Legislature

Subscribe to Legislature

Stoel Rives’ Oil & Gas Team has been monitoring bills introduced by California legislators since the beginning of the 2017-2018 legislative session.  Below are the latest updates on the bills our team has been following during the first half of the current legislative session.  In addition, we have included new bills introduced during the second half of the current legislative session.

The following is a list of bills either vetoed by the Governor or chaptered into law at the end of the first half of the current legislative session.  A summary of such bills can be found here.

  • AB 1197 (Limón, D): Oil spill contingency plans: spill management teams. Chaptered into law on October 8, 2017.
  • AB 1328 (Limón, D): Oil and gas: water quality. Chaptered into law on October 13, 2017.
  • AB 1472 (Limón, D): Public lands: assignments and transfers; oil, gas and mineral leases. Vetoed by the Governor on July 25, 2017.
  • AB 1647 (Muratsuchi, D): Petroleum refineries: air monitoring systems. Chaptered into law on October 8, 2017.
  • SB 44 (Jackson, D): State lands: coastal hazard and legacy oil and gas well removal and remediation program. Chaptered into law on October 8, 2017.
  • SB 724 (Lara, D): Oil and gas: wells and production facilities. Chaptered into law on October 10, 2017.

Continue Reading Second Legislative Update: Oil & Gas Related Bills Introduced in the 2017-2018 Legislative Session

Stoel Rives’ Oil & Gas Team has been monitoring bills introduced by California legislators since the beginning of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session.  June 2, 2017 was the deadline by which the Legislature was required to pass bills out of the house of origin. Failing to meet that deadline does not automatically prevent a bill from proceeding through the legislative process; however, such failure will prevent the bill from being considered by the full legislature or the Governor during the first half of the Legislative Session.  Below is a list of bills, summarized pursuant to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, that our team has been following and will continue to monitor as the legislative session proceeds.  This is an update to our February 23 post.

Please also see our Renewable + Law post summarizing bills related to other energy topics here.

AB 476 (Gipson, D): Vehicular air pollution.

Status: Two-year bill; last amended April 17, 2017.

Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and non-vehicular sources and generally designates CARB as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution. Existing law further defines a heavy-duty vehicle as having a manufacturer’s maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 6,001 or more pounds, a light-duty vehicle as having a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating of under 6,001 pounds, and a medium-duty vehicle as a heavy-duty vehicle having a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating under a limit established by the state board. AB 476 instead would define a heavy-duty vehicle as having a manufacturer’s maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds.Continue Reading Update: Oil & Gas Related Bills Introduced in the 2017-2018 Legislative Session

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a Sacramento Superior Court Judge’s ruling that prohibited the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) from selling bonds under  Proposition 1A to construct the High Speed Rail Project (the Project) and ordered the HSRA to draft a new funding plan for the construction and operation of the Project.  (See California High-Speed Rail Authority v. The Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. C075668 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist., July 31, 2014).)

Proposition 1A, originally approved by voters in 2008, authorized the HSRA to issue and sell general obligations bonds (upon appropriation by the Legislature), to begin construction of the Project.  Pursuant to Proposition 1A, the HSRA prepared, published, adopted, and submitted a preliminary funding plan to the Legislature that was also made available for public review and comment.  The plan included the total anticipated federal, state, local, and other funds the HSRA intended to access to fund the construction and operations of the system.  A final funding plan must also be approved by the Director of the Department of Finance before committing any bond proceeds, but such a plan has not yet been prepared by the HSRA.

In 2013, the HSRA requested, and the Legislature appropriated, the issuance of $8.6 billion in general obligation bonds for the Project.  In order to preclude any future lawsuits, the HSRA filed a validation action in Sacramento Superior Court to obtain a judgment validating the bonds to be sold on the capital markets.  Subsequently, several real-parties-in-interest filed a responsive pleading requesting that the court issue a writ of mandate directing the HSRA to rescind the preliminary funding plan for failure to comply with statutory requirements.  On November 25, 2013, the trial court issued a writ of mandate directing the HSRA to rescind its approval of the preliminary funding plan for failing to comply with the statutory requirements.  On the same day, Judge Kenny issued a ruling denying the request for a validation judgment on grounds that the Legislature’s determination to issue the bonds was not supported by evidence in the record.Continue Reading Court Signals Green to $8.6bn California High-Speed Rail Bond Issuance

On the heels of Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney’s decision halting an $8 billion bond sale for the construction of the California high-speed rail (“HSR”) project, Governor Jerry Brown has submitted a budget proposal to reapportion money from California’s surplus fund to the HSR project. 

Notably, the surplus fund includes $850 million generated…

On February 12, California lawmakers convened a joint legislative hearing to discuss the proposed regulations governing hydraulic fracturing in California. For further information about the proposed regulations, see the December 19 post. The lawmakers heard from four panels, including the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Water Resources Control Board, Air Resources Board and various local agencies, stakeholders and environmental organizations.
Continue Reading California Lawmakers Discuss Proposed Fracking Regulations

About Stoel Rives Environmental Law

Learn More

Few firms view their Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources practices as core legal services. Stoel Rives is one of them. The firm ranks #8 in the United States according to Law360’s list of the largest practices of its kind. Our sophisticated compliance counseling, permitting, regulatory development, and litigation practices continue a long tradition of specialization and deep experience. Our environment, land use, and natural resource attorneys incorporate prior agency experience, technical acumen, and industry knowledge into their legal advice. They also build strong relationships with agency officials and industry associations. Our litigation successes include landmark decisions. More than 60 attorneys, paralegals, and compliance analysts comprise Stoel Rives’ nationwide Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources practice.