BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1104|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1104
Author: Salas (D), et al.
Amended: 1/27/14 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 2-2, 6/18/14 (FAIL)
AYES: Gaines, Fuller
NOES: Hill, Hancock
NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson, Leno, Pavley
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 4-3, 6/25/14
AYES: Gaines, Fuller, Leno, Pavley
NOES: Hill, Hancock, Jackson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-1, 1/29/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : California Environmental Quality Act: biogas
pipelines:
exemption
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill reinstates a California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for a biogas pipeline located in
Fresno, Kern, Kings, or Tulare counties. This bill sunsets
January 1, 2018.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
CONTINUED
AB 1104
Page
2
1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report for this action, unless the
project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory
exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA
Guidelines).
2. Provides that CEQA does not apply to a pipeline project less
than one mile in length within a public street or highway or
any other 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.
3. Provides that CEQA does not apply to a pipeline project less
than eight miles in length consisting of inspection,
maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation,
replacement, or removal of an existing intrastate liquid
pipeline subject to the Pipeline Safety Act (e.g. petroleum
pipelines), subject to specified conditions.
4. Requires the CEQA Guidelines to include a list of classes of
projects that have been determined by the Secretary of the
Natural Resources Agency to not to have a significant effect
on the environment and that shall be exempt from CEQA.
Included in this list of "categorical exemptions" are:
A. Repair and maintenance of existing public or private
facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use,
including existing facilities of both investor and publicly
owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural
gas, sewerage, or other public utility services.
B. Replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities on
the same site with the same purpose and capacity, including
existing utility systems and/or facilities involving
negligible or no expansion of capacity.
This bill:
1.Includes under the definition of "pipeline" for the purposes
of CEQA, a pipeline located in Fresno, Kern, Kings, or Tulare
CONTINUED
AB 1104
Page
3
County that is used to transport biogas until January 1, 2018.
2.Defines "biogas" as a natural gas meeting certain requirements
and derived from anaerobic digestion of dairy animal waste.
3.Makes legislative findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special statute for the counties of Fresno,
Kern, Kings, and Tulare.
Background
CEQA includes limited exemptions for relatively small-scale
pipeline maintenance and installation projects. A general
exemption is available for projects under one mile in length,
including new pipelines. A more specific exemption is available
for projects up to eight miles in length involving maintenance
and replacement, but not expansion, of existing petroleum
pipelines.
Collection of biogas produced at dairy operations is an emerging
method that can reduce dairy emissions of methane, one of the
leading contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. The biogas
can be transported via pipelines to commercial natural gas
transmission pipelines.
Biogas
Anaerobic Digestion . According to the California Environmental
Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), biogas recovery systems are
sometimes known as anaerobic digesters or "biodigesters" because
they use a process called anaerobic digestion. During anaerobic
digestion, bacteria break down waste in an oxygen-free
environment. One of the natural products of anaerobic digestion
is biogas. Biogas can be used to generate electricity, as a
boiler fuel for space or water heating, upgraded to natural gas
pipeline quality, called "biomethane" (which requires the
removal of residual carbon dioxide and has the same properties
as natural gas), or for a variety of other uses.
Biogas Recovery Process . According to the US EPA, a system is
needed to collect manure and transport it to a digester.
Existing liquid/slurry manure management systems can readily be
adapted to deliver manure to an anaerobic digester. Anaerobic
digesters, commonly in the form of covered lagoons or tanks, are
CONTINUED
AB 1104
Page
4
designed to stabilize manure and optimize the production of
methane. A facility to store digester effluent is required.
Biogas is collected, treated, and piped to a gas use device.
Flares are also installed to destroy extra gas and as a back-up
mechanism for the primary gas use device. A facility to store
digester effluent is required - the effluent of the anaerobic
digestion can be used for purposes including livestock bedding,
potting soil, land application, and fertilizer.
Biogas and Associated Health Concerns . When manure is
anaerobically digested, the biogas produced is primarily
composed of: methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and
ammonia.
Animal manure contains bacteria, viruses, and possibly
parasites. Because digesters utilize "waste" materials as
feedstock, there is a potential for exposure to pathogens and
the bacteria present in animal wastes can produce infection.
Common symptoms of biogas exposure include drowsiness, headache,
disorientation and respiratory irritation. The severity of the
symptoms depends on the concentration of biogas and length of
exposure. Also, asphyxiation from biogas may be a concern in an
enclosed area where manure is stored.
Biogas and Other Hazards . Other safety concerns associated with
anaerobic digesters and biogas include the potential for
explosion, fire, burns, electrical shock, drowning, and exposure
to loud noise. Throughout an anaerobic digester facility, pipes
containing hot fluids or exhaust gas can pose potential burn
hazards. Dangerous situations can arise unexpectedly and
quickly, such as when a gas pipe is accidentally cut. If biogas
is diluted between 10% and 30% with air, there is an explosion
hazard.
When working with hydrogen, it is important to consider the
metal or alloy type and engineering design because hydrogen gas
readily absorbs into many types of metals, causing
embrittlement, which can lead to structural failure. Hydrogen
embrittlement increases the cracking in the material. For
example, brass gate valves and pipes used in biogas systems must
be of a lead-free type because the hydrogen sulfide in biogas
will destroy lead, which will cause gas leaks. Hydrogen sulfide
and ammonia are also potentially explosive.
CONTINUED
AB 1104
Page
5
Considering the health and human safety risks mentioned above, a
question arises as to whether it is prudent to allow for a CEQA
exemption for pipelines that transport such a dangerous
material.
History of Anaerobic Digesters at Dairies in California .
According to Cal/EPA:
Prior to 2002, fewer than five dairies in California operated
anaerobic manure digesters. Each dairy used the biogas produced
by the digester to run an engine that powered a generator
producing electricity for use at the dairy. There were no
specific regulatory programs that applied to digesters, although
the regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs) regulated
wastes produced at the dairies, including effluent from the
digesters. Other state and local agencies did not have
regulations specific for digesters, although some had
regulations applicable to dairies.
In 2002, the California Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission (commonly referred to as the California
Energy Commission) provided grant funding for the Dairy Power
Production Program to support construction of digesters at
dairies that resulted in construction of digesters at 10
dairies, several of which negotiated with utility companies to
sell excess electricity. However, the pricing for the surplus
electricity was not favorable to the dairies and some instead
flared excess biogas.
Starting in 2004, several counties began developing regulatory
programs for dairies, but the regulations did not specifically
address digesters. In 2005, new regulatory programs were
enacted that affected the construction of digesters at dairies.
Having to understand and comply with the new regulations was
challenging for proponents of digesters at dairies. Most of the
new regulations applied to air emissions in the San Joaquin
Valley and South Coast Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs).
The primary effect of the new regulations was to limit the
amount of nitrogen oxides that could be released by operation of
engines used to power generators. At the same time, the Central
Valley RWQCB was developing a new regulatory program for dairies
that included more stringent requirements for new lagoons such
as those that could be covered to serve as an anaerobic
CONTINUED
AB 1104
Page
6
digester. During the period that the Central Valley RWQCB
regulations were under development, persons proposing to
construct digesters at dairies in the Central Valley experienced
frustrating delays in obtaining design approval from Central
Valley RWQCB.
In October 2006, a second round of California Energy Commission
grant funding was made available and nine additional dairies
received funding for new digesters. At about the same time,
utility districts developed policies for the purchase of excess
electricity at rates that were more favorable to dairy
operators. In May 2007, the Central Valley RWQCB adopted
general waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for cow dairies and
included requirements applicable to construction and operation
of digesters. Although APCD and RWQCB requirements applicable
to digesters were now clearly established, the difficulty and
cost of complying with the requirements resulted in delays in
getting the new digesters operating. As of April 2008, only one
of the additional digesters was operational.
In late 2007, a few companies proposed to construct anaerobic
digesters at dairies to produce biogas and treat the biogas for
injection into utility district natural gas pipelines. In early
2008, the Central Valley RWQCB issued individual WDR orders for
seven such facilities. Six of the facilities stated that they
would co-digest imported organic feedstock to enhance biogas
production. As of April 2008, none of these facilities were
operational.
In December 2010, the Central Valley RWQCB certified a final
environmental impact report (EIR) for Waste Discharge Regulatory
Program for Diary Manure Digester and Co-Digester Facilities.
The program EIR assesses the environmental impacts associated
with manure digester and co-digester facilities throughout the
Central Valley. Under the program, the Central Valley RWQCB has
adopted two general orders for facilities, enabling the Central
Valley RWQCB to reduce the time required to permit dairy
digester projects by at least 75%.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/4/14)
CONTINUED
AB 1104
Page
7
Agricultural Energy Consumers Association
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Bioenergy Energy Association of California
Caterpillar, Inc.
County of Kern Board of Supervisors
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/4/14)
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Planning & Conservation League
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters state, "Studies have been
completed that show the financial hardships of individual
dairies converting dairy methane into renewable energy.
However, dairies in the highlighted counties have the unique
ability to aggregate raw biogas, transport it to a central
location and produce electricity, renewable natural gas, or
clean transportation fuels. Not only are the energy and low
carbon transportation fuels produced consistent with state
objectives, but the greenhouse gas reduction benefits from such
projects offers additional benefits that are unique to the dairy
sector ? Looking at California's energy needs, we need to be
doing as much as we can to promote alternative energy." Support
further states, "To accelerate the introduction of this new form
of renewable energy, which is also an effective
emission-reduction technology, the CEQA exemption should be
restored for biogas transmissions lines less than eight miles in
length. Natural gas and crude oil pipelines in this category
already receive this exemption. Therefore, GHG reduction
concerns argue for restoring a similar exemption to biogas
transmission lines."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents state, "A recent natural
gas pipeline leak in Kern County City of Arvin demonstrates that
a CEQA exemption for pipelines is inappropriate. On March 18,
2014, eight Arvin families were evacuated from their homes due
to a natural gas leak from pipelines running under their homes.
The pipelines, which had been thought to be abandoned, were used
to transport waste gas from oil operations. Air testing
revealed the release of high levels of benzene and naphthalene.
There are similar safety concerns with biogas. Without proper
pressurization, methane based biogas can be explosive. In
addition, hydrogen sulfide leaks are also possible without
proper regulation. However, the aftermath also revealed neither
CONTINUED
AB 1104
Page
8
Kern County nor the City of Arvin had sufficient information
about how the pipelines were used and what type of emergency
response was appropriate. In addition, there were no
requirements place[d] on the use of the pipelines, no conditions
for monitoring, and no conditions for appropriate closure.
Requiring pipeline operators to comply with CEQA allows for
these protections to be put in place by the lead agency in a
transparent manner."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-1, 1/29/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez,
Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Morrell, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, V.
Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Logue, Perea
RM:nl 8/5/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED