 'no' to Maldo.

The charge was led by Assemblymember Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara), who handed reporters a long list of bills in which he says Maldonado has voted the wrong way through the years (you can see the whole list provided by Nava's office here.) That list includes everything from social to environmental issues and beyond. It should be noted, though, that some of the bills on the list found Maldonado on the same side... pro or con... as even some Democrats.

"This is really a promotion," Nava told reporters. "And if you're going to be promoted, in most circumstances, you need to have outstanding performance. We don't have that with Senator Maldonado."

But the other two Democratic assemblymembers focused their opposition to the Maldo nomination elsewhere -- on the calendar.

"We should let the voters choose," said Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana), noting that the 2010 race for the job of 'lite guv' is just around the corner. The leave-it-vacant argument was seconded by Assemblymember Tony Mendoza (D-Artesia), who also added that Maldonado's deal making during the 2009 budget debate amounted to "blackmail."

It's worth noting that all three men are part of the Legislative Latino Caucus, which met last week to discuss the Maldonado nomination. The chair of that caucus, Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-LA), voted in favor of the Maldo appointment last week. But Assemblymember Mendoza told me this morning that the caucus of Latino legislators has not taken a formal vote on whether to support, or oppose, the nomination.

That's an awful lot of differing criticisms. Add to it today's announcement that the conservative California Republican Assembly is urging a 'no' vote, as well. And it's possible that such a cacophony could ultimately lead a majority of the 80-member Assembly to reject Maldonado's nomination (and there's new word that it will, in fact, go to the floor for a full vote).

For his part, Maldonado spent the morning with the governor at an event in San Luis Obispo, in the heart of Maldo's state senate district. His hearing before the Assembly Rules Committee -- originally scheduled for this afternoon -- has been pushed back until tomorrow.

Meantime, the lawmakers at today's event highlighted an interesting twist to all of this -- namely, that there is someone running the shop in the office of California's lieutenant governor, long after John Garamendi packed his bags and headed to Congress.

Mona Pasquil, who served as Garamendi's chief of staff during his time as 'lite guv,' is administratively serving as the person in charge. Communications director Beth Willon says while Pasquil certainly can't become governor or sit in the LG's chair as a University of California regent, for example, she can -- and is-- serving as the third voting member of the State Lands Commission in the absence of an official lieutenant governor.

By the way, one great example of that absence... can be seen on the LG's official website lately.

Let the political handwringing begin.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lieutenant Governor-designate Abel Maldonado made their big debut this morning at an event in Los Angeles, with the Guv calling Maldo his "soulmate," and the GOP senator offering an almost tearful thank you amidst a recounting of his immigrant family's path to the American Dream.

But now what? What are Maldonado's odds of getting the thumbs up or thumbs down from legislative Democrats who are in complete control of what happens next?

The "soulmate" quip came from Schwarzenegger in response to a reporter asking about not-so-warm-and-fuzzy times between the two men in the past. "The more I got to know him," gushed the Guv, "the more I got to really like what he stood for."

But are the two really soulmates? Take, for example, Schwarzenegger's push for a landmark state law on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. AB 32 was -- and is -- a huge priority for the Governor, but his "soulmate" Maldonado voted against the bill when it came to the Senate floor in August 2006. And, as blogged yesterday, the senator voted against Schwarzenegger's oil drilling proposal this year. These are only two examples and, while alone don't constitute a pattern, nonetheless make for interesting speculation about what a Lt. Governor Maldonado's priorities would be vis-a-vis the chief executive.

Today also marks the first formal reaction from Democratic legislative leaders who, under the California Constitution, hold all the cards for Maldo getting the job. Some are playing their cards close to the vest... others are hinting that they've got the high hand and the Guv is going to lose.

Count Assembly Speaker Karen Bass among those with a steely poker face this morning. "I haven't always seen eye to eye with Senator Maldonado," said Bass in an emailed statement, "but we have also worked well together at other times. The Assembly will give this nomination the full and fair consideration it deserves."

On the other side of the poker table, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg is hinting, not so subtly, that Maldo might want to wait before moving his things downstairs into the Lite Guv's office. "Senator Maldonado is a fine colleague," said Steinberg in his email statement, "but I have grave doubts about filling this position with any sitting elected official."

The pro Tem goes on to say that the problem lies in the cost of a special election to fill Maldonado's Central Coast Senate seat, a cost he says could be $2 million. "Rather than using taxpayer money to pay for an avoidable election," he said, "it may be wiser to use that $2 million to defray recent fee increases in our higher education system."

The not-so-subtle message: the Maldonado Show is a luxury the state can't afford.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen seemed to be making the same point in a Twitter posting this morning, and reminded everyone that there could be more than one special election -- if Assembly GOP Leader Sam Blakeslee opted to run for Maldonado's seat, thus leaving another vacancy to be filled.

And Assemblymember Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara), whose home lies just south of the LG-designate's Santa Maria stomping grounds, took it one step further, arguing that leaving the position vacant would save the state another $1 million in budgeted office expenses for a lieutenant governor. "The Governor should have used this opportunity to set an important example and show that every dollar counts," said the emailed statement from Nava.

If all of that sounds like Democrats prepping for a smackdown of the Maldonado nomination, then consider a different group of Dems loudly demanding that legislative leaders give the GOP moderate the job, precisely because it might trigger a special election, one that could be won by a Democrat and landing the party one vote away from a Senate supermajority that could solve budget problems on its own.

The editors of the liberal blog Calitics put it this way in an "open letter" to legislative leaders:

Calitics has been a strong critic of Abel Maldonado. He is certainly not our first, second, or seventy-third choice for the Lt. Gov. office. But we are willing to swallow it for the greater good. You need to do so as well.

There is no credible reason to refuse to confirm Maldonado. The only reason you would be doing so is by placing the ambitions of other Senators above your own, and above the needs of a state facing a crisis so deep and so crippling that it threatens much more than Republican control of the Lt. Gov. office.

A spokesman for the Senate pro Tem said today that confirmation hearings won't begin until January. The 90-day clock on the nomination, having formally begun today, should expire on Monday, February 22. And until both houses decide whether to approve, reject, or let Maldonado take office without a vote... the Soulmate #2 will remain in his current job, and Soulmate #1 will be searching for ways to seal the deal.

Several versions of an oil tax have come and gone, including one that was the funding source for an alternative energy initiative, Proposition 87, rejected by the voters in 2006. The latest proposal is slated for introduction when the Legislature returns -- perhaps as soon as a proposed special session on tax reform -- by Assemblymember Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara).

So why does the oil tax idea keep lingering around? Three safe guesses: other states have one and we don't, Big Oil isn't exactly winning any popularity contests, and the state budget remains in tatters.

Keeping Up With The Joneses: California's 215 million barrels of oil a year (2008 data) make us #3 in national production behind Alaska (491 million barrels) and Texas (398 million barrels). But those states both have oil severance taxes, a fact supporters of the proposal point to time and again. Opponents in the oil industry, on the other hand, cite a study from January that argues a version of the tax then being proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger would have resulted in a drop in oil production of at least 54,000 barrels a day and a subsequent loss of more than 9,000 jobs.

The possibility of a drop in oil production is echoed by independent oilman Fred Holmes, a veteran of the business with whom I spent some time with on a recent reporting trip to Kern County. Holmes says that at current prices (California oil goes for less on the market than its big state competitors), the costs of drilling and production currently leave him with only about $10 a barrel. Take another $6 out of that with an oil severance tax, and he'd likely just walk away from many of his lower producing wells. "We reinvest most of our profits," said Holmes on the need to keep looking for new profitable reserves. "If we don’t reinvest, our wells will run dry, we'll be out of business." Supporters of the tax, including Assemblymember Nava, dispute any notion that California already places a high cost on the oil business. Under the current system, he says, "they don't have to carry their share of the burden."

One particularly nasty battle about the notion of 'fair share' has been waged between oil industry reps and Lt. Governor John Garamendi, an ardent oil tax advocate. "For more than a century," Garamendi told me recently, "California has given its oil away free to the oil industry." But Joe Sparano, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, called that a "ludicrous statement" in a recent interview. And while the industry continues to insist its California operational costs make the state much more expensive than the severance taxed states of Texas and Alaska, Garamendi's response in a recent interview was simple: "Bullshit."

Big Oil: The oil tax debate often overlooks independent producers like Fred Holmes, who says more than half of his 400 wells produce only about a barrel a day. Instead, the debate's usually focused on the big boys. That's because some 70% of all California oil is drilled by the likes of Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Occidental. The recent record profits of those companies are a likely reason the April statewide Field Poll, found 54% support for an oil severance tax.

Budget Boost... and... Bust?: Assemblymember Nava's version of the oil tax would set the rateat 10% on the gross value of every barrel. The revenues, estimated annually at $1.5 billion or more, would go straight to the General Fund. (The actual language of his proposal, it should be noted, has not been released.) If oil prices should go up, the help for the battered state budget would be even larger.

But for the state's #1 oil region, the revenue picture may be just the opposite. Often overlooked in the statewide debate is the fact that places like Kern County get property tax revenues from all that underground oil. Kern Assessor Jim Fitch tells me that the oil's value is assessed after expenses are calculated. As a result, he projects a 10% severance tax on each barrel would cost Kern County $45 million in lost tax revenues in the first year alone.

None of these arguments are easy to sort out. Both sides make compelling cases. And while the public may be willing to support the tax, the Legislature -- for now -- is not, given the 2/3 rule for any tax increase. (The governor also dropped his support for an oil tax after the February budget deal.) Might the Sacramento stalemate on the issue propel yet another ballot measure effort?

Few proposals have had as many twists and turns in 2009 as a plan to allow new oil drilling in waters less than three miles off the California coast. But even after serious setbacks, few expect the proposal to fade away anytime soon.

The proposal is known as Tranquillon Ridge, and it's the focus of my lengthy story that aired this morning on The California Report. You can listen by clicking below.

There's one thing on which everyone would likely agree: this is an oil drilling project that, if it ever gets underway, would send a powerful message. Of course, there's disagreement on what that message would be. Supporters say it's an example of a 'win-win' of cooperation between the oil industry and environmental groups. Opponents say it would send a dangerous signal to the nation -- and maybe the world -- that California is embracing new oil drilling beyond just this one deal.

The radio story covers the essential points: the first new oil lease in state-controlled ocean waters since 1969, possibly attached to a guaranteed shutdown of four offshore oil platforms plus two onshore processing facilities... a $100 million upfront payment to the state from Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP), the oil company that would drill 'T-Ridge'... and serious questions about whether the state can enforce the terms of the private deal struck between an oil company and an environmental coalition, especially given the feds have yet to render any formal opinion on whether they would bless the deal -- or battle it in court.

But there are several more layers to this story which didn't make it in to this morning's extended radio piece. So consider this an online companion to help explain the many layers of the T-Ridge debate. (Note: Click on main photo above for a look at my visit out to Platform Irene.)

Other Deal Points: Our radio coverage focuses on the fact that the proposal as outlined proposes early closure of four offshore oil platforms (Platform Irene, Platform Harvest, Platform Hidalgo, Platform Hermosa) and two onshore processing facilities, including the below facility near Gaviota.

Also included is the preservation of what's believed to be more than 4,000 acres of land near or on the coast, near the area seen below.

The agreement also includes actions that PXP believes will help mitigate any greenhouse gas emissions created by the T-Ridge operation. "We just think it's a good project," said PXP's Steve Rusch in a recent interview aboard Irene.

Confidentiality: Critics have raised questions about why the deal hasn't been made public. The April 2008 agreement between PXP and the enviro groups represented by EDC remains confidential. Staffers at the State Lands Commission were allowed to review it for their analysis of the project this winter, but only after signing confidentiality agreements. Both PXP and EDC now say they'll release the deal once it is scheduled for a formal hearing. But Assemblymember Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara), a vocal T-Ridge critic, says that's not good enough. "I can't imagine anybody in a position of responsibility accepting that," says Nava. PXP's Rusch counters that all relevant info in the deal has been publicly discussed, but the issue doesn't seem to have gone away.

The Enviro Split: Perhaps one of the most difficult things to grasp about the T-Ridge deal, struck in the spring of 2008, is why it has left the usually unanimous environmental community so divided. The agreement was crafted by the well-known Environmental Defense Center of Santa Barbara, on behalf of Get Oil Out! (GOO) and the Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara. GOO, in particular, is a notable supporter, given the group was created in response to the infamous 1969 blowout of Platform A in the Santa Barbara Channel -- the very same event that prompted the moratorium on new state waters drilling that T-Ridge must overcome. A list provided by the PR firm representing PXP counts 21 enviro groups supporting the drilling project. But a list from Assemblymember Nava counts more than four times as many in opposition. The list of opponents seems to include more groups from places outside of the Central Coast, while the list of supporters are, in general, more locally tied in to the issue. During the course of my reporting this week, opponents often cited two events as key to their stance: the January 29 rejection of the deal by the California State Lands Commission (SLC), largely on the belief that the PXP-EDC agreement wasn't enforceable, and the decision by Governor Schwarzenegger to attempt to enact the T-Ridge lease without SLC approval (more on that one in a moment).

It's A Santa Barbara Thing: A sidenote to the enviro battle is how the T-Ridge project has inflamed local politics in Santa Barbara. Most notably, watch for it to be a key issue in the Democratic primary to replace Nava, who's forced from office by term limits in 2010 and is now a candidate for Attorney General. Candidate Susan Jordan, a longtime environmental advocate, opposes T-Ridge (she's also married to Nava); her opponent, SB city councilmember Das Williams, is a T-Ridge supporter.

The Only Possible Project? The T-Ridge proposal seeks to use a narrow exception to the 1994 California law that generally bans any new drilling in state-controlled waters. That exception is generally made up of two parts: a determination that oil residing in state waters is being drained into federal waters by an existing drillng operation -- and therefore not providing its full financial benefit to the state, and that the project is "in the best interests" of the state. Paul Thayer, executive director of the State Lands Commission, says a scientific analysis commissioned by the SLC indicated that drainage is probably (but not definitively) an issue -- due to current drilling by PXP from Platform Irene into the the T-Ridge oilfield. But the second criteria is a tougher nut to crack, and Thayer maintains that questions about the deal's enforceability make a "best interests" determination, for now, impossible.

Odds Makers: The SLC rejection of T-Ridge was, in large part, due to questions about reaction to the deal from the feds. Platform Irene and its three neighbors would all be shuttered (and possibly, though not definitely, removed) under the deal. But they sit in federal waters, and the leases they service are controlled by the U.S. Minerals Management Service. So the question is: might the feds -- angered over PXP shutting down platforms earlier than required --step in and demand either the platforms, the onshore facilities... or both... keep operating? Linda Krop, the EDC attorney who drafted the PXP deal, says such a scenario by state officials misses the point. "Right now, we have a 100% guarantee those platforms are out there indefinitely," she says. Krop estimates the likelihood of federal intervention at ".000001%." But critics of the deal that Krop helped craft point to testimony at the January 29 hearing before the Lands Commission by MMS regional manager Ellen Aronson. When asked by Lt. Governor John Garamendi, the SLC's chairman, whether MMS would allow a company like PXP to shut down its platforms in federal waters ahead of schedule, Aronson said, "They are obligated under their lease to produce those resources until the resources are commercially exhausted." The key is commercially exhausted. Three of the platform shutdown dates in the T-Ridge deal are based on estimates of when oil flows are expected to slow to a trickle. But if new technology is developed to keep drilling operations viable... or if new nearby federal leases are activated... might the feds balk at the deal? There's no definitive for now. And that uncertainty is perhaps the main policy hurdle to the T-Ridge deal moving forward.

Commandeered In the Capitol: A key turning point came this summer, when Governor Schwarzenegger's revised budget included a bypass of the State Lands Commission for approving the deal and getting the money flowing to the state. That suggestion, while modified somewhat during marathon legislative deliberations, failed to pass the Assembly (in fact, the Assembly vote was curiously wiped from the official records). Last week, Assembly GOP Leader Sam Blakeslee revived the T-Ridge legislation, adding a sweetener, perhaps, for hesitant Democrats: the earmarking of the T-Ridge royalty payment for programs cut by the budget deficit deal. Hard to see this one making it out of the final hours of the 2009 legislative session, but never say never.

Full Court Press: PXP's strategy these days seems focused on drawing public attention to the deal and its purported benefits for the environment and the Central Coast. In addition to hiring a new PR firm, the company commissioned its own statewide poll that appears to show bipartisan voter support for T-Ridge (though full poll results have not been released). PXP now has two well-connected lobbying firms working on its behalf in the Capitol, and more than tripled its lobbying budget in recent months. But the company has not yet resubmitted the project to the State Lands Commission, the only route for approval environmental lawyer Linda Krop says her clients support. No firm answers as to why, but one reasonable theory involves...

Political Dominoes: Last week's victory by Lt. Governor Garamendi in a congressional primary could play a major role in the quest to approve California's first new oil drilling in state waters since 1969. While the job of 'lite guv' is often ridiculed as a meaningless post, the LG serves as one of three members of the State Lands Commission -- along with the state controller (John Chiang) and the governor's finance director (Mike Genest). Garamendi and Chiang oppose T-Ridge; Genest (through deputy Tom Sheehy) voted for it in January. So how can the Schwarzenegger administration get the second vote it needs on the SLC? If Garamendi wins the seat in Congress in November, the governor would get to appoint his replacement. Granted, the Democratically controlled Legislature can block a lieutenant governor appointee. But you can bet that if supporters run out of other options, a new T-Ridge friendly lieutenant governor will be tops on the wish list.

Extra Resources
Video of helicopter liftoff from Platform Irene during my reporting visit on August 26.

Note: An earlier version of this posting incorrectly said that PXP and EDC would release their confidential proposal once it had been "approved by the state." Their position is now accurately reflected in the appropriate paragraph.