BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2748
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 2, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 2748
(Gatto) - As Amended June 1, 2016
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT: TOXIC CHEMICALS: CLAIMS FOR PERONAL INJURY AND DAMAGE
TO PROPERTY
KEY ISSUES:
1)SHOULD STATE LAW PROHIBIT A PAYMENT OR REIMBURSEMENT MADE IN
CONNECTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS AT THE ALISO CANYON
NATURAL GAS WELL OR THE EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES BATTERY PLANT BY
THE RESPONSIBLE POLLUTER BEING CONDITIONED UPON RELEASE OF
THAT POLLUTER FROM CURRENT AND FUTURE LIABILITY TO THE
RECIPIENT OF THE PAYMENT OR REIMBURSEMENT AND MAKE SUCH A
CONDITION IN A CONTRACT UNENFORCEABLE AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC
POLICY?
2)SHOULD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING A CIVIL ACTION
BASED UPON INJURIES FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS AT THE ALISO CANYON
NATURAL GAS WELL OR THE EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES BATTERY PLANT BE
EXTENDED BY ONE YEAR SO THAT A CLAIM MUST BE FILED WITHIN
THREE YEARS OF THE DATE OF INJURY OR DEATH, OR THREE YEARS
FROM THE DATE WHEN THE INJURY OR DEATH IS KNOWN, OR REASONABLY
AB 2748
Page 2
SHOULD BE KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY SUCH EXPOSURE?
3)SHOULD STATE LAW SPECIFY THAT, IN ANY ACTION FOR PRIVATE
NUISANCE AGAINST AN ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTER DEFENDANT ARISING
OUT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS AT THE ALISO CANYON NATURAL GAS
WELL OR THE EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES BATTERY PLANT FOR WHICH THE
DEFENDANT IS ADJUDGED TO BE CIVILLY LIABLE, THE COURT MAY
AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES TO THE PREVAILING PLAINTIFF?
SYNOPSIS
This bill is one of many to be introduced this legislative
session in response to the rupture of the Aliso Canyon natural
gas well adjacent to the upscale San Fernando Valley community
of Porter Ranch that was detected in October of 2015 and not
sealed until mid-February of 2016 and the Exide Technologies
facility located in the City of Vernon, about five miles
southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Recognizing the inherent
difficulty of pursuing legal action in response to environmental
disasters like the one that occurred at Aliso Canyon and Exide,
this bill, as proposed to be amended, provides three remedies
that will assist persons living in Porter Ranch or near Exide
who are injured or killed by toxic chemicals. First, it
provides that a payment or reimbursement made in connection with
one of those two environmental disasters shall not be
conditioned upon the release by the recipient of any claim
unrelated to the environmental disaster or all future claims, or
both. Second, it extends the statute of limitations for a civil
action for injuries and deaths caused by toxic chemicals at
those two facilities. 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
AB 2748
Page 3
reasonably should have become aware of such causation, whichever
is later. This bill seeks to extend the statute of limitations
for filing a civil action based upon injuries from toxic
chemicals at these two facilities to three years of the date
injury or date of discovery of the connection between the injury
and the exposure to the toxin. Third, this bill provides that
in any action for private nuisance against an environmental
polluter defendant arising out of one of these two environmental
disasters for which the defendant has been adjudged civilly
liable, the court, upon motion, may award reasonable attorneys'
fees to a prevailing plaintiff against the defendant. As
currently in print this bill is supported by a large coalition
of labor, environmental, and consumer groups and opposed by a
large coalition of industry and business groups. It is unknown
how and whether the author's proposed amends will affect the
bill's support and opposition.
SUMMARY: Proposes several remedies that will assist persons
living near the Aliso Canyon natural gas well or the Exide
Technologies Plant who are injured or killed by toxic chemicals.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that a temporary or final settlement of any kind made
in connection with the environmental disasters at the Aliso
Canyon natural gas well or the Exide Technologies Plant by the
responsible polluter or any agent or entity related to the
responsible polluter, to any claimant, shall release the
responsible polluter, agent and/or entity from liability to
the claimant only for acts, omissions or injuries that are
believed by the claimant to have occurred prior to the date of
the settlement, and shall not release any claim that is
unknown to the claimant at the time of the settlement or that
occurs subsequent to the settlement, or that is unrelated to
the environmental disaster.
2)Provides that a condition described in 1), above, in a
AB 2748
Page 4
settlement agreement is void and unenforceable as a matter of
public policy.
3)Extends the statute of limitations for filing a civil action
for injury, illness, or death caused by exposure to a
hazardous material or toxic substance in connection with the
environmental disasters at the Aliso Canyon natural gas well
or the Exide Technologies Plant from two years to three years
from the date of injury, illness, or death; or the date when
the plaintiff becomes aware of, or reasonably should have
become aware of sufficient facts to put a reasonable person on
inquiry notice that the injury, illness, or death was caused
or contributed to by the wrongful act of another, whichever
occurs later.
4)Provides that in any action for private nuisance against an
environmental polluter defendant arising out of the
environmental disasters at the Aliso Canyon natural gas well
or the Exide Technologies Plant for which the defendant has
been adjudged civilly liable, the court, upon motion, may
award reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff
against the defendant.
5)Makes legislative findings and declares that a special law is
necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable
within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the
California Constitution to achieve just and efficient results
in civil litigation involving the unique circumstances of
damages resulting from specific environmental disasters within
the state.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that an action for assault, battery, or injury to, or
AB 2748
Page 5
for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or
neglect of another must be brought within two years. (Code of
Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 335.1.)
2)Provides that an action for trespass upon or injury to real
property must be brought within three years. (CCP Section 338
(b).)
3)Provides that when a trespass is of a permanent nature, the
cause of action accrues when the trespass is first committed
and that all damages, past and prospective, are recoverable in
one action, and the entire cause of action accrues when the
injury is suffered or the trespass committed. (Field-Escandon
v. DeMann (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 228, 233.)
4)Specifies that all contracts which have for their object,
directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility
for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property
of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent,
are against the policy of the law. (Civil Code Section 1668.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: Aliso Canyon Gas Leak. 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, are
estimated to have been released into the atmosphere as a result
of the leak, having the same 20-year climate impact as burning
AB 2748
Page 6
nearly one 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 the long-term
effects of the nearly six-month leak on the local environment
and population will be. 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
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.
Professor Ed Avol, professor of clinical medicine in the
Department of Preventive Medicine of the Keck School of Medicine
at USC, an expert on respiratory health and the public health
impacts of air pollution, explained the components of the
chemical soup emitted at Aliso Canyon and the complexity of
determining the health effects of those chemicals on area
residents:
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.
AB 2748
Page 7
. . . [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, 2016, were still living in temporary housing.
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.
Exide Technologies Facility. Exide Technologies is located in
the City of Vernon, about five miles southeast of downtown Los
Angeles. The facility occupies 15 acres in a heavily industrial
region with surrounding residential areas. Facility operations
included recycling lead-bearing scrap materials obtained from
spent lead-acid batteries. This facility operated under an
AB 2748
Page 8
interim status for over 30 years. During that time, inspectors
documented more than 100 violations, including lead and acid
leaks, an overflowing pond of toxic sludge, enormous cracks in
the floor and hazardous levels of lead in the soil outside.
The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) permanently
suspended operations at Exide in 2014 and the facility closed in
2015 after DTSC notified Exide that its application for a new
permit would be denied. The DTSC then ordered Exide to test and
clean up residential properties and conducted its own testing.
The DTSC's analysis indicates that releases from the facility
deposited lead dust across an area of southeast Los Angeles
County, resulting in contamination extending 1.7 miles from the
facility and impacting up to 10,000 properties, including
residences, parks, and schools. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District also cited the facility numerous times, and
reported that arsenic emissions from Exide created an elevated
risk of cancer for as many as 11,000 people in the area
stretching from Boyle Heights to Huntington Park.
In August 2015, the Legislature and the Governor approved $7
million of emergency funding to test up to 1,500 residential
properties, parks, schools, and daycare centers in the
surrounding community; develop a comprehensive cleanup plan; and
begin cleanup of the highest priority sites based on the degree
of lead contamination and other exposure factors. To date, the
DTSC has overseen the sampling of 714 properties and the cleanup
of 208 properties. The DTSC has also established an Advisory
Group of community leaders, local residents, business leaders,
scientists, and elected officials to help guide closure and
cleanup efforts.
Payments From a Polluter do not Release the Polluter From
Liability for Future Claims. Existing law provides that an
AB 2748
Page 9
obligation is extinguished by a release given to the debtor by
the creditor, either with new consideration (if made by oral
agreement), or with or without new consideration (if made in
written agreement). However, a general release does not extend
to claims the creditor does not know or suspect to exist at the
time of executing the release if those claims would have
materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor if
they had been known by the creditor. (Civil Code Section 1542.)
Furthermore, California law prohibits, as "against the policy
of the law," any "contracts which have for their object,
directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility
for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property
of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent."
(Civil Code Section 1668.)
Consistent with Sections 1542 and 1668 of the Civil Code, this
bill proposes to prohibit an environmental polluter from
requiring recipients of short-term reimbursements (such as
payments for expenses such as housing or cleaning) to release a
defendant polluter from current and future claims as a condition
of accepting such payments. It provides that a temporary or
final settlement of any kind made in connection with the
environmental disasters at the Aliso Canyon natural gas well or
the Exide Technologies Plant by the responsible polluter or any
agent or entity related to the responsible polluter, to any
claimant, shall release the responsible polluter, agent and/or
entity from liability to the claimant only for acts, omissions
or injuries that are believed by the claimant to have occurred
prior to the date of the settlement, but shall not release any
claim that is unknown to the claimant at the time of the
settlement or that occurs subsequent to the settlement, or that
is unrelated to the environmental disaster. It also makes
settlements that violate this provision void and unenforceable
as a matter of public policy.
According to the author:
AB 2748
Page 10
AB 2748 will ensure that any payment or reimbursement, made in
connection with an environmental disaster by the responsible
polluter, will not be conditioned upon the release by the
recipient of any claim unrelated to the environmental
disaster.
This will protect victims of environmental disasters when
they're at their most vulnerable. The residents of Porter
Ranch have experienced this firsthand, as many have claimed
that So Cal Gas has conditioned relocation reimbursements upon
the recipient's waiver of all future claims against So Cal
Gas. This is unconscionable. So Cal Gas's
payment/reimbursement of recipients' relocation expenses and
other out-of-pocket expenses do not come close to rectifying
the true harm inflicted upon these residents.
Extended Statute of Limitations for Injuries and Deaths Caused
by These two Disasters. 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)),
AB 2748
Page 11
the statute begins to run, for injuries and deaths caused by
environmental hazards, at either the time of the injury, or the
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.
AB 2748
Page 12
In fact, they argue, exposure to hazardous substances
usually leads to chronic conditions that are often not
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
AB 2748
Page 13
"ignores her knowledge at her peril, but the law only requires
an investigation when a plaintiff has a reason to investigate."
(Nelson v. Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th
1202, 1208.)
While it is known that the residents of Porter Ranch were
exposed to toxic chemicals, it is unknown what the effect of
such exposure, especially on a long-term basis, on residents
will be. 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 or Exide. 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 happens to be. At some point in the future,
when a resident of Porter Ranch or the area around Exide 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. As proposed to be amended, this
bill proposes to extend that time period to three years. Given
the difficulty of pursuing civil actions based upon injuries
caused by toxic substances, it is therefore reasonable to extend
the statute of limitations for the plaintiffs at Porter Ranch
and Exide, as proposed by this bill.
Likewise, according to DTSC, the Exide facility deposited lead
dust across an area of southeast Los Angeles County, resulting
in contamination extending 1.7 miles from the facility and
impacting up to 10,000 properties, including residences, parks,
AB 2748
Page 14
and schools.
As proposed to be amended, the extended statute of limitations
in this bill will go into effect on February 1, 2017, applying
to these two environmental disasters that are valid on that date
and effectively extending the statute of limitations for those
claims by one year.
Attorneys' Fees. Unlike the systems of many other countries,
the "American" rule in litigation provides that each party is
responsible for paying his or her own attorney fees, regardless
of who prevails. "Attorneys' fees authorized by contract,
statute, or law are an item of allowable costs." (7 Witkin,
Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Judgment, sec. 150, p. 684.) Code
of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5 (a)(10) provides that, "The
following items are allowable as costs . . . (10) Attorney's
fees, when authorized by any of the following: (A) Contract; (B)
Statute; (C) Law." Therefore, except as specifically provided
for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of
attorneys is generally left to the agreement of the parties.
There are certain statutory exceptions that permit the
prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred
during the litigation from the losing party. For example,
reasonable attorneys' fees are recoverable by the prevailing
party in a civil action against a public entity where it is
shown that the public entity acted in an "arbitrary and
capricious manner;" (Government Code Section 800 (a)), to the
prevailing party in an action brought under the Fair Employment
and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12965 (b)); or to the
prevailing party in an action for a violation of the Unruh Civil
Rights Act (Civil Code Sections 51.5, 51.6, 52 (a)). Most
similar to this bill, current law authorizes attorneys' fees to
be awarded in an action for property damage arising from a
trespass on land under cultivation or used for raising
livestock. (CCP Section 1021.9.)
AB 2748
Page 15
This bill would authorize the court, in any action for private
nuisance against an environmental polluter defendant arising out
of the two environmental disasters - Aliso Canyon and Exide -
for which the defendant has been adjudged civilly liable, upon
motion, to award reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing
plaintiff against the defendant. Given the similarity between a
claim for property damaged arising from trespass on land under
cultivation (CCP Section 1021.9) and the private nuisance of
toxic chemical pollution on property envisioned by this bill,
allowing the collection of reasonable attorneys' fees in both
situations seems reasonable.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Consumer Attorneys of California
write the following in support of AB 2748:
The devastating Exide battery plant lead contamination
disaster in Boyle Heights and the natural gas leak at South
California Gas Company's Aliso Canyon storage field have
resulted in massive community and environmental impacts in
the last year alone. These disasters have also shed light
on the lack of key environmental and consumer protections
to help victims of these disasters who are now dealing with
the consequences of these environmental disasters. AB 2748
would address this by establishing key consumers
protections for not only these devastated communities, but
for any future large scale environmental catastrophe that
we encounter in the future.
People who live near any environmental disasters may be
aware of the disaster but unaware of the adverse heath
affects for years. Moreover, environmental pollution is
often not known until years later. For example, residents
in the Porter Ranch area or people who live close to the
Exide battery plant may be aware of their illness and not
AB 2748
Page 16
make the link between their illness and the disaster until
years later. AB 2748 would extend the current statute of
limitations to three years. The goal of extending the
statute of limitations is to give victims additional time
to take legal action as they become increasingly aware of
the cause of their adverse health effects. In some case,
proper diagnosis has also proven to be a challenge where
victims may report a non-specific illness to their doctors
but are unaware of the link. For example, in the early
stages of the Porter Ranch disaster, victims would see
their doctors and were sent them home with instructions of
not to worry about their headaches, nosebleeds, nausea, and
labored breathing. In less well publicized cases with
exposure to other hazardous substances, the victims may not
know for some time about a causal link. Giving these
people more time to bring a claim for their harms keeps the
courtroom doors open and the wrongdoers accountable.
SIMILAR RECENT OR PENDING LEGISLATION. AB 118 (Santiago)
provides additional funding from the Toxic Substances Control
Account to test the remaining properties, schools, daycare
centers, and parks in the 1.7 mile radius and remove
contaminated soil at the properties that have the highest lead
levels and greatest potential exposure to residents; provides
resources to expand community engagement in the testing and
cleanup process, enhance coordination and job training for
community residents, and promote the use of local business and
labor for contracting purposes; and appropriates $176.6 million
from the Toxic Substances Control Account to be supported by a
loan from the General Fund. AB 118 was recently signed into
law. (Chapter 10, Statutes of 2016.)
AB 1902 (Wilk) 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 between January 1, 2015 and December
31, 2016 while living within a 12-mile radius of the Aliso
AB 2748
Page 17
Canyon gas leak. AB 1906 died in this Committee on April 5,
2016.
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. AB 1903
was recently approved by the Assembly and is pending referral to
a policy committee in the Senate.
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 on the Assembly
Floor.
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 was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
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 was recently signed into law.
(Chapter 14, Statutes of 2016.)
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
AB 2748
Page 18
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 was
recently approved by the Senate and is pending referral to a
policy committee in the Assembly.
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. SB 887 was
recently approved by the Senate and is pending referral to a
policy committee in the Assembly.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
SUPPORT
California Coastal Protection Network
California Labor Federation
California League of Conservation Voters
Clean Water Action
AB 2748
Page 19
Coalition for Clean Air
Consumer Attorneys of California
Courage Campaign
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Environmental Working Group
Food and Water Watch
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
State Building and Construction Trades Council
Trust for Public Land
Wholly H20
OPPOSITION
AB 2748
Page 20
American Chemistry Council
California Chamber of Commerce
California Independent Petroleum Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Metals Coalition
California Railroad Industry
Chemical Industry Council of California
Civil Justice Association of California
National Federation of Independent Business
Western Plant Health Association
Western Plastics Association
Western States Petroleum Association
AB 2748
Page 21
Analysis Prepared by:Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334