BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2559
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2559 (Buchanan)
As Amended April 17, 2012
Majority vote
UTILITIES & COMMERCE 13-0 LOCAL
GOVERNMENT 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bradford, Buchanan, Fong, |Ayes:|Smyth, Alejo, Bradford, |
| |Fuentes, Furutani, | |Campos, Davis, Gordon, |
| |Gorell, Roger Hernández, | |Hueso, Knight, Norby |
| |Huffman, Ma, Nestande, | | |
| |Skinner, Swanson, Valadao | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, | | |
| |Blumenfield, Bradford, | | |
| |Charles Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, | | |
| |Hall, Hill, Lara, | | |
| |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, | | |
| |Solorio, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires California cities and counties to expedite
permitting for pipeline integrity management projects.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to
ensure that a city, county, or city and county is provided
notice by a gas corporation whenever pipeline inspection,
remediation, or replacement work within the city, county, or
city and county, and the work is likely to require action by
the city, county, or city and county to approve or facilitate
the work.
2)Requires that the city, county, or city and county provided
with notice will expedite any permitting or other actions
necessary to complete any pipeline inspection, remediation, or
replacement work within the city, county, or city and county.
AB 2559
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Exempts pipeline projects from the requirements of the
California Environmental Policy Act if:
a) They are: "?less than one mile in length within a
public street or highway or any other public right-of-way
for the installation of a new pipeline or the maintenance,
repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation,
replacement, removal, or demolition of an existing
pipeline." For purposes of this section, "pipeline"
includes subsurface facilities but does not include any
surface facility related to the operation of the
underground facility.
b) They involve "?the operation, repair, maintenance,
permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of
ÝExisting facilities of both investor and publicly-owned
utilities used to provide ? natural gas?], involving
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at
the time of the lead agency's determination?. consist of
replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems
and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of
capacity where the new structure will be located on the
same site as the structure replaced and will have
substantially the same purpose and capacity as the
structure replaced."
2)Prohibits a local agency from charging permit and similar fees
in excess of the estimated reasonable costs of providing the
services rendered unless the amounts of the fees are approved
by the electorate.
FISCAL EFFECT : Minor absorbable cost for PUC to issue the
required order to gas corporations regarding notification to
local entities concerning gas pipeline projects. Expediting
permits for gas pipeline projects may require local agencies to
adjust workload. Nevertheless, any additional costs to local
agencies for this work are recoverable through permit fees.
There will be, however, likely minor reimbursable costs
associated with providing written notification to utility
companies if a permit cannot be processed within 10 business
days.
AB 2559
Page 3
COMMENTS : The author states that "AB 2559 provides the state's
gas utilities expedited local permitting for pipeline
inspection, remediation and replacement work undertaken pursuant
to pipeline integrity management. This bill results from a
recommendation by the Independent Review Panel established by
the PUC in the wake of the San Bruno tragedy. One of the
Panel's recommendations encourages the Legislature to enact
legislation that would provide the state's gas utilities with
the right to expedited permitting by counties and municipalities
for pipeline inspection, remediation and replacement that
results from a utility's pipeline integrity management plan.
These pipeline integrity management plans are currently required
of operators of gas transmission pipelines in order for the
utilities to assess and address potential problems with their
pipelines. The state's main gas operators have submitted
Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plans that propose a combined 815
miles of pressure testing and 391 miles of pipe replacement for
2012-2014 alone. It is vital that the state's gas operators
have all the tools available to them so that the safety work can
be completed expeditiously and on schedule. AB 2559 will help
facilitate this by providing gas utilities with expedited
permitting by counties and municipalities for the operators'
pipeline inspection, remediation and replacement work. Codifying
this requirement of expedited permitting for pipeline integrity
management work will help speed up critical safety work, better
ensure public safety across California and put the public at
ease that all needed maintenance has been completed."
The PUC formed its own review panel based on authority it cited
in its resolution to "do all things, whether specifically
designated in ... Ýthe Public Utilities Code] or in addition
thereto, which are necessary and convenient" to our regulation
of public utilities, including, though not limited to, adopting
necessary rules and requirements in furtherance of our
constitutional and statutory duties to regulate and oversee
public utilities operating in California. " The Independent
Review Panel recommended that the PUC "Request the California
General Assembly enact legislation that would provide the
state's gas utilities with the right to expedited permitting by
counties and municipalities for pipeline inspection, remediation
and replacement work undertaken pursuant to pipeline integrity
management."
AB 2559
Page 4
Gas corporations have experienced permitting requirements by
local governments that appear to go beyond work related to
pipeline integrity management. Examples include unusually high
permitting fees or additional requirements, such as resurfacing
roads well beyond the area where the work is to be performed.
Ratepayers pay to make repairs and maintain utility
infrastructure. Additional costs caused by permitting delays,
and unusually high fees, impact the rates that utility customers
pay.
Local building and planning departments vary widely in resources
to review, issue, make a determination, and inspect construction
projects. In larger communities, there may be multiple plan
checkers and inspectors while in others there may be a single
person who works as both plan checker and inspector.
Analysis Prepared by : Susan Kateley / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083
FN: 0003590