American Oil and Gas Reporter - May 2015 - 137

ConventionSection: California Independent Petroleum Association
rector of Government Affairs P. Anthony
Thomas. "It is an attempt to halt or-at
some point-end the entire program, which
would bring the industry to a screeching
halt."
Altogether, California lawmakers have
filed 20-25 bills affecting the oil and gas
industry this session, he says, but three
bills dealing with UIC and the mission
of California's Division of Oil, Gas &
Geothermal Resources are of particular
interest to CIPA.
The most recent elections have brought
38 new lawmakers, 22 of them Democrats
and 16 Republicans, he observes. "Our
responsibility is to educate everyone in
the legislature," Thomas says. "Is it harder
with more new members? Probably no
harder than educating those who have
been here."

Incomplete And Redundant
The main impetus behind the anti-oiland-gas legislation is industry critics who
insist that oil and gas producers are polluting aquifers with wastewater, Thomas
says.
AB 356 by Representative Das
Williams, D-Santa Barbara, calls for protecting groundwater, but falls short,
Thomas insists. The bill requires DOGGR
to hold a public hearing before proposing
an aquifer exemption for oil and gas
companies to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, he reviews. "That is
fine, but the bill does not recognize that
an operator has to submit a well permit
prior to any construction or surface disturbance activity," Thomas says. "Under
the bill, it would have to be reviewed
and approved by both DOGGR and the
State Water Board."
Moreover, he adds, other provisions
of AB 356 do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. "The
process already includes numerous public
comment opportunities," Thomas says.
"This bill also calls for DOGGR to continually review all projects that are approved. While that is a good thing, DOGGR already conducts reviews under the
primacy agreement."
In 2012, DOGGR, in response to an
EPA audit of the state's UIC oversight,
offered a detailed explanation of its review
functions, which satisfied the EPA,
Thomas notes. "On many of these projects,
DOGGR conducts annual reviews, so
much so that the EPA accepted DOGGR's
proposed enhancements as more than satisfactory," he says. "For this issue, AB

356 is worthless."
The bill also contains requirements to
monitor wells for possible freshwater
aquifer degradation, he continues. That
seems to ignore the legislature's 2013
approval of SB 4, a well integrity bill
that already includes a monitoring program, Thomas says. "In our view, AB
356 is worthless," he comments. "We
see it as an unnecessary bill that will
cause production delays and create unnecessary bureaucracy."
In early April, the bill was expected
to pass out of committee, Thomas says.
"No matter how bad or incomplete or
whatever points the opponents bring, we
think it will be headed to a floor fight,"
he predicts.
A second bill, SB 248 by Senator
Fran Pavley, D-Los Angeles, is touted as
an attempt to initiate reform at DOGGR
and the UIC program for the sake of regulatory accountability and public transparency, Thomas says. "That is what the
author is promoting, but we say adding
new or additional responsibilities at DOGGR is redundant at best. Its additional
burdens include adding expenses for companies and administrative expenses for
the state," he comments. "We think these
burdens and interruptions will detract
from the organization's mission."
CIPA objects specifically to three provisions in SB 248 that deal with well integrity, comment periods for project approval letters, and geologic and hydraulic
characterizations at injection well sites,
he says. "DOGGR already maintains well
integrity requirements," Thomas points
out. "Project approval letters already are
subject to public comment. Geologic and
hydraulic characterizations are conducted
as well. We think this bill is an overreach,
and that current law and DOGGR responsibilities make it unnecessary."

DOGGR Disruption
Thomas says CIPA also opposes SB
545 by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson,
D-Santa Barbara. "This bill proposes a
new permitting process," Thomas describes. "Basically, it deletes DOGGR's
responsibility to supervise the drilling,
operation, maintenance and abandonment
of wells."
Instead, he characterizes, SB 545 will
increase DOGGR's workload and increase
costs for the state. The measure also contains language authorizing DOGGR to
allow operators to recover oil and gas resources if the division finds that the op-

erator's methods and practices are consistent with the Public Resources Code,
Thomas says.
"She wants to change DOGGR's mission," Thomas comments. "Essentially,
it transforms DOGGR into an environmental organization. That is a problem
for us. This is DOGGR's 100th anniversary and it always has been responsible
for overseeing the drilling, operation,
maintenance, and abandonment of wells.
This is simply another unnecessary bill
that we have to fight."
The session ends Sept. 11, he says,
and the last day for Governor Jerry Brown
to sign or veto legislation is Oct. 11.
"The governor has been more than fair,
and understands the contribution and the
economics of the state's oil and gas industry," Thomas assesses. "We are trying
to prevent things of this nature from
getting to his desk. That is CIPA's job.
These bills will pass the policy committees,
but those committee members also put
their fellow Democrats in the uneasy situation of having to vote down their colleagues' bills, but they should be voted
down."
More Mandates
Other legislative issues pose longterm challenges, says CIPA Chief Executive Officer Rock Zierman, including
SB 350, by Senators Kevin De Leon, DLos Angeles, and Mark Leno, D-San
Francisco. The bill calls for cutting automobiles' gasoline consumption 50 percent
by 2030. The bill also seeks to require
California to generate 50 percent of its
power with renewable energy resources
by 2030. Zierman notes that the proposal
has drawn the support of California billionaire activist Tom Steyer.
CIPA has expressed support for state
goals instead of mandates, such as those
authorized by AB 32, known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006, which requires steep reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions and also
empowers the California Air Resources
Board to implement directives to achieve
them.
"The state is at liberty to set goals
and have policies on alternative energy,
electric cars or whatever it wants," Zierman says. "We do not oppose that, but
we do oppose attempts to empower an
unelected bureaucracy to do whatever it

SEE DOGGR PAGE 142
MAY 2015 137

American Oil and Gas Reporter - May 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - May 2015