Industries

Subscribe to Industries via RSS

In one of her last major legal actions before leaving office as California’s Attorney General, Kamala Harris, along with the California Coastal Commission (jointly the “Attorney General”), filed suit against various federal agencies in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the issuance of the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (“PEA”) and Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) for well stimulation treatments on the Southern California Outer Continental Shelf.  The December 19, 2016 Complaint names the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (jointly the “Agencies”) as defendants.  The Attorney General’s lawsuit follows similar lawsuits filed by the Environmental Defense Center and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper on November 11, 2016, and a separate suit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) on November 15, 2016.

The Proposed Action is the approval of well stimulation treatments at 22 production platforms on 43 leases on the Southern California Outer Continental Shelf, which sits off the coast of the southern half of the state.  The Complaint asserts that the Agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”) because they issued the FONSI for the Proposed Action without adequate environmental review.  The Agencies “improperly concluded that allowing such activities would result in no significant impacts, in violation of the requirements of [NEPA],” despite the substantial record showing the potential for significant environmental effects.  Complaint, at 3.  Further, the Attorney General alleges that the Agencies violated the CZMA by failing to determine whether the Proposed Action is consistent to the “maximum extent practicable” with the enforceable policies in California’s coastal zone management program.Continue Reading California Sues Federal Government Alleging Inadequate Environmental Review of Offshore Drilling Proposal

On November 11, 2016, the Environmental Defense Center (“EDC”) and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper jointly filed suit against several federal agencies including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (jointly “Agencies”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).  At the heart of their lawsuit, EDC and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper (jointly “EDC”) claim that the Agencies violated NEPA when they issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) decision approving the Agencies’ Programmatic Environmental Assessment of the Use of Well Stimulation Treatments on the Southern California Outer Continental Shelf (the “PEA”).
Continue Reading Environmental Groups Sue Federal Agencies Again in Unending Legal Battle Over Offshore Oil Development

The recent wave of climate change legislation in California also included a new and not particularly well-known law aimed at curbing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions associated with water use. SB 1425 will create a voluntary registry to track the water sector’s energy use and GHG emissions.

According to Senator Pavley, the author of SB 1425, “While some of the water-energy related climate pollution is already covered in the state’s cap-and-trade program (via the electricity generation sector), the state does not currently have a clear accounting of the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with the water system.”

SB 1425 requires CalEPA to oversee the development of a registry for GHG emissions that result from the “water-energy nexus” using the best-available data. Participation in the registry is voluntary and open to water agencies, large water consumers, businesses and others conducting business in the state.  SB 1425 provides that entities participating in the registry may qualify for GHG emission reduction incentives.
Continue Reading New Law Takes Aim at GHG Associated with California’s Water Sector

Update: September 26, 2016

On September 21, 2016, the Honorable George C. Hernandez, Jr. issued the final Statement of Decision, which affirmed the tentative decision denying all claims for relief.  The court denied CBD’s petition for writ of mandate.

Original Post: August 22, 2016

As reported in a previous blog post, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”), filed a lawsuit against the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) in May 2015.  The lawsuit attacked DOGGR’s emergency rulemaking for aquifer exemption compliance.  Not surprisingly, like all of CBD’s spurious lawsuits attacking DOGGR for implementing its regulatory duties, on August 2, 2016, an Alameda County Superior Court judge issued a tentative ruling denying CBD’s petition for writ of mandate. This is another setback for CBD’s litigation strategy of impeding DOGGR in order to cripple the oil and gas industry.

DOGGR issued the emergency rules in response to a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that addressed California’s compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) and the Class II Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) program.  Following DOGGR’s issuance of the emergency rules, the EPA stated “[t]he State’s emergency regulations to codify deadlines for injection well operators to cease injection, absent EPA-approved aquifer exemptions, is a critical step in the State’s plan to return the California Class II UIC program to compliance with the SDWA.”  In other words, California regulators were doing what they were supposed to do under the law.Continue Reading Court’s Tentative Decision Sides in Favor of DOGGR in CBD’s Wastewater Injection Lawsuit

This is the second update on environmental regulatory and legal developments in Los Angeles and adjacent counties, as well as the Southern San Joaquin Valley. We welcome your comments and feedback.

South Coast Air Quality Management District:

*Continued Report on New Management: Wayne Nastri, once an SCAQMD Governing Board Member, former USEPA Region IX Regional Administrator and recently an environmental consultant, was appointed acting Executive Director (ED) for the AQMD earlier this year. Some describe him as “a breath of fresh air at the District.” The Governing Board is conducting a nationwide search for a permanent ED, yet has extended Mr. Nastri’s initial 6-month term until February 2017. Mr. Nastri has made a number of staffing changes: Jill Whynot was promoted to Chief Operating Officer, working out of the Executive Office (# 2 position); Laki Tisopulos replaced Mohsen Nazemi as Deputy Executive Officer (DEO) for Engineering and Compliance; Susan Nakamura replaced Jill Whynot as acting assistant DEO for Planning and Rules.
Continue Reading SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE #2

On August 3, 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) filed suit against the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) and the State Water Resources Control Board (“Water Board”), challenging the regulators’ decision to approve an aquifer exemption for the Arroyo Grande oil field.  In its latest lawsuit against DOGGR, filed in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Luis Obispo, CBD alleges that DOGGR and the Water Board failed to conduct environmental review, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).  In order to appreciate the claims in the case, some background is necessary.

The Safe Drinking Water Act and Aquifer Exemptions

The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g et seq., prohibits injection of fluids that may harm human health into an underground source of drinking water.  An “exempt aquifer” is an aquifer for which protection under the SDWA has been waived because the aquifer does not currently serve as a source of drinking water and could not serve as a source of drinking water in the future due to existing mineral production, depth of the aquifer, or existing contamination.  40 C.F.R § 146.4.  In short, an aquifer is exempt from the SDWA when it could not feasibly serve as a source of drinking water.Continue Reading When Will They Ever Learn? CBD Files Another Questionable Lawsuit Against DOGGR

On July 19, 2016, Alameda County, California (“County”) became the first county in the Bay Area to approve a ban on hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”).  The County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the ban through an amendment to the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”).  Gen. Ordinance Code §§ 17.06.100-17.06.400.

The Ordinance bans “high-intensity oil operations” which include fracking, steam injection, cyclic steaming, and all other forms of well stimulation.  The Ordinance allows waterflooding and permits an operator to continue oil production by methods authorized under a Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) permit, if those methods are not banned.  Waterflooding, a technique that includes recycling produced water to the oil reservoir, may be done only by water that is produced from the well itself.  “Produced water” is water that comes to the surface through oil production and oftentimes has no beneficial reuse due to its natural characteristics.  The Ordinance prohibits disposal of hydraulic fracturing fluids, drawing a distinction between produced water and fracking fluids.  “High-intensity oil operations” does not include injection of produced water.Continue Reading Alameda Fracking Ban: All Bark with No Bite

On July 14, 2016, the California Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced a “landmark set of regulations to strengthen workplace and environmental safety at oil refineries across the state.”  The refinery safety rules consist of two sets of regulations:  one amending the California Occupational Safety & Health (“OSHA”) worker safety regulations as they apply to refineries, and the other revising the California Accidental Release Prevention program (“CalARP”) regulations.  The regulations implement recommendations from Governor Jerry Brown’s Interagency Working Group on Refinery Safety, which was convened following a chemical release and fire at a refinery in August 2012.
Continue Reading Proposed Oil Refinery Regulations Tackle Safety Concerns

June 3, 2016 was the final deadline for oil- and gas-related bills introduced in the 2015-2016 legislative session to move through their house of origin.  Below is a summary of those bills, many of which relate to natural gas storage following the Aliso Canyon natural gas well leak.  Stoel Rives is monitoring these bills and will provide updates as the bills move through the legislative process.
Continue Reading Updated Status of Oil- and Gas-Related Bills Proposed in California’s 2015-2016 Legislative Session

Not to be outdone by its federal counter-parts, the California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) released Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities (“proposed rule”) for methane emissions on Tuesday, May 31, following a slew of recent federal regulations targeting reduction of methane emissions.  Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 95665-95676 (proposed).  The federal Bureau of Land Management released proposed regulations for reducing waste and methane emissions in oil and gas operations in January 2016.  Then, in May 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also began regulating methane when it released final regulations to curb emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds from additional new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the oil and gas industry.

While methane is the current emissions target for regulators’ greenhouse gas reduction efforts, the oil and gas sector is the industry target.  The proposed rule is part of California’s plan to reduce emissions from short-lived climate pollutants, including methane emissions, by 40-45% by 2025.  This follows the Obama Administration’s similar methane emissions reduction goal.Continue Reading The Other Shoe Just Dropped on Methane Emissions from the Oil and Gas Industry

About Stoel Rives Environmental Law

Learn More

Few firms view their Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources practices as core legal services. Stoel Rives is one of them. The firm ranks #8 in the United States according to Law360’s list of the largest practices of its kind. Our sophisticated compliance counseling, permitting, regulatory development, and litigation practices continue a long tradition of specialization and deep experience. Our environment, land use, and natural resource attorneys incorporate prior agency experience, technical acumen, and industry knowledge into their legal advice. They also build strong relationships with agency officials and industry associations. Our litigation successes include landmark decisions. More than 60 attorneys, paralegals, and compliance analysts comprise Stoel Rives’ nationwide Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources practice.