BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó

                                                                  SB 135
                                                                  Page  1

          SB 135 (Padilla)
          As Amended  September 3, 2013
          Majority vote 

           SENATE VOTE  :39-0  
          |Ayes:|Hall, Nestande, Bigelow,  |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow,   |
          |     |Campos, Chesbro, Cooley,  |     |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian  |
          |     |Gray, Hagman, Roger       |     |Calderon, Campos,         |
          |     |Hernández, Jones-Sawyer,  |     |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez,  |
          |     |Levine, Medina, V. Manuel |     |Hall, Holden, Linder,     |
          |     |Pérez, Salas, Waldron     |     |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           SUMMARY  :  Requires the Office of Emergency Services (OES), in  
          collaboration with various entities, to develop a comprehensive  
          statewide earthquake early warning system in California.   
          Specifically,  this bill  :   

          1)Requires OES, in collaboration with the California Institute  
            of Technology (Caltech), the California Geological Survey, the  
            University of California, the United States Geological Survey,  
            the Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission and other  
            stakeholders, to develop a comprehensive statewide earthquake  
            early warning system in California through a public-private  
            partnership, which shall include:

             a)   Installation of field sensors.

             b)   Improvement of field telemetry.

             c)   Construction and testing of central processing and  
               notification centers.

             d)   Establishment of warning notification distribution paths  
               to the public.

             e)   Integration of earthquake early warning education with  
               general earthquake preparedness efforts.


                                                                  SB 135
                                                                  Page  2

          2)Requires OES, in consultation with stakeholders to develop an  
            approval mechanism to review compliance with earthquake early  
            warning standards as they are developed. 

          3)Requires that the development of the approval mechanism shall  
            include input from a broad representation of earthquake early  
            warning stakeholders.  The approval mechanism shall accomplish  
            all of the following:

             a)   Ensure the standards are appropriate.

             b)   Determine the degree to which the standards apply to  
               providers and components of the system.

             c)   Determine methods to ensure compliance with the  

             d)   Determine requirements for participation in the system.

          4)Requires OES to identify funding for the system through single  
            or multiple sources of revenue that shall be limited to  
            federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, local funds, and  
            private grants.

          5)Specifies that OES shall not identify as a funding source any  
            state funds or expend state funds for the purpose of  
            establishing the statewide earthquake early warning system.

          6)Specifies that the earthquake early warning system shall not  
            become operative until OES identifies funding for the system.

          7)Specifies that if funding is not identified by January 1,  
            2016, the provisions of this bill shall be repealed. 

          8)Requires OES to file with the Secretary of State its  
            determination that funding was not identified by January 1,  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Assembly Appropriations  

          1)The development of an early warning system could cost up to  
            $100 million over approximately five years.


                                                                  SB 135
                                                                  Page  3

          2)On-going workload costs to maintain and oversee the system are  
            unknown but could exceed $15 million per year.

          3)This bill requires OES to identify funding for the system and  
            prohibits the use of General Fund (GF) or any other state fund  

           COMMENTS  :   

           Purpose of the bill  :  According to the author, while earthquakes  
          cannot be predicted or prevented, using advanced science and  
          technology we can detect seismic activity to provide an advanced  
          warning, save lives and help mitigate damage.

          The author further states, that the objective of earthquake  
          early warning is to rapidly detect the initiation of an  
          earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking to be expected,  
          and issue a warning before significant ground shaking begins.    
          The warnings allow people to take cover, assist loved ones, pull  
          to the side of the road or exit a building.  Earthquake early  
          warning systems not only alert the public, they also speed the  
          response of police, fire and other safety personnel by quickly  
          identifying areas hardest hit by the quake.

           Background  :  California is a hotbed for earthquake activity.   
          Ninety percent of the world's earthquakes and over 80% of the  
          world's largest earthquakes occur along the Circum-Pacific Belt,  
          also known as the Pacific Ring of Fire for its ever present  
          earthquake activity.  The Pacific Rim of fire includes the very  
          active San Andreas fault zone in California.  

          Predictions from the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture  
          Forecast released in 2008 found that there is a 99.7% likelihood  
          of a magnitude 6.7 earthquake and a 94% chance of a 7.0  
          magnitude earthquake in California within the next 30 years.  

          In January 2013, the California Institute of Technology and the  
          Japan Agency for Marine Earth Science and Technology published a  
          study concluding for the first time that a statewide California  
          earthquake involving both the Los Angeles and San Francisco  
          metropolitan areas may be possible.

          While earthquakes cannot be predicted or prevented, using  
          advanced science and technology has in the past detected seismic  


                                                                  SB 135
                                                                  Page  4

          activity and provided advanced warning.  The objective of  
          earthquake early warning is to rapidly detect the initiation of  
          an earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking to be  
          expected, issue a warning before significant ground shaking  
          begins, and estimate the location and the magnitude of the  
          earthquake.  This is then used to estimate the anticipated  
          ground shaking across the region to be effected. 

          The system would effectively detect the strength and progression  
          of earthquakes, alert the public within seconds and provide up  
          to 60 seconds advanced warning. 

           Earthquake Early Warning Systems  :  When an earthquake occurs  
          seismic waves radiate from the epicenter like waves on a pond -  
          it is these waves we feel as earthquake shaking which causes  
          damage to structures.  The technology exists to detect moderate  
          to large earthquakes so quickly that a warning can be sent to  
          locations outside the area where the earthquake begins before  
          these destructive waves arrive.  The amount of warning time at a  
          particular location depends on the distance from the earthquake  
          epicenter.  Locations very close to the earthquake epicenter  
          will receive relatively little or no warning whereas locations  
          far removed from the earthquake epicenter would receive more  
          warning time but may not experience damaging shaking.  For those  
          locations in between, the warning time could range from seconds  
          to minutes. 

          The network approach utilizes many seismic sensors that are  
          distributed across a wide area where earthquakes are likely to  
          occur.  This network of sensors sends data to a central site  
          where ground motion signals are analyzed, earthquakes are  
          detected and warnings are issued.  The network approach is  
          considered to be slower, but more reliable than the on-site  
          approach.  This is because it uses information from many  
          stations to confirm that the ground motion detected is actually  
          from an earthquake and not from some other source of vibration.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Felipe Lopez / G. O. / (916) 319-2531 

                                                                FN: 0002192


                                                                  SB 135
                                                                  Page  5