BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 376
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 4, 2010

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                   SB 376 (Simitian) - As Amended:  August 2, 2010 

          Policy Committee:                              Utilities and  
          Commerce     Vote:                            9-3
                        Natural Resources                     6-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

          SUMMARY  

          This bill requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to  
          undertake several tasks regarding the development of liquefied  
          natural gas (LNG) terminals in California. Specifically, this  
          bill:

          1)Requires the CEC to conduct a study, as specified, of the need  
            for LNG imports to meet the state's energy demand, as a  
            component of the biennial Integrated Energy Policy Report  
            (IEPR).

          2)Requires the CEC to update the above study at least 60 days  
            prior to a State Lands Commission (SLC) or California Coastal  
            Commission (CCC) hearing regarding issuing a lease or permit  
            to license an LNG facility on the California coast, if the CEC  
            has not issued an IEPR within 180 days of the hearing.

          3)Requires the CEC on or before July 1, 2011, to create a matrix  
            on its website containing information regarding existing and  
            proposed LNG terminal projects, as specified, with updates at  
            least quarterly.

          4)Requires the CEC to impose a fee on LNG project applicants to  
            cover the costs of implementing all of the above, with fee  
            revenue subject to appropriation by the Legislature.

          5)Requires the Environmental Impact Report for LNG  
            projects-except those projects deemed data adequate before  
            January 1, 2010-to include an analysis of alternative project  
            technologies, an analysis of disproportionate human health or  








                                                                  SB 376
                                                                  Page  2

            environmental effects on minority and low-income populations,  
            and a life-cycle cost analysis of the impacts of greenhouse  
            gas emissions.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          The CEC's cost for the LNG needs study, to be incorporated into  
          the IEPR, as well as development of the matrix, will be  
          absorbable within existing resources. CEC costs to update the  
          study and the matrix-if necessary due to the timing of an SLC or  
          CCC hearing on a proposed LNG facility-would be about $100,000,  
          or $200,000 if updates were required in response to two  
          different proposals. Per the bill's provisions, these costs  
          would be covered by LNG project applicants.

           
          COMMENTS  

           1)Background  . The predominant fuel for electricity generation  
            and heating in California remains natural gas. California  
            imports approximately 85% of its natural gas supply, primarily  
            from gas fields in the Southwest, Rockies and Alberta, Canada.  
            LNG is natural gas that has been turned into a liquid by a  
            cooling process. The process of liquefying the gas makes the  
            gas much denser, meaning more can be transported in a limited  
            space. Once the gas is liquefied it can be transported  
            overseas by tanker and regassified for use at its destination.  
             LNG infrastructure would enable California consumers to draw  
            gas from major reserves around the world.

           2)Prior Legislation  . This is the author's third attempt at  
            legislation similar to SB 376. In 2006, SB 426 died on the  
            Assembly floor. In 2007, SB 412 was held on this committee's  
            Suspense file.

           3)Purpose  . Since the author's last effort at establishing an LNG  
            facility approval process, the outlook for LNG developers has  
            soured considerably, likely due to falling natural gas prices,  
            diminishing energy demand, and the global credit shortage. The  
            seven LNG facilities proposed in California as recently as  
            2007 have dwindled to one (Port Esperanza, off Long Beach) and  
            that project is on hold and in search of investors.  The  
            Ensenada project in Baja-the first West Coast terminal, which  
            was recently completed-is reportedly operating far below  
            capacity.  LNG imports collapsed nationwide by two-thirds from  








                                                                  SB 376
                                                                  Page  3

            2007 to 2008. 

            According to the author, although natural gas prices are  
            currently low, they will rise at some point and the author  
            expects a renewed effort by the industry at that time to site  
            LNG facilities. The author asserts that a missing component  
            from the permitting process is a comparison between the  
            projects and an evaluation of the need for imported natural  
            gas supplies.  

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081