Rising Gas Prices Have Had Major Impact on California—Seen as Serious Problem by Voters—Offshore Drilling Opposed, Nuclear Plants and LNG Supported, State’s Auto Emissions Standards Supported Per Field Poll

Seriousness of the Problem

47% of registered voters see the recent rise in gasoline prices as “very serious,” up from March of 2007 when 35% responded that it was. Another 34% say it is “somewhat serious,” meaning that a combined 81% regard this rise as serious. Only 19% describe the rise as not serious. The proportion of those who describe the problem as very serious declines with incomes form a high of 70% of those with household incomes below $20,000 to a low of 29% of those who have household incomes of $100,000 and above. But even in this highest earning category another 42% regard the problem as somewhat serious, combining to 71% who say it is one level of seriousness or another and 29% say it is not serious.

A startling 68% respond that the recent gas price hikes have caused them and their families to cut back on other areas of spending such as food, clothing, or dining out. This is up from 44% in March of 2007 and 40% in August of 2005. Once again, there is an income divide, with those making under $40,000 a year in household income reporting in excess of 80% that it has resulted in these cut backs declining to 52% of those with over $100,000 of family income.

On these two questions, it is apparent that rising gasoline prices are having more of an impact on voters in the inland counties of California than the coastal counties, female voters, and non white voters.

57% of inland county voters describe the problem as very serious versus 43% in the coastal counties. 76% in inland counties reported cut backs in other area spending as a result, compared to 65% in coastal counties.

50% of female voters describe the problem as very serious versus 43% of male voters and 74% of female voters report cutbacks in other spending versus only 62% of male voters.

Actions Californians are Taking to Reduce Gasoline Consumption

78% are “driving less around town or shortening weekend or vacation car trips. Another 6% are considering doing this.

67% say they are “buying a cheaper grade of gasoline.” I find this to be amazing and wonder if those answering the question (or yours truly) understand what is meant by a “grade” of gasoline, as I thought most Californians were already buying regular unleaded as opposed to higher octane premium grades.

59% say they are using their “more fuel efficient vehicle more frequently.” This seems like an awfully high number, given how many families do not own more than one car to begin with, and even with the numbers who own more than one, the numbers of those who have cars that are not different in their fuel efficiency.

28% are already “carpooling to and from work or to shop,” while 65% say they are not doing this.

28% have already moved closer to their job or are taking a job closer to home (of those employed outside of the home). Another 12% are considering doing this.

27% have already replaced their car or truck with a more fuel-efficient vehicle, while another 24% are considering this and 49% are not doing this—or it is not applicable to them. In Augst of 2005 when this question was last asked, 28% said they were already doing this. It is unclear how these figures may aggregate and the percentage who have replaced vehicles for more efficient ones over the last several years is probably higher overall.

25% have adjusted their work hours so that they do not commute as often to their worksite (of those employed outside the house) and another 7% are considering this, while 68% say they are not considering this or that it doesn’t apply to them.

17% are using public transit more and another 14% are considering doing so.

Public Policy Energy Views are “Mixed”

When asked if they support California’s automobile emissions standards being maintained “even if it means getting slightly fewer miles per gallon of gasoline” an overwhelming 70% say that they do versus 23% who say they do not. The results, looking at the Bee’s crosstabs show a higher 73% to 20.5% on this question as to likely voters in November. The results here are unequivocal and who no real statistically significant difference between Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisan/others—if anything, Republicans appear to be even more inclined to support California’s emission standards.

California registered voters oppose allowing oil companies to drill more oil and gas wells in state tidelands along the seacoast by a margin of 51% to 43% and the crosstabs show it is even stronger—53.7% opposition and 40.9% support amongst likely voters in November. The percentage of those favoring more drilling has increased from 39% in 2005 by about 4 points and opposition has lessened about 5 points form 56% previously. But going back and looking at prior results from Field, a majority of Californians by a wide margin has been opposed to coastal drilling since 1984 and this trend has continued. In the earlier 80’s and late 70’s majorities favored coastal drilling.

On offshore drilling, there is a distinct partisan divide, with Democrats opposed 61% to 31%, Republicans the mirror opposite 63% to 32% in favor, and non-partisan/others more in line with the Democrats-- 58% to 35% opposed. Looking at the crosstabs, there is a divide between coastal county voters –40% to 48% opposed and inland county voters in favor 48% to 44%.

The results are very similar as to relaxing “current government restrictions prohibiting the drilling of oil and gas wells on government parklands and forest reserves.” 52% are opposed and 44% are in favor. The partisan divide with Democrats and non-partisan others in opposition and Republicans in favor is here as well.

By 63% to 19% Californians favor “the building of tanker terminals, pipelines and facilities for liquefied natural gas” being allowed in the state. This has not changed and is remarkably similar to views on this question going back to 1980. In fact, in 1978, when this question was a hot one and LNG siting was considered, and defeated, in the legislature, the results were more lopsided in favor with 70% in support and 21% opposed. Only 18% do not express an opinion on this and one wonders how strong the sentiments of the approximately four-fifths of voters is on this question which has not been as widely discussed in the news as drilling and other measures. Nevertheless, there is support amongst Democrats—51% to 27%, Republicans 77% to 11%, and non-partisan/others 64% to 17% on this, although there is more inland support (72% to 13%) than coastal support (595 to 22%).

There is a decided shift in attitudes towards allowing the building of more nuclear plants in California with half (50%) of the registered voters supporting this and 41% opposed. When this question was asked in 1990, this was opposed 56% to 38% and Field’s polls have shown more opposition, by wide margins, going back to 1979. The last time a majority was in support was in 1978 and before, with a high in 1976 of 69% support. There is a partisan divide on this one with Democrats opposed 50% to 41% and Republicans in support by 64% to 26%. The non-partisan/others appear to be more in support than not—48% to 43%, within the margin of error for their subgroup.

This is how registered voters feel about high gasoline prices and what to do about it—when we have been pinched—and then some—by the steepest rise in gas prices at least going back to the 1970’s. This will add fuel to the debate in our state.