BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2009-2010 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: AB 2503 HEARING DATE: June 29 2010 AUTHOR: John Perez URGENCY: No VERSION: June 21, 2010 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven & Marie Liu DUAL REFERRAL: Rules FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Ocean resources: artificial reefs. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW California has 27 offshore oil and gas platforms located 1.2 to 10.5 miles off its southern coast. The platforms stand in water depths that range from 35 feet to 1200 feet. Four of the platforms are in state waters and 23 are in federal waters. Several of these platform rigs are expected to be decommissioned in the next decade or two. In California, 6 platforms have already been completely removed. Estimates vary, but oil companies would stand to save substantial sums if they are allowed to leave some or all of the platforms in place. The estimates range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions per platform. Current federal law requires that "decommissioned" oil and gas platforms be removed at the end of production, and the surrounding marine environment be cleaned up and restored to a natural condition. Additionally, existing state and federal offshore oil leases require removal of decommissioned oil platforms after the lease ends. The industry has been trying for several years to change existing law to allow abandonment of offshore platforms in place after production ceases, to avoid the costs for this previously agreed-to remediation. These obligations were known to the oil industry when the platforms were installed. However, both federal regulations and the provisions in state and federal leases allow the federal government to consider and approve alternative decommissioning methods other than complete removal. California has existing statutory authority for an artificial reef program. California's artificial reef program was initiated 1 in 1958 by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) for the purpose of contributing to the development of habitat for nearshore sportfishing. Various experiments were conducted using an assortment of materials, including quarry rock, cars, street cars, and ships. With the exception of the artificial reefs composed from old automobile tires, most of these artificial reefs were considered successes by DFG. The department concluded that artificial reefs aggregated various species of sportfish and contributed to their reproduction. PROPOSED LAW This bill would enact the California Marine Life Legacy Act, authorizing conversion of decommissioned offshore oil platforms or production facilities into artificial reefs under specified conditions. The program would be administered by DFG with specific roles for the State Lands Commission (SLC) and the Ocean Protection Council (OPC). Specifically, this bill would: Make several findings and declarations regarding the benefits and need for an artificial reef research and development program, the cost savings to industry that could be shared with California for the benefit of coastal marine resources, and the importance of establishing a funding mechanism that would dedicate the cost savings to identified public purposes, such as coastal and marine resource conservation through a new endowment created specifically for this purpose. Define several important terms, including: o "Artificial reefs" would mean, in part, objects that create conditions that induce production of marine life. o "Cost savings" would mean the difference between the estimated cost to the operator or owner of complete removal of an offshore oil platform or production facility and the costs incurred by the operator or owner for converting a platform or facility into an artificial reef. Under the bill, 50% of cost savings would be put to a public purpose. Provide that the DFG would serve as the primary authority for managing and operating decommissioned offshore oil platforms. Allow platform owners to voluntary choose to convert an offshore oil platform or production facility into an artificial reef by submitting an application to DFG. The application, which would be developed by DFG, must include a plan for the removal of the relevant portion of the platform and a management plan for the reef that includes provisions for navigational safety. These plans would be advisory to DFG only. 2 Regarding the consideration of an application for conversion, this bill would additionally: Allow DFG to conditionally approve the conversion of an offshore oil platform if all of the following criteria are met: o The conversion is consistent with all applicable state, federal, and international laws and the platform owner obtains all permits from all necessary state and federal agencies; o The conversion would provide a net environmental benefit. This determination will be made by the OPC and would be binding on DFG. To make this determination, the OPC must consider an array of biological and environmental factors and compare these impacts if a platform was fully removed or, alternatively, converted to an artificial reef. Economic considerations may not be considered in making this determination; o The cost savings from the conversion have been determined by the SLC. DFG would be bound by the determination of the SLC; o The platform owner has provided sufficient funding for all the administrative and management actions of state agencies required by this act; o The platform owner has entered into an agreement that would provide indemnification to the state; o The platform owner has obtained all necessary permits and leases; and o If the platform is located in federal waters, DFG agrees to take title to the platform and the conversion acquires the proper federal approvals and permits. Require DFG to additionally take the following actions before granting conditional approval of a conversion: o Submit copies of the application to the OPC and SLC. o Conduct an environmental review of the conversion pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This bill provides that each such application would be subject to individual review, because of the unique circumstances of each rig. The costs of the CEQA review as well as the costs of the OPC and the SLC would be paid by the applicant; o Prepare a plan to manage the platform after conversion. The management plan must include measures to manage fishery and marine life resources at and 3 around the reef, which may include a buffer zone in which fishing or removal of marine life is restricted or prohibited; o When all criteria for additional conditional approval have been met, notify the California Endowment for Marine Preservation and provide public notice and a public hearing in order to provide an opportunity for public comment. Require the platform owner, once conditional approval has been granted, to immediately transmit an amount equal to 50% of the cost savings as follows: 85% would go to the newly established California Endowment for Marine Preservation, 5% would go to the county adjacent to the facility, and 10% would go the state General Fund. DFG may not grant final approval of the conversion until these funds are transferred. Prohibit DFG from taking title to a decommissioned platform until decommissioning and conversion is complete, DFG has approved the conversion, and the state has been properly indemnified. Make several other provisions that subject the environmental review to expedited timelines, when appropriate, provide that a conversion does not count as mitigation for other environmental projects, and address a variety of other administrative matters. Regarding the California Endowment for Marine Preservation, this bill would additionally: Establish the California Endowment for Marine Preservation that would be subject to the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation law and these new related provisions of the Public Resources Code. The endowment shall not be incorporated until the endowment it is notified by DFG that the first application for a platform conversion has been filed. Declare that purpose of the endowment would be to provide a permanent funding source for research and projects that will enhance coastal and marine resources of the state. The endowment would be the entity that holds and invests the cost savings that are contributed pursuant to the new artificial reef program described earlier. Establish the governing body of the endowment as follows: o All 3 voting non-public members of the OPC, o Two public members appointed by the Governor (which may be, but are not required to be, the other two voting members of the OPC), o An expert in marine science, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, o An expert in marine fisheries, appointed by 4 the Senate Committee on Rules, o A member from a nonprofit organization with an emphasis on marine conservation, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, and o A member from a nonprofit organization with an emphasis on marine conservation and sustainable consumptive recreational activities, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules. Set governing board terms to six years; initial appointments would be staggered. Provide other administrative provisions for the endowment. Allow the endowment to fund activities that further the endowment's mission of funding projects that will conserve, protect, restore, and enhance the coastal and marine resources of the state, including: o Projects and programs to enhance habitat for coastal marine life, o Applied research into a variety of coastal and marine fisheries issues, o Programs in open coastal waters that lead to enforcement of laws regulating take of fish species, and o Other activities that are directly related to the conservation of coastal and marine resources of the state, including the watershed and water quality provisions that are authorized in Prop 84 or pursuant to the California Ocean Protection Trust Fund. Require that 90% of the funds received by the endowment under the California Marine Life Legacy Act be invested and managed so that the interest on the investment income provides a source of income in perpetuity. The principal is not to be spent. The remaining 10% of funds received under the Act shall be allocated by the governing board to "qualified state agencies" within 24 months of receipt of the funds (in lieu of being invested). Authorize the endowment to obtain grants from a variety of sources. Require the endowment to develop a business plan, report annually to the Legislature, conduct financial audits of its activities, and conduct its activities subject to the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT The author states, "AB 2503 presents the state with a rare opportunity to generate significant new funds to protect and enhance ocean resources, at no cost to the General Fund or to taxpayers. And it ensures that there will be a net 5 environmental benefit. A growing number of studies, including the recent report by the Ocean Science Trust on alternatives to oil rig decommissioning, confirm that leaving a decommissioned oil rig structure partially in place often creates benefits to fish and other marine life. And the cost savings from leaving a rig partially in place instead of completely removing it can generate large cost savings. Under AB 2503 a significant portion of those cost savings would go to a new endowment established to provide funds in perpetuity that are dedicated to coastal and ocean resource protection." The California Chamber of Commerce, in support of the bill, believes that these converted oil platforms will provide an enhanced marine environment, food, and shelter for a variety of marine species while at the same time providing a cost-effective means of decommissioning oil platforms. The Sportfishing conservancy of California, in support of the bill, states, "?AB 2503 will accelerate the decommissioning of offshore oil rigs, generate hundreds of millions of dollars for ocean and coastal environmental projects and research, and save valuable habitat from destruction." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION The Environmental Defense Center (EDC), expresses appreciation for the author's attempt to address some of their earlier concerns, however they remain in opposition to the bill due to "the need for more scientific analysis and further evaluation of the safety, management and economic ramifications of a state-sponsored rigs-to-reefs program." More specifically, EDC's concerns include: Information regarding environmental impacts, navigational and safety hazards, and the true cost of state management and liability is still lacking. EDC points to a recent Ocean Science Trust report that acknowledges several essential "data gaps." No scientific consensus that oil platforms function to enhance fish resources. EDC references a 2000 study by the University of California that concludes "there is no clear evidence of biological benefit (in the sense of enhancement of regional stocks) of the platforms in their present configuration." Insufficient clarity regarding the application of CEQA to the decision whether to approve a conversion. Decommissioned platforms could be converted to fishing magnets, ultimately leading to a decrease in fsih stocks. EDC contends this has occurred at the converted platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. 6 The state should receive full apportionment of cost savings related to the conversion. The potential conflict of interest for state agencies, that is, the agencies that are considering the application will also be receiving funding from that applicant. DFG is not given full discretion by the bill on when an conversion application should be approved. Concern that the state will not be fully protected from liability. Concern that this bill could incentivize new or expanded offshore drilling because of the cost savings in leaving platforms in place. EDC concludes that, "Despite the efforts to address concerns raised during previous attempts to establish a state rigs-to-reef program, many critical questions remain. Fortunately, no platforms will be ready for decommissioning for several years. We urge the Legislature to refrain from changing existing law without first analyzing all of the potential implications and responding to concerns that have been raised repeatedly over the years." The Sierra Club California states additional concerns regarding: the bill's lack of criteria by which SLC will make cost saving calculations, the need for the "net environmental benefit" criteria to be established early and with a thorough public process, the need for the oil operator to contribute at least 90% of its cost savings, and the significant differences between artificial reefs that were designed, built, and located for their artificial reef potential and "oil rig reefs." COMMENTS 1. The primary question- should the state allow the conversion of decommissioned oil rigs to artificial reefs? Science that supports rig conversion : Several scientific arguments have been offered in support of re-using decommissioned oil platform rigs as artificial reefs. The platforms may provide breeding, rearing and refuge habitat for fish and invertebrates. In California, 32 out of 52 federally managed rockfish species have been documented at the platforms. If the platforms are removed this fish habitat will be lost, and the attached invertebrates will be killed. An estimated 900 tons of invertebrates were destroyed when 2 platforms were removed in 1986, and over 2,000 tons were removed during decommissioning of 4 platforms in 1996. Biological surveys conducted in southern California found that platforms tended to have higher abundances of large fishes, particularly for declining but economically important species, than did most natural reefs. Scientific 7 researchers M.S. Love and D.M. Shroeder concluded that this is likely due to the relatively low fishing effort around many platforms in southern California. Thus, the platforms are acting as de-facto mini-marine protected areas for marine life. These same researchers also found the platforms served as nurseries harboring higher densities of young fish. The platforms occupy a relatively small space and so they contribute relatively little additional habitat. However, their importance as fish nurseries and refuges may be more significant than otherwise suggested by their size, since the off shore position makes them less susceptible to coastal pollution. Another reason given for keeping the rigs in place is the environmental destruction caused by their removal. Removal kills the organisms attached to the platform, and fish are killed by the underwater explosions used to remove the platforms from the sea floor. Alternate, but more expensive, cutting methods may help reduce the loss of fish life compared to the use of explosives. Information from DFG indicates that offshore platforms do support abundant populations of fish and invertebrates, but their actual habitat value and contribution to increased production of marine life is under study. DFG is part of an Inter-agency Decommissioning Working group composed of federal, state and local agencies that have been following this issue for several years. While some earlier studies questioned the contributions of oil platforms to reef habitat in the southern California region, in 2003 the California Artificial Reef Enhancement Program, a non-profit group sponsored by Chevron, published a report which concluded, based on peer-reviewed science, that some platforms may be important to regional fish production. The committee should note that there is by no means a scientific consensus that the conversion of decommissioned platforms to reefs results in a net benefit for the environment, nor is there consensus that partial removal and conversion is a better option than full removal (see next comment). However, this bill would require OPC to evaluate each oil platform proposed for conversion to an artificial reef to determine whether there would be a "net environmental benefit." Recent Ocean Science Trust report does not make recommendations on decommissioning options : Earlier this month, the California Ocean Science Trust released its report titled "Evaluating Alternatives for Decommissioning California's offshore Oil and 8 Gas Platforms," which analyzed several options for decommissioning. The report concluded that the only likely feasible options for decommissioning are full platform removal or partial removal and conversion to an artificial reef. However, the report acknowledged significant data gaps that prevent the full quantification of all potential impacts of both options. While the report offered an analysis and decision framework to allow the implications of the two options to be compared, the report did not offer recommendations on whether complete or partial rig removal is more beneficial. Incomplete past decommissioning efforts in California : Beginning in 1996, California required Chevron to remove four platforms offshore in southern Santa Barbara County. When Chevron removed the four platforms, it left behind piles of debris that, according to the Environmental Defense Center, measure up to 200 feet in diameter and 30 feet in height. The lease required that the company completely clean up any materials and obstructions from the seafloor, and restore the ocean to a natural condition. However, the residual mounds contain varying levels of toxics which are now covered by shells. If the shell mounds are left in place, there will be an ongoing risk that contaminates could leach out of the mounds, potentially resulting in toxicity to or toxic bioaccumulation in marine biota. On the other hand, if the mounds are removed, there will be a range of short-term impacts to water and sediment quality. At present, the California State Lands Commission is reviewing several alternatives to remediate these mounds that will be analyzed in a new, updated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that it hopes will be released this fall. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is concerned that removal of these mounds will create water quality problems. The committee may consider this situation as an illustration that both "complete" removal and partial removal with conversion are complicated and neither illustrate an environmentally foolproof decommissioning option. 2. If the possibility of conversion is desirable,, then there are substantial secondary questions regarding the conditions for approval of a platform conversion: State Liability Issues : Since the state will be acquiring title to the decommissioned oil platforms, and assuming responsibility for long term management, this bill requires the owner or operator of the oil platform to indemnify the state against liability "to the extent permitted by law." The operator would also be required to defend the state against any claims against DFG for any DFG action that is taken pursuant to this act. However, it is unclear how the state will secure such 9 protection, determine the amount of liability coverage that is needed, or what the remedy would be if the security required turns out to be inadequate to cover all the state's future liability costs. The sponsors believe liability risk to the state would be minimal for three reasons: 1) because federal law requires the oil company to continue to assume the ongoing risk for any oil leaks, 2) because federal law provides there is no liability for navigational collisions with structures that are identified on navigational charts, and 3) because diving is considered an inherently dangerous activity to which the assumption of risk doctrine applies. It should be noted this bill does provide that nothing in the Act shall be construed to relieve the owner or operator from continued liability for any oil seepage, or establish any new liability for the state. The bill also requires DFG to consult with the Attorney General's office in preparing and entering into the indemnification agreement. Necessary early activities- and who should pay for them : This bill places significant responsibilities on DFG, OPC, and SLC. In particular, DFG is an agency which has been plagued with budget and staff cuts, in addition to growing statutory and legal obligations. While some of these activities do not have to be conducted until the first application is submitted, some activities, such as DFG's creation of the application, need to be done in advance. There are other activities that arguably also should be done in advance because they are critical to determining the appropriateness and desirability of an oil platform conversion, such as the OPC criteria to determine whether a proposed platform conversion will have a "net benefit to the environment" compared to platform removal. While this bill would require an applicant to pay for all of the agencies' costs for evaluation, review, approval, permitting, management, enforcement, research and monitoring, it is unclear how the agencies could fund the upfront activities needed by this bill. Especially in the case of DFG, it is highly unlikely that the agencies currently have the capacity to fulfill these responsibilities within their existing budgets. A recent legislative proposal has faced a similar quandary. SBx8 34 (Padilla) established a new expedited program for approval and citing of solar energy projects in the desert, and gave the DFG and CEC new fee authority to collect upfront permit application fees to cover program costs. Another possible option might be to consider a one time loan to DFG from another funding source to be repaid from the endowment or with applicant fees. 10 The committee may wish to request that the author consider identifying a method to fund the upfront activities that would be needed by this bill. Additionally, the committee may wish to direct staff to work with the author in identifying which activities required by this bill, such as the criteria development by OPC and SLC, shall be completed before the first application is filed. Application review- which activities come first? DFG, OPC, SLC, and the endowment are all required to take numerous actions once an application is received. This bill specifies some sequencing of activities. For example, the SLC is directed to begin commencing its cost savings determination upon receiving a copy of an application. However, the committee may find that modifying existing and specifying additional activity sequencing may be beneficial to ensure a more thorough application review. Specifically, the committee may wish to specify that the OPC and the SLC should not make determinations regarding net environmental benefit and cost savings until DFG completes the CEQA analysis on the project, as both of these determinations should be influenced by information from that analysis. The committee may wish to direct staff to work with the author to determine appropriate language regarding the sequencing of activities. What is the balance of economic benefits to the operator and the public in a platform conversion? This bill currently requires an oil company to contribute 50% of its cost savings to the state and endowment to be used for public purposes while the other 50% may be retained by the platform owner. Staff is concerned that at the present level of 50 percent, the public will perceive the bill as overly favorable to the platform owners. Although the income to the endowment is speculative, at 50 percent the benefits to the public could be perceived as too few. Staff is cognizant of the fact that the platform owners will be required to honor the indemnification provisions and to fund the administrative costs of state agencies. No formula is magic. The California Council of Land Trusts suggests 85% go to public purposes, the Environmental Defense Center suggests 100%, and the Sierra Club suggests a minimum of 90%, while previous related legislation (SB 1 in 2001) chose 40-70% depending on the platform's location. The committee may wish to find that it is more acceptable to require that 80% of the cost savings be put to public purposes instead of 50%. [See amendment 1] This bill does not address any tax implications for the operator 11 as a result of the conversion. The committee may wish to direct staff to work with the author on developing any provisions to ensure that the operator will not receive any unintended tax benefits. Who should be eligible for the endowment funds that become immediately available? This bill allows 10% of the deposits to the endowment to be used immediately instead of invested. These funds currently can only be allocated to qualified state agencies. This bill does not specify who the "qualified" state agencies are, but presumably they are the agencies that have responsibilities for coastal and ocean protection. The committee may wish to suggest that the bill be amended accordingly. Furthermore, the committee may wish to consider whether it would be beneficial to also allow these non-invested deposits to be used for appropriate projects (i.e. projects consistent with the endowment's purpose), so long as the majority of the non-invested deposits are still allocated to the state agencies. [See amendment 2] Technical and clarification amendments needed : This bill has many cross references and seemingly duplicative provisions. For example, there are numerous separate findings and declarations sections within the Act. Also, the bill states that the endowment fund may be used for ocean related projects. It may be more appropriate to require that this be the use of the fund. Should this bill move forward, the committee may wish to direct staff to continue to work with the author to make clarification and technical amendments that include those listed below. Potential future amendments to the bill : The author has indicated to committee staff that future amendments to this bill are likely as the author continues to work with the opposition regarding their concerns. The committee may wish to ask for the author to commit to bring this bill back to committee if there are substantial amendments and to keep committee staff abreast of all potential changes. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT 1 Page 13, line 19 change 50 percent to 80 percent (or a higher number agreed to by the Committee.) AMENDMENT 2 Page 30, lines 30-34: Amend to read: (2) Ten percent of any funds received by the endowment pursuant to Section 6427.3 of the Fish and Game Code in a calendar year shall be 12 allocated by the endowment board, pursuant to Section 71552, as grants for projects or programs consistent with the purpose of the endowment, within 24 months of receipt of funds. The majority of these funds shall be granted to state agencies engaged in coastal and ocean protection. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS: 1.Page 4, line 34, after "facility", add: "as required by the state or federal lease" 2.Page 9, line 9, add at end: "and as provided in this article." 3.Page 10, line 26, after "agency", add: "and the endowment pursuant to Division 37 of the Public Resources Code" 4.Page 13, line 33, delete (b) and insert (c) 5.Page 13, line 35, delete (a) and insert (b) 6.Page 13, line 36, delete (c) and insert (d) 7.Page 15, line 21, at end, insert "The council may contract or enter in a memorandum of understanding with any other appropriate agency or other party, including an independent expert, to ensure that the net environmental benefit is accurately and reasonably determined." 8.Page 26, delete lines 30-31 9.Page 14, line 29, delete "6428" and insert "6428.1" SUPPORT Sportfishing Conservancy of California California Chamber of Commerce OPPOSITION Environmental Defense Center Sierra Club California 13