Existing law prohibits a well operator from injecting a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid produced by a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project into a Class II well for purposes of enhanced oil recovery, including the facilitation of enhanced oil recovery from another well.

This bill would exclude from the definition of enhanced oil recovery for purposes of the above prohibition the incidental and unintentional residual oil produced at the surface from a Class VI well, as defined, resulting from the injection of a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a the Class VI well that has been deemed emptied of oil before injection during the execution of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project. The bill would prohibit the carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project from selling, bartering, exchanging, or trading any incidental and unintentional residual oil produced at the surface and would require any oil produced from a Class VI well to be reported to the State Air Resources Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, within 60 days of its occurrence. production. Because a violation of this reporting requirement would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law prohibits a well operator from injecting a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid produced by a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project into a Class II injection well for purposes of enhanced oil recovery, including the facilitation of enhanced oil recovery from another well.

This bill would exclude from the above prohibition the incidental and unintentional residual oil brought to the surface produced at the surface from a Class VI well, as defined, resulting from the injection of a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class VI well that has been deemed emptied of oil before injection during the execution of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project. The bill would prohibit the production of carbon dioxide by a carbon capture, removal, or sequestration project. The bill would require any oil produced from a Class VI well to be reported to the State Air Resources Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, within 60 days of its occurrence. Because a violation of this reporting requirement would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board, on or before January 1, 2025, to adopt regulations for a unified permit application for the construction and operation of carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration projects to expedite the issuance of permits or other authorizations for the construction and operation of those projects. Existing law requires a relevant state agency to use the unified permit application when issuing a permit or other authorization for the construction and operation of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project.

This bill would, until the unified permit application is adopted, require a relevant state agency to use its own application when issuing a permit or other authorization for the construction and operation of those projects.

Existing law prohibits a well operator from injecting a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid produced by a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project into a Class II injection well for purposes of enhanced oil recovery, including the facilitation of enhanced oil recovery from another well.

This bill would exclude from the above prohibition the incidental and unintentional expulsion of residual oil brought to the surface resulting from the injection of a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a well that has been deemed emptied of oil before injection during the execution of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project that did not use enhanced oil recovery technologies. project. The bill would prohibit the production of carbon dioxide by a carbon capture, removal, or sequestration project.

The California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act, an initiative bond measure approved by the voters as Proposition 70 at the June 7, 1988, statewide primary election, authorizes bonds to be issued and sold for use in carrying out wildlife, coastal, and parkland conservation programs. The act prohibits the disbursement of funds from the sale of the bonds to a grant applicant unless the applicant agrees to use the property only for the purposes of the act and to make no other use, sale, or other disposition of the property except in accordance with a specific act of the Legislature. The act requires a grantee to take certain action if the use of the property acquire through grants under the act is changed to one other than permitted under the category from which the funds were appropriated.

This bill would authorize an applicant receiving a grant pursuant to the act for the acquisition of property to authorize authorize, including by the grant of an easement, the use of the property for a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project if that use does is not reasonably anticipated to interfere with or otherwise affect the use of the property permitted under the category from which funds appropriated were used to acquire the property.

Existing law requires the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the Public Utilities Commission, no later than February 1, 2023, to provide a proposal to the Legislature to establish a state framework and standards for the design, operation, siting, and maintenance of intrastate pipelines carrying carbon dioxide fluids of varying composition and phase to minimize the risk posed to public and environmental health and safety.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact further legislation to establish those recommended framework and standards.

Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board, on or before January 1, 2025, to adopt regulations for a unified permit application for the construction and operation of carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration projects to expedite the issuance of permits or other authorizations for the construction and operation of those projects. Existing law requires a relevant state agency to use the unified permit application when issuing a permit or other authorization for the construction and operation of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project.

This bill would, until the unified permit application is adopted, require a relevant state agency to use its own application when issuing a permit or other authorization for the construction and operation of those projects.

Existing law prohibits a well operator from injecting a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid produced by a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project into a Class II injection well for purposes of enhanced oil recovery, including the facilitation of enhanced oil recovery from another well.

This bill would exclude from the above prohibition the incidental and unintentional expulsion of residual oil resulting from the injection of a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a well that has been deemed emptied of oil before injection during the execution of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project that did not use enhanced oil recovery technologies.

The California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act, an initiative bond measure approved by the voters as Proposition 70 at the June 7, 1988, statewide primary election, authorizes bonds to be issued and sold for use in carrying out wildlife, coastal, and parkland conservation programs. The act prohibits the disbursement of funds from the sale of the bonds to a grant applicant unless the applicant agrees to use the property only for the purposes of the act and to make no other use, sale, or other disposition of the property except in accordance with a specific act of the Legislature. The act requires a grantee to take certain action if the use of the property acquire through grants under the act is changed to one other than permitted under the category from which the funds were appropriated.

This bill would authorize an applicant receiving a grant pursuant to the act for the acquisition of property to authorize the use of the property for a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project if that use does not interfere or otherwise affect the use of the property permitted under the category from which funds appropriated were used to acquire the property.

Existing law requires the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the Public Utilities Commission, no later than February 1, 2023, to provide a proposal to the Legislature to establish a state framework and standards for the design, operation, siting, and maintenance of intrastate pipelines carrying carbon dioxide fluids of varying composition and phase to minimize the risk posed to public and environmental health and safety.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact further legislation to establish those recommended framework and standards.

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Luz Rivas, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 438

Author:(Caballero) – As Amended Ver:June 6, 2023

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: Carbon sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program: incidental and unintentional residual oil production

SUMMARY: Establishes an exception from the ban on enhanced oil recovery from a carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture, removal, or sequestration project by providing that the incidental and unintentional production of residual oil from a geologic sequestration (i.e., “Class VI”) well does not violate the ban.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB), on or before January 1, 2025, to adopt regulations for a unified permit application for the construction and operation of CO₂ capture, removal, or sequestration projects to expedite the issuance of permits or other authorizations for the construction and operation of those projects. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) 39741.2)
2. Requires a state agency to use the unified permit application when issuing a permit or other authorization for the construction and operation of a CO₂ capture, removal, or sequestration project, as specified.
3. Prohibits a well operator from injecting a concentrated CO₂ fluid produced by a CO₂ capture, removal, or sequestration project into a Class II injection well for purposes of enhanced oil recovery, as provided. (Public Resources Code (PRC) 3132)
4. Defines a “Class II well” be referencing the definition in Section 144.6 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (PRC 3130)

THIS BILL:

1. Provides that any incidental and unintentional residual oil produced at the surface from a Class VI well resulting from the injection of a concentrated CO₂ fluid into a Class VI well during the execution of a CO₂ capture, removal, or sequestration project is not considered enhanced oil recovery.
2. Prohibits the sale, barter, exchange, or trade of any incidental and unintentional residual oil produced at the surface by the CO₂ capture, removal, or sequestration project.
3. Requires any oil produced from a Class VI well to be reported to ARB and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 9, within 60 days of its production.
4. Defines “Class VI well” by referencing the definition in Section 144.6(f) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. To address climate change, the state has established ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions goals, among other policies promoting or requiring decarbonization. The California Climate Crisis Act declares state policy to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter [AB 1279, (Muratsuchi), Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022]. Current planning scenarios by ARB (i.e., the 2022 Scoping Plan Update) identify the need to utilize carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) projects to remove and sequester 20 million metric tons of CO₂ by 2030 and 100 million metric tons of CO₂ by 2045 to achieve the state’s carbon neutrality goals.

Among the best known types of CCUS projects are those that provide for the injection of concentrated CO₂ fluids into deep underground geologic reservoirs for permanent/quasi-permanent sequestration. Scientific experts estimate that there are many possible locations statewide where underground geologic reservoirs are suitable for carbon sequestration. The wells used to inject into these reservoirs are Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) program wells, which are permitted by the USEPA in California. There are seven project applications for approximately 30 Class VI permits pending before US EPA Region 9.

AB 1279 was one of seven bills adopted by Governor Newsom as part of a “climate package” near the end of the 2021/2022 Legislative session to further advance the state’s decarbonization efforts. Six of the seven bills passed the Legislature and were signed into law.

Another of the climate package bills was SB 905 (Caballero/Skinner), Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022, which sought to promote the use of carbon capture, removal, utilization, and storage (CCRUS) technologies by requiring ARB to establish a CCRUS program, and to adopt regulations by January 1, 2025 for a model unified permit program for the construction and operation of CCRUS projects.

SB 905 included numerous other provisions including a prohibition on the use of concentrated CO₂ from CO₂ capture, removal, or sequestration project for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), among others.

EOR is the application of heat or pressure to an oil reservoir to facilitate the recovery of oil. In general, a fluid, such as water or steam, is injected into the oil reservoir using an injection well and then the oil/water mix is produced using the same well or another one. Injection wells used for oil and gas production are a different class of UIC well than those used to inject concentrated CO₂ fluids for permanent geologic storage. Oil and gas production-related injection wells are Class II UIC wells. As noted above, SB 905, as well as SB 1314 (Limón), Chapter 336, Statutes of 2022, another climate package bill, prohibit the use of CCUS for EOR.

After SB 905 passed the concurrence vote in the Senate, Senator Caballero submitted a Letter to the Journal noting, among other things, the possibility that residual subsurface oil may be unintentionally expelled when a concentrated carbon stream is injected into a geologic reservoir for sequestration and that SB 905 did not intend to capture incidental and unintentional residual oil expulsion in its definition of EOR.

1. Author’s statement:

On September 16th, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 905, as part of the historic climate package, establishing breakthrough policy for CCRUS application. Since then, there have been several provisions brought to my attention that require clarification in order to avoid hindrance of current projects, and unintentional penalties. Senate Bill 438 builds upon SB 905 in an effort to clarify intent and ensure proper implementation. Specifically, the bill clarifies that residual oil expressed without oil production equipment is not penalized, and includes reporting requirements when incidents do occur. SB 438 is consistent with last year’s efforts and will allow California to continue its work on carbon emission reduction as intended.

1. What bill are we talking about? The two support letters on this bill make no mention of what the bill actually does, and instead make vague reference to “establishing a positive regulatory framework” (SoCalGas) and “ensur(ing) that critically needed…technologies can be expeditiously deployed” (Carbon Solutions Coalition).

Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental justice advocates primarily focus their objections on provisions that are not in the bill. These groups contend that the language in the bill is non-substantive and unnecessary, and further argue:

While apparently modest in scope, we object to this bill’s apparent intent, namely to speed investment into a climate dead end: carbon capture, use, and storage. Further, we expect the bill to be amended to undo one of the most important community protections that the environmental justice movement secured during last year’s climate negotiations: the moratorium on carbon pipelines until the federal rulemaking concludes.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Carbon Solutions Coalition
Southern California Gas Company

Opposition

350 Bay Area Action
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central California Asthma Collaborative
Central California Environmental Justice Network
Central Valley Air Quality Coalition
Indigenous Environmental Network
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Little Manila Rising
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Sunflower Alliance
Valley Improvement Projects

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. /

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 438

Author: Caballero (D), et al.

Amended: 3/30/23

Vote: 21

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 3/28/23

AYES: Min, Allen, Becker, Eggman, Grove, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, Padilla

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/19/23

AYES: Allen, Dahle, Limón, Menjivar, Nguyen, Skinner

NO VOTE RECORDED: Gonzalez

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT: Carbon sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill clarifies that the incidental and unintentional production of residual oil from a geologic sequestration well does not violate the ban on enhanced oil recovery on Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage projects.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the State Air Resources Board, on or before January 1, 2025, to adopt regulations for a unified permit application for the construction and operation of carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration projects to expedite the issuance of permits or other authorizations for the construction and operation of those projects. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §39741.2)
   1. A state agency is required to use the unified permit application when issuing a permit or other authorization for the construction and operation of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project, as specified.
2. Prohibits a well operator from injecting a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid produced by a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project into a Class II injection well for purposes of enhanced oil recovery, as provided. (PRC §3132)
3. Defines a “Class II well” as one that mirrors the definition in Section 144.6 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (PRC §3130)

This bill clarifies that the incidental and unintentional production of residual oil from a geologic carbon sequestration well does not violate the ban on enhanced oil recovery on Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage projects. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that any incidental and unintentional residual oil produced at the surface from a geologic carbon sequestration well resulting from the injection of a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a geologic carbon sequestration well during the execution of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project is not considered enhanced oil recovery, as provided.
2. Prohibits the production of carbon dioxide by a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project.
3. Requires any oil produced from a geologic sequestration well to be reported to the State Air Resources Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency within 60 days of its occurrence, as specified.
4. Defines a Class VI geologic carbon sequestration well, as provided.
5. Provides that no reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for certain state-mandated costs is required, as specified.

Background

The emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere is a strong contributor to global warming and climate change. Climate models predict and recent experience has shown that the impacts of climate change in the state include heat waves, drought, wildfire, sea level rise, extreme weather, flooding, and other catastrophic events that threaten public and environmental health and safety.

To address climate change, the state has established ambitious GHG emissions reductions goals, among other goals promoting or requiring decarbonization. The California Climate Crisis Act declares state policy to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter (AB 1279, Muratsuchi, Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022). Current planning scenarios by the State Air Resources Board (i.e. the 2022 Scoping Plan Update) identify the need to utilize carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) projects to remove and sequester 20 million metric tons of CO₂ by 2030 and 100 million metric tons of CO₂ by 2045 to achieve the state’s carbon neutrality goals.

Among the best known types of CCUS projects are those that provide for the injection of concentrated carbon dioxide fluids into deep underground geologic reservoirs for permanent/quasi-permanent sequestration. Scientific experts estimate that there are many possible locations statewide where underground geologic reservoirs are suitable for carbon sequestration. The wells used to inject into these reservoirs are Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) program wells, which are permitted by the US EPA in California. There are seven project applications for approximately 30 Class VI permits pending before US EPA Region IX.

AB 1279 was one of seven bills proposed by Governor Newsom as part of a “climate package” near the end of the 2021/2022 Legislative session to further advance the state’s decarbonization efforts. Six of the seven bills passed the Legislature and were signed into law.

Another of the climate package bills was SB 905 (Caballero/Skinner, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022), which sought to promote the use of carbon capture, removal, utilization, and storage (CCRUS) technologies by requiring the Air Resources Board to establish a CCRUS program, and to adopt regulations by January 1, 2025 for a model unified permit program for the construction and operation of CCRUS projects.

SB 905 included numerous other provisions including a prohibition on the use of concentrated carbon dioxide from carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project for enhanced oil recovery, among others.

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is the application of heat or pressure to an oil reservoir to facilitate the recovery of oil. In general, a fluid, such as water or steam, is injected into the oil reservoir using an injection well and then the oil/water mix is produced using the same well or another one. Injection wells used for oil and gas production are a different class of UIC well than those used to inject concentrated carbon dioxide fluids for permanent geologic storage. Oil and gas production-related injection wells are Class II UIC wells. As noted above, SB 905, as well as SB 1314 (Limón, Chapter 336, Statutes of 2022), another climate package bill, prohibit the use of CCUS/CCRS for EOR (or CO₂-EOR).

After SB 905 passed the concurrence vote in the Senate, Senator Caballero submitted a Letter to the Journal noting, among other things, the possibility that residual subsurface oil may be unintentionally expelled when a concentrated carbon stream is injected into a geologic reservoir for sequestration and that SB 905 did not intend to capture incidental and unintentional residual oil expulsion in its definition of EOR.

Comments

Inadvertent oil production from wells servicing underground geologic storage reservoirs. Depending upon the location of an underground geologic storage reservoir for carbon sequestration, it is possible that there may be co-located hydrocarbon deposits. Further, it is also possible that repair, operation, and maintenance of an injection well servicing an underground geologic storage reservoir will also result in the inadvertent yield of hydrocarbons at the surface. Therefore, there is an argument for a narrowly tailored clarification of the existing CO₂-EOR prohibition to provide for inadvertent hydrocarbon production associated with the use of only those injection wells servicing the geologic storage reservoir. This bill does not apply to injection wells used for oil and gas production. The required notification to the State Air Resource Board and the regional US Environmental Protection Agency office will help to identify whether incidental and unintentional production occurs. There are only two Class VI geologic carbon sequestration wells currently permitted in the country (in presumably different geology given the location), and it is unknown if any hydrocarbons are produced by these wells.

Integrity of geologic carbon sequestration reservoirs. Existing federal and state regulations require the integrity of geologic carbon sequestration reservoirs. In the event of carbon dioxide leakage, injection operations are required to be suspended. In addition, any Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program credits could be invalidated and the project’s certification under LCFS terminated.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 905 (Caballero/Skinner, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022) directed the establishment of a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program at the Air Resources Board, among numerous other additional provisions.

SB 1314 (Limón, Chapter 336, Statutes of 2022) prohibited the use of CO₂ from carbon capture projects for enhanced oil recovery operations to produce oil and gas.

AB 1279 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022) enacted the California Climate Crisis Act and declares state policy to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter.

SB 27 (Skinner, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2021) required the Air Resources Board to add carbon sequestration targets to the state’s climate change scoping plan, among other things.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/2/23)

California Carbon Solutions Coalition

California State Association of Electrical Workers

California State Pipe Trades Council

Calpine Corporation

Coalition of California Utility Employees

Southern California Gas Company

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/2/23)

Asian Pacific Environmental Network

Center for Biological Diversity

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Central California Environmental Justice Network

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition

Indigenous Environmental Network

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Little Manila Rising

Physicians for Social Responsibility- Los Angeles Chapter

Physicians for Social Responsibility- San Francisco Bay Chapter

Sierra Club California

Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action

Sunflower Alliance

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “On September 16th, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 905, as part of the historic climate package, establishing breakthrough policy for Carbon Capture Removal, Utilization, and Storage (CCRUS) application. Since then, there have been several provisions brought to my attention that require clarification in order to avoid hindrance of current projects, and unintentional penalties.”

“Senate Bill 438 builds upon SB 905 (2022) in an effort to clarify intent and ensure proper implementation. Specifically, the bill ensures that residual oil that is inadvertently and unintentionally expressed is not penalized. SB 438 is consistent with last year’s efforts and will allow California to continue its work in carbon emission reduction as intended.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment in a joint opposition letter raise concerns about “unintended consequences” and “modifying and potentially weakening last year’s SB 905 (Caballero), a hard-fought compromise at the heart of the climate package negotiations.” They raise concerns about undermining the CO₂-EOR prohibition by authorizing inadvertent oil production from wells serving geologic sequestration reservoirs. They argue “The existing code already prohibits an operator from injection carbon dioxide ‘for purposes of enhanced oil recovery.’ Thus, unintentional oil production is already allowed. As such, it is unclear what the effect of this change would be. At best, this change [is] surplusage to reassure skittish investors in order to drive an increase in the swarm of incoming CCUS projects. At worst, redefining unintentionally produced oil as not enhanced oil recovery may have broader impacts…”

Prepared by: Katharine Moore / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116

5/3/23 15:16:09

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 438

SUBJECT: Carbon sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage (CCRUS) Program: incidental and unintentional residual oil production.

DIGEST: This is a technical cleanup measure to SB 905 (Caballero, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022) to clarify the accidental production of oil does not violate the ban on enhanced oil recovery on CCRUS projects.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits a well operator from injecting a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid produced by a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project into a Class II injection well for purposes of enhanced oil recovery, including recovering oil from another well. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §3130)
2. Defines a “Class II well” as one that mirrors the definition in Section 144.6 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (PRC §3130)
3. Defines an “Exempted aquifer” as one that mirrors the definition in Section 144.3 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (PRC §3130)
4. Defines “Beneficial use” as mirroring the definition set forth in subdivision (f) of Section 13050 of the Water Code. (PRC §3130)
5. Defines an “Underground Injection Control Program” as a program covering Class II wells for which the division has received primacy from the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 1425 of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 300h-4). (PRC §3130)
   

This bill:

1. Defines a “Class VI well” as one that has the same meaning as set forth in Section 144.6(f) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
2. States the incidental and unintentional production of residual oil brought to the surface or produced at the surface from a Class VI well from the injection of a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class VI well that had been deemed emptied of oil before the injection does not violate the ban on oil production from these wells.
3. Prohibits the production of carbon dioxide by a carbon capture, removal, or sequestration project.
4. Requires any oil inadvertently produced from a Class VI well to be reported to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (US EPA), within 60 days of its occurrence.
   

Background

1. Stay Classy. This bill talks about both Class II and Class VI wells. Class II wells are used only to inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas production. Class II fluids are primarily brines (salt water) that are brought to the surface while producing oil and gas. Approximately 180,000 Class II wells are in operation in the United States and an estimated 2 billion gallons of fluids are injected in the United States every day.

Class VI wells are used to inject carbon dioxide (CO2) into deep rock formations. This long-term underground storage is called geologic sequestration (GS), referring to the technologies used to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and mitigate climate change.

1. CC Rider … I Mean, CCRUS … Last year’s SB 905 (Caballero) required CARB to create a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage (CCRUS) Program and adopt regulations for a model unified permit program to build and run CCRUS projects. The goal is to develop and implement a regulatory framework that would permit the use of CCRUS technologies in California. The bill required CARB to create a program that would evaluate the safety and efficacy of carbon capture and removal technologies, maximize workforce benefits, and protect frontline communities by minimizing impacts to health, safety and the environment from these projects.
2. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Crude oil development and production in U.S. oil reservoirs generally fall into one of three phases. The “primary” phase is what we generally think of as pumping oil, when the natural pressure of the reservoir or gravity drive oil into the wellbore, combined with artificial lift techniques (such as pumps) which bring the oil to the surface.

The “secondary” phase is when water or gas is injected to displace oil and drive it to a production wellbore where it can be pumped out.

The “tertiary,” or enhanced oil recovery phase, generally relies on using steam injections (thermal recovery), gas injections, or chemical injections to lower an oil’s viscosity and improve its flow rate, making it easier to pump.

1. Oops! … I Did It Again. SB 905 also prohibited using captured carbon for enhanced oil recovery. However, sometimes, unintended residual oil is inadvertently developed (or, expressed) during sequestration. The goal of this bill is to ensure this accidentally developed/expressed oil is not considered enhanced oil recovery (which is banned under current law) when there is no production well equipment present at the project site and the well had been deemed emptied of oil before the injection.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “On September 16th, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 905, as part of the historic climate package, establishing breakthrough policy for Carbon Capture Removal, Utilization, and Storage (CCRUS) application. Since then, there have been several provisions brought to my attention that require clarification in order to avoid hindrance of current projects, and unintentional penalties.

“Senate Bill 438 builds upon SB 905 (2022) in an effort to clarify intent and ensure proper implementation. Specifically, the bill ensures that residual oil that is inadvertently and unintentionally expressed is not penalized. SB 438 is consistent with last year’s efforts and will allow California to continue its work in carbon emission reduction as intended.”

1. Cleanup On Aisle “E” For Environment. This measure is a technical cleanup measure to last session’s SB 905 (Caballero). It clarifies that residual oil that’s inadvertently developed (or, expressed) during sequestration at a Class VI well is not considered enhanced oil recovery when there is no production well equipment present at the project site and the well had been deemed emptied of oil before the injection..

Should any such oil be materialize, the operator must report the event to CARB and the US EPA within 60 days.

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

This bill was heard by the Senate Natural Resources & Water Committee on March 28, 2023, where it was approved on a 9-0 vote.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 905 (Caballero/Skinner, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022) directed the establishment of a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program at CARB, among numerous other provisions.

SB 1314 (Limón, Chapter 336, Statutes of 2022) prohibited the use of CO2 from carbon capture projects for enhanced oil recovery operations to produce oil and gas.

AB 1279 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022) enacted the California Climate Crisis Act and declares state policy to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter.

SB 27 (Skinner, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2021) requires CARB to add carbon sequestration targets to the state’s climate change scoping plan, among other things.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

California Carbon Solutions Coalition

California State Association of Electrical Workers

California State Pipe Trades Council

Calpine Corporation

Coalition of California Utility Employees

Sempra Energy and Its Affiliates: San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company

OPPOSITION:

Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)

Center for Biological Diversity

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Central California Environmental Justice Network

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition

Indigenous Environmental Network

Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability

Little Manila Rising

Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles (PSR-LA)

S.F. Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action

Sunflower Alliance

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

The California State Pipe Trades Council, California State Association of Electrical Workers and Coalition of California Utility Employees write in support of the bill:

“The California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan Update, as well as Stanford University, Lawrence Livermore, UC, and the International Panel on Climate Change have cited carbon capture as critical to reach our carbon reductioon goals, including California’s legislative requirement of carbon neutrality by 2045.

“In addition to being an important carbon reduction tool, carbon capture presents high wage work opportunities for members of our organizations as we transition away from traditional fossil fuels jobs over time. California has the skilled and trained workforce to deploy carbon capture across a variety of industries to help the state meet its climate goals, and we want to ensure that the statutory framework for CCUS is interpreted as intended through SB 905.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

The Center for Race, Poverty & The Environment and 11 other groups sent a joint letter opposing the bill, writing:

“… Senator Caballero seeks to adjust frontline communities’ greatest protection from SB 905, the prohibition on the use of captured carbon for enhanced oil recovery, by stating that unintentional oil extraction at carbon storage wells is ‘not

considered enhanced oil recovery.’ The existing code already prohibits an operator from injecting carbon dioxide ‘for purposes of enhanced oil recovery.’ Thus, unintentional oil production is already allowed. As such, it is unclear what the effect of this change would be. At best, this change is just like Section 1, urplusage to reassure skittish investors in order to drive an increase in the swarm of incoming CCUS projects. At worst, redefining unintentionally produced oil as not enhanced oil recovery may have broader impacts and allow oil and gas operators under contract to perform carbon storage to skirt the prohibition altogether under the

guise of ‘incidental’ recovery.’”

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Dave Min, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB Hearing Date: March 28, 2023

Subject: Carbon sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

The emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere is a strong contributor to global warming and climate change. Climate models predict and recent experience has shown that the impacts of climate change in the state include heat waves, drought, wildfire, sea level rise, extreme weather, flooding, and other catastrophic events that threaten public and environmental health and safety.

To address climate change, the state has established ambitious GHG emissions reductions goals, among other goals promoting or requiring decarbonization. The California Climate Crisis Act declares state policy to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter (AB 1279 (Muratsuchi), Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022)(AB 1279). Current planning scenarios by the Air Resources Board (i.e. the 2022 Scoping Plan Update) identify the need to utilize carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) projects to remove and sequester 20 million metric tons of CO₂ by 2030 and 100 million metric tons of CO₂ by 2045 to achieve the state’s carbon neutrality goals.

Among the best known types of CCUS projects are those that provide for the injection of concentrated carbon dioxide fluids into deep underground geologic reservoirs for permanent/quasi-permanent sequestration. Scientific experts project there are many possible locations statewide where underground geologic reservoirs are suitable for carbon sequestration. The wells used to inject into these reservoirs are Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) program wells, which are permitted by the US EPA in California. There are seven applications for Class VI permits pending before US EPA Region IX.

AB 1279 was one of seven bills proposed by Governor Newsom as part of a “climate package” near the end of the 2021/2022 Legislative session to further advance the state’s decarbonization efforts. Six of the seven bills passed the Legislature and were signed into law.

Another of the climate package bills was SB 905 (Caballero/Skinner, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022)(SB 905), which sought to promote the use of carbon capture, removal, utilization, and storage (CCRUS) technologies by requiring the Air Resources Board to establish a CCRUS program, and to adopt regulations by January 1, 2025 for a model unified permit program for the construction and operation of CCRUS projects.

SB 905 included numerous other provisions including: establishing that the title to any geologic storage reservoir for carbon sequestration is vested in the owner of the overlying surface estate; a prohibition on the use of concentrated carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery; and a prohibition on the use of pipelines to transport carbon dioxide to or from a carbon capture, removal and sequestration (CCRS) project until the promulgation of federal pipeline standards and other requirements are met; among other provisions.

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is the application of heat or pressure to an oil reservoir to facilitate the recovery of oil. In general, a fluid, such as water or steam, is injected into the oil reservoir using an injection well and then the oil/water mix is produced using the same well or another one. Injection wells used for oil and gas production are a different class of UIC well than those used to inject concentrated carbon dioxide fluids for permanent geologic storage. Oil and gas production-related injection wells are Class II UIC wells. As noted above, SB 905, as well as SB 1314 (Limón, Chapter 336, Statutes of 2022), another climate package bill, prohibit the use of CCUS/CCRS for EOR (or CO₂-EOR).

After SB 905 passed the concurrence vote in the Senate, Senator Caballero submitted a Letter to the Journal noting, among other things, the possibility that residual subsurface oil may be unintentionally expelled when a concentrated carbon stream is injected into a geologic reservoir for sequestration and that SB 905 did not intend to capture incidental and unintentional residual oil expulsion in its definition of EOR.

Proposition 70, an initiative bond measure approved by the state’s voters in June 1988, enacted the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act. Proposition 70 included findings that the people of California declare that the “preservation of California’s unique natural heritage is in the interest of all Californians.” (Public Resources Code (PRC) §5901)

Proposition 70 also stated that “wildlife, coastal, and park land conservation is in the public interest and is necessary to keep these lands in open-space, natural, and recreational uses, to provide clean air and water, to protect significant environmental and scenic values of wildlife and plant habitat, riparian, and wetland areas, and other open-space lands, and to provide opportunities for the people of California to enjoy, appreciate, and visit natural environments and recreational areas.” (PRC §5905).

Ballot arguments in favor of Proposition 70 argued that “Proposition 70 will protect California’s beautiful, natural, scenic and recreational lands for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren.” In addition, Proposition 70 “will provide permanent benefits to all Californians.”

Proposition 70 established the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Program within which various state entities – principally the Department of Parks and Recreation – and others received proceeds from bond sales to provide grants to various specified entities, such as local jurisdictions, for the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, or restoration of real property for parks, beaches, wildlife habitat, natural lands, recreation, or preservation of historical resources. (PRC §5907)

Proposition 70 included strict controls on the use of its funds by grantees and required the grantee to maintain and operate the property acquired in perpetuity, and to make no other use of the property except as authorized by a specific act of the Legislature, as provided. (PRC §5919) If the use of the property acquired through a Proposition 70 grant is changed to a use not authorized under Proposition 70, various methods, including reimbursement, are specified in existing law to keep Proposition 70 whole.

Since Proposition 70 became law, grantees have occasionally sought legislative acts to authorize additional uses of the conserved properties on a case-by-case basis. (see, for example, PRC §5924.5)

Existing law:

1. Requires the State Air Resources Board, on or before January 1, 2025, to adopt regulations for a unified permit application for the construction and operation of carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration projects to expedite the issuance of permits or other authorizations for the construction and operation of those projects. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §39741.2)
   1. A state agency is required to use the unified permit application when issuing a permit or other authorization for the construction and operation of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project, as specified.
2. Prohibits a well operator from injecting a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid produced by a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project into a Class II injection well for purposes of enhanced oil recovery, as provided. (PRC §3132)
3. Provides that title to any geologic storage reservoir is vested in the owner of the overlying surface estate unless it has been severed and separately conveyed. (PRC §71462)
4. Requires the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the Public Utilities Commission, no later than February 1, 2023, to provide a proposal to the Legislature to establish a state framework and standards for the design, operation, siting, and maintenance of intrastate pipelines carrying carbon dioxide fluids of varying composition and phase to minimize the risk posed to public and environmental health and safety. (PRC §71465)
5. Enacts the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act (Proposition 70). (PRC §§5900 et seq.)
   1. Proposition 70 authorizes bonds to be issued and sold for use in carrying out wildlife, coastal, and parkland conservation programs, and prohibits the disbursement of funds from the sale of the bonds to a grant applicant unless the applicant agrees to use the property only for the purposes of the act and to make no other use, sale, or other disposition of the property except in accordance with a specific act of the Legislature. (PRC §5907)
   2. Proposition 70 requires a grantee to take certain actions, including the reimbursement of grant funds, if the use of the property acquired through a Proposition 70 grant is changed to one other than permitted under the category from which the funds were appropriated. (PRC §5919)

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would clarify provisions in SB 905 to facilitate carbon capture, removal, and sequestration, among other things. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Explicitly require a state agency to continue to use its own application for a permit or other authorization for the construction and operation of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project until the unified Air Resources Board permit application is adopted, as provided.
2. Clarify that any incidental or unintentional residual oil brought to the surface resulting from the injection of a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid during the execution of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project is not enhanced oil recovery, as provided.
3. Provide for the use of a property acquired with Proposition 70 funding for a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project if that use is not reasonably anticipated to interfere with or otherwise affect the use of the property. No reimbursement, replacement property, or other compensation is required.
4. State legislative intent to enact further legislation to establish the framework and standards for intrastate pipelines carrying carbon dioxide fluids, as specified.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “On September 16^th, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 905, as part of the historic climate package, establishing breakthrough policy for Carbon Capture Removal, Utilization, and Storage (CCRUS) application. Since then, there have been several provisions brought to my attention that require clarification in order to avoid hindrance of current projects, and unintentional penalties. Senate Bill 438 builds upon SB 905 (2022) in an effort to clarify intent and ensure proper implementation. Specifically, this includes ensuring that existing local permit processes shall remain in place for projects currently seeking approval, that residual oil expressed without oil production equipment is not penalized, and that lands purchased with Prop 70 funding are authorized for sequestration efforts. SB 438 is consistent with last year’s efforts and will allow California to continue its work in carbon emission reduction as intended.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment in a joint opposition letter raise concerns about “unintended consequences” and “modifying and potentially weakening last year’s SB 905 (Caballero), a hard-fought compromise at the heart of the climate package negotiations.” They argue that explicitly requiring state agencies to use their own permit or authorization applications for CCRS is not needed, raise concerns about undermining the CO₂-EOR prohibition by authorizing inadvertent oil production from wells serving geologic sequestration reservoirs, and raise concerns about undermining the conservation of protected lands by authorizing industrial activities upon them. They note, “the state should ensure strong community protections are in place before considering allowing any CCUS projects, including limiting deployment to truly hard-to-decarbonize sections or prohibiting it altogether.”

COMMENTS

This bill is double-referred. This bill is double-referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Elements of this bill under the jurisdiction of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee are included here for context and completeness only and will be discussed before that Committee.

Inadvertent oil production from wells servicing underground geologic storage reservoirs. Depending upon the location of an underground geologic storage reservoir for carbon sequestration, it is possible that there may be co-located hydrocarbon deposits. Further, it is also possible that repair, operation, and maintenance of an injection well servicing an underground geologic storage reservoir will also result in the inadvertent yield of hydrocarbons at the surface. Therefore, there is an argument for a narrowly tailored clarification of the existing CO₂-EOR prohibition to provide for inadvertent hydrocarbon production associated with the use of injection wells to service the geologic storage reservoir.

The Committee may wish to amend the bill to specify that inadvertent oil production shall be limited to the Class VI UIC wells servicing underground geologic storage reservoirs, add a reporting requirement to relevant agencies to collect information as the technology is deployed, and additional conforming changes. [Amendment #1]

Proposition 70 and carbon capture, removal, and sequestration. It is a fair point that the authors and proponents of Proposition 70 may not have considered that within 35 years the state would extend the rights to subsurface pore space to surface owners in order to facilitate the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. However, the authors foresaw that the use of certain Proposition 70-purchased properties might need to change over time. Proposition 70’s language includes a method – a Legislative Act – to authorize a use different from that the grantee agreed to in order to receive the funding. Proposition 70 also authorizes grantees to put the purchased property to a non-Proposition 70-consistent use with appropriate reimbursement or by putting Proposition 70-consistent restrictions on equivalent substitute property, among other methods.

The conserved values of a Proposition 70-purchased property likely would not be impacted by the presence of an intact carbon sequestration reservoir located deep underground beneath the surface of the property. However, that reservoir may well be required to have monitoring wells and other equipment installed upon the property that would impact the property’s conserved values. Further, carbon dioxide capture and removal – other than by natural processes in general – currently requires equipment inconsistent with the conserved values of a Proposition 70-purchased property. Importantly, voters who supported Proposition 70 had a fair belief that the funds generated by their vote would be spent on permanent conservation.

The CCRUS program is still in the process of being developed and implemented. It remains to be seen whether Proposition 70 is an obstacle to the state in meeting its CCRUS goals, or whether more than occasional legislative acts to address specific circumstances are required. There is time – should Proposition 70 become an obstacle – to carefully consider appropriate changes. Moreover, pore space available for carbon sequestration is likely to become valuable and a potential source of revenue to the surface owner.

In view of this, the Committee may wish to amend the bill to address the single proposed project utilizing Proposition 70-purchased property that includes a proposed carbon sequestration project. [Amendment #2]

Author amendments. The author has asked to narrow the scope of the bill by deleting Sections 1 and 4 from the bill in their entirety, but missed Committee deadlines to provide author amendments prior to the bill being heard before the Committee. In view of the bill’s referral to two Senate policy committees for hearing, and the time required for processing amendments, the Committee may wish to allow the author to take author’s amendments at the same time the Committee amends the bill. [Amendment #3]

Integrity of geologic carbon sequestration reservoirs. Existing federal and state regulations require the integrity of geologic carbon sequestration reservoirs. In the event of carbon dioxide leakage, injection operations are required to be suspended. In addition, any Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program credits could be invalidated and the project’s certification under LCFS terminated.

Recent related legislation

SB 256 (Dodd, 2023) would authorize the city of Davis to take certain actions with Proposition 70-purchased parklands. (This bill is pending before this committee.)

SB 905 (Caballero/Skinner, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022) directed the establishment of a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program at the Air Resources Board, among numerous other additional provisions.

SB 1314 (Limón, Chapter 336, Statutes of 2022) prohibited the use of CO₂ from carbon capture projects for enhanced oil recovery operations to produce oil and gas.

AB 1279 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022) enacted the California Climate Crisis Act and declares state policy to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter.

SB 27 (Skinner, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2021) requires the Air Resources Board to add carbon sequestration targets to the state’s climate change scoping plan, among other things.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT 1

Revise proposed PRC §3132(b)(2) as follows:

(2) For purpose of this subdivision, any incidental and unintentional residual oil brought to the surface produced at the surface from a Class VI well resulting from the injection of a concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class VI well that has been deemed emptied of oil before injection during the execution of a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project is not considered enhanced oil recovery. Carbon dioxide shall not be produced by a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project. Any oil produced from a Class VI well shall be reported to the Air Resources Board and US EPA Region IX within 60 days of its occurrence.

Amend PRC §3130 as follows:

3130. For purposes of this article, the following terms mean the following:

(a) “Beneficial use” has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (f) of Section 13050 of the Water Code.

(b) “Class II well” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 144.6 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(c) “Class VI well” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 144.6f of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(c) “Exempted aquifer” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 144.3 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(d) “State board” means the State Water Resources Control Board.

(e) “Underground Injection Control Program” means a program covering Class II wells for which the division has received primacy from the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 1425 of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 300h-4).

AMENDMENT 2

Replace page 5, lines 7 – 17, inclusive, with the following:

5919.5. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms apply:

(1) “City” means the City of Davis.

(2) “Land” means lands or portions of land acquired by the city with a grant made pursuant to subparagraph (S) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 5907 of this division. This includes the following parcels, as identified by the assessor of the County of Yolo:

(A) 033-260-004

(B) 033-260-005

(C) 033-260-010

(D) 033-130-031

(E) 033-130-052

(F) 033-130-035

(G) 033-130-037

(H) 033-130-051

(3) “plan” means the “Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan.”

(b) Pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 5919, the city may do all of the following:

(1) For the land specified in sub-paragraphs (A) through (H) inclusive of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), use conservation easements, leases, or licenses for purposes of habitat conservation projects as established by the plan.

(2) For the use of pore space deep underground in the geologic reservoir under land specified in sub-paragraphs (F) through (H) inclusive of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), use easements, leases, or licenses for the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. On the surface of the land specified in sub-paragraphs (F) through (H) inclusive of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), this may include the use of easements, leases, or licenses for monitoring wells or any other equipment or facilities required by federal, state, or local law or regulation.

(c) Subdivision (b) of section 5919 shall apply to any changes to the use of the surface of the land specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of this section.

(d) In using easements, leases, or licenses pursuant to subdivision (b), the city shall maximize the scenic, recreational, and wildlife values of these lands.

(e) Nothing in this section exempts the city of Davis from any other laws or regulations that would apply to the proposed uses.

AMENDMENT 3

Delete Sections 1 and 4 in their entirety.

SUPPORT

California Carbon Solutions Coalition (including the California & Nevada State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, Calpine, Carbon Terravault, Clean Energy Systems, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and the Southern California Gas Company,)

California State Association of Electrical Workers

California State Pipe Trades Council

Calpine Corporation

Coalition of California Utility Employees

Southern California Gas Company

OPPOSITION

Asian Pacific Environmental Network

Center for Biological Diversity

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Central California Environmental Justice Network

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition

Indigenous Environmental Network

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Little Manila Rising

Physicians for Social Responsibility- Los Angeles Chapter

Physicians for Social Responsibility- San Francisco Bay Chapter

Sunflower Alliance

-- END --