BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 4 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 21, 2013 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Mike Gatto, Chair SB 4 (Pavley) - As Amended: August 19, 2013 Policy Committee: Natural Resources Vote: 6-3 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill establishes a comprehensive regulatory program for oil and gas well stimulation treatments (such as fracking and acid injection) including a study, the development of regulations, a permitting process, and public notification and disclosure. FISCAL EFFECT 1)One-time costs of $2 million for Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) initial activities including rulemaking. Ongoing costs of approximately $2 million for DOGGR to provide regulatory oversight. 2)Increased initial costs to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) of $1.87 million and on-going costs of up to $10 million annually for the SWRCB and regional boards to provide groundwater monitoring depending on well activity. 3)Unknown significant costs to the Natural Resources Agency, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct an independent scientific study. 4)Ongoing costs of approximately $2 million for the Air Resources Board to update their regulations and provide associated monitoring. 5)Unknown one-time and ongoing costs for CalRecycle and the Department of Toxic Substance Control likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to consult with DOGGR in regulation development and form multi-agency agreements. SB 4 Page 2 This bill expands DOGGR's existing fee and assessment authority (special fund) to allow revenues to be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for all costs associated with the development and implementation of consultation processes and agreements, well-stimulation treatment, scientific studies and evaluations, inspections, air and water quality sampling, monitoring and testing performed by public entities. COMMENTS 1)Purpose. The intent of this bill is to provide a comprehensive regulatory approach for various well injection activities to protect human health and safety and environmental resources. The author's approach contains the following elements identified by the Natural Resources Defense Council as necessary for any fracking regulations: a) Prior notice of hydraulic fracturing to landowners and residents, and disclosure of the chemicals to be used, at least 30 days before fracking commences. b) Complete disclosure concerning the geological and environmental context of the well; c) Chemical identification of all substances used in fracking, including the Chemical Abstract Service numbers and actual concentrations. d) Disclosure of other important information about the hydraulic fracturing treatment, including the volume, source, and type of the base fluid, the maximum pressure used, a record of all annulus pressures, and the fracture length. e) Information concerning the waste generated, its contents, and the methods of waste storage and disposal; f) Provision of confidential information to state regulators and a process for the public to challenge confidentiality claims; and g) Immediate access for medical professionals and first responders to confidential information in order to diagnose and treat patients. SB 4 Page 3 1)Background. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is one energy production technique used to obtain oil and natural gas in areas where those energy supplies are trapped in rock (i.e. shale) or sand formations. Once an oil or natural gas well is drilled and properly lined with steel casing, fluids are pumped down to an isolated portion of the well at pressures high enough to cause cracks in shale formations below the earth's surface. These cracks or fractures allow oil and natural gas to flow more freely. Often, a propping agent such as sand is pumped into the well to keep fractures open. In many instances, the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing are water-based. There are some formations, however, that are not fractured effectively by water-based fluids because clay or other substances in the rock absorb water. For these formations, complex mixtures with a multitude of chemical additives may be used to thicken or thin the fluids, improve the flow of the fluid, or even kill bacteria that can reduce fracturing performance. 2)Federal Exemption Followed by Fracking Increase. In 2005, Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing (except when involving the injection of diesel fuels) from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. As a result of this action, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) lacks the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing activities that do not use diesel fuel as an additive. Since 2007, shale oil production has increased from about 39 barrels to 217 million barrels and shale gas production increased from 1.6 trillion cubic feet to 7.2 trillion cubic feet. 3)Potential Environmental Risks. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) categorizes the potential environmental risks of fracking into the following categories: a) air quality; b) water quality and quantity; c) land and wildlife. Air quality risks are generally a result of engine exhaust from increased traffic and equipment emissions with a risk of unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment. Water Quality risks result from spills or releases of fracking fluids from tank ruptures, or operational errors or SB 4 Page 4 underground migration. Fracturing chemicals may contaminate surface or groundwater under these conditions. Water is the primary component of fracking fluids. The cumulative effects of using surface water or groundwater should be regulated to prevent significant local effects. With regard to land and wildlife, the GAO raises concerns about vegetation clearing, road construction, pipelines and storage tanks, unintentional oil or toxic chemical spills and the resulting impact on wildlife and habitat 4)DOGGRs Fracking Regulations. DOGGR has the statutory responsibility to regulate fracking, but to date has not done so. In December 2012, DOGGR released a pre-rulemaking discussion draft of fracking regulations to help inform the next regulatory draft. Once released, the proposed regulations will be vetted through a year-long formal rulemaking process. In the meantime, DOGGR is conducting workshops throughout the state. Numerous groups are concerned that fracking activity is continuing absent formally adopted safeguards and regulations. Others are concerned that DOGGR may not be conducting adequate environmental review through the CEQA process to fully determine significant environmental effects. 5)Unresolved Issues. The author, the administration and interested stakeholders are involved in on-going discussions including how best to regulate well stimulation, conduct groundwater monitoring and strengthen the trade secret language. 6)Related Legislation. The following related bills failed passage in the Assembly: a) AB 7 (Wieckowski) fracking disclosure and regulations. b) AB 288 (Levine) well stimulation permits and code update. c) AB 649 (Nazarian) fracking moratorium. d) AB 669 (Stone) wastewater disposal and groundwater monitoring. e) AB 982 (Williams) groundwater monitoring. f) AB 1301 (Bloom) fracking moratorim. SB 4 Page 5 g) AB 1323 (Mitchell) fracking moratorium Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081