BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2559|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2559
Author: Buchanan (D)
Amended: 8/14/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENERGY, UTIL. & COMMUNIC. COMM. : 11-0, 6/19/12
AYES: Padilla, Fuller, Berryhill, Corbett, De Le�n,
DeSaulnier, Emmerson, Kehoe, Pavley, Rubio, Wright
NO VOTE RECORDED: Simitian, Strickland
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 7/2/12
AYES: Simitian, Strickland, Blakeslee, Hancock, Kehoe,
Lowenthal, Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-0, 5/25/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Local government: pipeline projects: approval
SOURCE : Public Utilities Commission
DIGEST : This bill provides the states gas utilities with
expedited ministerial permitting for pipeline inspection,
remediation, removal and replacement work undertaken
pursuant to pipeline integrity management.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
CONTINUED
AB 2559
Page
2
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).
Exemptions relating to pipelines include:
A. A project of less than one mile in length within a
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.
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
CONTINUED
AB 2559
Page
3
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).
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.
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.
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 replacement or reconstruction
of existing utility systems or facilities involving
negligible or no expansion of capacity.
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). 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.
CONTINUED
AB 2559
Page
4
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 program," "pipeline project").
Related Legislation
AB 2564 (Ma) 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 one
mile to less than eight miles if the activity does not take
place along more than 1 mile at any one time, with notice
and other requirements; allowing increased fees under CEQA
to approve a "natural gas pipeline safety enhancement
project," subject to certain requirements; and 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 passed the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee (9-0) on July 2, 2012.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/14/12)
Public Utilities Commission (source)
California Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
CONTINUED
AB 2559
Page
5
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
Southern California Gas Company
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/14/12)
Department of Finance (unless amended)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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."
The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) supported expedited
permitting for pipeline integrity management work at its
February 16, 2012, meeting, and agreed to sponsor this bill
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."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Department of Finance is
opposed to this bill unless it is amended to ensure the
local agencies are authorized to charge fees sufficient to
cover the reasonable increased costs for the 10 day permit
application action period. While the intent of this PUC
sponsored bill is meritorious, this bill, as currently
written, could result in a reimbursable state mandate.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-0, 5/25/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
CONTINUED
AB 2559
Page
6
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Hagman, Halderman,
Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso,
Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, V. Manuel P�rez,
Portantino, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres,
Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A.
P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Atkins, Bill Berryhill, Fletcher, Grove,
Hall, Knight, Ma, Perea, Silva
RM:d 8/15/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED