Perceptions of whether government action is succeeding sometimes come down to different views on what the goal was to start with.
It may not be surprising, then, that two contrasting assessments have emerged of a state bill that last year gave Kern County environmental clearance to issue its own local oil permits.
One of the summaries is a legislatively required update released this month by the California Energy Commission. It deems Senate Bill 237 a positive step toward taming market forces as the state continues its transition away from petroleum-based transportation fuels.
The other, written by a trio of academic researchers skeptical of California’s drive toward carbon neutrality, calls the bill an inadequate step that must be met with further action if consumers are to avoid skyrocketing fuel prices.
The substantial differences between the two reports illustrate the lasting divide between proponents of oil drilling as a way of keeping gasoline supplies abundant and low-cost, versus phasing out the fuel in a sensible way as motorists gradually adopt zero-emission vehicles.
SB 237 resulted largely from the Newsom administration’s worries that a spate of refinery closures, driven in part by diminishing in-state oil deliveries attributed to burdensome regulations, would leave California with too little supply amid too much demand.
The idea was that Kern, as the state’s leading oil-producing county, would be able to ramp up deliveries if it received protection from environmental lawsuits that stymied local permitting for close to a decade.
But since the law took effect Jan. 1, allowing up to 2,000 new wells annually for 10 years, only 290 permits have been issued by the county. That’s at the low end of a forecast from the three academics from the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Southern California.
Their report says that, while it’s too early to fully assess the long-term impact of SB 237, “initially numbers are worse than we predicted in 2025, making the CEC forecasts and the governor’s narrative more reflective of wishful thinking than realistic science.”
It blames the bill’s failure to promote light-oil development outside Kern. The report also calls for rescinding a state law establishing a buffer zone that bars oil-field work within 3,200 feet of homes, schools and other sensitive sites.
The report by professors James Rector and graduate student Joseph Silvi at UC Berkeley and professor Michael Mische at USC also advocates ending California’s prohibition against the controversial well-stimulation known as fracking. It also says the state should end what the authors call permit obstruction by state regulatory agencies.
The CEC’s assessment, which keeps focus on the state’s climate priorities, says the Iran war’s dramatic effects on global oil markets and supply routes underscore the reasons why California must reduce its dependence on petroleum and accelerate its build-out of domestic clean energy and clean transportation.
The goal of SB 237, as the commission views it, is to “create space and time for a managed transition while enforcement of health and environmental protections continue.”
Its report notes that, as of March 31, Kern County has issued 504 job cards of all types of well work. It says state oil regulators that must also sign off on permits issued 277 new drilling application by that time, though only one of them had actually been drilled.
The commission recommended continuing to deliberately manage the transition to cleaner fuels and enhancing interagency permitting procedures. It further suggested identifying long-term funding mechanisms to make sure impacted communities receive the help they need.
Ultimately, it emphasized the path forward is “not to slow the transition” but to plan the energy transition responsibly in coordination with local and statement government, communities and businesses.
“Continuing the trajectory to a decarbonized transportation sector and building the transition governance capacity … is the path of least long-term cost and the signal that markets on both sides of the transition need,” the report concludes.