BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2559
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2559
AUTHOR: Buchanan
AMENDED: June 27, 2012
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: July 2, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor
SUBJECT : NATURAL GAS PIPELINE APPROVALS
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Under the California Constitution, authorizes a city or
county to "make and enforce within its limits all local,
police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not
in conflict with general law."
2) Under Planning and Zoning Law, requires cities and counties
to adopt a general plan that includes seven mandated
elements (land use, circulation, housing, conservation,
open space, noise, safety), and creates special
requirements for housing elements. It also requires cities
and counties to adopt zoning ordinances regulating, for
example, the use of buildings, structures, and land.
3) Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary
project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated
declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this
action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA
includes various statutory exemptions, as well as
categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines). (Public
Resources Code �21000 et seq.). Exemptions relating to
pipelines include:
a) A project of less than one mile in length within a
AB 2559
Page 2
public street or highway, or another 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. (�21080.21).
b) The inspection, repair, restoration, reconditioning,
relocation, replacement, or removal of an existing
pipeline less than eight miles in length, or any valve,
flange, meter, or other equipment directly attached to
the pipeline if certain conditions are met (e.g.,
"pipeline" is covered under the Elder California
Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 (for transporting hazardous
liquid substances or highly volatile liquid substances),
project is not less than eight miles from any section of
pipeline that has been subject to this exemption in the
past 12 months, certain notice is provided, project is
located within an existing right-of-way and restored to
its condition prior to the project, notice
requirements). (�21080.23).
c) For purposes of the �21080.23 pipeline exemption,
until January 1, 2013, "pipeline" also means a pipeline
located in Fresno, Kern, Kings, or Tulare County used to
transport biogas, meeting the requirements of that
section and all local, state, and federal laws; and
defines "biogas" as a natural gas meeting certain
requirements and derived from anaerobic digestion of
dairy animal waste. (�21080.23.5).
d) Operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration
of existing private or public structures involving
negligible or no expansion, including existing
facilities of both investor and publicly owned utilities
used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage,
or other public utility services. (CEQA Guidelines
�15301(b)).
e) Replacement or reconstruction of existing structures
and facilities where the new structure will be located
on the same site as the structure replaced and will have
substantially the same purpose and capacity, including
AB 2559
Page 3
replacement or reconstruction of existing utility
systems or facilities involving negligible or no
expansion of capacity. (CEQA Guidelines �15302(c)).
4) Under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), requires a lead
agency for a development project to approve or disapprove a
project within specified time periods (for example, 180
days from the date the lead agency certifies an EIR (except
90 days for a very low or low income housing project under
certain conditions), 60 days from the date of adopting a
negative declaration or determining that a project is
exempt from CEQA). (Government Code �65920 et seq.). The
PSA includes provisions relating to permits for certain
classes of projects, such as geothermal projects, projects
in a flood hazard zone, hazardous waste facilities, and
wireless telecommunications facilities. (�65960 et seq.).
This bill , under the Permit Streamlining Act:
1) Requires a city or county to act on an application by a gas
corporation that is a public utility for a ministerial
pipeline project permit within a public street, highway, or
any other public right-of-way within 10 business days of
determining that an application for the pipeline project is
complete.
2) Requires the city or county to provide the gas corporation
with a written timeline indicating the time by which the
city or county will, as soon as possible, act on the
application if the city or county cannot act on the
application within the above 10-business-day period.
3) Defines certain terms (e.g., "pipeline integrity management
plan," "pipeline project").
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "AB 2559 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."
AB 2559
Page 4
The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) supported expedited
permitting for pipeline integrity management work at its
February 16, 2012, meeting, and agreed to sponsor AB 2559
at its March 22, 2012, meeting. According to a March 20,
2012, staff report, "By sponsoring AB 2559, the �PUC] would
be voicing its strong support for ensuring that pipeline
integrity management work is completed expeditiously while
maintaining respect for both California's environmental
protection laws and the legitimate concerns of local
governments." The staff report also notes that "AB 2559
does not provide any new authority to local agencies
regarding the permitting of pipeline work; it requires
local agencies to expedite their existing permit process.
The �PUC] will be required to coordinate more closely with
local agencies regarding pipeline work conducted by the
state's gas utilities. This additional requirement for
�PUC] would not generate much additional workload."
According to the staff report, the following proposed projects
are planned for hydrotesting and replacement from 2012 to
2014: a) PG&E pressure testing for 547 miles with 185
miles of replaced pipe; b) Southern California Gas Company
pressure testing for 265 miles with 172 miles of replaced
pipe; and c) San Diego Gas & Electric Company pressure
testing for less than 3 miles and 34 miles of replaced
pipe.
The staff report also notes that the "Report of the
Independent Review Panel - San Bruno Explosion" dated June
24, 2011, contained three legislative recommendations. The
report recommends: a) centralizing damage prevention
authority in the PUC by granting the PUC authority to adopt
and enforce one-call notification; b) replacing the
mandatory five-year audit requirements with a risk-based
process; and c) expedited local government permitting.
There is no information in the report regarding the need
for expedited permitting.
2) More coordination at the front end ? A lengthy pipeline
project can adversely affect roads and may cause conflicts
with entrances to homes, businesses, schools, and other
AB 2559
Page 5
uses. There may also be adverse noise and air quality
impacts for area residents, or sensitive uses such as
schools, senior centers, and hospitals.
While AB 2559 may respond to PUC concern over local government
ministerial permits for certain pipeline-related projects -
it lacks necessary procedures for coordination before the
permitting process begins. Public utilities should, for
example, notify public agencies with jurisdiction over a
project at least 90 days prior to submitting an application
for such a pipeline project, and provide specific
information about the project (e.g., brief project
description, project timing and phasing), and cities and
counties should be given the opportunity to submit comments
to the public utility. In this way, the public utility
would have comments and an opportunity to respond to public
concerns before submitting an application.
It would also be appropriate to require pipeline project
scoping meetings under CEQA for a discretionary pipeline
project.
Rather than forcing local governments to quickly issue permits
for pipeline enhancement projects - which can often result
in unintended adverse effects - improved public dialogue at
the front end is likely to be far more effective.
3) Related legislation . AB 2564 (Ma): a) revises the
existing CEQA exemption for maintenance, repair,
restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement,
removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline by expanding
the pipeline length from 1 mile to less than 8 miles if the
activity does not take place along more than 1 mile at any
one time, with notice and other requirements; b) allowing
increased fees under CEQA to approve a "natural gas
pipeline safety enhancement project," subject to certain
requirements; and c) allowing an action or proceeding
against a public agency involving a natural gas pipeline
safety enhancement program to be heard by only the Supreme
Court, as currently provided for an action or proceeding
against the PUC. AB 2564 will be heard by the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee July 2, 2012.
AB 2559
Page 6
SOURCE : Public Utilities Commission
SUPPORT : California Chamber of Commerce, San Diego Gas &
Electric Company, Southern California Gas
Company, Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION : None on file.