BILL ANALYSIS � 1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
ALEX PADILLA, CHAIR
AB 2559 - Buchanan Hearing Date:
June 19, 2012 A
As Amended: May 21, 2012 FISCAL B
2
5
5
9
DESCRIPTION
Current law exempts pipelines of less than one-mile in length
within a public right-of-way for the installation of a new
pipeline or the maintenance, repair, restoration,
reconditioning, relocation, replacement, removal, or demolition
of an existing pipeline from the requirement of an environmental
impact report (EIR). The result is that local government can
require only a ministerial permit affecting time, place and
manner of the work.
This bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) to ensure that a local jurisdiction has been provided
notice by a gas corporation whenever the corporation's pipeline
integrity management plan may result in the necessity of
pipeline inspection remediation or replacement work.
This bill requires a local jurisdiction to expedite the permits
for any pipeline inspection, remediation or replacement work
and, if the jurisdiction cannot issue a decision on a permit in
ten days, provide a written explanation with a timeline in which
the permit can be issued.
This bill prohibits a local jurisdiction from imposing permit
requirements that exceed the scope of the proposed project
unless the additional requirements specifically relate to the
project and are necessary for public safety.
BACKGROUND
Independent Review Panel - In the aftermath of the explosion of
a natural gas transmission pipeline in San Bruno the CPUC
created an Independent Review Panel (IRP) of experts to conduct
a comprehensive study and investigation of the September 9,
2010, explosion and fire. The CPUC directed the panel to make a
technical assessment of the events, determine the root causes,
and offer recommendations for action by the CPUC to best ensure
such an accident is not repeated elsewhere. The CPUC encouraged
the panel to make such recommendations as necessary. Such
recommendations could include changes to design, construction,
operation, maintenance, and replacement of natural gas
facilities, management practices at PG&E in the areas of
pipeline integrity and public safety, regulatory changes by the
CPUC itself, and statutory changes to be recommended by the
CPUC.
The IRP released its findings and recommendations on June 8,
2011 which included a specific direction to the CPUC to:
Request the California General Assembly enact
legislation that would provide the state's gas
utilities with the right to expedited permitting by
counties and municipalities for pipeline inspection,
remediation and replacement work undertaken pursuant to
pipeline integrity management.
COMMENTS
1. Author's Purpose . The author reports that AB 2559 would
fulfill the recommendation of the Independent Review Panel
and would require the CPUC to ensure that a local
government is provided notice by a gas utility whenever a
pipeline integrity management plan may result in the
utility undertaking pipeline inspection, remediation, or
replacement work and it would provide expedited local
permitting for the state's gas utilities for such pipeline
work undertaken pursuant to a pipeline integrity management
plan.
In the aftermath of the San Bruno explosion, the necessity
for extensive upgrades to gas transmission pipelines has
been identified and expedited permitting will significantly
aid in addressing the need for pipeline testing and
replacement in the years to come. California's major gas
operators have indicated the following proposed mileage
planned for hydrotesting and replacement in 2012-2014
alone:
PG&E: 547 miles of pressure testing and 185
miles of replaced pipe;
SoCalGas: 265 miles of pressure testing and
172 miles of replaced pipe; and
SDG&E: less than 3 miles of pressure testing
and 34 miles of replaced pipe.
In completing this critical work, PG&E and California's
other gas operators will need all the tools available to
them so that safety work can be completed on schedule and
the public can be put at ease that all needed maintenance
has been completed and their safety is ensured.
1. Just Hurry Up ! The author and the CPUC are attempting
to respond to, and fulfill direction from, the commission's
own blue ribbon commission which was appointed to make the
recommendations necessary to ensure that the state has a
safe and efficient gas transmission pipeline
infrastructure. However, the panel provided no back ground
or foundation for the recommendation. They did not explain
the problem which necessitated the recommendation. They did
not provide any information to even indicate that they did
any investigation of pipeline permitting in California.
The only reference to pipeline permitting was one-sentence
calling for legislation to expedite pipeline permitting.
Consequently, the remedy in this bill broadly states that
local jurisdictions shall issue a permit in ten days. As
one example of the myriad issues presented by the vagaries
and scope of this bill, it is not clear whether a local
jurisdiction is required to issue a permit in ten days for
the replacement of a pipeline that is 50 miles long (which
necessitates an EIR) or an existing pipeline one mile in
length within a public street or highway (which does not
require an EIR).
Before the Legislature acts, the parties should determine
that whatever problem the panel perceived actually exists.
As critical as pipeline safety is, the issue deserves and
warrants greater scrutiny to clearly identify the problem
and provide a specific remedy. No one seems to know what
that is. Additionally, this provision in contained in the
Public Utilities Code and references a role for the CPUC in
ensuring that a utility has given notice to a jurisdiction
of the need for pipeline remediate. This code placement
does not provide local jurisdictions with adequate notice
of their legal obligations. It should be placed in the
appropriate code alongside other permitting requirements.
Moreover, it is not apparent that the utilities need any
assistance from the CPUC in securing permits. These issues
are all appropriate for redress by the Environmental
Quality Committee which is next in line to consider this
bill.
2. Double Referral . Should this bill be approved by the
committee, it should be re-referred to the Senate Committee
on Environmental Quality for its consideration.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (71-0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (17-0)
Assembly Local Government Committee
(9-0)
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee(13-0)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
California Public Utilities Commission
Support:
California Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
Sierra Club California
Southern California Gas Company
Oppose:
None on file
Kellie Smith
AB 2559 Analysis
Hearing Date: June 19, 2012