BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session SB 233 (Hertzberg) - Marine resources and preservation ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: April 21, 2015 |Policy Vote: N.R. & W. 6 - 1 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: No | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: May 28, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSPENSE FILE. AS AMENDED. Bill Summary: SB 233 would modify the rigs-to-reefs program by changing the financial incentives for early decommissioning, require that the decision to allow partial decommissioning consider air quality or greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), and designate the State Lands Commission (SLC) as the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. Fiscal Impact (as approved on May 28, 2015): One-time costs in the low to mid tens of thousands of dollars, reimbursable by the project applicant, to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Air Resources Board for new responsibilities in considering a partial decommissioning application. Background: In 2010, the Legislature passed AB 2503 (Perez) Chapter 687, Statutes of 2010, which establishes a process whereby the state may allow the partial decommissioning of offshore oil and gas platforms on a case-by-case basis. Partial decommissioning means removing the top part of the platform while leaving the lower SB 233 (Hertzberg) Page 1 of ? portion behind as an artificial reef. In order to qualify for partial decommissioning, certain conditions must be met including, among other things, that the partial decommissioning results in a net environmental benefit. The criteria to determine the net environmental benefit is to be developed by the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) and is required to consider any impacts to biological resources or water quality, the impacts on fish protection and productivity, and any management requirements of a partially removed structure. In determining the net environmental benefit criteria, OPC is required to consult with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), the SLC, the California Coastal Commission, and the California Ocean Science Trust. DFW is required to develop a management plan for the partially removed structure and to provide an opportunity for public comment on the partial decommissioning plan. Any cost savings to the platform owner by avoiding full decommissioning must be shared with the state. The platform owner/state cost savings split would start at 45/55 for decommissioning applications received before January 1, 2017 and would decrease in five-year increments. Cost shares for decommissionings whose applications were received after 2023 would be 20/80. This declining cost-savings ratio was intended to encourage early decommissionings. The state's portion of the savings is to be divided as follows: 85% to the California Endowment for Marine Preservation to be used to benefit coastal marine resources, 10% to the General Fund, 2% to the Fish and Game Preservation Fund to cover any of DFW's costs under the program, 2% to the Coastal Act Services Fund to support state agency work involving coastal management policies regarding oil and gas development, and 1% to the county immediately adjacent to the location of the decommissioned facility. AB 2503 specified that the Resources Agency should be the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA in a rigs-to-reef project. SB 233 (Hertzberg) Page 2 of ? Proposed Law: This bill would make various changes to the existing rigs-to-reef program. Specifically, this bill would: Change the cost sharing schedule to unspecified date. Require that air quality or GHG emissions be considered in the net benefits evaluation. In development of the net benefit criteria, OPC would be required to also consult with the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The OPC would be authorized to weigh of adverse impacts on air quality and GHG emissions compared to the adverse impacts on biological resources or water quality. Replace the Resources Agency with the SLC as the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. Require that DFW provide an opportunity for public comment on CEQA environmental documents. Specify that an applicant may withdraw its application at any time before final approval and require the DFW return any funds that were provided by the applicant for administrative costs but were not expended. Specify that the environmental review of the proposed project can begin once the applicant provides financial assurances to DFW. Staff Comments: The largest cost, or potential cost, of this bill would be a result of extending the schedule by which cost savings ratios are to decline. Currently the bill has replaced the timing for the owner/state ratio with blanks. Under the current schedule, the first cost ratio decreases in 2017. Given that no entity has provided the upfront funding to start the program (as required by existing law) and that no operator has SB 233 (Hertzberg) Page 3 of ? expressed interest in applying for decommissioning in the short-term, it is highly unlikely that an application will come in time to qualify for the largest owner/state cost savings ratio. Should this bill extend the timeline for the highest owner/state cost savings ratio by replacing the blanks in the bill with dates that are further out than existing law, the bill would effectively be reducing the cost savings that the state would have received without the bill. Cost savings from partial decommissioning are likely to be in the tens of millions of dollars, translating to potential state losses in the millions to the General Fund and several special funds. Under this bill, the ARB would have new responsibilities to consult with the OPC regarding net benefit criteria. ARB would also have costs to the air quality and GHG emissions of a proposed project. The ARB estimates that one PY would be needed if there were 5-6 projects in a year. However, given that there are only 27 platforms to begin with, it seems unlikely at there would be more than one or two applications for decommissioning in any one year. Staff estimates that likely costs to ARB will be approximately $35,000 per application. These costs would be paid for by the project applicant. Replacing the Natural Resources Agency with the SLC as the lead agency under CEQA should not change CEQA costs only who will incur them. The CEQA costs would be paid for by the project applicant. DFW is likely to incur some additional costs to hold the public meetings required by this bill. These costs are currently unknown, but staff estimates that they would likely be in the thousands of dollars. These costs should also be borne by the project applicant. DFW notes that it has significant costs associated with AB 2503 that have yet to be funded. No programmatic activities have begun under AB 2503 because no platform owners have shown interest in decommissioning. Author amendments (as adopted on May 28, 2015): Amend per author to explicitly allow a prospective applicant to provide upfront funding for the startup costs, as determined by DFW. Committee amendments (as adopted on May 28, 2015): Restore SB 233 (Hertzberg) Page 4 of ? current law in respect to the owner/state cost savings schedule. -- END --