BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 135
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 135 (Padilla)
As Amended September 6, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 15-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|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
standards.
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,
2016.
9)Makes various legislative findings.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
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 or any other state fund
source.
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: 0002575
SB 135
Page 5