On Wednesday and Thursday this week, the California Senate and Assembly approved Assembly Bill 91 (“AB 91”) and Assembly Bill 92 (“AB 92”), both which are part of the Budget Act of 2015.  The legislation allocates $1 billion for emergency response to the state’s ongoing drought.  The drought is in its fourth year and Governor…

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Michigan v. EPA, a Clean Air Act case involving hazardous air pollutant regulations, with implications for fossil fuel-fired power plant owners and operators in California and across the country.  Below you’ll find guest blogger Tom Wood‘s insight into the case and the arguments:

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from a large group of states challenging EPA’s approach in developing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule. The MATS rule imposes stringent hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards on coal-fired and oil-fired power plants. The rule is expected to cost the industry nearly $10 billion per year to comply. 21 states and a variety of impacted industries argued to the court that EPA had not appropriately accounted for cost in determining whether to regulate hazardous air pollutants from these power plants.

In considering the Supreme Court case, it is important to understand that Congress established a different regulatory approach for power plants than for other industries. EPA regulates HAPs emitted from other industries by determining Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and requiring that it be implemented within a relatively short time frame (typically 3 years). After MACT is established, EPA is supposed to perform a residual risk determination and consider whether the risk after implementing MACT justifies additional requirements.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard

On Tuesday, March 10, California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Matthew Rodriquez and California Natural Resources Agency (“CNRA”) Secretary John Laird testified before a joint State Senate committee hearing.  At the hearing before the Natural Resources & Water Committee and the Environmental Quality Committee, Rodriguez and Laird confirmed that there has been no drinking water contamination due to oil and gas disposal well injection.  This finding is reiterated in a memo from the California EPA: “To date, preliminary water sampling of select, high-risk groundwater supply wells has not detected any contamination from oil production wastewater.”  (Memo from Cal. EPA, at p. 1 (Mar. 2, 2015).)

DOGGR and USEPA Correspondence

On Monday, March 9, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) sent a letter to California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) approving DOGGR’s plan to regulate Class II underground injection control (“UIC”) wells.  The USEPA’s letter responds to DOGGR’s letter to the USEPA which presented California’s plan to revamp its regulatory scheme for Class II UIC wells in order to come into compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”).  The USEPA stated that they are “pleased that you [California] have initiated action to implement the plan.”  (USEPA Letter to DOGGR, at p. 1 (Mar. 9, 2015).)Continue Reading Regulators Confirm: No Drinking Water Contamination from Oil & Gas Disposal Wells

On Tuesday, March 17, Monterey County’s Board of Supervisors voted against a temporary ban on hydraulic fracturing.  In the 3-2 vote, the majority of Supervisors stated that there is “no evidence of an immediate threat to public health” and no pressing need to regulate fracking on the local level.  There are currently no oil…

The High-Speed Rail Authority (“HSRA”) issued a progress report for the High-Speed Rail Project (the “Project”) last week, describing the HSRA’s challenges and successes to date.

One of the highlights of the report was the HSRA’s January groundbreaking in Fresno for the first segment of the Project’s 520-mile route. The report also discusses the progress…

On Tuesday, March 3, twelve underground injection control (“UIC”) wells in California’s Central Valley, specifically in Kern County, were shut down in order to protect subsurface drinking water from potential contamination.  These shut-ins occurred just one day after a letter from Matthew Rodriquez, Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, to the Governor was published,…

On Friday, February 27, 2015, Citadel Exploration, Inc. (“Citadel”) filed suit against San Benito County in the County’s Superior Court, arguing that state law preempts Measure J, a county ordinance that prohibits hydraulic fracturing.  Hydraulic fracturing, included in the definition of well stimulation treatment, is being regulated by California’s Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”). …

February 27, 2015 was the deadline for lawmakers to introduce legislation to the 2015-2016 California Legislative Session and several bills related to oil and gas activities were introduced.  Below is a summary of those bills. Stoel Rives is monitoring these bills and will provide periodic updates as the bills move through the legislative process.

SENATE BILLS

SB-13 (Pavley):  Groundwater

This bill would specify that the State Water Resources Control Board is authorized to designate a high- or medium-priority basin as a probationary basin. This bill would provide a local agency or groundwater sustainability agency 90 or 180 days, as prescribed, to remedy certain deficiencies that caused the board to designate the basin as a probationary basin. This bill would authorize the State Water Resources Control Board to develop an interim plan for certain probationary basins one year after the designation of the basin as a probationary basin.Continue Reading Status of Oil and Gas-related Bills Proposed in California’s 2015-2016 Legislative Session

California Assemblymember Das Williams (D-Carpinteria) has introduced an oil and gas bill to ensure that the state comes into compliance with the Class II underground injection (“UIC”) requirements under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”).  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”), California is currently out of compliance with certain requirements for some Class II injection wells (oil and gas wastewater disposal wells) because fluid from these wells is being injected into non-exempt aquifers, which is prohibited.  Assembly Bill 356 (“AB 356”) was introduced on February 17, 2015 following publication of a letter from the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) to the USEPA addressing California’s Class II UIC program.

The bill authorizes the DOGGR Supervisor to require operators to implement a groundwater monitoring program for underground oil production tanks, facilities, and disposal and injection wells.  In addition, AB 356 would require operators to submit this monitoring plan, with a schedule for monitoring and reporting groundwater quality data, to the local regional water quality control board.  Data would then be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board for inclusion in the geotracker database.  The purpose of the bill is to protect underground drinking water sources from potential  contamination arising from oil and gas operations.Continue Reading Proposed Assembly Bill 356 Would Require Additional Groundwater Monitoring by Oil & Gas Operators

On Thursday, Feb. 19, the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) filed suit against the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”), and the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. (CBD v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01189.) The complaint alleges that the federal agencies issued permits for drilling off the coast of California without adequate environmental review. Specifically, CBD claims that the federal government violated the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act “without analyzing fracking pollution’s threats to ocean ecosystems, coastal communities and marine wildlife, including sea otters, fish, sea turtles and whales.” (CBD Press Release, Feb. 19, 2015.)
Continue Reading Center for Biological Diversity Files Complaint Against Federal Agencies to Halt Offshore Fracking in California

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.