BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 2748 (Gatto)
Version: June 2, 2016
Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Environmental Disaster: Release of Claims: Statute of
Limitations: Attorney Fees
DESCRIPTION
This bill would enact the following with regard to claims
relating to environmental disasters in the Porter Ranch area or
surrounding the Exide Technologies facility in the City of
Vernon:
partial or interim payments or reimbursements, as defined,
would not release any responsible polluter or agent from
liability for a claim, and may not be made on condition of
securing a release of liability, but may be credited against
such liability;
temporary or final settlements made in connection with a claim
would not release liability for any claim unknown at the time
of settlement, or that occurs after settlement, or that is
unrelated to the environmental disaster;
establishes a three year statute of limitation for civil
actions for injury or illness based upon exposure to a
hazardous material or toxic substance, as specified; and
authorizes the court to award attorney fees to a prevailing
plaintiff in any action for private nuisance against an
environmental polluter, as specified.
BACKGROUND
Two sites of significant environmental contamination have
featured repeatedly in the media this year: the release of
natural gas from an underground storage facility in Porter
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageB of?
Ranch, and the environmental impacts related to decades-long
operation of a battery recycling facility in Vernon. The leak
at Porter Ranch, first detected on October 23, 2015, came from
one of 115 wells connected to the fifth largest underground
natural gas storage facility in the United States. Southern
California Gas Company, who owns the facility, made several
attempts to stop the leak, but was unsuccessful in its efforts
until February 18, 2016, by which time almost 100,000 tonnes of
methane had escaped into the atmosphere. Concerns over the
health impacts from the release led to the evacuation of 11,000
residents and a declaration of a state of emergency by Governor
Brown. According to the BBC, "[a]t its peak, the flow doubled
the rate of methane emissions from the entire Los Angeles
basin," and the "impact on the climate is said to be the
equivalent of the annual emissions of half a million cars." The
scale of the leak makes it the largest in U.S. history, and,
according to researchers, "had a far bigger warming effect than
the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010." (Matt McGrath,
California Methane Leak Largest in US History, British
Broadcasting Company (Feb. 26, 2016)
[as of
June 12, 2016].)
The contamination resulting from smelter operations in the City
of Vernon by Exide Technologies, by contrast, continued over a
significantly longer period of time. "Exide melts down more
than 22 million batteries each year, to recycle and reuse the
lead in them. It's run the Vernon facility since 2000, but one
company or another has been doing the same work there for more
than 90 years." (Molly Peterson, Vernon Battery Recycler Exide
Seeks a Second Chance with Toxic Regulators, Southern California
Public Radio (June 3, 2013)
[as of June 12, 2016].) "For
decades, the Department of Toxic Substances Control has allowed
the plant to operate without the full permit required by federal
law. Instead, it has run on interim status, a temporary
designation intended to give companies time to qualify for
permits and meet legal standards for safe handling and disposal
of toxic materials. (Jessica Garrison, et. al., Toxic Waste
Watchdog Can Be Glacially Slow, Los Angeles Times (December 27,
2013)
[as of June 12, 2016].) The South Coast Air
Quality Management District has cited the plant at least 41
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageC of?
times since 2003, often for excessive lead emissions, and the
District reported in March of 2013 that "arsenic emissions from
the plant created an elevated risk of cancer for as many as
110,000 people in an area stretching from Boyle Heights to
Huntington Park." (Id.)
More recently, "[as] demands to close the plant mounted from
community groups and elected officials, the company revealed in
2014 it was under federal criminal investigation," and in March
of 2015, "the company signed an agreement with the U.S.
attorney's office to close [the site] permanently." Under the
terms of that agreement, "Exide and its employees [will] avoid
prosecution for years of environmental crimes, including illegal
storage, disposal and shipment of hazardous waste, while
agreeing to pay $50 million to demolish and clean the plant and
surrounding communities, including $9 million set aside for
removing lead from homes." (Tony Barboza, How a Battery
Recycler Contaminated L.A. Area Homes for Decades, Los Angeles
Times (December 21, 2015)
[as of June 12, 2016].)
This bill would enact specified procedural changes that allow
individuals harmed by these two environmental catastrophes to
seek awards of attorney fees, as well as additional time to
bring civil actions. This bill would also limit the ability of
responsible polluters to limit their civil liability by offering
litigants certain payments in advance of litigation or through
settlement agreements.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law declares anything which is injurious to health,
including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled
substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an
obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with
the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully
obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of
any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or
any public park, square, street, or highway, to be a nuisance.
(Civ. Code Sec. 3479)
Existing law requires an action for assault, battery, or injury
to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful
act or neglect of another to be brought within two years. (Code
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageD of?
Civ. Proc. Sec. 335.1.)
Existing law requires an action for trespass upon or injury to
real property to be brought within three years. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 338.)
Existing law states 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. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 340.8(a).)
Existing law states 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. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
340.8(b).)
This bill would extend to three years the statute of limitation
for an action for injury or illness based upon exposure to a
hazardous material or toxic substance relating to the Porter
Ranch area or contamination surrounding the Exide Technologies
facility in the City of Vernon, as specified.
This bill would extend to three years the statute of limitation
for an action for the wrongful death of any plaintiff's decedent
based upon exposure to a hazardous material or toxic substance
relating to the Porter Ranch area or contamination surrounding
the Exide Technologies facility in the City of Vernon, as
specified.
This bill would specify, for purposes of the above two
provisions, that media reports regarding the hazardous material
or toxic substance contamination do not, in and of themselves,
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageE of?
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.
This bill would state that in any action for private nuisance
against an environmental polluter defendant arising out of an
environmental disaster relating to the Porter Ranch area or
contamination surrounding the Exide Technologies facility in the
City of Vernon, as specified, 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.
This bill would state that a partial or interim payment or
reimbursement of any kind made in connection with an
environmental disaster relating to the Porter Ranch area or
contamination surrounding the Exide Technologies facility in the
City of Vernon, as specified, by the responsible polluter or any
agent or entity related to the responsible polluter to any
recipient:
shall not release the polluter from liability to the recipient
for any claim related to the environmental disaster or for any
future claim by the recipient against the polluter, or for
both current and future claims;
shall not be conditioned upon the recipient's agreement to
release the polluter from liability for any current or future
claim; and
may be credited against the liability of the polluter, agent,
or entity to the recipient for any current or future claim
that is related to the environmental disaster.
This bill would state that a temporary or final settlement of
any kind made in connection with an environmental disaster
relating to the Porter Ranch area or contamination surrounding
the Exide Technologies facility in the City of Vernon, as
specified, by the responsible polluter or any agent or entity
related to the responsible polluter, to any claimant, shall
release the responsible polluter, agent, 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, occurs
subsequent to the settlement, or that is unrelated to the
environmental disaster.
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageF of?
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
Between the devastating Exide battery plant lead contamination
disaster in Boyle Heights and the natural gas leak at the
Aliso Canyon storage field, the last year has shed light on
the lack of sufficient legal remedies to help victims deal
with the ramifications of environmental disasters. In the
case of the Aliso Canyon gas well leak, according to the
Environmental Defense Fund, 96,000 metric tons of methane, a
powerful climate pollutant, is estimated to have been released
into the atmosphere as a result of the leak, having the same
20-year climate impact as burning nearly one billion gallons
of gasoline. 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. Researchers at USC intend to study
the long-term health effects of the gas leak on area
residents, but 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. Other types of environmental disasters
likely bear similar threat to communities and therefore
deserve the same relief.
AB 2748 endeavors to provide victims of environmental
disasters better access to remedies available to them through
our judicial system. This legislation has taken the lessons
learned as a result of these most recent environmental crises
in the state, to provide legal relief to not only those who
have already suffered, but also future victims of serious,
catastrophic pollution. . . . The bill offers three provisions
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageG of?
to provide key protections to those who suffered from the
environmental catastrophes in the Porter Ranch area and
surrounding the Exide Technologies facility in the City of
Vernon:
first, the proposed legislation will ensure that any
temporary or final settlement made in connection with an
environmental disaster shall not release any claim that is
unknown to the claimant at the time of the settlement,
occurs subsequent to the settlement, or that is unrelated
to the environmental disaster;
second, the bill will extend the current statute of
limitations for civil actions for injury or illness or
wrongful death based upon exposure to a hazardous material
or toxic substance to three years; and
third, it will authorize the court to award reasonable
attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff against the
defendant for residents who bring private actions.
1.Extending statutes of limitation
Statutes of limitation are a fundamental element of California
law. By limiting the time period within which a party can bring
a cause of action against another, statutes of limitation
provide finality to disputes that otherwise might never end.
Without statutes of limitation, ancient wrongs committed while
someone was young might become the subject of litigation years
later in their old age. Statutes of limitation "are designed to
promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of
claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been
lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. The
theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to
put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of
limitation and that the right to be free of stale claims in time
comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them." (Order of
R. Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (1944), 321 U.S.
342, 348-349.)
This bill would extend by one year the statute of limitation for
an action alleging injury, illness, or wrongful death, based
upon exposure to a hazardous material or toxic substance
relating to the Porter Ranch area or contamination surrounding
the Exide Technologies facility in the City of Vernon, as
specified. Writing in support, the Consumer Attorneys of
California state:
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageH of?
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 cases, 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 home with instructions 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.
The additional year provided by this bill to bring a claim
against an environmental polluter would potentially allow some
litigants more time to research and substantiate their claim
before proceeding to suit. However, it should be noted that
existing law already allows statutory tolling of claims beyond
two years in cases where a 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, beyond the two
year limitation period. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 340.8.)
2.Awarding attorney fees
This bill would authorize a court to award attorney fees to a
prevailing plaintiff in any action for private nuisance arising
out of an environmental disaster relating to the Porter Ranch
area or contamination surrounding the Exide Technologies
facility in the City of Vernon for which an environmental
polluter has been adjudged civilly liable. Generally in the
United States, the "American rule" is that parties are to bear
their own expenses in civil litigation.<1> In Alyeska Pipeline
Co. v. Wilderness Society (1975) 421 U.S. 240, the United States
---------------------------
<1> Costs of litigation, in contrast, are generally recoverable
by the prevailing party in civil litigation as a matter of
right. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032 states that,
"except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing
party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any
action or proceeding."
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageI of?
Supreme Court held that it was the province of the legislative
branch to craft exceptions to the "American rule," and that
courts were not free to shift such costs absent express
legislative authorization. (Id. at 269-270.) In 1977, the
Legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5,
which appeared to be "in significant measure ? an explicit
reaction to the United States Supreme Court's Alyeska decision."
(Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23
Cal.3d 917, 934.)
Section 1021.5 provides courts with authority to award attorney
fees in actions to enforce important rights in the public
interest that confer a significant benefit on a large class of
persons, and was intended to encourage litigation deemed to be
in the public interest by persons acting as a private attorney
general. This doctrine rests on the recognition that privately
initiated lawsuits are often essential to the effectuation of
public policies embodied in constitutional or statutory
provisions, and that without some mechanism authorizing the
award of attorney fees, private actions to enforce such public
policies would be financially impracticable. As explained
recently by the California Supreme Court, "section 1021.5
[addresses] the problem of affordability of such lawsuits.
Because public interest litigation often yields nonpecuniary and
intangible or widely diffused benefits, and because such
litigation is often complex and therefore expensive, litigants
will be unable either to afford to pay an attorney hourly fee or
to entice an attorney to accept the case with the prospect of
contingency fees, thereby often making public interest
litigation as a practical matter . . . infeasible."
(Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1219
[internal citations and quotation marks omitted].) The standard
set by Section 1021.5 is rigorous and is conditioned upon three
requirements being met: (1) a significant benefit is provided to
the general public; (2) the necessity and financial burden of
private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity
against another public entity, are such as to make the award
appropriate; and (3) such fees should not in the interest of
justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.
The Legislature has created other statutory exceptions to the
"American rule" where awarding attorney fees in private
litigation affecting a narrow class of individuals would
nonetheless advance a policy preference of deterring future
instances of certain unwanted behaviors. For example, the Fair
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageJ of?
Employment and Housing Act authorizes a court to award attorney
fees to a prevailing plaintiff in specified circumstances
involving unlawful employment discrimination. (See Gov. Code
Sec. 12965.) This bill would similarly authorize attorney fee
shifting in specified private nuisance cases based on
individualized environmental harms. Like employment
discrimination, authorizing this remedy against polluters may
dissuade future actors from engaging in similar unwanted
behavior. However, it should be noted that this bill fails to
define with precision which "environmental disasters" relating
to the Porter Ranch area or contamination surrounding the Exide
Technologies facility in the City of Vernon are subject to this
fee shifting provision. The Committee may, therefore, wish to
better identify the class of actions to which this provision
applies in order to avoid additional litigation among parties
over fee awards.
3.Limiting settlement authority
This bill would expressly limit the ability of parties to
release responsible polluters from liability for claims made in
connection with an environmental disaster relating to the Porter
Ranch area or contamination surrounding the Exide Technologies
facility in the City of Vernon in two principal ways. First,
the bill would provide that partial or interim payments or
reimbursements made with respect to an environmental disaster
shall not: (1) release the polluter from liability to the
recipient for any claim related to the environmental disaster or
for any future claim by the recipient against the polluter, or
for both current and future claims; or (2) be conditioned upon
the recipient's agreement to release the polluter from liability
for any current or future claim. This bill would also prohibit
a temporary or final settlement made in connection with an
environmental disaster from releasing any claim that is unknown
to the claimant at the time of the settlement, occurs subsequent
to the settlement, or that is unrelated to the environmental
disaster. A coalition of environmental groups, writing in
support, states:
[c]urrently, polluters that cause environmental disasters can
condition any sort of aid on a waiver of liability for their
harms. This limits the relief of those who have been wronged
at their most desperate hour. When a person is forced out of
their home and has nowhere to turn, it is unconscionable to
condition an offering of shelter by a guilty polluter on a
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageK of?
waiver of the right to sue. This bill does not, however,
limit the ability for parties to reach a final settlement once
a claim is actually brought to court and is consistent with a
preference for settlements being reached where justice is best
served.
Another issue is that final settlements can lead to a waiver
of any future claims that arise from the disaster. Families
should not surrender future claims for unforeseen harms that
arise later when settling current claims. Settling for a harm
to personal property today should not be contingent on waiving
a future claim for health problems a family may discover later
on. This is not reopening claims that have already been
settled, but rather it is not allowing polluters to escape
liability because citizens seek a settlement today, not
contemplating the horrific problems that may arise later.
However, a coalition of business groups, writing in opposition,
states:
Release clauses are one of the primary incentives for
defendants to settle disputes and avoid prolonged, expensive
litigation. Indeed, California law and case law both
recognize the ability for parties to contract to extinguish
claims (See, e.g., Civil Code § 1541). The Civil Code also
states that a general release does not extend to claims which
the person granting the release does not know or suspect to
exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release
(Civil Code § 1542). Notwithstanding this provision, parties
to a dispute are permitted to agree to waive the protections
of Civil Code Section 1542, which must be accompanied by
evidence that the releasing party intended to release unknown
claims. (McCray v. Casual Comer, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1992) 812
F.Supp. 1046). It is critical to preserve litigants' ability
to waive Section 1542 to maximize the potential to settle
potential litigation. Indeed, when a business settles a claim
with a party, the business should have certainty that the same
party will not sue the business the day after a settlement is
reached regarding a claim that could have been raised at the
time of settlement. Yet, AB 2748 would essentially assure
such an outcome, thereby eliminating the incentive to settle.
. . . Parties should be permitted to enter into a mutually
agreeable settlement to avoid prolonged litigation and thus
promote the long-held California policy to encourage
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageL of?
settlement over litigation; however, AB 2748 attempts to
dictate contractual provisions and, in doing so, will
guarantee an influx of litigation.
While existing law does provide that a general release will not
extend to claims not known or suspected to exist at the time of
executing the release, which, if known would materially affect a
settlement, (Civ. Code Sec. 1542.), existing law does not
necessarily protect individuals who knowingly release future or
unknown claims in a state of duress of circumstance that the
author intends to prohibit via this bill.
4.Pending litigation
In the past, this Committee has raised concerns about bills that
interfere with pending litigation. Any such interference could
result in a direct financial windfall to a private party,
prevent a court from deciding an action based upon the laws in
place at the time the cause of action accrued, or create a
situation where the legislative branch is used to circumvent the
discretion and independence of the judicial branch.
The author has informed the Committee that several lawsuits are
currently underway involving the gas release at Porter Ranch and
contamination from the Exide Technologies facility in Vernon.
However, it does not appear that this bill would impact suits
that have already been commenced since its provisions do not
appear to operate retroactively.
"Generally, statutes operate prospectively only." (McClung v.
Employment Dev. Dept. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 467, 475.)
[T]he presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply
rooted in our jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine
centuries older than our Republic. Elementary considerations
of fairness dictate that individuals should have an
opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their
conduct accordingly; settled expectations should not be
lightly disrupted. For that reason, the principle that the
legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under
the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless
and universal appeal. (Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994)
511 U.S. 244, 265 (internal citations omitted).)
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageM of?
"A statute does not operate [retroactively] merely because it is
applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute's
enactment, or upsets expectations based in prior law. Rather,
the court must ask whether the new provision attaches new legal
consequences to events completed before its enactment."
(Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269-70 (internal citations omitted).)
"This is not to say," however, "that a statute may never apply
retroactively." (McClung, 34 Cal.4th at 475.) In California,
"[a] statute's retroactivity is, in the first instance, a policy
determination for the Legislature and one to which courts defer
absent some constitutional objection to retroactivity." (Id.,
at 475.) Under California law, "a statute may be applied
retroactively only if it contains express language of
retroactivity or if other sources provide a clear and
unavoidable implication that the Legislature intended
retroactive application." (Myers v. Philip Morris Companies,
Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828, 844.)
The provisions in this bill, on their face, appear to impact
prospective actions only, and the Committee has received no
indication from the author that any of these provisions are
meant to impact litigation currently underway.
Support : California Coastal Protection Network; California
Labor Federation; California League of Conservation Voters;
Clean Water Action; 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; State Building and
Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO; Sierra Club California;
Trust for Public Land; Wholly H2O
Opposition : American Chemistry Council; California Chamber of
Commerce; California Independent Petroleum Association;
California League of Food Processors; 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
HISTORY
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageN of?
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation :
SB 887 (Pavley, 2016) would provide a framework for reforming
oversight of natural gas storage facilities by, among other
things, mandating minimum standards for gas storage well
inspections, monitoring, and testing; training of personnel;
leak monitoring, planning for emergency response; developing and
incorporating best practices into regulations; and an assessment
of risk to determine setback distances for gas storage wells.
This bill is pending in the Assembly Committee on Natural
Resources.
SB 1304 (Huff, 2016) authorizes the board of supervisors of a
county to provide for reassessment of property destroyed or
damaged by a major misfortune or calamity in an area or region
subsequently proclaimed by the Governor to be in a state of
emergency, and specifies that "damage" includes a diminution in
the value of property as a result of environmental
contamination. This bill is pending in the Assembly Committee
on Revenue and Taxation.
AB 1902 (Wilk, 2016) would establish a 3 year statute of
limitations for commencing a civil action for injury, illness,
or wrongful death based on 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, as specified. This bill is pending in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
AB 1903 (Wilk, 2016) would require the Public Utilities
Commission to authorize a study by the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment of the long-term health impacts of the
significant natural gas leak from the Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility located in the County of Los Angeles that
started on approximately October 23, 2015, as specified. This
bill is pending in the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and
Communications.
AB 1904 (Wilk, 2016) would require the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment to submit a report to the Legislature,
on or before January 1, 2019, that includes an assessment of the
danger of odorants currently used in natural gas storage
facilities in the state to public health and safety and the
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageO of?
environment, and that identifies alternative odorants for
possible use in natural gas storage facilities, as specified.
This bill is pending in the Senate Committee on Rules.
AB 1905 (Wilk, 2016) would require the Secretary of the Natural
Resources Agency, on or before July 1, 2017, to commission an
independent scientific study on natural gas injection and
storage practices and facilities. This bill was held under
submission by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
AB 2153 (Garcia, 2016) would, among other things, require a
manufacturer of lead-acid batteries to remit to the State Board
of Equalization a manufacturer battery fee of $1 for each
lead-acid battery it sells for deposit into the Lead-Acid
Battery Cleanup Fund, as specified, and would provide for
certain credits against liability for a person who remits
manufacturer battery fees if that person is held responsible by
any court, regional board, agency, or any other authority for
certain hazardous substance violations. This bill is pending in
the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.
Prior Legislation :
SB 93 (De Leon, Ch. 9, Stats. 2015) requires the Director of
Finance to transfer up to $176,600,000 as a loan from the
General Fund to the Toxic Substances Control Account for the
Department of Toxic Substances Control to use for activities
related to the lead contamination in the communities surrounding
the Exide Technologies facility in the City of Vernon.
SB 380 (Pavley, Ch. 14, Stats. 2016), among other things,
continues a moratorium on injection of natural gas at the Aliso
Canyon gas storage facility until specified criteria are met,
requires the feasibility of the storage facility to be addressed
and requires the California Public Utilities Commission, with
input from others, to determine the amount of gas necessary at
the facility for safety, regional reliability and to ensure just
and reasonable rates.
AB 118 (Santiago, Ch. 10, Stats. 2016) appropriates $176,600,000
from the Toxic Substances Control Account in the General Fund to
the Department of Toxic Substances Control for activities
related to the cleanup and investigation of lead-contaminated
properties in the communities surrounding the Exide Technologies
facility in the City of Vernon, including job training
AB 2748 (Gatto)
PageP of?
activities, and actions taken to pursue all available remedies
against potentially responsible parties.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 53, Noes 18)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 3)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 30, Noes 32)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 3)
**************