Photo of Mike Mills

Mike Mills

Subscribe to Mike Mills's Posts

Mike Mills is an experienced environmental attorney who represents his clients in complex regulatory, compliance and litigation matters. His scientific background in environmental toxicology, as well as his contacts within California’s state regulatory agencies, make him ideally suited to provide effective and practical solutions to environmental, regulatory and sustainability challenges that his clients confront.

Mike is a former co-chair of the firm’s Energy and Natural Resources Industry Group, and his deep connections within California’s oil and gas industry span over two decades. Oil and gas clients appreciate Mike’s experience as they manage business growth and risks in the challenging regulatory environment in which they operate in California.

Click here for Mike Mills' full bio.

 

Follow:Read more about Mike MillsMichael's Linkedin Profile

On Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 4, three counties in California presented voters with measures to ban hydraulic fracturing and other forms of intensive oil and gas operations.  Voters in Santa Barbara County rejected the measure there, while voters in San Benito and Mendocino Counties approved their respective ballot measures.

Santa Barbara’s Measure P would have banned the use of “high-intensity” oil extraction methods, including fracking, by future oil and gas projects on unincorporated county land.  Measure J, the San Benito County Fracking Ban Initiative, also bans “high-intensity petroleum operations,” which includes fracking, acid well stimulation, and cyclic steam injection.  Additionally, it bans any new gas or oil drilling activity in residential and rural areas in the County.  Measure J passed 57% to 43%.  The Mendocino County Community Bill of Rights Fracking and Water Use Initiative, Measure S, bans “unconventional extraction of hydrocarbons,” including fracking.  The ordinance creates a strict liability scheme for damages to any person or property inside Mendocino County caused by unconventional extraction.  Measure S passed 67% to 33%.Continue Reading Two County Fracking Prohibitions Succeed While One Fails: What the Voting Results in Santa Barbara, San Benito, and Mendocino Counties Mean for the Oil & Gas Industry in California

The California State Bar, Environmental Law Section hosts an annual conference which welcomes attorneys and students from across the state to learn and discuss cutting edge environmental law issues.  This year’s Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite featured an insightful panel on hydraulic fracturing regulation.  The panel, held on Sunday, October 19, was titled “Recent Developments in the Regulation of Fracking at the Federal, State, and Local Level.”  The four panelists each shared their experience and differing viewpoints in relation to their law practice.

Kassie Siegel, Senior Counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, focused on hydraulic fracturing regulation at the federal level.  She noted the lack of meaningful federal regulations and pointed out that fracking is exempt from several federal laws including the Clean Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  Thus, fracking is not highly regulated by federal agencies and currently depends more on state and local oversight.Continue Reading State Bar, Environmental Law Section Presents Update on Fracking Regulations

James Andrew, Assistant Chief Counsel for the California High-Speed Rail Authority (“CHSRA”), spoke Tuesday, October 14, at the Sacramento County Bar Association, Environmental Law Section Luncheon.  He stated that High-Speed Rail (“HSR”) is a “transformative project” in that it will be the largest infrastructure project ever built as one single project.  However, the “regulatory scheme has not caught up with the project.”  Andrew compares HSR to the federal highway system construction in the 1950s, with countless opponents and regulatory hurdles.  Similarly, HSR is being constructed in California in the same manner as the federal highway system:  in the center and branching outward.

To show that HSR can be a success, Andrew explained that HSR is comparable to the Northeast Corridor, a high speed rail system that runs from Washington, D.C. to Boston.  The two regions are similar in terms of distance of rail, population, and complexity of issues.  According to reports, over 11 million people rode the Northeast Corridor during 2012.Continue Reading Update on the California High Speed Rail System

SB 1096 (Jackson), which sought to foreclose the possibility of oil drilling in state waters from wells that could be drilled at Vandenberg Air Force Base, was defeated in the Assembly on Tuesday.  Pursuant to the Legislature’s summary of the bill, the California Coastal Sanctuary Act of 1994 authorizes the California State Lands Commission (SLC)…

SB-1281 faced strong industry opposition due to the bill’s requirement that oil and gas drilling companies use recycled water for new operations during drought emergencies.  Industry representatives have stated that such requirements would violate the California constitution and other laws.  In response, the bill’s author, Senator Fran Pavley, last week agreed to amendments, which removed…

The end of the 2013-2014 legislative session is coming to a close.  Below are key deadlines for the Legislature and Governor:

  • August 15 was the last day for fiscal committees to meet and report bills to the Floor.
  • August 18-31 Floor Session only – no committees, other than conference committees and Rules committee, may meet for any purpose.
  • August 22 is the last day to amend bills on the Floor.
  • August 31 is the last day for each house to pass bills.
  • All bills passed by the Legislature by September 1, 2014 must be signed or vetoed by the Governor on or before September 30, 2014.

Below you will find summaries of each piece of oil and gas-related legislation, with an updated status for each bill. Stoel Rives has a dedicated team of professionals that will continue to track these bills.Continue Reading Updated Status of Oil and Gas-related Bills in California’s Legislature

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) released a report yesterday, July 28, 2014, that presents a need for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) to update the Underground Injection Control class II program (“UIC Program”).  Under the UIC Program, the USEPA oversees and regulates groundwater affected by wells associated with oil and gas production.

The City of Compton is being sued for its ordinance banning hydraulic fracturing, effective on April 22, 2014.  (Western States Petroleum Association v. City of Compton, et al., Case No.BC552272.)   Although Compton is not the first city in the state to enact such a ban, Compton is the first city to be sued over it.  The Western States Petroleum Association (“WSPA”) filed a law suit on Monday, July 21 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  The complaint states that such fracking bans are preempted by state regulation of well stimulation, Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”) and the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources’ (“DOGGR”) regulations.

WSPA alleges several other legal grounds for the ordinance’s invalidity.  The industry group claims that the city failed to give adequate notice of the ordinance, violating state and federal Constitutional due process guarantees.  Additionally, the lack of public debate when passing the ordinance violated the City’s policy powers.  Mineral rights holders were not given a forum for public input.Continue Reading Industry Group Sues Compton for Moratorium on Hydraulic Fracturing

On Friday, July 18, 2014, the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) announced that it will review California’s Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) Program to ensure compliance with the requirements of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“the Act”).  DOGGR has primary authority under the Act to regulate underground injection wells, granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”).  DOGGR will conduct the review in conjunction with the USEPA, and expects the review to be completed in 12-18 months.

Originally enacted in 1974 and amended in 1996, the Act aims “to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply.”  (EPA, Safe Drinking Water Act).  The Act is applicable to well stimulation regulations because it has authority over ground water wells, excluding private wells that serve fewer than 25 people.  Protections are designed to prevent oil and gas production wastewater from being injected into drinking water aquifers.Continue Reading DOGGR to Review Well Stimulation Regulations to Ensure Compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act

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.