BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 438 (Hill) - Earthquake safety: statewide earthquake early
warning program and system
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: August 1, 2016 |Policy Vote: T. & H. 11 - 0, |
| | JUD. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 25, 2016 |Consultant: Mark McKenzie |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
However, it was referred to the Committee pursuant to Senate
Rule 29.10 (d), which only provides the option to (1) hold the
bill, or (2) return the bill as approved by the Committee to the
Senate floor for consideration of the bill as amended in the
Assembly.
Bill
Summary: SB 438 would establish the California Earthquake Early
Warning Advisory Board (Advisory Board) and the California
Earthquake Early Warning Program (EEW Program) within the Office
of Emergency Services (OES), and require OES and the Advisory
Board to develop and submit a business plan for the EEW Program
to the Legislature by February 1, 2018, as specified.
The bill would also delete funding restrictions and conditions
that must be met before OES can take actions to establish a
statewide earthquake early warning system (EEWS), including an
existing prohibition against using the General Fund for that
purpose, as well as a deadline to identify funds by a July 1,
2016 sunset date.
SB 438 (Hill) Page 1 of
?
Fiscal
Impact:
Initial estimated capital costs of approximately $28 million
(General Fund) to establish the EEWS, according to a recent
EEWS Project Implementation Framework report (see staff
comments). The General Fund impacts could be partially
mitigated to the extent funds are identified for EEWS purposes
from other state, local, federal, or private sources. Staff
notes that the 2016-17 Budget includes a one-time General Fund
appropriation of $6.875 million for capital funding for EEWS
purposes.
Ongoing annual administrative costs of approximately $17
million (General Fund) beginning in 2017-18 to operate and
maintain an EEWS, according to the Project Implementation
Framework report (see staff comments). The General Fund
impacts could be partially mitigated to the extent funds are
identified for EEWS purposes from other state, local, federal,
or private sources. Staff notes that the 2016-17 Budget
includes a one-time General Fund appropriation of $3.125
million for state operations related to the development of the
EEWS: $734,000 for 4 PY of staff at OES, $150,000 for a
financial strategy contract, and $2.241 million for public
education and training.
OES indicates costs related to the establishment of the
Advisory Board and development of a business plan would be
minor and absorbable. Staff estimates there could be
significant costs related to ongoing activities of OES and the
Advisory Board beyond the current fiscal year for which
funding has been appropriated, but these costs could be
included in the above estimate of ongoing administrative
costs.
Background: California is the second most seismically active state in the
country, behind Alaska. The Uniform California Earthquake
Rupture Forecast (UCERF) forecasts a 99.7% chance of a magnitude
6.7 or larger earthquake in the state during the next 30 years.
Some countries that experience high seismic activity have
SB 438 (Hill) Page 2 of
?
developed early earthquake warning (EEW) systems. Currently,
Japan is the only country with a nationwide system, while
Turkey, Mexico, Taiwan, and others have implemented local
systems. Generally, these detection systems are based upon the
finding that the first waves emanating from the epicenter of the
earthquake, primary waves (P-waves), cause less damage but
travel faster than the slower and damage-causing secondary waves
(S-waves). This "single-station" approach can be used in
conjunction with a "network approach" that combines signals from
a regional seismic network of sensors that is capable of
characterizing large and complex earthquakes as they evolve.
EEW systems harness the sensor signals and provide a warning to
the public and active users of the system before a shaking
event. Depending on the distance from the epicenter, these
systems can provide advanced warning time ranging from seconds
to minutes, outside a 20-mile "blind zone" near an epicenter.
This would allow for emergency shutdowns of critical
infrastructure, such as trains, utilities, and industrial
processes, and allow the general public to take protective
action.
The California Geological Survey (CGS), within the Department of
Conservation, currently operates over 5,000 seismic instruments
that monitor ground movement around the state through the Strong
Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP). This is the largest
portion of the broader California Integrated Seismic Network
(CISN), which is comprised of 1,900 monitoring sites operated in
partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey, Caltech, and the UC
Berkeley Seismological Lab. Information from these instruments
is used for research and planning purposes, and to produce
"Shakemaps," which inform emergency responders where the worst
shaking occurred within minutes of an earthquake. The U.S.
Geological Survey is currently operating a small warning system
pilot program based on this instrumentation network, and
additional federal and foundation grants have been awarded to
support the development of a local earthquake early warning
system for the Los Angeles and Long Beach areas.
Existing inoperative law requires OES, in collaboration with
specified entities, to develop a comprehensive statewide EEWS
that includes specified features through a public-private
partnership. This provision is only operative if OES identified
funding for the system from non-General Fund sources, including
SB 438 (Hill) Page 3 of
?
federal funds, revenue bonds, local funds, and private funds, by
July 1, 2016. If the funding is not identified by that date,
the requirement to establish an EEWS is repealed.
Proposed Law:
SB 438 would delete restrictions and conditions for funding
and establishing an EEWS, and establish the Advisory Board and
EEW Program within OES. Specifically, this bill would:
Delete provisions indicating that the requirement to establish
the EEWS is inoperative until OES identifies non-General Fund
funding for that purpose.
Delete provisions that prohibit OES from identifying the
General Fund as a funding source for the purpose of
establishing the EEWS.
Delete provisions that limit EEWS funding to federal funds,
revenue bond funds, local funds, and private funds.
Delete provisions that repeal the statute on July 1, 2016 if
non-General Fund funding for the EEWS is not identified by
that date, and delete a requirement for OES to notify the
Secretary of State that funding was not identified by that
date.
Establish the Advisory Board within OES and require the Board
to be composed of the following seven voting members: the
Secretaries, or their designees, of the California Natural
Resource Agency, the California Health and Human Services
Agency, the California Transportation Agency, and the
California Business Consumer Services, and Housing Agency, as
well as appointees by the Assembly, Senate, and Governor, as
specified. The Advisory Board would also include the
Chancellor of the California State University, or a designee,
as a nonvoting member, and may also include the President of
the University of California, or a designee, as a nonvoting
member.
Specify that Advisory Board members serve without
compensation, but authorize reimbursement for actual and
necessary costs to attend board meetings.
Require the Advisory Board to convene periodically and advise
OES on all aspects of the EEW Program, including system
operations, research and development, finance and investment,
and training and education.
Require the Advisory Board to also involve specified entities
SB 438 (Hill) Page 4 of
?
to fulfill certain objectives of the EEW Program, include
public participation, and to consult with program
participants, state entities, private businesses,
postsecondary educational institutions, and subject matter
experts on the development, implementation, and maintenance of
the EEWS.
Require the CISN to be responsible for the generation of an
earthquake early warning alert and related systems operations.
Require the Advisory Board to comply with specified state open
meeting and public records statutes, but prohibit the
disclosure of specified trade secrets of private entities that
are participating in the EEWS or cooperating with the Advisory
Board.
Require OES, in consultation with the Advisory Board, to
develop and submit a business plan for the EEW Program to the
Legislature and the Legislative Analyst's Office by February
1, 2018 that includes the following elements: (1) a funding
plan for the program and estimated costs, including specific
cost estimates for EEW Program components and identification
of specific sources of funding; (2) expected roles and
responsibilities of program participants; (3) expected
schedules for system completion and provision of actual
alerts; and (4) a discussion of reasonably foreseeable EEW
Program risks and plans for managing risk.
Require OES to annually report to the Legislature on any
changes to the initial business plan and an update on progress
of the EEW Program and system implementation, as specified.
Related
Legislation: SB 135 (Padilla), Chap. 342/2013, requires OES to
establish a statewide EEWS, as specified. This requirement is
only operative after OES identifies non-General Fund funding for
the system, and only if it does so by January 1, 2016.
SB 494 (Hill), Chap. 799/2015, established the California
Earthquake Safety Fund to be used for seismic safety and
earthquake-related programs, including the EEWS, and extended
the OES deadline for identifying non-General funds for the
system until July 1, 2016.
AB 1346 (Gray), which is currently pending on the Senate Floor,
SB 438 (Hill) Page 5 of
?
previously included provisions that would have deleted funding
restrictions and conditions that must be met before OES may take
actions to establish an EEWS. These provisions are identical to
those included in SB 438, but they were amended out of the bill
by the author when the bill was approved by this Committee on
August 11, 2016.
Staff
Comments: This bill is intended to establish a governance
structure to coordinate and direct activities related to the
establishment of an EEWS, and eliminate current restrictions on
public funding. OES indicates that the bill will provide an
organizational structure to enhance capabilities for developing
and implementing a comprehensive EEW Program while providing
assurances that are intended to demonstrate a commitment to the
program in order to attract investment from private partners and
other parties.
OES established a working group in 2013 to formally initiate the
EEWS planning process, despite the restrictions in the recently
repealed law that explicitly state that the requirement to
establish an EEWS in consultation with stakeholders is not
operative until OES identifies sufficient funding. The working
group released a "California Earthquake Early Warning System,
Project Implementation Framework" in April of this year. The
Implementation Framework describes how the EEWS could be
implemented for public use by building upon the existing CISN
and ShakeAlert systems, including a five-year implementation
schedule that outlines governance needs, capital and operational
needs, and system deployment and public outreach plans. The
Framework calls for expanding the current sensor network by 646
EEW-capable seismic stations (from the current 469 stations),
improving field telemetry for data communications, constructing
and upgrading central processing and notification centers,
establishing public notification paths, raising awareness
through public education efforts, and building in incremental
performance improvements. The Project Implementation Framework
report also includes a cost estimate that calls for one-time
capital expenditures of $22 million for new and upgraded seismic
stations, GPS equipment, telemetry, microwave nodes, and other
overhead costs, one-time costs of $6 million to develop a public
education and outreach program (including social science, public
SB 438 (Hill) Page 6 of
?
health, and risk communications research), and ongoing personnel
and operating costs of $17 million annually.
While the estimates provided in the Implementation Framework
report may be used as a preliminary assessment of costs to
establish and operate an EEWS, the actual costs to implement and
maintain a system are subject to a number of unknown variables
and risks that could result in higher costs. Previous
estimates, according to CISN documentation, indicate that costs
to establish a robust, fully operational EEW-capable CISN system
in California would be approximately $80 million over five
years, not including costs associated with user implementation,
or ongoing operations and maintenance.
Staff notes that the 2016-17 Budget includes a one-time General
Fund appropriation of $10 million to support the implementation
of the California EEWS. According to the Budget Change Proposal
(BCP) submitted by OES with the Governor's May Revision, $6.875
million will be used for capital costs, including seismic
stations, GPS equipment, telemetry, and microwave nodes, and
$3.125 million will be used for "recurring costs" of $2.241
million for public education and training, $150,000 for a
financial strategy, and $734,000 for 4 permanent PY of OES
staffing (even though the funding is one-time). The BCP cited
the statutory requirement for OES to establish the EEWS as
justification for the funding, but failed to note the following:
(1) that OES is prohibited from identifying the General Fund as
a funding source for purposes of establishing the EEWS; (2) that
the requirement to establish the EEWS is inoperative until OES
identifies sufficient non-General Fund resources for that
purpose; and (3) that the statutory requirement was set to
expire before the budget year began.
OES indicates that costs associated with this bill are minor and
absorbable, but details on that assessment were not available as
of the time of this analysis. It is conceivable that costs to
develop the business plan would be relatively minor because OES
has dedicated resources to the preparation of the Implementation
Framework report, which can be used as a foundation for
developing a more detailed business plan. The costs incurred by
OES to prepare the Implementation Framework report are unknown.
SB 438 (Hill) Page 7 of
?
Staff assumes that OES will need to provide staff support to the
Advisory Board, and will incur costs to reimburse board members
for actual and necessary costs for meeting attendance, to comply
with open meeting laws, and to manage public records requests,
including legal analysis of what constitutes a "trade secret"
that must be redacted or withheld from the public. Initial
administrative costs should be covered by the 2016-17 Budget Act
appropriation, but ongoing costs to support the Advisory Board
and EEW Program are unknown.
Staff notes that the funding restrictions (limiting the EEWS
funding sources to federal funds, revenue bond funds, local
funds, and private funds), as well as the deadline to identify
funds prior to establishing an EEWS (both conditions that this
bill seeks to delete), were amended into SB 135 by this
Committee when it was released from the Suspense File and
approved on May 23, 2013.
-- END --