BILL ANALYSIS
SB 605
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 605
AUTHOR: Ashburn
AMENDED: As introduced
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 27, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA):
1) Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare
a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or
environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless
the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various
statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in
the CEQA guidelines). (Public Resources Code 21080 et
seq.).
2) Exempts a project of less than one mile in length within a
public street or highway, or another public right-of-way
(ROW) for the installation of a new pipeline or the
maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning,
relocation, replacement, removal, or demolition of an
existing pipeline. (21080.21).
3) Exempts the inspection, repair, restoration,
reconditioning, relocation, replacement, or removal of an
existing pipeline less than eight miles in length, or any
valve, flange, meter, or other equipment directly attached
to the pipeline if certain conditions are met (e.g.,
"pipeline" is covered under the Elder California Pipeline
Safety Act of 1981, project is not less than eight miles
from any section of pipeline that has been subject to this
exemption in the past 12 months, certain notice is
provided, project is located within an existing
SB 605
Page 2
right-of-way and restored to its condition prior to the
project, notice requirements). (21080.23).
This bill exempts a project of less than eight miles in length
within a public street or highway or another public ROW for
the installation of a new pipeline, or maintenance, repair,
restoration, recondition, relocation, replacement, removal, or
demolition of an existing pipeline that is used to transport
biogas.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "Collection of
Biogas produced at dairy operations is an emerging method
that can reduce dairy emissions of methane, one of the
leading contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions . .
. the resulting usable gas can be transported via pipelines
to commercial natural gas transmission lines where it is
inserted into existing natural gas supplies." The author
asserts that these projects "are often delayed by lengthy
and costly environmental reviews that can threaten the
financial viability of projects to expand the use of this
emerging technology." Although there are CEQA exemptions
for certain pipelines, the author notes that "biogas was
not being transported when the exemptions were put into the
code."
2) Brief background on CEQA . CEQA provides a process for
evaluating the environmental effects of a project, and
includes statutory exemptions, as well as categorical
exemptions in the CEQA guidelines. If a project is not
exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine
whether a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. If the initial study shows that there would
not be a significant effect on the environment, the lead
agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial
study shows that the project may have a significant effect
on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.
Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed
project, identify and analyze each significant
environmental impact expected to result from the proposed
SB 605
Page 3
project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those
impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to
approving any project that has received environmental
review, an agency must make certain findings. If
mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a
project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring
program to ensure compliance with those measures.
If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant
effects in addition to those that would be caused by the
proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure
must be discussed but in less detail than the significant
effects of the proposed project.
3) What about impacts ? There may be significant impacts that
would not be addressed with a SB 605 exemption. For
example, a lengthy pipeline exemption may adversely affect
roads and may cause conflicts with entrances to nearby
homes and businesses. There may also be adverse noise and
air quality impacts for area residents, or sensitive uses
such as schools, senior centers, and hospitals. With a
CEQA exemption, as provided by SB 605, there would be no
consideration of these and other impacts under the Act.
4) Blaming CEQA . It is not unusual for certain interests to
assert that a particular exemption will expedite
construction of a particular type of project and reduce
costs. This, however, frequently overlooks the benefits of
environmental review: to inform decisionmakers and the
public about project impacts, identify ways to avoid or
significantly reduce environmental damage, prevent
environmental damage by requiring feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures, disclose to the public reasons why an
agency approved a project if significant environmental
effects are involved, involve public agencies in the
process, and increase public participation in the
environmental review and the planning processes.
If a project is exempt from CEQA, certain issues should be
addressed. For example:
SB 605
Page 4
How can decisionmakers and the public be aware of
impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives of an
exempt pipeline?
Is it appropriate for the public to live with the
consequences of exempt projects where impacts are not
mitigated and alternatives are not considered regarding
certain matters, such as air quality, water quality,
noise, cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts?
Because adverse project impacts do not disappear when
they are not identified and mitigated with an exemption,
does the exemption result in a direct transfer of
responsibility for mitigating impacts from the developer
to the public ( i.e. , taxpayers) if impacts are ultimately
addressed after completion of the project?
If taxpayers, rather than a developer, are ultimately
responsible for mitigating impacts of an exempt project
after project completion, what assessments or taxes will
be increased to fund mitigation or pay for alternatives
at a later date?
1) SB 605 exemption far broader than that provided under
current law . As noted above, current law exempts
installation of a new pipeline of less than one mile under
certain circumstances (21080.21). The inspection,
maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditions, relocation,
replacement, or removal of an existing pipeline less than
eight miles is also exempt from CEQA under certain
conditions (21080.23).
By adding a new provision to CEQA exempting installation of a
new biogas pipeline, or the maintenance, repair,
restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement,
removal, or demolition of an existing biogas pipeline of
less than eight miles under 21080.21, without exemptions,
SB 605 does not simply add the term "biogas pipeline" to
the 21080.23 eight mile exemption (as noted above, the
21080.23 eight mile exemption has certain conditions,
including a requirement for compliance with the Elder
California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 - which contains
SB 605
Page 5
several pipeline safety requirements).
2) Focusing on biogas pipelines from dairies . To address
concerns of the author and sponsor over biogas from
dairies, current provisions of this bill should be replaced
with the following: a) application of the current
eight-mile pipeline exemption (21080.23) to a biogas
pipeline for biogas from dairies in Fresno, Kern, Kings,
and Tulare counties; b) a definition for biogas; c) a
reference to safety standards needed for a biogas pipeline;
and d) a January 1, 2013, sunset.
SOURCE : Kern County Board of Supervisors
SUPPORT : None on file
OPPOSITION : Avondale and Glen Elder Neighborhood
Association (Sacramento), Defenders of
Wildlife, Sierra Club California