BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1902
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 5, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 1902
(Wilk) - As Introduced February 11, 2016
SUBJECT: TIME FOR COMMENCING CIVIL ACTIONS: ALISO CANYON GAS
LEAK
KEY ISSUES:
1)sHOULD THERE BE A SPECIAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING A
CIVIL ACTION BASED UPON EXPOSURE TO SPECIFIED TOXIC HAZARDS AT
ONE SPECIFIC SITE IN CALIFORNIA THAT IS ONE YEAR LONGER THAN
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT APPLIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS BASED
UPON EXPOSURE TO VIRTUALLY ALL OTHER TOXIC HAZARDS everyWHERE
else IN the state of CALIFORNIA?
2)SHOULD THE ABILITY OF PLAINTIFFS TO SUE FOR THEIR INJURIES OR
DEATHS CAUSED BY THE SPECIFIC TOXINS IN THE SPECIFIED AREA BE
LIMITED TO THOSE WITH DOMICILE OR RESIDENCE IN THE AFFECTED
AREA BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2015 AND DECEMBER 31, 2016?
3)SHOULD THE ABILITY OF PLAINTIFFS TO SUE FOR THEIR INJURIES OR
DEATHS CAUSED BY THE SPECIFIC TOXINS IN THE SPECIFIED AREA BE
LIMITED TO THOSE WHO LIVE WITHIN A 12 MILE RADIUS OF THE SITE
WHEN THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DATA SUPPORTING THAT GEOGRAPHIC
AREA AS THE ONE WHICH HAS BEEN OR WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE
AB 1902
Page 2
ALISO CANYON GAS LEAK?
4)IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT CURRENT LAW DOES NOT GIVE
ENOUGH TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE CIVIL ACTIONS AFTER THEY
ARE INJURED BY TOXIC CHEMICALS, MIGHT IT BE PREFERABLE TO
AMEND EXISTING LAW TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TIME FOR ALL
SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFFS IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE MANNER?
SYNOPSIS
This bill, introduced in response to the rupture of the Aliso
Canyon natural gas well adjacent to the upscale San Fernando
Valley community of Porter Ranch detected in October of 2015 and
not sealed until mid-February of 2016, seeks to provide a
special statute of limitations to those residents who have been
injured by the gas leak, or may develop injuries as a result of
the leak in the future. Whereas the statute of limitations on a
civil action generally begins to run at the time when the
injurious act is committed ("after the cause of action shall
have accrued"), for injuries and deaths caused by toxic
chemicals, the statute begins to run at either the time of the
injury, the date when the plaintiff either becomes aware that
his or her injury was caused by a chemical, or the date when the
plaintiff reasonably should have become aware of such causation,
whichever is later. Although the standard statute of
limitations for filing a civil action based upon injuries from
toxic chemicals is two years from the injury or date of
discovery of the connection between the injury and the exposure
to the toxin, this bill seeks to provide a special three-year
statute of limitations for only those persons who lived within a
12-mile radius of the gas leak between January 1, 2015 and
December 31, 2016. According to the author, this bill is
necessary to provide those who were exposed to toxic chemicals
as a result of the gas leak at Aliso Canyon adequate opportunity
to take action in the future if they develop injuries, or die,
AB 1902
Page 3
as a result of the toxins released at Aliso Canyon. However,
the difficulty in identifying injuries and their connection to
certain toxins is not unique to the incident in Aliso Canyon or
the residents of Porter Ranch. It is typical of the type of
injuries caused by exposure - both short and long-term - to
toxic chemicals, regardless of how the exposure occurs or what
the toxic substance happens to be. Given the difficulty that
all persons (including, but not limited to the residents of
Porter Ranch) who are exposed to the toxic chemicals (including,
but not limited to those released and created by the Aliso
Canyon gas leak) face in bringing civil actions based upon their
injuries caused by toxic chemicals, and the fundamental
unfairness of providing a special statute of limitations to only
one group of persons based upon where and when they lived in a
specific area, the Committee may conclude that it is
unreasonable to extend the statute of limitations for plaintiffs
at Porter Ranch without also extending the statute of
limitations applicable to all plaintiffs who are injured by
toxic chemicals. The Committee is unaware of any support for
the bill, which is sponsored by the author. The bill is opposed
by the Civil Justice Association of California, which argues
that it is bad policy for the Legislature to adopt a special
statute of limitations for a single incident such as the gas
leak at Aliso Canyon.
SUMMARY: Extends the period of time for a plaintiff to file a
civil action for injuries, illness or death caused by exposure
to toxic hazards, but only if the plaintiff is exposed to
certain toxic hazards in a specific area of the state.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that in a civil action for injury or illness based
upon exposure to methane, benzene, mercaptan, or any other
hazardous material or toxic substance resulting from the
Southern California Gas Company Aliso Canyon SS-25 gas leak,
the time for commencement of the action shall be no later than
either three years from the following:
AB 1902
Page 4
a) The date of injury;
b) The date the plaintiff was put on inquiry notice, or
through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have
been put on inquiry notice, that an injury was caused or
contributed to by such exposure, whichever occurs later.
2)Provides that in an action for the wrongful death of a
plaintiff's decedent, based upon the above, the time for
commencement of an action shall be no later than one of the
following:
a) Three years from the date of the death of the
plaintiff's decedent;
b) Three years from the first date on which the plaintiff
was put on inquiry notice, or through exercise of
reasonable diligence should have been put on inquiry
notice, that the death was caused or contributed to by such
exposure, whichever occurs later.
3)Provides that for purposes of 1) and 2), above, media reports
regarding the potential exposure to methane, benzene,
mercaptan, or any other hazardous material or toxic substance
resulting from the Southern California Gas Company Aliso
Canyon SS-25 gas leak do not, in and of themselves, constitute
sufficient facts to put a reasonable person on inquiry notice
that the injury or death was caused or contributed to by that
exposure.
4)Limits its provisions to a plaintiff whose domicile or
residence was located within a 12-mile radius of the Southern
California Gas Company's Aliso Canyon SS-25 facility at any
time between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 1902
Page 5
5)Provides, as a general rule, that civil actions can only be
commenced within the periods prescribed in this title, after
the cause of action shall have accrued, unless where, in
special cases, a different limitation is prescribed by
statute. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 312. All further
statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise indicated.)
6)Provides, as an exception to 1), above, that in any civil
action for injury or illness based upon exposure to a
hazardous material or toxic substance, the time for
commencement of the action shall be no later than either two
years from the date of injury, or two years after the
plaintiff becomes aware of, or reasonably should have become
aware of, (1) an injury, (2) the physical cause of the injury,
and (3) sufficient facts to put a reasonable person on inquiry
notice that the injury was caused or contributed to by the
wrongful act of another, whichever occurs later. (Section
340.8 (a).)
7)Provides that in an action for the wrongful death of any
plaintiff's decedent, based upon exposure to a hazardous
material or toxic substance, the time for commencement of an
action shall be no later than either (1) two years from the
date of the death of the plaintiff's decedent, or (2) two
years from the first date on which the plaintiff is aware of,
or reasonably should have become aware of, the physical cause
of the death and sufficient facts to put a reasonable person
on inquiry notice that the death was caused or contributed to
by the wrongful act of another, whichever occurs later.
(Section 340.8 (b).)
8)Provides that a "civil action for injury or illness based upon
exposure to a hazardous material or toxic substance" does not
include an action subject to Section 340.2 or 340.5. (Section
340.8 (c).)
AB 1902
Page 6
9)Provides that in any civil action for injury or illness based
upon exposure to asbestos, the time for the commencement of
the action shall be the later of the following:
a) Within one year after the date the plaintiff first
suffered disability.
b) Within one year after the date the plaintiff either
knew, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence
should have known, that such disability was caused or
contributed to by such exposure. (Section 340.2.)
10)Provides that in an action for injury or death against a
health care provider based upon such person's alleged
professional negligence, the time for the commencement of
action shall be three years after the date of injury or one
year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of
reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury,
whichever occurs first and that the time for commencement of
legal action shall not exceed three years unless tolled for
specified reasons. (Section 340.5.)
11)Specifies that media reports regarding the hazardous material
or toxic substance contamination do not, in and of themselves,
constitute sufficient facts to put a reasonable person on
inquiry notice that the injury or death was caused or
contributed to by the wrongful act of another. (Section 340.8
(c).)
12)Provides that under the "delayed discovery" rule, the statute
of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or
should suspect that his or her injury was caused by
wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to him or
her. (Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 1103.)
AB 1902
Page 7
13)Provides that, in cases involving injuries from toxic
materials, the statute of limitations begins to run when the
plaintiff becomes aware of: (1) an injury, (2) the factual
cause of the injury, and (3) sufficient facts to put the
plaintiff on inquiry notice that the injury derived from the
wrongful act of another. (Clark v. Baxter (2000) 83 Cal. App.
4th 1048.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: A rupture of a natural gas well in the Aliso Canyon
complex owned by the Southern California Gas Company and
adjacent to the upscale San Fernando Valley community of Porter
Ranch was detected in October of 2015. It poured toxic fumes
into the surrounding neighborhoods for months until it was
permanently sealed in mid-February of 2016. According to the
Environmental Defense Fund, 96,000 metric tons of methane, a
powerful climate pollutant, were estimated to have been released
into the atmosphere as a result of the leak, having the same
20-year climate impact as burning nearly a billion gallons of
gasoline.
( https://www.edf.org/climate/aliso-canyon-leak-sheds-light-nation
al-problem .) In the months following detection of the leak,
thousands of residents were relocated to temporary housing.
Many reported health issues such as headaches, nausea,
nosebleeds and dizziness.
At this point, it is difficult to know what are the long-term
effects of the nearly six-month leak on the local environment
and population. According to the Los Angeles Times, county
supervisor Michael D. Antonovich has stated that before moving
back, residents should know whether the methane plumes left any
"residue" outside or in their homes and United States Senator
Barbara Boxer has said the tests should be conducted by a
private organization, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
AB 1902
Page 8
or the South Coast Air Quality Management Disrict.
( http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-porter-canyon-gas-leak-
20160215-story.html ) Researchers at USC intend to study the
long-term health effects of the gas leak on area residents. Ed
Avol, professor of clinical medicine in the Department of
Preventive Medicine of the Keck School of Medicine of USC, who
is an expert on respiratory health and the public health impacts
of air pollution, explained the complexity of the chemical soup
emitted at Aliso Canyon and the complexity of determining the
health effects on residents who were exposed to the chemicals:
Right now, we don't think the methane exposure is as much
an issue as some of the other contaminants and the
potentially toxic chemicals that may come from byproduct
reactions. . . . Methane makes about 90 percent of natural
gas. Methane and other chemicals emitted in natural gas can
react in the open-air environment and create other gases
and chemicals, such as hydrogen sulfide. . . . Methyl
mercaptans and other odor markers can break down to form
other chemicals in the atmosphere. It is these mercaptans
and their possible byproducts that may be a health concern.
. . . [W]e wonder if there are long-term, low-level
effects associated with extended exposure that are not
being followed or being seriously considered. We do not
believe these have been systematically addressed. . . . The
issues we usually consider run the whole gamut from
respiratory to cardiovascular to potentially neurological.
Stress is also a concern. If there is a lot of stress, it
triggers generic inflammation mechanisms in your body,
which may lead to physical biological responses.
Regarding the number of people directly affected by the leak,
Southern California Public Radio (KPCC) reported that nearly
8,000 households were relocated during the gas leak and as of
mid-March of this year, are still living in temporary housing.
AB 1902
Page 9
http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/03/18/58662/porter-ranch-judge-give
s-displaced-one-more-week-o/
Meanwhile, numerous civil actions have been filed by Porter
Ranch residents and property owners against the operator of the
well, Southern California Gas Company, because of personal
injuries and property damage alleged to have been caused by the
gas leak. Given the fact that the long-term effects of the
chemical exposure are largely unknown, residents of Porter Ranch
may not know for years how and if they have been injured by the
gas leak.
Statutes of Limitations for Civil Actions in General and for
Toxic Torts in Particular - Importance of Delayed Discovery
Doctrine. The collective term "statute of limitations" is
commonly applied to a great number of acts that prescribe the
periods beyond which actions may not be brought. (3 Witkin,
Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2012) Actions, sec. 433, p. 432.) The
general purpose is to prevent the assertion of "stale claims."
(Ibid.) In other words, the statute of limitations "requires
diligent prosecution of known claims thereby providing necessary
finality and predictability in legal affairs, and ensuring that
claims will be resolved while the evidence bearing on the issues
is reasonably available and fresh." (Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 329,
336.)
Whereas the statute of limitations on a civil action generally
begins to run at the time when the injurious act is committed
("after the cause of action shall have accrued" (Section 312)),
the statute begins to run, for injuries and deaths caused by
environmental hazards, at either the time of the injury, or the
AB 1902
Page 10
date when the plaintiff either becomes aware of, or the date
when the plaintiff reasonably should have become aware of an
injury that is caused by the toxin, whichever is later.
(Section 340.8 (a).)
SB 331 (Romero, Chap. 873, Stats. of 2013) codified the doctrine
of delayed discovery set forth in Section 340.8, overturning a
court decision, McKelvey v. Boeing North American, Inc. (1999)
74 Cal.App.4th 151, that imputed knowledge of causation of
injuries to plaintiffs who claimed to be injured by toxic
chemicals because of extensive media coverage of the incident
causing the release of chemicals and the toxic nature of the
chemicals that were released. This Committee's analysis
included the following explanation for the need to overturn the
holding of that case:
As proposed to be amended, the bill also provides that
media reports regarding the hazardous material or toxic
substance contamination do not, in and of themselves,
constitute sufficient facts to put a plaintiff on inquiry
notice that the plaintiff's injury or decedent's death was
caused or contributed to by the wrongful act of another.
This provision seeks to limit the recent case . . . in
which the court imputed knowledge to the plaintiffs based
on extensive media coverage, thereby placing them on
inquiry notice sufficient to begin the statute of
limitations running.
Supporters argue that the doctrine of delayed discovery is
critical in hazardous substance exposure cases because in
most cases injuries, illnesses, or deaths caused by
exposure to hazardous substances are not immediately known.
In fact, they argue, exposure to hazardous substances
usually leads to chronic conditions that are often not
AB 1902
Page 11
known until long after the exposure began. The sponsor
contends that the three-part test best protects the public
in toxic tort litigation because it directly addresses the
common scenario of facts gradually accumulating over time
until they reach a sufficient level to put the toxic tort
plaintiff on inquiry notice that the injury derived from a
wrongful act.
Indeed, SB 331 stated the intent of the Legislature in enacting
Section 340.8 was to overturn McKelvey and codify the holding of
two other cases (that established the delayed discovery
doctrine):
It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the rulings
in Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, Norgart
v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, and Clark v. Baxter
HealthCare Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1048, in
subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 340.8 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, as set forth in this measure, and to
disapprove the ruling McKelvey v. Boeing North American,
Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 151, to the extent the ruling in
McKelvey is inconsistent with paragraph (2) of subdivision
(c) of Section 340.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as set
forth in this measure.
Thus, under the delayed discovery doctrine, the statute of
limitations begins to run when "a person becomes aware of facts
which would make a reasonably prudent person suspicious" that
the defendant caused his or her injuries, in which case "he or
she has a duty to investigate further and is charged with
knowledge of matters which would have been revealed by such an
investigation." (Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. (1991) 230
Cal. App. 3d 1125, 1150.) "A patient who actually learns of the
dangerous side effects" of a toxin to which she has been exposed
"ignores her knowledge at her peril, but the law only requires
an investigation when a plaintiff has a reason to investigate."
AB 1902
Page 12
(Nelson v. Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th
1202, 1208.)
Evidence May Not Support a Different Statute of Limitations for
Injuries and Deaths Suffered by Porter Ranch Residents Than For
Other Individuals Injured or Killed by Toxins. According to the
author, this bill is necessary to provide those who were exposed
to toxic chemicals as a result of the gas leak at Aliso Canyon
adequate opportunity to take action in the future if they
develop injuries, or die, in the future.
During public testimony at town hall meetings, residents of
the affected communities have shared that their number one
concern as a result of the gas leak is the potential harm
to their long-term health. Despite claims by state
regulators and SoCal Gas executives, many are skeptical of
their wide-ranging statements that the leak will not have
any long-term health impacts.
This bill would ensure that residents of Porter Ranch and
other affected communities are safe and have an appropriate
amount of time to take action if any unforeseen problems
related to their health arise as a result of the gas leak.
This bill is necessary to protect our communities' health
and rights, and ensure the future well-being of our state.
While it is known that the residents of Porter Ranch were
AB 1902
Page 13
exposed to toxic chemicals, it is unknown what will be the
effect of such exposure on residents, especially on a long-term
basis. As Professor Avol, of the U.S.C. School of Medicine,
points out (above), the "long-term, low-level effects associated
with extended exposure" to the toxins released at Aliso Canyon
have not previously been followed or even seriously considered.
Future injuries could "run the whole gamut from respiratory to
cardiovascular to potentially neurological" and may be
exacerbated by stress. However, such difficulty in identifying
injuries and their connection to certain toxins is not unique to
the incident in Porter Ranch. It is typical of the type of
injuries caused by exposure - both short and long-term - to
toxic chemicals, regardless of how exposure occurs and what the
toxic substance may happen to be.
At some point in the future, when a resident of Porter Ranch
learns the connection between an injury and the gas leak (or
reasonably should make such a connection), the statute of
limitations will begin to run for that particular plaintiff.
Under current law, a plaintiff will have two years after
discovering the connection between the leak and his or her
injury to bring a cause of action against the defendants. This
bill proposes to extend that time period to three years. Given
the difficulty of pursuing all civil actions based upon injuries
caused by toxic substances, if it is reasonable to extend the
statute of limitations for plaintiffs at Porter Ranch, it seems
equally reasonable to extend the statute of limitations for all
plaintiffs who are injured or killed by toxic chemicals.
Evidence May Not Support the Limits on Time and Place Proposed
by this bill. Presumably in an effort to narrow the application
of this bill to just one incident and one area (i.e. only those
residents of Porter Ranch who were affected by the gas leak at
AB 1902
Page 14
the Aliso Canyon facility), this bill limits the application of
its special extended statute of limitations by time (January 1,
2015 to December 31, 2016) and place (within a 12 mile radius of
the Southern California Gas Company's Aliso Canyon facility).
Although well-intentioned, both limitations could be unfair in
practice, to both Porter Ranch residents, and to those who live
elsewhere. First, although the leak was not detected until
October of 2015, it is possible that a leak was present at that
site long before that date. Therefore, a person who lived at
Porter Ranch and was exposed to toxic chemicals by an undetected
leak and then moved away prior to January 1, 2015 would not be
covered by this bill and would be subject to the standard
two-year statute of limitations in Section 340.8. Another
person who moved into the same residence in Porter Ranch on
January 1, 2015 and was sickened by the same chemicals would be
covered by the bill and would be subject to the special
three-year statute of limitations proposed by this bill. This
is not a matter of idle speculation. According to information
provided by the author, Southern California Gas has stated that
it repaired wells from 2008 until 2013 because of "casing
corrosion, or mechanical damage in 15 wells" and admitted that
it detected a leak at the Aliso Canyon facility in 2013.
The same unfair situation could arise in the future for a person
who moves to Porter Ranch after December 31, 2016. It is
possible that either a new leak, or a previously unknown leak
could be discovered in the future. That future resident could
be sickened by the same chemicals that were released in the 2015
leak. But under the provisions of this bill, that future
resident would not be able to take advantage of the three-year
statute of limitations purely because of the fortuity of when he
or she happened to move to Porter Ranch.
AB 1902
Page 15
Likewise, it is also possible that there could be another leak
at another natural gas facility outside the 12-mile radius of
the Aliso Canyon facility in the future. This is also a real,
and not a speculative, concern, given the age of the many gas
storage facilities in Southern California. According to
background materials provided by the author, Southern California
Gas has "52 storage wells in service that are more than 70 years
old. Half of the 229 storage wells are more than 57 years old
as of July 2014." And a recent report by the Public Utilities
Commission found that "only one of the dozen underground gas
storage facilities in California had no leaking gas wells or
fixtures, according to tests required by state regulators in the
wake of a well blowout in Southern California."
( http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gas-leaks-storage-we
lls-20160322-story.html ) If such leaks do occur elsewhere in
the future, unfortunately this bill would not apply to anyone
who lives anywhere other than within a 12 mile radius of the
Aliso Canyon facility.
Given the difficulty that all persons (including, but not
limited to the residents of Porter Ranch) who are exposed to the
toxic chemicals (including, but not limited to those released
and created by the Aliso Canyon gas leak) face in bringing civil
actions based upon injuries caused by toxic chemicals, and the
fundamental unfairness of providing a special statute of
limitations to only one small group of those persons based upon
where and when they lived in a small specified area, the
Committee may conclude that it is unreasonable to extend the
statute of limitations for plaintiffs at Porter Ranch without
extending the statute of limitations for all plaintiffs who are
similarly situated to them. Therefore, the Committee recommends
that, in lieu of creating a new section in the Code of Civil
Procedure with a statute of limitations for certain residents of
Porter Ranch, this bill should amend subdivision (a) of Section
340.8 to extend the statute of limitations for all persons who
are injured or killed by harmful chemicals to bring civil
AB 1902
Page 16
actions for the injuries or deaths caused by those chemicals, as
follows:
340.8 (a) In any civil action for injury or illness based upon
exposure to a hazardous material or toxic substance, the time
for commencement of the action shall be no later than either
two three years from the date of injury, or two three years
after the plaintiff becomes aware of, or reasonably should
have become aware of, (1) an injury, (2) the physical cause of
the injury, and (3) sufficient facts to put a reasonable
person on inquiry notice that the injury was caused or
contributed to by the wrongful act of another, whichever
occurs later.
Arguments in Opposition: The Civil Justice Association of
California writes that it would be bad policy for the
Legislature to adopt a special statute of limitations for a
single incident:
Extending the statute of limitations for injury claims
arising from this single incident is not justified by any
uncertainty over when or whether the incident occurred. The
current two-year statute provides sufficient time to
identify injuries related to this incident and promotes the
timely filing of any actions arising from those injuries.
Extending the statute of limitations for a single event
also sets a dangerous precedent. If the legislature were to
adopt a special filing period for this incident, that would
become the standard for how the body reacts to future
incidents.
Every accident, natural or man-made disaster, product
recall or other source of multiple claims for damages would
AB 1902
Page 17
be a candidate for a special extension of the time for
filing civil actions.
SIMILAR PENDING LEGISLATION. AB 1903 (Wilk) directs the Public
Utilities Commission and the State Department of Public Health
to jointly study the long-term health impacts of the Aliso
Canyon natural gas leak. Pending in the Assembly Utilities and
Commerce Committee.
AB 1904 (Wilk) directs the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment to submit a report to the legislature that assesses
the danger to public health and safety and the environment of
odorants currently used in natural gas storage facilities and
identify potential alternative odorants, effective immediately
(as an urgency measure). AB 1904 is pending in the Assembly
ES&TM Committee.
AB 1905 (Wilk) directs the Natural Resources Agency to conduct
an independent scientific study on natural gas injection and
storage practices and facilities immediately (as an urgency
measure). AB 1905 is pending in the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee.
AB 2748 (Gatto) would create a right of action against Southern
California Gas Company for any person owning real property in
the Porter Ranch area, as defined, on October 23, 2015, who
suffers a diminution in value of that real property resulting
from the leakage of natural gas from the Aliso Canyon Gas
Storage Facility during 2015 and 2016 and would specify that the
cause of action will accrue when the claimant first offers the
property for sale or seeks refinancing of the property. The
bill would specify a mechanism for measuring the diminution in
value. AB 2748 is pending in this Committee.
AB 1902
Page 18
SB 380 (Pavley) places a moratorium on natural gas injections at
the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility and establishes
requirements to resume injections, including each well at the
facility has been evaluated and those posing risk of failure
have been repaired or plugged, to take effect immediately (as an
urgency measure). SB 380 is pending in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
SB 886 (Pavley) requires the Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) to immediately place a moratorium
on natural gas injections at the Aliso Canyon gas storage
facility and prevent use of wells drilled pre-1954 and requires
the PUC to determine the feasibility of eliminating (or
minimizing) the use of the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility, to
take effect immediately (as an urgency measure). SB 886 is
pending in the Senate Natural Resources Committee.
SB 887 (Pavley) requires DOGGR to prescribe standards for
natural gas storage wells and inspect all natural gas storage
wells annually and prescribes other requirements. SB 887 is
pending in the Senate Natural Resources Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
Civil Justice Association of California
AB 1902
Page 19
Analysis Prepared by:Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334