The one remaining bill before the California Legislature this session that would regulate hydraulic fracturing was amended in the Assembly this week. However, the amendment did not simply remove the fracking moratorium, as promised (see June 13, 2013, post), but it also included a provision that would regulate acid well stimulation treatment. The bill, SB 4, defines “acid well stimulation treatment” as treatment that involves the application of acids to a well to stimulate production.
Continue Reading Surviving Fracking Bill Amended to Include Acid Well Stimulation

On Wednesday, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources rejected one of the remaining two bills this session that would have regulated hydraulic fracturing activities. The rejected bill, AB 7, was amended on the floor at the end of May and sent back to the Natural Resources Committee. As amended, AB 7 would have required approval of proposed fracking activities, notice to property owners, regional water quality board approval of the proposed wastewater disposal, and disclosures relating to fracking fluids.
Continue Reading Only One Fracking Bill Survives in the California Legislature

Putting uncertainty to rest for a variety of different stakeholders in California, Southern California Edison (SCE) announced today that the utility will permanently retire the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).  In addition to SCE’s press release, Governor Jerry Brown, California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey, and California Energy Commission Chairman Robert Weisenmiller have issued statements this…

Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and Center for Biological Diversity (Center) filed suit on May 29, 2013 to challenge the constitutionality of a provision of California law that requires appeal directly to the California Supreme Court of any decision on a thermal power plant license by the California Energy Commission.  The Supreme Court has discretion whether to take such appeals.  The lawsuit, filed May 29, 2013 in Alameda Superior Court, alleges that California Public Resources Code section 25531(a) violates article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution, by restricting the judicial forums available to citizens to challenge Energy Commission decisions.  The complaint also alleges that section 25531(b) restricts a court’s ability to review the facts of such challenges, in violation of the separation of powers. 

Section 25531 is part of the Warren-Alquist Act, which governs the Energy Commission and grants the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the permitting of all thermal power plants in California that are 50 MW or larger.  For other electrical generating facilities, such as wind and solar farms and thermal power plants of less than 50 MW, legal challenges to agency decisions are filed in state superior court and go through the normal appeals process.

Plaintiffs have named the State Controller’s Office, as well as the Energy Commission, as defendants.  The complaint requests declaratory relief, that Section 25531(a) violates article VI, section 10 and Section 25531(b) violates the separation of powers doctrine.  Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief, to enjoin the state from expenditure of funds to implement these provisions of the Warren-Alquist Act.Continue Reading New Lawsuit Challenges the California Supreme Court’s Original Jurisdiction over Power Plant Siting Cases

The California State Legislature was busy last week amending and voting on bills relating to hydraulic fracturing, including rejection of a moratorium. The Senate passed SB 4 with Senator Pavley’s announcement that she would remove the fracking moratorium provision to get the bill to the Assembly. With that change, there will be no surviving bills proposing a fracking moratorium this legislative session.
Continue Reading California Legislature Weeds out Fracking Bills and Rejects Moratorium

My colleague, Mike Mills, had the chance to speak with Colin O’Keefe of LXBN TV today regarding several bills currently under consideration by the California legislature that would impose a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing.
Continue Reading California Lawmakers Making a Strong Push to Ban Hydraulic Fracturing

Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality advanced two bills that would increase regulation of hydraulic fracturing. The first of these bills, SB 4, would (1) impose a permit requirement specific to fracking activities and (2) prohibit fracking beginning January 1, 2015, pending the completion of a study on the impact of fracking (see April 11, 2013, post). The second bill, SB 395, would (1) subject the disposal of fracking-related water to underground injection control (UIC) regulations, from which oil and gas operations are currently exempt, and (2) effectively prohibit the disposal of fracking wastewater containing hazardous waste by injection (see April 8, 2013, post).
Continue Reading Senate Committee Also Advances Fracking Bills

On Monday, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources passed three separate bills that separately would each place a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. The next stop for these bills is the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, then the bills may advance to the floor.

Each of the three bills would restrict fracking activities pending a determination of whether and under what conditions fracking may be conducted without risk to human health or the environment. Two of the bills, AB 1301 and AB 1323, would prohibit fracking anywhere in the state. The third bill, AB 649, would only prohibit fracking, as well as the use of clean freshwater for fracking purposes, within a yet to be determined distance of an aquifer.
Continue Reading Assembly Committee Advances Bills to Impose Fracking Moratorium

Less than a month after the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision that BLM failed to fully evaluate the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing operations in granting oil and gas leases (see April 11, 2013, post), the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club have initiated a second lawsuit challenging BLM’s award of oil and gas leases for a much larger area of federal lands in California. The first suit challenged BLM’s issuance of oil and gas leases for approximately 2,700 acres of land. The second suit calls into question federal leases for nearly 18,000 acres of land. Both sets of leases involve California’s Monterey Shale Formation.
Continue Reading Environmental Groups Challenge More BLM Leases Based on District Court’s Finding that BLM Failed to Adequately Consider the Impacts of Fracking

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is facing another legal challenge to its cap and trade program – Morning Star Packing Co. v. California Air Resources Board (Sacramento Superior Court case no. 34-2013-80001464, filed April 16, 2013).  A coalition of twelve companies, trade associations, and individuals filed the new lawsuit on Tuesday, challenging the legality…

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.