SB 542: Tribal gaming: compact ratification.
- Session Year: 2025-2026
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2026-09-14
Current Status:
Passed
(2026-09-14: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 224, Statutes of 2026.)
Introduced
In Committee
Awaiting First Chamber Vote
Passed First Chamber
In Committee
Awaiting Second Chamber Vote
Passed Second Chamber
Enacted
Existing federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, provides for the negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within a state. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to negotiate and conclude those compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. Existing law expressly ratifies a number of tribal-state gaming compacts, and amendments to tribal-state gaming compacts, between the State of California and specified Indian tribes.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, as defined, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect.
This bill would ratify the 2nd amendment to the tribal-state gaming compact entered into between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians executed on August 4, 2026. The bill would provide that, in deference to tribal sovereignty, certain actions related to this amended compact are not projects for the purposes of CEQA.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, provides for the negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within a state. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to negotiate and conclude those compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. Existing law expressly ratifies a number of tribal-state gaming compacts, and amendments to tribal-state gaming compacts, between the State of California and specified Indian tribes.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, as defined, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect.
This bill would ratify the 2nd amendment to the tribal-state gaming compact entered into between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians executed on August 4, 2026. The bill would provide that, in deference to tribal sovereignty, certain actions related to this amended compact are not projects for the purposes of CEQA.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, provides for the negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within a state. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to negotiate and conclude those compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. Existing law expressly ratifies a number of tribal-state gaming compacts, and amendments to tribal-state gaming compacts, between the State of California and specified Indian tribes.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, as defined, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect.
This bill would ratify the 2nd amendment to the tribal-state gaming compact entered into between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians executed on August 4, 2026. The bill would provide that, in deference to tribal sovereignty, certain actions related to this amended compact are not projects for the purposes of CEQA.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1)The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act generally requires the administrator for oil spill response, acting at the direction of the Governor, to implement activities relating to oil spill response, including emergency drills and preparedness, and oil spill containment and cleanup, and to represent the state in any coordinated response efforts with the federal government. Existing law requires the Governor to establish a California oil spill contingency plan that provides for an integrated and effective state procedure to combat the results of major oil spills within the state and that specifies state agencies to implement the plan. Existing law requires the administrator to adopt and implement regulations governing the adequacy of oil spill contingency plans to be prepared and implemented and requires the regulations to provide for the best achievable protection of coastal and marine waters. Existing law requires these regulations to permit the development, application, and use of an oil spill contingency plan for similar vessels, pipelines, terminals, and facilities within a single company or organization, and across companies and organizations. Existing law requires these regulations to ensure, among other things, standards for determining a reasonable worst case oil spill.This bill would, commencing January 15, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, require the administrator to solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the reasonable worst case spill volumes for facilities and, based on this feedback, review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spill volumes to reflect the best available information, as provided.Under the act, the owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the facility or the oil to be handled, stored, or transported by the facility.This bill would require the administrator to publicly post a list of all applications for certificates of financial responsibility submitted by facility owners and operators on the internet website of the Office of Spill Prevention and Response. The bill would require the posting to include specified information about applicants, including reasonable worst case spill volume of the facility to be covered by the certificate and the amount of financial responsibility demonstrated. The bill would require the administrator to post this information within 7 business days of receiving an application. The bill would, commencing January 15, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, require the administrator to solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the financial responsibility requirements for facilities and, based on this feedback, review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information, as provided.(2)The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 requires the State Fire Marshal to administer provisions regulating the inspection of intrastate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous liquid. A violation of the act is a crime.This bill would prohibit the restarting of an existing oil pipeline that is 6 inches or larger that has been idle, inactive, or out of service for 5 years or more without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program that meets the requirements established by the State Fire Marshal, as provided. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require these tests to be performed by a qualified testing company, as provided. The bill would require the Office of the State Fire Marshal to promulgate regulations as necessary to implement these provisions.(3)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.(1)The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act generally requires the administrator for oil spill response, acting at the direction of the Governor, to implement activities relating to oil spill response, including emergency drills and preparedness, and oil spill containment and cleanup, and to represent the state in any coordinated response efforts with the federal government. Existing law requires the Governor to establish a California oil spill contingency plan that provides for an integrated and effective state procedure to combat the results of major oil spills within the state and that specifies state agencies to implement the plan. Existing law requires the administrator to adopt and implement regulations governing the adequacy of oil spill contingency plans to be prepared and implemented and requires the regulations to provide for the best achievable protection of coastal and marine waters. Existing law requires these regulations to permit the development, application, and use of an oil spill contingency plan for similar vessels, pipelines, terminals, and facilities within a single company or organization, and across companies and organizations. Existing law requires these regulations to ensure, among other things, standards for determining a reasonable worst case oil spill.
This bill would, commencing January 15, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, require the administrator to solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the reasonable worst case spill volumes for facilities and, based on this feedback, review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spill volumes to reflect the best available information, as provided.
Under the act, the owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the facility or the oil to be handled, stored, or transported by the facility.
This bill would require the administrator to publicly post a list of all applications for certificates of financial responsibility submitted by facility owners and operators on the internet website of the Office of Spill Prevention and Response. The bill would require the posting to include specified information about applicants, including reasonable worst case spill volume of the facility to be covered by the certificate and the amount of financial responsibility demonstrated. The bill would require the administrator to post this information within 7 business days of receiving an application. The bill would, commencing January 15, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, require the administrator to solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the financial responsibility requirements for facilities and, based on this feedback, review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information, as provided.
(2)The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 requires the State Fire Marshal to administer provisions regulating the inspection of intrastate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous liquid. A violation of the act is a crime.
This bill would prohibit the restarting of an existing oil pipeline that is 6 inches or larger that has been idle, inactive, or out of service for 5 years or more without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program that meets the requirements established by the State Fire Marshal, as provided. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require these tests to be performed by a qualified testing company, as provided. The bill would require the Office of the State Fire Marshal to promulgate regulations as necessary to implement these provisions.
(3)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.
Under existing law, the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, there is an administrator for oil spill response. Under this act, the owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for, among other things, the facility or oil to be handled.This bill would require, for an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for 5 or more years, there to be a public notice and comment process before the administrator issues the certificate of financial responsibility. The bill would require the administrator to review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill, as provided.Under the act, the administrator has primary authority to direct prevention, removal, abatement, response, containment, and cleanup efforts with regard to all aspects of any oil spill in the waters of the state as specified. A person who knowingly violates the act, or other law as provided, is, upon conviction, guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine or by imprisonment, as specified. Under existing law, the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, the State Fire Marshal exercises safety regulatory jurisdiction over intrastate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous or highly volatile liquid substances.The bill would prohibit, notwithstanding any other law, an existing oil pipeline, as defined, that has not been used for 5 or more years from being restarted without passing a hydrostatic testing program, as specified. By expanding the scope of 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.Under existing law, the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, there is an administrator for oil spill response. Under this act, the owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for, among other things, the facility or oil to be handled.
This bill would require, for an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for 5 or more years, there to be a public notice and comment process before the administrator issues the certificate of financial responsibility. The bill would require the administrator to review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill, as provided.
Under the act, the administrator has primary authority to direct prevention, removal, abatement, response, containment, and cleanup efforts with regard to all aspects of any oil spill in the waters of the state as specified. A person who knowingly violates the act, or other law as provided, is, upon conviction, guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine or by imprisonment, as specified. Under existing law, the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, the State Fire Marshal exercises safety regulatory jurisdiction over intrastate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous or highly volatile liquid substances.
The bill would, would prohibit, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit an existing oil pipelines pipeline, as defined, that have has not been used for 5 or more years from being restarted without passing a hydrostatic testing program, as specified. By expanding the scope of 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.
Under existing law, the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, there is an administrator for oil spill response. Under this act, the owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for, among other things, the facility or oil to be handled.
This bill would require require, for an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for 5 or more years, there to be a public notice and comment process before the administrator issues the certificate of financial responsibility. The bill would require the administrator to review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill, as provided.
Under the act, the administrator has primary authority to direct prevention, removal, abatement, response, containment, and cleanup efforts with regard to all aspects of any oil spill in the waters of the state as specified. A person who knowingly violates the act, or other law as provided, is, upon conviction, guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine or by imprisonment, as specified. Under existing law, the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, the State Fire Marshal exercises safety regulatory jurisdiction over intrastate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous or highly volatile liquid substances.
The bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit existing oil pipelines that have not been used for 5 or more years from being restarted without passing a hydrostatic testing program, as specified. By expanding the scope of 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.
Under existing law, the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, there is an administrator for oil spill response. Under this act, the owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for, among other things, the facility or oil to be handled.
This bill would require there to be an unspecified a public notice and comment process before the administrator issues the certificate of financial responsibility. The bill would require the administrator to review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill, as provided.
Under the act, the administrator has primary authority to direct prevention, removal, abatement, response, containment, and cleanup efforts with regard to all aspects of any oil spill in the waters of the state as specified. A person who knowingly violates the act, or other law as provided, is, upon conviction, guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine or by imprisonment, as specified. Under existing law, the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, the State Fire Marshal exercises safety regulatory jurisdiction over intrastate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous or highly volatile liquid substances.
The bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit existing oil pipelines that have not been used for 5 or more years from being restarted without a hydro test. passing a hydrostatic testing program, as specified. By expanding the scope of 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.
Under existing law, the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, there is an administrator for oil spill response. Under this act, the owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for, among other things, the facility or oil to be handled.
This bill would require there to be an unspecified public process before the administrator issues the certificate of financial responsibility.
Under the act, the administrator has primary authority to direct prevention, removal, abatement, response, containment, and cleanup efforts with regard to all aspects of any oil spill in the waters of the state as specified. A person who knowingly violates the act, or other law as provided, is, upon conviction, guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine or by imprisonment, as specified. Under existing law, the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981, the State Fire Marshal exercises safety regulatory jurisdiction over intrastate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous or highly volatile liquid substances.
The bill would, notwithstanding other law, prohibit existing oil pipelines that have not been used for 5 or more years from being restarted without a hydro test. By expanding the scope of 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.
The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act generally requires the administrator for oil spill response, acting at the direction of the Governor, to implement activities relating to oil spill response, including emergency drills and preparedness and oil spill containment and cleanup, and to represent the state in any coordinated response efforts with the federal government. The act requires the administrator to enter into discussions on behalf of the state with the States of Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, for the purpose of developing interstate agreements that address specified matters regarding oil spill prevention and response and to coordinate the development of these agreements with the United States Coast Guard, the Province of British Columbia in Canada, and the Republic of Mexico.This bill would require the administrator to additionally coordinate the development of those interstate agreements with any other appropriate federal entities.The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act generally requires the administrator for oil spill response, acting at the direction of the Governor, to implement activities relating to oil spill response, including emergency drills and preparedness and oil spill containment and cleanup, and to represent the state in any coordinated response efforts with the federal government. The act requires the administrator to enter into discussions on behalf of the state with the States of Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, for the purpose of developing interstate agreements that address specified matters regarding oil spill prevention and response and to coordinate the development of these agreements with the United States Coast Guard, the Province of British Columbia in Canada, and the Republic of Mexico.
This bill would require the administrator to additionally coordinate the development of those interstate agreements with any other appropriate federal entities.
(a)The second amendment to the tribal-state gaming compact between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, executed on August 4, 2026, entered into in accordance with the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. Secs. 1166 to 1168, inclusive, and 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.), is hereby ratified.
(b)(1)In deference to tribal sovereignty, none of the following shall be deemed a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code):
(A)The execution of an amendment to a tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(B)The execution of an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(C)The execution of an intergovernmental agreement between a tribe and a county or city government negotiated pursuant to the express authority of, or as expressly referenced in, an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(D)The execution of an intergovernmental agreement between a tribe and the Department of Transportation, or other state agency, negotiated pursuant to the express authority of, or as expressly referenced in, an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(E)The on-reservation impacts of compliance with the terms of an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(2)Except as expressly provided in this section, this subdivision does not exempt a city, county, or city and county, or the Department of Transportation, or any state agency or local jurisdiction, from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SEC. 2.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to enhance the economic development, stability, and self-sufficiency of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, and to protect the interests of this tribe and its members, the surrounding communities, and the California public at the earliest possible time, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
(a)The second amendment to the tribal-state gaming compact between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, executed on August 4, 2026, entered into in accordance with the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. Secs. 1166 to 1168, inclusive, and 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.), is hereby ratified.
(b)(1)In deference to tribal sovereignty, none of the following shall be deemed a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code):
(A)The execution of an amendment to a tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(B)The execution of an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(C)The execution of an intergovernmental agreement between a tribe and a county or city government negotiated pursuant to the express authority of, or as expressly referenced in, an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(D)The execution of an intergovernmental agreement between a tribe and the Department of Transportation, or other state agency, negotiated pursuant to the express authority of, or as expressly referenced in, an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(E)The on-reservation impacts of compliance with the terms of an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(2)Except as expressly provided in this section, this subdivision does not exempt a city, county, or city and county, or the Department of Transportation, or any state agency or local jurisdiction, from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SEC. 2.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to enhance the economic development, stability, and self-sufficiency of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, and to protect the interests of this tribe and its members, the surrounding communities, and the California public at the earliest possible time, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
(a)The second amendment to the tribal-state gaming compact between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, executed on August 4, 2026, entered into in accordance with the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. Secs. 1166 to 1168, inclusive, and 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.), is hereby ratified.
(b)(1)In deference to tribal sovereignty, none of the following shall be deemed a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code):
(A)The execution of an amendment to a tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(B)The execution of an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(C)The execution of an intergovernmental agreement between a tribe and a county or city government negotiated pursuant to the express authority of, or as expressly referenced in, an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(D)The execution of an intergovernmental agreement between a tribe and the Department of Transportation, or other state agency, negotiated pursuant to the express authority of, or as expressly referenced in, an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(E)The on-reservation impacts of compliance with the terms of an amended tribal-state gaming compact ratified by this section.
(2)Except as expressly provided in this section, this subdivision does not exempt a city, county, or city and county, or the Department of Transportation, or any state agency or local jurisdiction, from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SEC. 2.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to enhance the economic development, stability, and self-sufficiency of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, and to protect the interests of this tribe and its members, the surrounding communities, and the California public at the earliest possible time, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
SECTION 1.Section 8670.28 of the Government Code is amended to read:8670.28.(a)The administrator, taking into consideration the facility or vessel contingency plan requirements of the State Lands Commission, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, the California Coastal Commission, and other state and federal agencies, shall adopt and implement regulations governing the adequacy of oil spill contingency plans to be prepared and implemented under this article. All regulations shall be developed in consultation with the Oil Spill Technical Advisory Committee, and shall be consistent with the California oil spill contingency plan and not in conflict with the National Contingency Plan. The regulations shall provide for the best achievable protection of the waters and natural resources of the state. The regulations shall permit the development, application, and use of an oil spill contingency plan for similar vessels, pipelines, terminals, and facilities within a single company or organization, and across companies and organizations. The regulations shall, at a minimum, ensure all of the following:(1)All areas of state waters are at all times protected by prevention, response, containment, and cleanup equipment and operations.(2)Standards set for response, containment, and cleanup equipment and operations are maintained and regularly improved to protect the resources of the state.(3)All appropriate personnel employed by operators required to have a contingency plan receive training in oil spill response and cleanup equipment usage and operations.(4)Each oil spill contingency plan provides for appropriate financial or contractual arrangements for all necessary equipment and services for the response, containment, and cleanup of a reasonable worst case oil spill scenario for each area the plan addresses.(5)Each oil spill contingency plan demonstrates that all protection measures are being taken to reduce the possibility of an oil spill occurring as a result of the operation of the facility or vessel. The protection measures shall include, but not be limited to, response to disabled vessels and identification of those measures taken to comply with requirements of Division 7.8 (commencing with Section 8750) of the Public Resources Code.(6)Each oil spill contingency plan identifies the types of equipment that can be used, the location of the equipment, and the time taken to deliver the equipment.(7)Each facility, as determined by the administrator, conducts a hazard and operability study to identify the hazards associated with the operation of the facility, including the use of the facility by vessels, due to operating error, equipment failure, and external events. For the hazards identified in the hazard and operability studies, the facility shall conduct an offsite consequence analysis that, for the most likely hazards, assumes pessimistic water and air dispersion and other adverse environmental conditions.(8)Each oil spill contingency plan contains a list of contacts to call in the event of a drill, threatened discharge of oil, or discharge of oil.(9)Each oil spill contingency plan identifies the measures to be taken to protect the recreational and environmentally sensitive areas that would be threatened by a reasonable worst case oil spill scenario.(10)(A)Standards for determining a reasonable worst case oil spill.(B)Commencing January 15, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, in order to increase public participation, the administrator shall solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the reasonable worst case spill volumes for facilities. Based on this feedback, the administrator shall review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spill volumes to reflect the best available information. If revisions are appropriate, the administrator shall initiate a rulemaking action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3), which includes a public notice and comment process.(C)Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), for a nontank vessel, the reasonable worst case is a spill of the total volume of the largest fuel tank on the nontank vessel.(D)Any review and rulemaking action undertaken pursuant to this paragraph shall be combined with and be used to inform the review and any rulemaking action undertaken pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 8670.37.51.(11)Each oil spill contingency plan specifies an agent for service of process. The agent shall be located in this state.(b)The regulations and guidelines adopted pursuant to this section shall also include provisions to provide for public review and comment on submitted oil spill contingency plans.(c)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall specifically address the types of equipment that will be necessary, the maximum time that will be allowed for deployment, the maximum distance to cooperating response entities, the amounts of dispersant, and the maximum time required for application should the use of dispersants be approved. Upon a determination by the administrator that booming is appropriate at the site and necessary to provide best achievable protection, the regulations shall require that vessels engaged in lightering operations be boomed prior to the commencement of operations.(d)The administrator shall adopt regulations and guidelines for oil spill contingency plans with regard to mobile transfer units, small marine fueling facilities, and vessels carrying oil as secondary cargo that acknowledge the reduced risk of damage from oil spills from those units, facilities, and vessels while maintaining the best achievable protection for the public health and safety and the environment.SEC. 2.Section 8670.37.51 of the Government Code is amended to read:8670.37.51.(a)A tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo shall not be used to transport oil across waters of the state unless the owner or operator has applied for and obtained a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for that vessel or for the owner of all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.(b)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from a tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo unless the operator of the marine terminal has received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the operator of that vessel or for all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.(c)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from any vessel that is or is intended to be used for transporting oil as cargo to or from a second vessel unless the operator of the marine terminal has first received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the person responsible for both the first and second vessels or all of the oil contained in both vessels, as well as all the oil to be transferred to or from both vessels.(d)(1)An owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the facility or the oil to be handled, stored, or transported by the facility.(2)The administrator shall publicly post on the Office of Spill Prevention and Response internet website a list of all applications for certificates of financial responsibility submitted by facility owners and operators. The posting shall include the legal name of the applicant, the name and reasonable worst case spill volume of the facility to be covered by the certificate, the amount of financial responsibility demonstrated, and the type of evidence furnished to demonstrate the financial responsibility. The administrator shall post this information within seven business days of receiving an application.(3)(A)Commencing January 15, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, in order to increase public participation, the administrator shall solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the financial responsibility requirements for facilities. Based on this feedback, the administrator shall review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating the financial assurances and setting the maximum amount of a certificate of financial responsibility necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information, pursuant to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3), which includes a public notice and comment process.(B)Any review and rulemaking action undertaken pursuant to this paragraph shall be combined with and be used to inform the review and any rulemaking action undertaken pursuant to paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 8670.28.(e)Pursuant to Section 8670.37.58, nontank vessels shall obtain a certificate of financial responsibility.SEC. 3.Section 51014.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:51014.1.(a)Any existing pipeline that transports oil and that is six inches or larger that has been idle, inactive, or out of service for five years or more, shall not be restarted without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program.(b)(1)(A)The hydrostatic spike test shall be at least 139 percent of the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline and shall not exceed 80 percent of the specific minimum yield strength, as determined appropriate by the State Fire Marshal.(B)Notwithstanding paragraph (A), at the operators request, the minimum hydrostatic spike test pressure may be lower than 100 percent of the specified minimum yield strength if the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline is correspondingly reduced. The hydrostatic spike test shall be at least 139 percent of the reduced maximum operating pressure of the pipeline, as determined appropriate by the State Fire Marshal. The hydrostatic spike test shall be performed in segments to ensure every elevation point will be tested.(2)If the specified minimum yield strength is unknown, the specified minimum yield strength shall be determined pursuant to Section 195.106(b) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations before performing the hydrostatic spike test.(c)The hydrostatic spike test shall be no more than 15 minutes, and be immediately followed by a hydrostatic test, which shall be held for a minimum of eight hours and meet the requirements of the State Fire Marshal.(d)The hydrostatic spike test shall be completed in segments for multielevational pipelines.(e)All tests shall be performed by a qualified testing company that is compliant with this chapter, as determined by the State Fire Marshal.(f)The Office of the State Fire Marshal shall promulgate regulations as necessary to implement this section.SEC. 4.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.(a)The administrator, taking into consideration the facility or vessel contingency plan requirements of the State Lands Commission, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, the California Coastal Commission, and other state and federal agencies, shall adopt and implement regulations governing the adequacy of oil spill contingency plans to be prepared and implemented under this article. All regulations shall be developed in consultation with the Oil Spill Technical Advisory Committee, and shall be consistent with the California oil spill contingency plan and not in conflict with the National Contingency Plan. The regulations shall provide for the best achievable protection of the waters and natural resources of the state. The regulations shall permit the development, application, and use of an oil spill contingency plan for similar vessels, pipelines, terminals, and facilities within a single company or organization, and across companies and organizations. The regulations shall, at a minimum, ensure all of the following:
(1)All areas of state waters are at all times protected by prevention, response, containment, and cleanup equipment and operations.
(2)Standards set for response, containment, and cleanup equipment and operations are maintained and regularly improved to protect the resources of the state.
(3)All appropriate personnel employed by operators required to have a contingency plan receive training in oil spill response and cleanup equipment usage and operations.
(4)Each oil spill contingency plan provides for appropriate financial or contractual arrangements for all necessary equipment and services for the response, containment, and cleanup of a reasonable worst case oil spill scenario for each area the plan addresses.
(5)Each oil spill contingency plan demonstrates that all protection measures are being taken to reduce the possibility of an oil spill occurring as a result of the operation of the facility or vessel. The protection measures shall include, but not be limited to, response to disabled vessels and identification of those measures taken to comply with requirements of Division 7.8 (commencing with Section 8750) of the Public Resources Code.
(6)Each oil spill contingency plan identifies the types of equipment that can be used, the location of the equipment, and the time taken to deliver the equipment.
(7)Each facility, as determined by the administrator, conducts a hazard and operability study to identify the hazards associated with the operation of the facility, including the use of the facility by vessels, due to operating error, equipment failure, and external events. For the hazards identified in the hazard and operability studies, the facility shall conduct an offsite consequence analysis that, for the most likely hazards, assumes pessimistic water and air dispersion and other adverse environmental conditions.
(8)Each oil spill contingency plan contains a list of contacts to call in the event of a drill, threatened discharge of oil, or discharge of oil.
(9)Each oil spill contingency plan identifies the measures to be taken to protect the recreational and environmentally sensitive areas that would be threatened by a reasonable worst case oil spill scenario.
(10)(A)Standards for determining a reasonable worst case oil spill. However, for
(B)Commencing January 15, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, in order to increase public participation, the administrator shall solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the reasonable worst case spill volumes for facilities. Based on this feedback, the administrator shall review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spill volumes to reflect the best available information. If revisions are appropriate, the administrator shall initiate a rulemaking action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3), which includes a public notice and comment process.
(C)Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), for a nontank vessel, the reasonable worst case is a spill of the total volume of the largest fuel tank on the nontank vessel.
(D)Any review and rulemaking action undertaken pursuant to this paragraph shall be combined with and be used to inform the review and any rulemaking action undertaken pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 8670.37.51.
(11)Each oil spill contingency plan specifies an agent for service of process. The agent shall be located in this state.
(b)The regulations and guidelines adopted pursuant to this section shall also include provisions to provide for public review and comment on submitted oil spill contingency plans.
(c)The regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall specifically address the types of equipment that will be necessary, the maximum time that will be allowed for deployment, the maximum distance to cooperating response entities, the amounts of dispersant, and the maximum time required for application should the use of dispersants be approved. Upon a determination by the administrator that booming is appropriate at the site and necessary to provide best achievable protection, the regulations shall require that vessels engaged in lightering operations be boomed prior to the commencement of operations.
(d)The administrator shall adopt regulations and guidelines for oil spill contingency plans with regard to mobile transfer units, small marine fueling facilities, and vessels carrying oil as secondary cargo that acknowledge the reduced risk of damage from oil spills from those units, facilities, and vessels while maintaining the best achievable protection for the public health and safety and the environment.
SECTION 1.Section 8670.15 is added to the Government Code, immediately following Section 8670.14, to read:8670.15.In order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, notwithstanding any other law, every existing oil pipeline, as defined in Section 51010.5, that has not been in use for five or more years shall not be restarted without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program, performed in segments to ensure every elevation point will be tested, with a minimum test pressure between 100 percent and 110 percent of the specific minimum yield strength for a 30-minute spike test, immediately followed by a pressure test in accordance with Subpart E (commencing with Section 195.300) of Part 195 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.SEC. 2.Section 8670.37.51 of the Government Code is amended to read:8670.37.51.(a)A tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo shall not be used to transport oil across waters of the state unless the owner or operator has applied for and obtained a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for that vessel or for the owner of all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.
(b)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from a tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo unless the operator of the marine terminal has received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the operator of that vessel or for all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.
(c)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from any vessel that is or is intended to be used for transporting oil as cargo to or from a second vessel unless the operator of the marine terminal has first received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the person responsible for both the first and second vessels or all of the oil contained in both vessels, as well as all the oil to be transferred to or from both vessels.
(d)(1)An owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the facility or the oil to be handled, stored, or transported by the facility.
(2)For an oil pipeline subject to testing pursuant to Section 8670.15, there shall be a public notice and comment process before the administrator issues a certificate of financial responsibility pursuant to paragraph (1).(2)The administrator shall publicly post on the Office of Spill Prevention and Response internet website a list of all applications for certificates of financial responsibility submitted by facility owners and operators. The posting shall include the legal name of the applicant, the name and reasonable worst case spill volume of the facility to be covered by the certificate, the amount of financial responsibility demonstrated, and the type of evidence furnished to demonstrate the financial responsibility. The administrator shall post this information within seven business days of receiving an application.
(3)(A)Commencing January 15, 2026, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, in order to increase public participation, the administrator shall review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst-case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information through a notice and comment rulemaking procedure. solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the financial responsibility requirements for facilities. Based on this feedback, the administrator shall review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating the financial assurances and setting the maximum amount of a certificate of financial responsibility necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information, pursuant to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3), which includes a public notice and comment process.
(B)Any review and rulemaking action undertaken pursuant to this paragraph shall be combined with and be used to inform the review and any rulemaking action undertaken pursuant to paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 8670.28.
(e)Pursuant to Section 8670.37.58, nontank vessels shall obtain a certificate of financial responsibility.
SEC. 3.Section 51014.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:51014.1.(a)Any existing pipeline that transports oil and that is six inches or larger that has been idle, inactive, or out of service for five years or more, shall not be restarted without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program.
(b)(1)(A)The hydrostatic spike test shall be at least 139 percent of the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline and shall not exceed 80 percent of the specific minimum yield strength, as determined appropriate by the State Fire Marshal.
(B)Notwithstanding paragraph (A), at the operators request, the minimum hydrostatic spike test pressure may be lower than 100 percent of the specified minimum yield strength if the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline is correspondingly reduced. The hydrostatic spike test shall be at least 139 percent of the reduced maximum operating pressure of the pipeline, as determined appropriate by the State Fire Marshal. The hydrostatic spike test shall be performed in segments to ensure every elevation point will be tested.
(2)If the specified minimum yield strength is unknown, the specified minimum yield strength shall be determined pursuant to Section 195.106(b) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations before performing the hydrostatic spike test.
(c)The hydrostatic spike test shall be no more than 15 minutes, and be immediately followed by a hydrostatic test, which shall be held for a minimum of eight hours and meet the requirements of the State Fire Marshal.
(d)The hydrostatic spike test shall be completed in segments for multielevational pipelines.
(e)All tests shall be performed by a qualified testing company that is compliant with this chapter, as determined by the State Fire Marshal.
(f)The Office of the State Fire Marshal shall promulgate regulations as necessary to implement this section.
SEC. 3.SEC. 4.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
In order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, notwithstanding any other law, every existing oil pipeline pipeline, as defined in Section 51010.5, that has not been in use for five or more years shall not be restarted without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program, performed in segments to ensure every elevation point will be tested, with a minimum test pressure between 100 percent and 110 percent of the specific minimum yield strength for a 30-minute spike test, immediately followed by a pressure test in accordance with Subpart E (commencing with Section 195.300) of Part 195 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
SEC. 2.Section 8670.37.51 of the Government Code is amended to read:8670.37.51.(a)A tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo shall not be used to transport oil across waters of the state unless the owner or operator has applied for and obtained a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for that vessel or for the owner of all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.
(b)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from a tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo unless the operator of the marine terminal has received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the operator of that vessel or for all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.
(c)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from any vessel that is or is intended to be used for transporting oil as cargo to or from a second vessel unless the operator of the marine terminal has first received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the person responsible for both the first and second vessels or all of the oil contained in both vessels, as well as all the oil to be transferred to or from both vessels.
(d)(1)An owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the facility or the oil to be handled, stored, or transported by the facility.
(2)For an oil pipeline subject to testing pursuant to Section 8670.15, there shall be a public notice and comment process before the administrator issues a certificate of financial responsibility pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3)Commencing January 15, 2026, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, the administrator shall review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst-case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information through a notice and comment rulemaking procedure.
(e)Pursuant to Section 8670.37.58, nontank vessels shall obtain a certificate of financial responsibility.
SEC. 3.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
CORRECTIONS: HeadingLine 2.In order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, notwithstanding any other law, every existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years shall not be restarted without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program program, performed in segments to ensure every elevation point will be tested, with a minimum test pressure between 100 percent and 110 percent of the specific minimum yield strength for a 30-minute spike test, immediately followed by a pressure test in accordance with Subpart E (commencing with Section 195.300) of Part 195 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
SEC. 2.Section 8670.37.51 of the Government Code is amended to read:8670.37.51.(a)A tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo shall not be used to transport oil across waters of the state unless the owner or operator has applied for and obtained a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for that vessel or for the owner of all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.
(b)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from a tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo unless the operator of the marine terminal has received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the operator of that vessel or for all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.
(c)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from any vessel that is or is intended to be used for transporting oil as cargo to or from a second vessel unless the operator of the marine terminal has first received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the person responsible for both the first and second vessels or all of the oil contained in both vessels, as well as all the oil to be transferred to or from both vessels.
(d)(1)An owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the facility or the oil to be handled, stored, or transported by the facility.
(2)Before For an oil pipeline subject to testing pursuant to Section 8670.15, there shall be a public notice and comment process before the administrator issues a certificate of financial responsibility pursuant to paragraph (1) there shall be a public notice and comment process. (1).
(3)Commencing January 15, 2026, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, the administrator shall review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst-case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information through a notice and comment rulemaking procedure.
(e)Pursuant to Section 8670.37.58, nontank vessels shall obtain a certificate of financial responsibility.
SEC. 3.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
REVISIONS: HeadingLine 2.In order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, notwithstanding any other law, every existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years shall not be restarted without a hydro test. passing a spike hydrostatic testing program with a minimum test pressure between 100 percent and 110 percent of the specific minimum yield strength for a 30-minute spike test, immediately followed by a pressure test in accordance with Subpart E (commencing with Section 195.300) of Part 195 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
SEC. 2.Section 8670.37.51 of the Government Code is amended to read:8670.37.51.(a)A tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo shall not be used to transport oil across waters of the state unless the owner or operator has applied for and obtained a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for that vessel or for the owner of all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.
(b)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from a tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo unless the operator of the marine terminal has received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the operator of that vessel or for all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.
(c)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from any vessel that is or is intended to be used for transporting oil as cargo to or from a second vessel unless the operator of the marine terminal has first received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the person responsible for both the first and second vessels or all of the oil contained in both vessels, as well as all the oil to be transferred to or from both vessels.
(d)(1)An owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the facility or the oil to be handled, stored, or transported by the facility.
(2)Before the administrator issues a certificate of financial responsibility pursuant to paragraph (1) there shall be a public notice and comment process.
(3)Commencing January 15, 2026, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, the administrator shall review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst-case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information through a notice and comment rulemaking procedure.
(e)Pursuant to Section 8670.37.58, nontank vessels shall obtain a certificate of financial responsibility.
SEC. 3.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
In order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, notwithstanding any other law, every existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years shall not be restarted without a hydro test.
SEC. 2.Section 8670.37.51 of the Government Code is amended to read:8670.37.51.(a)A tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo shall not be used to transport oil across waters of the state unless the owner or operator has applied for and obtained a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for that vessel or for the owner of all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.
(b)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from a tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo unless the operator of the marine terminal has received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the operator of that vessel or for all of the oil contained in and to be transferred to or from that vessel.
(c)An operator of a marine terminal within the state shall not transfer oil to or from any vessel that is or is intended to be used for transporting oil as cargo to or from a second vessel unless the operator of the marine terminal has first received a copy of a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the person responsible for both the first and second vessels or all of the oil contained in both vessels, as well as all the oil to be transferred to or from both vessels.
(d)(1)An owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state shall apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the facility or the oil to be handled, stored, or transported by the facility.
(2)Before the administrator issues a certificate of financial responsibility pursuant to paragraph (1) there shall be a public process.
(e)Pursuant to Section 8670.37.58, nontank vessels shall obtain a certificate of financial responsibility.
SEC. 3.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SECTION 1.Section 8670.9 of the Government Code is amended to read:8670.9.(a)The administrator shall enter into discussions on behalf of the state with the States of Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, for the purpose of developing interstate agreements regarding oil spill prevention and response. The agreements shall address, including, but not limited to, all of the following:(1)Coordination of vessel safety and traffic.(2)Spill prevention equipment and response required on vessels and at facilities.(3)The availability of oil spill response and cleanup equipment and personnel.(4)Other matters that may relate to the transport of oil and oil spill prevention, response, and cleanup.(b)The administrator shall coordinate the development of these agreements with the United States Coast Guard and any other appropriate federal entities, the Province of British Columbia in Canada, and the Republic of Mexico.(a)The administrator shall enter into discussions on behalf of the state with the States of Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, for the purpose of developing interstate agreements regarding oil spill prevention and response. The agreements shall address, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)Coordination of vessel safety and traffic.
(2)Spill prevention equipment and response required on vessels and at facilities.
(3)The availability of oil spill response and cleanup equipment and personnel.
(4)Other matters that may relate to the transport of oil and oil spill prevention, response, and cleanup.
(b)The administrator shall coordinate the development of these agreements with the United States Coast Guard, Guard and any other appropriate federal entities, the Province of British Columbia in Canada, and the Republic of Mexico.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2026 | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 224, Statutes of 2026. |
| Sep 14, 2026 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Aug 30, 2026 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 6 p.m. |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Urgency clause adopted. |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 5792.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Aug 24, 2026 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Aug 24, 2026 | Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6382.) Ordered to the Senate. |
| Aug 24, 2026 | Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| Aug 17, 2026 | Read third time and amended. |
| Aug 17, 2026 | Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 10, 2026 | Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 10, 2026 | From inactive file. |
| Aug 6, 2026 | Notice of intention to remove from inactive file given by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry. |
| Sep 12, 2025 | Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry. |
| Sep 5, 2025 | Read third time and amended. |
| Sep 5, 2025 | Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 5, 2025 | Assembly Rule 69(b)(1) suspended. |
| Sep 3, 2025 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 3, 2025 | (Corrected September 4). |
| Sep 2, 2025 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Aug 29, 2025 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (August 29). |
| Aug 20, 2025 | August 20 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file. |
| Jul 15, 2025 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (July 14). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jul 8, 2025 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on E.M. (Ayes 8. Noes 3.) (July 7). Re-referred to Com. on E.M. |
| Jul 8, 2025 | Coauthors revised. |
| Jun 9, 2025 | Referred to Coms. on NAT. RES. and E.M. |
| Jun 4, 2025 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| Jun 3, 2025 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 28. Noes 11. Page 1465.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 27, 2025 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 23, 2025 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| May 23, 2025 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 1203.) (May 23). |
| May 16, 2025 | Set for hearing May 23. |
| May 12, 2025 | May 12 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file. |
| May 2, 2025 | Set for hearing May 12. |
| Apr 28, 2025 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 24, 2025 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2. Page 839.) (April 22). |
| Apr 4, 2025 | Set for hearing April 22. |
| Mar 26, 2025 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W. |
| Mar 5, 2025 | Referred to Com. on N.R. & W. |
| Feb 21, 2025 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23. |
| Feb 20, 2025 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2026 | Unfinished Business SB542 Limón Urgency Clause Concurrence | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 24, 2026 | SB 542 Limón Third Reading Urgency By Hart | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 29, 2025 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jul 14, 2025 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Emergency Management |
Passed |
|
| Jul 7, 2025 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Emergency Management] | Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources |
Passed |
|
| Jun 3, 2025 | Senate 3rd Reading SB542 Limón | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 23, 2025 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| May 12, 2025 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 22, 2025 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| 350 Bay Area Action | ** Support | |
| 350 Santa Barbara | ** Support | |
| a coalition of environmental organizations | ** Support | |
| Azul | ** Support | |
| Bixby Residential, Inc. | ** Support | |
| Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast | ** Support | |
| California Environmental Voters | ** Support | |
| Center For Biological Diversity | ** Support | |
| Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment | ** Support | |
| Central Coast Climate Justice Network | ** Support | |
| cleanearth4kids.org | ** Support | |
| Climate First: Replacing Oil & Gas | ** Support | |
| Climate Hawks Vote | ** Support | |
| Clue-SB Environmental Justice Group | ** Support | |
| CLUE-SB Environmental Justice Work Group | ** Support | |
| Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation | ** Support | |
| Defenders Of Wildlife | ** Support | |
| Elected Officials to Protect America Code Blue | ** Support | |
| Environmental Action Committee of West Marin | ** Support | |
| Environmental Defense Center | ** Support | |
| Food & Water Watch | ** Support | |
| Friends Committee On Legislation Of California | ** Support | |
| Get Oil Out! | ** Support | |
| Governor's Office | ** Support | |
| International Marine Mammal Project of Earth Island Institute | ** Support | |
| Keepers of the Western Gate | ** Support | |
| Ocean Conservation Research | ** Support | |
| Ocean Protectors Program | ** Support | |
| Oil & Gas Action Network | ** Support | |
| Patagonia | ** Support | |
| Quabajai Coastal Chumash Keepers of the Western Gate | ** Support | |
| S.F. Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility | ** Support | |
| Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples | ** Support | |
| SanDiego350 | ** Support | |
| Santa Barbara Channelkeeper | ** Support | |
| Santa Barbara County Action Network | ** Support | |
| Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee | ** Support | |
| Sierra Club California | ** Support | |
| Sierra Club Santa Barbara Group | ** Support | |
| SoCal 350 Climate Action | ** Support | |
| Society of Fearless Grandmothers of SB | ** Support | |
| Solano County Democratic Central Committee | ** Support | |
| Stand.earth | ** Support | |
| Sunflower Alliance | ** Support | |
| Surfrider Foundation | ** Support | |
| The Climate Center | ** Support | |
| UCSB AS Environmental Affairs Board | ** Support | |
| Ventura Coastkeeper | ** Support | |
| Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) | ** Against | |
| Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation | ** Support |
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-4171 | SB 542 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 542
Author: Limón (D)
Amended: 8/17/26
Vote: 27 - Urgency
PRIOR SENATE VOTE NOT RELEVANT
NOTE: On August 11, 2026, the Senate Governmental Organization Committee held an informational hearing on the second amendment to the Tribal-State Gaming Compact between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, executed on August 4, 2026.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Passed, 8/24/26
SUBJECT: Tribal gaming: compact ratification
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill ratifies the second amendment to the Tribal-State Gaming Compact between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, executed on August 4, 2026.
Assembly Amendments
delete the contents of this bill and instead ratify the second amendment Tribal-State Gaming Compact between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, executed on August 4, 2026.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Provides, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), for the negotiation and conclusion of compacts between federally recognized Indian tribes and the State for the purpose of conducting Class III gaming activities on Indian lands within a State as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.
- Authorizes expressly a number of tribal-state gaming compacts between the State of California and specified Indian tribes.
- Authorizes the conduct of Class III gaming activities to the extent such activities are permitted by state law, a gaming compact has been concluded by a federally recognized tribe and the State, and the compact has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
- Limits the operation of Class III gaming activities to Indian lands acquired on or before October 17, 1988. Provides, for certain exceptions to conduct gaming activities on Indian lands acquired after October 17, 1988.
- Defines “Indian lands” to mean all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation, and any lands title to which is either held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe, or individual, or held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction by the U.S. against alienation and over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power.
- Requires the State to negotiate to conclude a compact in good faith with an Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which the Class III gaming activity is to be conducted. Provides the U.S. district courts with jurisdiction over any cause of action initiated by a tribal government alleging that the State failed to negotiate in good faith to conclude a compact. Prescribes the remedy, mediation supervised by the courts, if it is found that the State failed to negotiate in good faith to conclude a compact.
- Authorizes the Governor, under the California Constitution, to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature.
This bill:
- Ratifies the second amendment Tribal-State Gaming Compact between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, executed on August 4, 2026.
- Provides that, in deference to tribal sovereignty, certain actions are not deemed projects for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, stipulate, except as expressly provided, that none of the provisions shall be construed to exempt a city, county, or city and county, or the Department of Transportation from CEQA requirements.
- Contains an urgency clause.
Background
Second Amendment to the Tribal-State Gaming Compact Between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. The Second Amendment to the Tribal-State Gaming Compact (hereafter “Amended Compact”) between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (hereafter “Tribe”) was executed on August 04, 2026. The Amended Compact amends an existing 2015 compact, to avoid potential litigation after the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Chicken Ranch (See below). The Amended Compact allows the Tribe to operate an additional 500 slot machines. The Amended Compact also includes an approximate 20-year extension in exchange for the Tribe agreeing not to challenge the revenue terms during the life of the compact.
In 2015, the Tribe entered into a new tribal-state compact [ratified by AB 1540 (Gray), Chapter 531, Statutes of 2015] that authorized the Tribe to operate up to 2,500 slot machines at no more than two gaming facilities located on those Indian lands held in trust for the Tribe. The Tribe agreed to pay the State its pro rata share of the costs the State incurs for the performance of its duties under the Compact as well as 6% of the casino’s net win, to be shared with tribes that are not gaming or that otherwise are not substantially benefiting from gaming. Additionally, the Compact provides a framework for the sharing of gaming revenue with the County of Santa Barbara and other local jurisdictions.
The Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe listed in the Federal Register as the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation. The Santa Ynez Reservation is located in Santa Barbara County and was established on December 27, 1901. According to the Tribe’s website, the reservation is now hone to more than 250 members.
The Tribe currently operates the Chumash Casino Resort, which has approximately 2,300 slot machines, offers 45 table games, restaurants, shopping, spa, and a pool. The resort employes approximately 1,800 residents in Santa Barbara County.
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In 1988, Congress enacted IGRA to provide a statutory basis for the operation and regulation of gaming on Indian lands. IGRA provides that an Indian tribe may conduct gaming activity on Indian lands if the activity “is not specifically prohibited by federal law and is conducted within a State which does not prohibit such gaming activity.”
IGRA distinguishes between three classes of gaming (Class I, Class II, and Class III) and provides for different forms of regulation for each class. Class I gaming includes “social games” for minor prizes or “traditional forms of Indian gaming.” Class II gaming is defined to include bingo and card games that are explicitly authorized by the laws of the state, or that are not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the state and are played at any location in the State, so long as the card games are played in conformity with those laws and regulations. Class III gaming includes such things as slot machines, casino games, and banked card games such as black jack and baccarat. Class III gaming may only be conducted under terms of a compact negotiated between an Indian tribe and a State.
IGRA was enacted against a legal background in which Indian tribes and individuals generally are exempt from state taxation within their own territory. IGRA provides that with the exception of assessments permitted under the statute, to defray the State’s costs of regulating gaming activity, IGRA shall not be interpreted as conferring upon a State authority to impose any tax, fee, charge, or other assessment upon an Indian tribe to engage in Class III activity. Nor may a State refuse to enter into negotiations based on the lack of authority to impose such a tax, fee, charge, or other assessment.
When a tribe requests negotiations for a Class III compact, IGRA requires the State to negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith. IGRA provides a comprehensive process to prevent an impasse in compact negotiations, which is triggered when a tribe files suit alleging that the State has refused to negotiate or has failed to negotiate in good faith.
Before 2000, the California Constitution prohibited Class III gaming. In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 1A, which had been proposed by the Governor and passed by the Legislature. Proposition 1A amended the California Constitution to permit the State to negotiate compacts with federally recognized Indian tribes for certain Class III gaming activities. Because non-Indian parties were still forbidden from operating gaming facilities, Proposition 1A granted Indian tribes a “constitutionally protected monopoly on most types of Class III games in California.”
Chicken Ranch Rancheria Decisions. In 2021, the Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, along with four other tribes—the Blue Lake Rancheria, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, and Robinson Rancheria—filed suit against the State of California and Governor Gavin Newsom. The tribes alleged that the state violated IGRA by failing to negotiate new Class III gaming compacts in good faith.
According to the complaint, California insisted on compact terms covering family law, environmental regulation, and tort liability—subjects that the tribes argued were outside IGRA’s limited scope, which allows negotiation only on matters directly related to the operation of gaming activities. In July 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s finding that California’s demands exceeded IGRA’s bounds and therefore constituted bad-faith negotiations. The court ordered the parties to move forward under IGRA’s remedial process. Under that process, if the parties are ultimately not able to agree on a compact, a mediator reviews each side’s “last best offer” and selects the proposal that best aligns with federal law, and the U.S. Department of the Interior (through the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs) issues Secretarial Procedures regulating the tribe’s gaming operation without state involvement.
This outcome was viewed by Indian tribes as a significant affirmation of tribal sovereignty and a rejection of state overreach in tribal gaming regulation. The Governor’s office believes the terms of this Compact are consistent with this court decision
Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF). Existing law creates in the State Treasury the RSTF for the receipt and deposit of moneys derived from gaming device license fees that are paid into the RSTF pursuant to the terms of specified tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of making distributions to non-compacted California tribes (e.g., federally-recognized non-gaming tribes and tribes that operate casinos with fewer than 350 slot machines).
Revenue in the RSTF is available to the California Gambling Control Commission, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for making distributions of $1.1 million annually to non-compact tribes. The RSTF was created as part of the 1999 compacts, which, in conjunction with the passage of Proposition 1A, created gaming compacts with approximately 60 California tribes. Non-compact tribes are considered third-party beneficiaries of the 1999 compacts.
Tribal Nation Grant Fund. This particular fund was created to complement the RSTF and provides for the distribution of funds to non-gaming tribes, upon application of such tribes for purposes related to effective self-governance, self-determined community, and economic development. Payments from this fund are intended to be made to non-gaming tribes on a “need” basis, upon application.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/26)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/26)
None received
Prepared by: Felipe Lopez / G.O. / (916) 651-1530
8/24/26 16:36:49
**** END ****
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 542
Author:(Limón)
As Amended Ver:August 17, 2026
Majority vote. Urgency
SUMMARY
This bill would ratify the Second Amendment (Second Amendment) to the Tribal-State Gaming Compact entered into between the State of California (State) and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (Tribe) executed on August 4, 2026.
Major Provisions
- Ratify the second amendment to the tribal-state gaming compact between the State and the Tribe, executed on August 4, 2026, in accordance with the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA).
- Provide that, in deference to tribal sovereignty, certain actions are not deemed projects for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, stipulate, except as expressly provided, that none of the provisions shall be construed to exempt a city, county, or city and county, or the Department of Transportation, or any state agency or local jurisdiction, from CEQA requirements.
- Declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
COMMENTS
NOTE: On August 11, 2026, the Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization held an informational hearing on the 2nd Amendment to the Tribal-State Gaming Compact entered into between the State of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians executed on August 4, 2026.
Background.
The Second Amendment to the Tribal-State Gaming Compact between the State and the Tribe was executed on August 4, 2026. The Amended Compact amends an existing 2015 Compact, to avoid potential litigation after the Ninth Circuit's decision in Chicken Ranch (see below). The Amended Compact authorizes the Tribe to operate an additional 500 gaming devices (slot machines), increasing the maximum number of authorized gaming devices to 3,000. The Amended Compact also extends the term of the 2015 Compact by approximately 20 years, through December 31, 2061, in exchange for the Tribe's agreement not to challenge the revenue-sharing provisions during its term.
In 2015, the Tribe entered into a new tribal-state gaming compact (ratified by AB 1540 (Gray) Chapter 531, Statutes of 2015) that authorized the Tribe to operate up to 2,500 slot machines at no more than two gaming facilities located on those Indian lands held in trust for the Tribe. The Tribe agreed to pay the State its pro rata share of the costs the State incurs for the performance of its duties under the Compact as well as 6% of the casino's net win, to be shared with tribes that are not gaming or that otherwise are not substantially benefiting from gaming. Additionally, the 2015 Compact provided a framework for the sharing of gaming revenue with the County of Santa Barbara and other local jurisdictions.
The Tribe is a federally recognized tribe listed in the Federal Register. Located in Santa Barbara County and established on December 27, 1901, the reservation is home to more than 250 members, according to the Tribe's website.
The Tribe currently operates the Chumash Casino Resort, featuring approximately 2,300 slot machines, 45 table games, various restaurants, shopping, a spa, and a pool. The resort employs roughly 1,800 Santa Barbara County residents.
The Amended Compact's preamble further states, "the Tribe and the State intend that this Amendment shall take effect upon execution by authorized representatives of the Tribe and the State, ratification by the State Legislature, and approval by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to IGRA."
Once effective (legislative ratification and federal approval required), this Amended Compact shall be in full force and effect until December 31, 2061.
Key Provisions of the Amended Compact:
Additional Gaming Devices Authorized. The Amended Compact authorizes the Tribe to operate up to 3,000 Gaming Devices (slot machines). The Tribe's 2015 Compact authorized the Tribe to operate up to 2,500 slot machines.
Environmental Impact Analysis. Consistent with the Chicken Ranch Decision, the Amended Compact deletes provisions in the 2015 compact that required the Tribe to prepare a tribal environmental impact report analyzing the potentially significant off-reservation environmental impacts of the construction of a Gaming Facility.
Child and Spousal Support Orders. Similar to recent compacts and consistent with the Chicken Ranch Decision, the Amended Compact deletes current provisions in the Tribe's 2016 Compact that require the Tribe, with respect to the earnings of any person employed at the gaming facility, to comply with all earnings withholding orders for support of a child, spouse, or former spouse.
Definition of Gaming Facility. The Amended Compact changes the definition of "gaming facility" to mean the buildings or structures in which Class III Gaming, as authorized by this Compact is conducted. This change is consistent with recent tribal-state compacts and aligns with the Chicken Ranch Decision.
Covenant not to Sue. The Amended Compact prohibits both the Tribe and the State from directly or indirectly initiating, or participating in any action or lawsuit challenging the enforceability of the definitions in the Compact, except as expressly mutually agreed to by both parties. Additionally, neither parties shall not encourage, assist, or cause any person, organization, or entity to do so. The Amended Compact also prohibits the Tribe from directly or indirectly initiating or participating in any action or lawsuit arising from or relating to the validity or enforceability of the Compact's provisions relating to the SDF, the RSTF, or the TNGF, regardless of any subsequent court or administrative interpretation of the validity of those provisions under IGRA for the duration of the term of this Compact.
Insurance Coverage and Claims. The Amended Compact deletes current tort law provisions in the Tribe's 2015 Compact and instead requires the Tribe to establish written procedures for the disposition of tort claims arising from personal injury or property damage alleged to have been suffered by any person who is a patron of the gaming facility. The Tribe is required to provide coverage in an amount no less than $10 million per occurrence.
Extension of Compact. The Tribe's current compact is scheduled to expire in December 2042. This amendment extends the term of the Tribe's 2015 Compact through December 31, 2061.
Additional Background Information:
Compact Ratification. The State Constitution, as amended by Proposition 1A of March 2000, permits Indian tribes to conduct and operate slot machines, lottery games, and banked and percentage card games on Indian land.
The Governor is the designated State officer responsible for negotiating and executing, on behalf of the State, tribal-state gaming compacts with federally recognized Indian tribes located within the State of California. Following completion of negotiations, the Governor shall submit a copy of any executed tribal-state compact to both houses of the Legislature for ratification and shall submit a copy of the executed compact to the Secretary of State. Tribal-state compacts cannot be presented to the Legislature for ratification until the tribe provides the Governor with written proof of the signatory's authority and formal ratification by the tribal governing body. The federal government must approve the compact. Pursuant to IGRA, the Secretary may disapprove a proposed compact only if it violates IGRA, any other provision of federal law that does not relate to jurisdiction over gaming on Indian lands, or the trust obligation of the United States to Indians. 25 U.S.C. Section 2710(d)(8)(B).
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to establish a statutory framework for the operation and regulation of gaming on Indian lands. Under IGRA, an Indian tribe may conduct gaming activities on its lands if the activity "is not specifically prohibited by federal law and is conducted within a State that does not prohibit such gaming activity.
IGRA distinguishes between three classes of gaming (Class I, Class II, and Class III) and provides for different forms of regulation for each class. Class I gaming includes "social games" for minor prizes or "traditional forms of Indian gaming." Class II gaming is defined to include bingo and card games that are explicitly authorized by the laws of the state, or that are not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the state and are played at any location in the State, so long as the card games are played in conformity with those laws and regulations. Class III gaming includes such things as slot machines, casino games, and banked card games such as blackjack and baccarat. Class III gaming may only be conducted under terms of a compact negotiated between an Indian tribe and a State.
IGRA was enacted against a legal background in which Indian tribes and individuals generally are exempt from state taxation within their own territory. IGRA provides that with the exception of assessments permitted under the statute, to defray the State's costs of regulating gaming activity, IGRA shall not be interpreted as conferring upon a State authority to impose any tax, fee, charge, or other assessment upon an Indian tribe to engage in Class III activity. Nor may a State refuse to enter into negotiations based on the lack of authority to impose such a tax, fee, charge, or other assessment.
When a tribe requests negotiations for a Class III compact, IGRA requires the State to negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith. IGRA provides a comprehensive process to prevent an impasse in compact negotiations, which is triggered when a tribe files suit alleging that the State has refused to negotiate or has failed to negotiate in good faith.
Before 2000, the California Constitution prohibited Class III gaming. In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 1A, which had been proposed by the Governor and passed by the Legislature. Proposition 1A amended the California Constitution to permit the State to negotiate compacts with federally recognized Indian tribes for certain Class III gaming activities. Because non-Indian parties were still forbidden from operating gaming facilities, Proposition 1A granted Indian tribes a "constitutionally protected monopoly on most types of Class III games in California."
Rincon Decision. In 2004, the Rincon Band of Mission Indians sued the State of California in federal court after negotiations for a new gambling agreement with then-Governor Schwarzenegger fell apart. The Tribe believed the Governor was violating federal law by insisting that tribes pay money into the state's General Fund in exchange for more slot machines.
In July 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit Court's decision that ruled the state could not require the Rincon Band tribe to pay a percentage of slot machine revenue into California's General Fund for more gaming devices. The Ninth Circuit had affirmed a lower court decision that the new financial concessions were nothing more than a state tax on tribal casino revenues, which is prohibited by IGRA. The court concluded that a "non-negotiable, mandatory payment of 10% of net win into the State treasury for unrestricted use yields public revenue and is [therefore] a tax and that the court was therefore required to consider the State's demand as evidence of bad faith under IGRA's statutes."
The Rincon decision has changed the dynamics of tribal-state compact negotiations in California.
Chicken Ranch Rancheria Decision. In 2021, the Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, along with four other tribes—the Blue Lake Rancheria, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, and Robinson Rancheria—filed suit against the State of California and Governor Gavin Newsom. The tribes alleged that the state violated IGRA by failing to negotiate new Class III gaming compacts in good faith.
According to the complaint, California insisted on compact terms covering family law, environmental regulation, and tort liability—subjects that the tribes argued were outside IGRA's limited scope, which allows negotiation only on matters directly related to the operation of gaming activities. In July 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's finding that California's demands exceeded IGRA's bounds and therefore constituted bad-faith negotiation. The court ordered the parties to move forward under IGRA's remedial process. Under that process, if the parties are ultimately not able to agree on a compact, a mediator reviews each side's "last best offer" and selects the proposal that best aligns with federal law, and the U.S. Department of the Interior (through the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs) issues Secretarial Procedures regulating the tribe's gaming operation without state involvement.
This outcome was viewed by Indian tribes as a significant affirmation of tribal sovereignty and a rejection of state overreach in tribal gaming regulation. The Governor's office believes the terms of this Compact are consistent with this court decision.
According to the Author
The Amended Compact's preamble notes, "in order to address issues with the Compact arising from Chicken Ranch as well as other potential areas for improvement identified by the Tribe and the State in the spirit of maintaining a Compact that provides mutual benefits and reflects a mutually respectful government-to-government relationship, the Tribe and the State have agreed to amend the Compact as set forth herein."
Arguments in Support
None on file.
Arguments in Opposition
None on file.
FISCAL COMMENTS
Unknown.
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: Vote Not Relevant
YES:
NO:
ABS, ABST OR NV:
ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: Vote Not Relevant
YES:
NO:
ABS, ABST OR NV:
ASM EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: Vote Not Relevant
YES:
NO:
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: Vote Not Relevant
YES:
NO:
UPDATED
VERSION: August 17, 2026
CONSULTANT: Eric Johnson / G.O. / (916) 319-2531 FN: 0003715
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 542
Author:(Limón)
As Amended Ver:September 5, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Prohibits the restart of an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without certain hydrostatic testing, and requires the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) administrator to review and, as appropriate, revise 1) the criteria and formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spill volumes to reflect the best available information and 2) the criteria and formulas for calculating the financial assurances and setting the maximum amount of a certificate of financial responsibility (COFR) necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information.
Major Provisions
- Requires, commencing January 15, 2026, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, OSPR administrator to solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the reasonable worst case spill volumes for facilities. Based on this feedback, requires the administrator to review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spill volumes to reflect the best available information.
- Requires the administrator to publicly post on the OSPR website, within 7 days of receiving an application, a list of all applications for COFR submitted by facility owners and operators and other specified information.
- Requires, commencing January 15, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, the administrator to solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the financial responsibility requirements for facilities. Based on this feedback, requires the administrator to review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating the financial assurances and setting the maximum amount of a COFR necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information.
- Prohibits an existing oil pipeline that is six inches or larger that has been idle, inactive, or out of service for five years or more, from being restarted without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program. Requires the hydrostatic test to be at least 139% of the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline and shall not exceed 80% of the specific minimum yield strength, as determined appropriate by the State Fire Marshal (SFM), and be tested for specified timeframes.
- Authorizes, at the operator's request, the minimum hydrostatic spike test pressure to be lower than 100% of the specified minimum yield strength if the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline is correspondingly reduced. Requires the hydrostatic spike test to be at least 139% the reduced maximum operating pressure of the pipeline. Requires the hydrostatic spike test to be performed in segments to ensure every elevation point will be tested. If the specified minimum yield strength is unknown, the specified minimum yield strength is required to be determined pursuant to federal regulations before performing the hydrostatic spike test.
- Specifies the timeframes for the testing, and requires the testing to be completed in segments for multielevational pipelines. Requires all tests to be performance by a qualified testing company.
- Requires the SFM to promulgate regulations as necessary to implement the testing requirements.
COMMENTS
According to the SFM, California is home to more than 5,600 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines that transport crude oil, refined products (e.g., gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) and highly volatile liquids around the state from production facilities to refineries and ultimately to market. These pipelines operate at high pressures. Should they fail, they would pose a threat to the residents of California, property, and the environment. To prevent accidents and spills, state and federal regulations require pipeline operators to conduct hydrostatic pressure tests to ensure the integrity of their pipelines.
Under current state law, operators are required to pressure test each hazardous liquid pipeline by an independent third-party approved by the SFM at least once every five years, once every two years for high risk, and once per year for buried pipelines without cathodic protection. According to the author, increasing the pressure thresholds for hydrostatic testing will ensure any corrosion or leaks are easily detected.
Identifying that the threat of an oil spill is never zero; OSPR issues COFRs to facilities, vessels, and pipelines that are required to have a California Oil Spill Contingency Plan, following submittal of an application and proof that the applicant has the financial resources to cover the cost of response for a "worst-case scenario" spill.
There is no requirement that the regulations governing worst-case spills be regularly updated, and as such, they have not been. The worst-case spill regulation oversees not only oil pipelines and oil facilities, but also vessels and marine terminals. The marine facility reasonable "worst-case spill" volume calculations were established in regulation in 1993 using methods aligned with federal worst-case discharge calculations. There were minor changes to the offshore platform calculations in 2011 and a minor change to the facility persistence multiplier in the early- to mid- 2000s. Inland facility reasonable worst-case spill calculation methods were established in 2019 and have not changed.
According to the Author
There has been an extensive and unfortunate history of disastrous oil spills along the Central and Southern California coasts. Even with technological advancements and expansion of spill response capabilities, damaging spills cause millions of dollars in damage, severely impact the economies of local communities, and kill innumerable animal life.
SB 542 strengthens current statute to help reduce the risk of an oil spill by requiring a public process prior to the issuance of a COFR for oil pipelines and require, prior to the restart of any pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years, a comprehensive hydro test to in addition to any other in-line pipeline tests.
Arguments in Support
Center for Biological Diversity and Environmental Defense Center write, "SB 542 addresses these concerns and helps to prevent oil leaks and spills by requiring idle oil pipelines to undergo rigorous tests before a restart. Additionally, the bill creates a transparent and updated framework to determine operator financial responsibility in the event of an oil spill, to enable holding responsible parties accountable and to fairly and more accurately calculate the true costs of cleanup and restoration."
Arguments in Opposition
None on file
FISCAL COMMENTS
Unknown
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 28-11-1
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares
ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes
ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 8-3-3
YES: Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Schultz, Zbur
NO: Alanis, Ellis, Hoover
ABS, ABST OR NV: Flora, Garcia, Wicks
ASM EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: 5-2-0
YES: Ransom, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Calderon
NO: Hadwick, DeMaio
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Ahrens, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache
NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa
UPDATED
VERSION: September 5, 2025
CONSULTANT: Paige Brokaw / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0001763
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 542
Author:(Limón)
As Amended Ver:September 5, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Prohibits the restart of an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without certain hydrostatic testing, and requires the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) administrator to review and, as appropriate, revise 1) the criteria and formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spill volumes to reflect the best available information and 2) the criteria and formulas for calculating the financial assurances and setting the maximum amount of a certificate of financial responsibility (COFR) necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information.
Major Provisions
- Requires, commencing January 15, 2026, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, OSPR administrator to solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the reasonable worst case spill volumes for facilities. Based on this feedback, requires the administrator to review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spill volumes to reflect the best available information.
- Requires the administrator to publicly post on the OSPR website, within 7 days of receiving an application, a list of all applications for COFR submitted by facility owners and operators and other specified information.
- Requires, commencing January 15, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, the administrator to solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of the financial responsibility requirements for facilities. Based on this feedback, requires the administrator to review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for calculating the financial assurances and setting the maximum amount of a COFR necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information.
- Prohibits an existing oil pipeline that is six inches or larger that has been idle, inactive, or out of service for five years or more, from being restarted without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program. Requires the hydrostatic test to be at least 139% of the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline and shall not exceed 80% of the specific minimum yield strength, as determined appropriate by the State Fire Marshal (SFM), and be tested for specified timeframes.
- Authorizes, at the operator's request, the minimum hydrostatic spike test pressure to be lower than 100% of the specified minimum yield strength if the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline is correspondingly reduced. Requires the hydrostatic spike test to be at least 139% the reduced maximum operating pressure of the pipeline. Requires the hydrostatic spike test to be performed in segments to ensure every elevation point will be tested. If the specified minimum yield strength is unknown, the specified minimum yield strength is required to be determined pursuant to federal regulations before performing the hydrostatic spike test.
- Specifies the timeframes for the testing, and requires the testing to be completed in segments for multielevational pipelines. Requires all tests to be performance by a qualified testing company.
- Requires the SFM to promulgate regulations as necessary to implement the testing requirements.
COMMENTS
According to the SFM, California is home to more than 5,600 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines that transport crude oil, refined products (e.g., gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) and highly volatile liquids around the state from production facilities to refineries and ultimately to market. These pipelines operate at high pressures. Should they fail, they would pose a threat to the residents of California, property, and the environment. To prevent accidents and spills, state and federal regulations require pipeline operators to conduct hydrostatic pressure tests to ensure the integrity of their pipelines.
Under current state law, operators are required to pressure test each hazardous liquid pipeline by an independent third-party approved by the SFM at least once every five years, once every two years for high risk, and once per year for buried pipelines without cathodic protection. According to the author, increasing the pressure thresholds for hydrostatic testing will ensure any corrosion or leaks are easily detected.
Identifying that the threat of an oil spill is never zero; OSPR issues COFRs to facilities, vessels, and pipelines that are required to have a California Oil Spill Contingency Plan, following submittal of an application and proof that the applicant has the financial resources to cover the cost of response for a "worst-case scenario" spill.
There is no requirement that the regulations governing worst-case spills be regularly updated, and as such, they have not been. The worst-case spill regulation oversees not only oil pipelines and oil facilities, but also vessels and marine terminals. The marine facility reasonable "worst-case spill" volume calculations were established in regulation in 1993 using methods aligned with federal worst-case discharge calculations. There were minor changes to the offshore platform calculations in 2011 and a minor change to the facility persistence multiplier in the early- to mid- 2000s. Inland facility reasonable worst-case spill calculation methods were established in 2019 and have not changed.
According to the Author
There has been an extensive and unfortunate history of disastrous oil spills along the Central and Southern California coasts. Even with technological advancements and expansion of spill response capabilities, damaging spills cause millions of dollars in damage, severely impact the economies of local communities, and kill innumerable animal life.
SB 542 strengthens current statute to help reduce the risk of an oil spill by requiring a public process prior to the issuance of a COFR for oil pipelines and require, prior to the restart of any pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years, a comprehensive hydro test to in addition to any other in-line pipeline tests.
Arguments in Support
Center for Biological Diversity and Environmental Defense Center write, "SB 542 addresses these concerns and helps to prevent oil leaks and spills by requiring idle oil pipelines to undergo rigorous tests before a restart. Additionally, the bill creates a transparent and updated framework to determine operator financial responsibility in the event of an oil spill, to enable holding responsible parties accountable and to fairly and more accurately calculate the true costs of cleanup and restoration."
Arguments in Opposition
None on file
FISCAL COMMENTS
Unknown
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 28-11-1
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares
ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes
ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 8-3-3
YES: Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Schultz, Zbur
NO: Alanis, Ellis, Hoover
ABS, ABST OR NV: Flora, Garcia, Wicks
ASM EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: 5-2-0
YES: Ransom, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Calderon
NO: Hadwick, DeMaio
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Ahrens, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache
NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa
UPDATED
VERSION: September 5, 2025
CONSULTANT: Paige Brokaw / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0001763
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 542
Author:(Limón)
As Amended Ver: September 2, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Prohibits the restart of an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without certain hydrostatic testing in order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service; requires public notice and comment before a certificate of financial responsibility (COFR) is issued; and, requires that the formulas for determining the amount of a COFR reviewed every 10 years, among other provisions.
Major Provisions
- Prohibits, in order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, every existing oil pipeline, as defined in Government Code 51010.5, that has not been in use for five or more years to not be restarted without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program performed in segments to ensure every elevation point will be tested with a minimum test pressure between 100% and 110% of the specific minimum yield strength for a 30-minute spike test, immediately followed by a pressure test in accordance with Subpart E of Part 195 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
- Requires, for an oil pipeline subject to testing pursuant to 1) above, there to be a public notice and comment process before the administrator issues a COFR.
- Requires, commencing January 15, 2026, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, the administrator to review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst-case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information through a notice and comment rulemaking procedure.
COMMENTS
According to the State Fire Marshal (SFM), California is home to more than 5,600 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines that transport crude oil, refined products (e.g., gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) and highly volatile liquids around the state from production facilities to refineries and ultimately to market. These pipelines operate at high pressures. Should they fail, they would pose a threat to the residents of California, property, and the environment. To prevent accidents and spills, state and federal regulations require pipeline operators to conduct hydrostatic pressure tests to ensure the integrity of their pipelines.
Under current state law, operators are required to pressure test each hazardous liquid pipeline by an independent third-party approved by the SFM at least once every five years, once every two years for high risk, and once per year for buried pipelines without cathodic protection. According to the author, increasing the pressure thresholds for hydrostatic testing will ensure any corrosion or leaks are easily detected.
Identifying that the threat of an oil spill is never zero; the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) issues COFRs to facilities, vessels, and pipelines that are required to have a California Oil Spill Contingency Plan, following submittal of an application and proof that the applicant has the financial resources to cover the cost of response for a "worst-case scenario" spill.
There is no requirement that the regulations governing worst-case spills be regularly updated, and as such, they have not been. The worst-case spill regulation oversees not only oil pipelines and oil facilities, but also vessels and marine terminals. The marine facility reasonable "worst-case spill" volume calculations were established in regulation in 1993 using methods aligned with federal worst-case discharge calculations. There were minor changes to the offshore platform calculations in 2011 and a minor change to the facility persistence multiplier in the early- to mid- 2000s. Inland facility reasonable worst-case spill calculation methods were established in 2019 and have not changed.
This bill requires, starting January 15, 2026, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, the OSPR administrator to review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst-case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information through a notice and comment rulemaking procedure. According to the author, adding a public review period adds transparency to a largely internal procedure that determines what a "worst-case scenario" spill from an oil pipeline may be.
According to the Author
There has been an extensive and unfortunate history of disastrous oil spills along the Central and Southern California coasts. Even with technological advancements and expansion of spill response capabilities, damaging spills cause millions of dollars in damage, severely impact the economies of local communities, and kill innumerable animal life.
SB 542 strengthens current statute to help reduce the risk of an oil spill by requiring a public process prior to the issuance of a COFR for oil pipelines and require, prior to the restart of any pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years, a comprehensive hydro test to in addition to any other in-line pipeline tests.
Arguments in Support
Center for Biological Diversity and Environmental Defense Center write, "SB 542 addresses these concerns and helps to prevent oil leaks and spills by requiring idle oil pipelines to undergo rigorous tests before a restart. Additionally, the bill creates a transparent and updated framework to determine operator financial responsibility in the event of an oil spill, to enable holding responsible parties accountable and to fairly and more accurately calculate the true costs of cleanup and restoration."
Arguments in Opposition
None on file
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- Costs of an unknown amount, potentially in the low- to mid-hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, for OSPR to hire pipeline safety engineers to implement the pipeline hydrostatic testing requirements.
- OSPR anticipates it would need about $125,000 every 10 years starting in fiscal year 2035-36 to commission an oil spill response cost study.
- OSPR will likely incur costs of an unknown, but potentially significant, amount to implement the bill's public notice and comment requirement.
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 28-11-1
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares
ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes
ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 8-3-3
YES: Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Schultz, Zbur
NO: Alanis, Ellis, Hoover
ABS, ABST OR NV: Flora, Garcia, Wicks
ASM EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: 5-2-0
YES: Ransom, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Calderon
NO: Hadwick, DeMaio
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Ahrens, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache
NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa
UPDATED
VERSION: September 2, 2025
CONSULTANT: Paige Brokaw / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0001344
Date of Hearing: August 20, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 542
Author:(Limón) – As Amended Ver:May 23, 2025
Policy Committee: | Natural Resources | Vote: | 8 - 3 |
Emergency Management | 5 - 2 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill prohibits the restart of certain existing oil pipelines unless specified conditions are met and makes related requirements.
Specifically, this bill, among other things:
- Prohibits, in order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, every existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program performed in segments to ensure every elevation point will be tested, with a minimum test pressure between 100% and 110% of the specific minimum yield strength for a 30-minute spike test, immediately followed by a pressure test in accordance with specified federal regulations.
- Requires, for an oil pipeline subject to the testing described above, a public notice and comment process before the OSPR administrator issues a COFR, as specified.
- Requires, commencing January 15, 2026, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, the OSPR administrator to review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst-case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information through a notice and comment rulemaking procedure.
FISCAL EFFECT:
OSPR estimates ongoing annual General Fund costs of approximately $1.3 million to hire four pipeline safety engineers to implement the pipeline hydrostatic testing requirements. OSPR does not oversee the construction, operation, maintenance, testing, or safety of pipelines. OSPR contends the hydrostatic testing requirement would be an entirely new responsibility for the office.
In addition, OSPR anticipates it would need about $125,000 every 10 years starting in fiscal year (FY) 2035-36 to commission an oil spill response cost study. Reviewing and revising, at least every 10 years, the formulas for calculating reasonable worst-case spill volumes and COFR amounts required by owners or operators of facilities would likely require OSPR to undertake a rulemaking, subject to the Administrative Procedures Act.
Finally, OSPR will likely incur costs of an unknown, but potentially significant, amount to implement the bill’s public notice and comment requirement. OSPR notes it is not clear how it would evaluate, respond to, or incorporate comments provided by the public, while maintaining established timeframes for approval of a COFR, which is necessary before OSPR approves an oil spill contingency plan. OSPR asserts it does not maintain a team of economic experts that could reliably assess the validity and relevance of comments regarding a company’s financial health, anticipated market trends, or other potential topics, or respond to each comment, potentially resulting in comments not being equally considered. This requirement in the bill may require OSPR to contract with an economist to evaluate public comments.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose. According to the author:
There has been an extensive and unfortunate history of disastrous oil spills along the Central and Southern California coasts. Even with technological advancements and expansion of spill response capabilities, damaging spills cause millions of dollars in damage, severely impact the economies of local communities, and kill innumerable animal life. SB 542 strengthens current statute to help reduce the risk of an oil spill by requiring a public process prior to the issuance of a COFR for oil pipelines and require, prior to the restart of any pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years, a comprehensive hydro test to in addition to any other in-line pipeline tests.
2) Background. Hydrostatic Testing. According to the State Fire Marshal (SFM), California is home to more than 5,600 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines that transport crude oil, refined products, and highly volatile liquids around the state from production facilities to refineries and ultimately to market. These pipelines operate at high pressures. Should they fail, they would pose a threat to the residents of California, property, and the environment. To prevent accidents and spills, state and federal regulations require pipeline operators to conduct hydrostatic pressure tests to ensure the integrity of their pipelines.
Under current state law, operators are required to pressure test each hazardous liquid pipeline by an independent third-party approved by the SFM at least once every five years, once every two years for high-risk pipelines, and once per year for buried pipelines without cathodic protection. Testing results are submitted to the SFM for review and concurrence. Tests are randomly witnessed by SFM pipeline safety engineers to verify compliance with the SFM pressure testing requirements.
According to the author’s office, most pipelines that transport hazardous liquids are built to operate at a hoop stress level that’s about 72% of the pipeline’s specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). When the pipeline is hydrotested at 100% SMYS, the pressure simulates normal operating conditions—about 72% of SMYS operating pressure. If the pipeline is hydrotested at 110% SMYS, that is equivalent to an operating pressure at around 80% SMYS, which raises the pressure above normal operating levels. This increased pressure enables the detection of any existing corrosion or leaks. However, pressure beyond 110% SMYS could damage the pipeline. Therefore, this bill requires the hydrostatic testing program, for oil pipelines that are inactive for at least five years, to have a minimum test pressure between 100% and 110% of the SMYS for a 30-minute spike test.
Financial Assurances and Worst-case Scenarios. Oil spill prevention and response to leaking pipelines is under OSPR’s jurisdiction and existing law requires that pipeline operators prepare oil spill contingency plans, as specified. Existing law requires an operator of a vessel or facilities to obtain a COFR to transport oil that, when spilled, may threaten the waters of the state. The COFR is a demonstration of the ability of the operator to pay for any potential environmental damage resulting from a spill, and is determined based upon a “worst-case spill.” There is no requirement that SMF regularly update the regulations governing worst-case spills; for this reason, such regulations, and related standards, have not changed for many years. For example, SMF established inland facility reasonable worst-case spill calculation methodologies in 2019, and those methodologies have not changed since.
3) Support and Opposition. Writing in support, a coalition of environmental organizations note oil spills have caused profound and lasting damage to California's coastal communities, economy, and environment. The coalition writes:
SB 542 addresses these concerns and helps to prevent oil leaks and spills by requiring idle oil pipelines to undergo rigorous tests before a restart. Additionally, the bill creates a transparent and updated framework to determine operator financial responsibility in the event of an oil spill, to enable holding responsible parties accountable and to fairly and more accurately calculate the true costs of cleanup and restoration.
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), writing in opposition, notes that the State Fire Marshal “holds the appropriate certification from [the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] to regulate intrastate pipelines” and flags concerns that “adding a public process for proving financial assurance is overly broad as it will apply not only to pipelines, it would also apply to tank vessels and marine terminals.” WSPA further writes that restarting a pipeline idle for over five years is a “rare” event and that “coordinating a hydro test in an emergency would be time consuming and require multiple resources that may be difficult to mobilize on such short notice. An exemption for emergencies may help maintain business continuity during such an unplanned event.”
Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: July 14, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Rhodesia Ransom, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 542
Author:(Limón) – As Amended Ver:May 23, 2025
SENATE VOTE: 28-11
SUBJECT: Oil spill prevention: administrator for oil spill response: duties
SUMMARY: For existing oil pipelines that are inactive for 5 or more years, prohibits restarting without passing a hydrostatic testing program, as specified, and requires a public notice and comment process before issuing a certificate of financial responsibility. This bill also requires the formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to be reviewed and revised at least every 10 years. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires every existing oil pipeline not in use for five or more years to pass a spike hydrostatic testing program before restarting.
- Specifies the hydrostatic testing program be performed in segments to ensure every elevation point will be tested, with a minimum test pressure between 100 percent and 110 percent of the specific minimum yield strength for a 30-minute spike test, immediately followed by a pressure test in accordance with federal law, as specified.
- Requires a public notice and comment process before an existing oil pipeline not in use for five or more years is issued a certificate of financial responsibility by the administrator for the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR).
- Requires, as of January 15, 2026 and at least every 10 years after, the administrator for OSPR to review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst-case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information through a notice and comment rulemaking procedure.
EXISTING LAW:
- Pursuant to the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act:
- Requires the administrator for the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), acting at the direction of the governor, to implement activities relating to oil spill response, including emergency drills and preparedness, and oil spill containment and cleanup. (Government Code (GC) 8670.1)
- Bestows the administrator with primary authority to direct prevention, removal, abatement, response, containment, and cleanup efforts with regard to all aspects of any oil spill in the waters of the state as specified. (GC 8670.6 - 8670.14)
- Prohibits the following unless the responsible party has received a copy of a COFR issued by the administrator: (GC 8670.37.51)
- A tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo from being used to transport oil across waters of the state;
- An operator of a marine terminal within the state from transferring oil to or from a tank vessel or vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo; and,
- An operator of a marine terminal within the state from transferring oil to or from any vessel that is or is intended to be used for transporting oil as cargo to or from a second vessel.
- Requires an owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state to apply for and obtain a COFR issued by the administrator for the facility or the oil to be handled, stored, or transported by the facility. (GC 8670.37.51)
- Pursuant to the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981:
- Requires the State Fire Marshal (SFM) to exercise safety regulatory jurisdiction over intrastate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous or highly volatile liquid substances. (GC 51010)
- Defines “hydrostatic testing” as the application of internal pressure above the normal or maximum operating pressure to a segment of pipeline, under no-flow conditions for a fixed period of time, utilizing a liquid test medium. (GC 51010.5)
- Requires the following testing requirements: (GC 51013.5)
- Every newly constructed pipeline, existing pipeline, or part of a pipeline system that has been relocated or replaced, and every pipeline that transports a hazardous liquid substance or highly volatile liquid substance, to be tested in accordance with Subpart E of Part 195 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
- Every pipeline not provided with properly sized automatic pressure relief devices or properly designed pressure limiting devices to be hydrostatically tested annually;
- Every pipeline older than 10 years of age and not provided with effective cathodic protection to be hydrostatically tested every three years, except for those on the SFM’s list of higher risk pipelines, which shall be hydrostatically tested annually;
- Every pipeline older than 10 years of age and provided with effective cathodic protection to be hydrostatically tested every five years, except for those on the SFM’s list of higher risk pipelines which shall be hydrostatically tested every two years; and,
- Piping within a refined products bulk loading facility served by pipeline to be tested hydrostatically at 125% of maximum allowable operating pressure using the product ordinarily transported in that piping if that piping is operated at a stress level of 20% or less of the specified minimum yield strength of the pipe. Requires the frequency for pressure testing these pipelines to be every five years for those pipelines with effective cathodic protection and every three years for those pipelines without effective cathodic protection.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Unknown but likely significant ongoing costs (special fund) for the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) to implement the hydrostatic testing requirements, review and revise formulas for calculating financial assurances, and provide notification and a public comment process as specified.”
COMMENTS:
Purpose of the bill: According to the author, “There has been an extensive and unfortunate history of disastrous oil spills along the Central and Southern California coasts. Even with technological advancements and expansion of spill response capabilities, damaging spills cause millions of dollars in damage, severely impact the economies of local communities, and kill innumerable animal life. SB 542 strengthens current statute to help reduce the risk of an oil spill by requiring a public process prior to the issuance of a Certificate on Financial Responsibility for oil pipelines and require, prior to the restart of any pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years, a comprehensive hydro test to in addition to any other in-line pipeline tests.”
Equity Impact: According to the author’s office, “Oil and gas operations including pipelines are notoriously found in vulnerable, underserved, and underrepresented communities, with oil spills being focused in those areas as well. The pipeline that ruptured in Santa Barbara in 2015 did not just affect underserved communities in the region, but damaged the Central Coast region as a whole. However, the impacts from that spill and a future spill will have an oversized impact on underserved communities in the form economic damage, environmental damage and exposure, and clean water issues. This bill ensures these communities have access to a public notice and comment period when a COFR is issued for a pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years. This will provide an opportunity for the local community, academics, and scientific professionals to review the amount that may be covered in the “worst-case spill” scenario. With this opportunity for comment, front line and underserved communities will be able to have more of a voice in the deliberations about oil pipeline restarts.”
Jurisdiction of the pipelines: The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has exclusive federal authority over interstate pipeline facilities (49 USC § 60101, et seq.). An interstate pipeline is defined as a pipeline or that part of a pipeline that is used in the transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in interstate or foreign commerce. Typically, these lines cross state borders or begin in federal waters. Additionally, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) filing by the operator can be the determining factor.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (Cal FIRE) SFM has safety, regulatory, and enforcement authority over intrastate hazardous liquid pipelines. Intrastate pipeline is defined as a pipeline or that part of a pipeline to which this part applies that is not an interstate pipeline. This refers to pipelines that are located entirely within state borders including offshore state waters.
Hazardous liquid pipelines in California: PHSMA has responsibility of 8 pipeline operators with approximately 1,188 miles of interstate pipeline. The SFM has responsibility for 52 pipeline operators with approximately 5,600 miles of intrastate pipeline, 344 pump stations and tank farms, and 744 breakout tanks.
Office of Spill Prevention and Response: The Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), within the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and acting at the direction of the Governor, implements activities relating to oil spill prevention and response in inland and marine waters, including emergency drills and preparedness, and oil spill containment and cleanup. Among other things, the administrator for OSPR is responsible for issuing certificates of financial responsibility.
Hydrostatic Testing: Current law defines hydrostatic testing as the application of internal pressure above the normal or maximum operating pressure to a segment of pipeline, under no-flow conditions for a fixed period of time, utilizing a liquid test medium.
As outlined in the Natural Resources Committee analysis:
Under current state law, operators are required to pressure test each hazardous liquid pipeline by an independent third-party approved by the SFM at least once every five years, once every two years for high risk, and once per year for buried pipelines without cathodic protection. Testing results are submitted to the SFM for review and concurrence. Tests are randomly witnessed by SFM Pipeline Safety Engineers to verify compliance with the SFM pressure testing requirements.
A pressure test involves pressurizing a pipeline with a test medium (usually water) to a pressure more than its Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP). The pipeline successfully passes the hydrostatic pressure test if it can withstand that pressure for a set period of time (usually 8 hours). A MOP hydrotest determines the proof of fitness for service of a pipeline at the time of the test. This test is typically done prior to the start of a pipeline and prior to the transmission of any gases or liquids. The regulation overseeing MOP hydrotesting can be found in Subpart E of Part 195 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is referenced in the language of SB 542.
Spike hydrotesting, another pressure test, is meant to find cracking threats or corrosion in a pipeline’s walls, welds, seals, or joints by using water testing at higher pressures. A spike hydrotest is designed to load pressure on a pipe to between 100% and 110% of the specified minimum yield strength (%SMYS) of the pipeline and usually requires pressurized testing for 15 minutes to one hour. The SMYS is the minimum amount of stress a pipe can withstand before experiencing permanent damage.
According to the author’s office, most pipelines that transport hazardous liquids are built to operate at a hoop stress level that’s about 72% of the pipeline’s specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). When the pipeline is hydrotested at 100% SMYS, the pressure simulates normal operating conditions—about 72% of SMYS operating pressure. If the pipeline is hydrotested at 110% SMYS, that’s equivalent to an operating pressure at around 80% SMYS, which raises the pressure above normal operating levels. This increased pressure would enable the detection of any existing corrosion or leaks. However, pressure beyond 110% SMYS could damage the pipeline.
This reasoning resulted in the author’s decision to specify the hydrostatic testing program, for oil pipelines that are inactive for at least five years, to have a minimum test pressure between 100 percent and 110 percent of the specific minimum yield strength for a 30-minute spike test.
Certificate of Financial Responsibility and Worst-Case Spill Regulations: OSPR issues Certificates of Financial Responsibility (COFR) to owners or operators of facilities, Mobile Transfer Units, railroads, pipelines, and vessels that are required to have a California Oil Spill Contingency Plan. To receive a certificate, the owner or operator must apply and provide proof of financial resources capable of covering the costs of the relevant worst case scenario spill calculation, which includes the response, clean up, and damages costs. However, there are no current requirements to update worst-case spill regulations for oil pipelines, facilities, vessels, and marine terminals. This has resulted in potentially outdated worst-case spill calculations. For example, regulators established the marine facility worst-case spill calculation method in 1993 and only minor adjustments have been made since then. Additionally, the inland facility calculation methods were established by regulators in 2019 and remain unchanged.
The most recent update to financial requirements under Certificates of Financial Responsibility (COFR) happened in 2019, when regulators set the inland facility cap at $100 million. They set the marine facility cap at $300 million in 1995, the non-tank vessel cap at $300 million in 2000, and the small tank barge cap at $1 billion in 2003. State law sets maximum liability amounts for tank and non-tank vessels, but it does not set statutory limits for pipelines or facilities. Owners and operators are required to annually demonstrate proof of financial resources and submit renewal applications before their COFR expires.
Southern California Oil Spill: The Southern California oil spill occurred on October 1, 2021, just off the coast of Huntington Beach in Orange County. The rupture spilled an estimated 24,500 gallons of crude oil, which resulted in an immediate oil spill area of 13 square miles and tar balls that reached as far south as the Mexican border. The spill came from a ruptured pipeline owned by Amplify. Investigators determined the pipeline was ruptured eight months prior to the spill, when two ships dragged their anchors over the pipeline because of winds during a massive thunderstorm on January 25, 2021.
On October 4, 2021 Governor Newsom issued a state of emergency in Orange County to support the emergency response to the oil spill off the coast of Huntington Beach. At the response's peak, 18 vessels were deployed, 13 sensitive sites were protected, 4 volunteer deployments were conducted, and over 1,800 personnel participated in the efforts. The personnel included full time staff, affiliated volunteers (CERT and OWCN with Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency response training), and unaffiliated volunteers who received training organized by Unified Command. The clean-up response team reported 9,076.4 gallons of recovered oil and 116 dead birds and mammals. The Oil Spill Response efforts officially concluded as of December 27, 2021 when all shoreline segments were signed off as clean.
Amplify was charged with negligent discharge of oil. Investigations demonstrated that Amplify failed to take appropriate action after initial signs of the spill became apparent. Amplify and the ships at fault were required to pay $210 million in civil and criminal penalties. Amplify paid an additional $5.9 million in cleanup cost. Amplify and the ships also paid $95 million to the spill’s victims.
Double Referral: This bill was first referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and passed with an 8-3-3 vote on July 7, 2025.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
350 Bay Area Action
350 Santa Barbara
Azul
Bixby Residential, INC.
Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast
California Environmental Voters (formerly Clcv)
Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central Coast Climate Justice Network
Cleanearth4kids.org
Climate First: Replacing Oil & Gas (CFROG)
Climate Hawks Vote
Clue-sb Environmental Justice Group
Clue-sb Environmental Justice Work Group
Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation
Defenders of Wildlife
Elected Officials to Protect America - Code Blue
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Environmental Defense Center
Food & Water Watch
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Get Oil Out!
International Marine Mammal Project of the Earth Island Institute
Keepers of the Western Gate
Ocean Conservation Research
Ocean Protectors Program
Oil & Gas Action Network
Patagonia
Quabajai Coastal Chumash Keepers of the Western Gate
S.f. Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples
Sandiego350
Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
Santa Barbara County Action Network
Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee
Sierra Club California
Sierra Club Santa Barbara Group
SoCal 350 Climate Action
Society of Fearless Grandmothers of SB
Solano County Democratic Central Committee
Stand.earth
Sunflower Alliance
Surfrider Foundation
The Climate Center
UCSB AS Environmental Affairs Board
Ventura Coastkeeper
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Fleming / E.M. / (916) 319-3802
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 542 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 542
Author: Limón (D)
Amended: 5/23/25
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 4-2, 4/22/25
AYES: Limón, Allen, Laird, Stern
NOES: Seyarto, Grove
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25
AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab
NOES: Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle
SUBJECT: Oil spill prevention: administrator for oil spill response: duties
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill prohibits the restart of an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without certain hydrostatic testing in order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, requires public notice and comment before a certificate of financial responsibility is issued, and requires that the formulas for determining the amount of a certificate of financial responsibility be reviewed every 10 years, as provided, among other provisions.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as the state’s principal regulator for oil spill prevention and response pursuant to the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (Act) (Government Code (GOV) §§8574.1 et seq., GOV §§8670.1 et seq., Public Resources Code §§8750 et seq.). The Act helps to fulfill the state’s responsibilities for oil spill prevention and response as established by federal laws and regulations within the national framework for oil spill prevention and response.
- Requires OSPR’s leader, the OSPR administrator, to implement the California oil spill contingency plan and to ensure that those trained in oil spill response and cleanup are onsite to respond to, contain, and clean up any oil spill in waters of the state as soon as possible after notice of discharge.
- Provides that OSPR’s mission is to provide the best achievable protection of California's natural resources and the public health and safety by preventing, preparing for, and responding to spills of oil and other deleterious materials; and to restore and enhance affected resources. (GOV §8670.3) Requires best achievable protection to incorporate the use of best achievable technology. Requires pipeline operators prepare oil spill contingency plans, as specified.
- Requires, pursuant to the Act, an operator of a vessel or facilities to obtain a certificate of financial responsibility (COFR) in order to transport oil that, when spilled, may threaten the waters of the state. (GOV §§8670.37.51 et seq.) The COFR is a demonstration of the ability of the operator to pay for any potential environmental damage resulting from a spill, and is determined based upon a “worst-case spill.” The maximum amount of a COFR for tank ($1 billion) and non-tank ($300 million) vessels is set in statute. (GOV §§8670.37.53, 8670.37.58, respectively) The maximum amount of a COFR for a facility is set in regulation.
This bill:
- Prohibits any existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program performed in segments followed by a pressure test in accordance with Subpart E of Part 195 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, as specified.
- Requires a public notice and comment process before the OSPRA administrator issues a COFR for an oil pipeline subject to 1) above.
- Requires, commencing January 15, 2026, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, for the OSPR administration to review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst-case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill to reflect the best available information through a notice and comment rulemaking procedure.
- Specifies that no reimbursement is required to local agencies and school districts for this state mandate, as provided.
Background
On May 19, 2015 a pipeline then owned by Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline (Plains) ruptured spilling over 140,000 gallons of heavy crude oil along the Gaviota coast at Refugio Beach in Santa Barbara County of which over 100,000 gallons reached coastal waters. The release was from a 10.6 mile long, 24-inch diameter pipeline (Line 901).
The main oil spill stretched over nine miles of California coastline and tar balls associated with the spill were found, as far south as Los Angeles County. Shoreline and beaches were affected by the spill and nesting areas for protected species were also affected. Hundreds of birds and mammals, in addition to a large number of marine invertebrates, were known to be impacted by the spill and most died. A 23 mile by six mile area was closed to fishing for over one month and beaches were closed, including over the Memorial Day weekend, resulting in economic losses.
A subsequent investigation by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for this then-interstate pipeline found that the direct cause of the leak was external corrosion on the pipeline.
Both Line 901 and 903 were ordered to be shut down following the 2015 Refugio Beach spill. The lines start on the Gaviota coast and are located in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern Counties. Production on Platform Holly in state waters and from offshore federal leases (the Santa Ynez Unit – Platforms Hondo, Harmony, and Heritage) ceased as a result. Plains originally sought to replace the pipe in Lines 901 and 903 and return the pipelines to service once the replacement was completed. Plains ultimately dropped this effort and sold lines 901 and 903 to Exxon in 2022. Exxon entered into an agreement to sell the pipelines and other oil production infrastructure to Sable Offshore Corporation (Sable), and the sale was finalized in early 2024. The pipelines were re-classified as intrastate pipelines as part of settlement of litigation, and had been renamed CA-324 and CA-325.
Sable announced restarting oil production in the Santa Ynez unit (in federal waters) on May 15, 2025, and restarting the use of CA-324 and CA-325. Sable has not replaced, but rather made repairs to the pipeline. Since Sable became owner of the pipelines, multiple state agencies have determined that it has conducted unauthorized repairs and other work on the pipelines. Sable’s efforts to comply with regulatory requests appears to vary by regulator.
[NOTE: See the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee analysis for additional information regarding this bill.]
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- Unknown but likely significant ongoing costs (special fund) for the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) to implement the hydrostatic testing requirements, review and revise formulas for calculating financial assurances, and provide notification and a public comment process as specified.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)
350 Bay Area Action
350 Santa Barbara
Bixby Residential, Inc.
Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast
California Environmental Voters
Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Climate Hawks Vote
CLUE-SB Environmental Justice Work Group
Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation
Elected Officials to Protect America Code Blue
Environmental Defense Center
Food & Water Watch
Get Oil Out!
Oil and Gas Action Network
Patagonia
Quabajai Coastal Chumash Keepers of the Western Gate
Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples
Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee
Sierra Club California
Sierra Club Santa Barbara Group
SF Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
SoCal 350 Climate Action
Stand.earth
Sunflower Alliance
The Climate Center
UCSB AS Environmental Affairs Board
Ventura Coastkeeper
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)
Western States Petroleum Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “There has been an extensive and unfortunate history of disastrous oil spills along the Central and Southern California coasts. Even with technological advancements and expansion of spill response capabilities, damaging spills cause millions of dollars in damage, severely impact the economies of local communities, and kill innumerable animal life.”
“SB 542 strengthens current statute to help reduce the risk of an oil spill by requiring a public process prior to the issuance of a Certificate on Financial Responsibility for oil pipelines and require, prior to the restart of any pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years, a comprehensive hydro test to in addition to any other in-line pipeline tests.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Western States Petroleum Association, writing in opposition, notes that the State Fire Marshal “holds the appropriate certification from [the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] to regulate intrastate pipelines” and flags concerns that “adding a public process for proving financial assurance is overly broad as it will apply not only to pipelines, it would also apply to tank vessels and marine terminals.”
They further write that restarting a pipeline idle for over five years is a “rare” event and write that “coordinating a hydro test in an emergency would be time consuming and require multiple resources that may be difficult to mobilize on such short notice. An exemption for emergencies may help maintain business continuity during such an unplanned event.”
Prepared by: Katharine Moore / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
5/27/25 13:05:29
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
SB 542 (Limón) - Oil spill prevention: administrator for oil spill response: duties
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
This bill would prohibit the restart of an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without passing a hydrostatic testing program, among other provisions.
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on May 23, 2025
Fiscal Impact:
- Unknown but likely significant ongoing costs (special fund) for the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) to implement the hydrostatic testing requirements, review and revise formulas for calculating financial assurances, and provide notification and a public comment process as specified.
Author Amendments:
Authors amendments would clarify that the hydrostatic testing program must be performed in segments and make other changes.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
SB 542 (Limón) - Oil spill prevention: administrator for oil spill response: duties
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
This bill would prohibit the restart of an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without passing a hydrostatic testing program, among other provisions.
Fiscal Impact:
- Unknown but likely significant ongoing costs (special fund) for the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) to implement the hydrostatic testing requirements, review and revise formulas for calculating financial assurances, and provide notification and a public comment process as specified.
Background:
On May 19, 2015 a pipeline then owned by Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline (Plains) ruptured spilling over 140,000 gallons of heavy crude oil along the Gaviota coast at Refugio Beach in Santa Barbara County of which over 100,000 gallons reached coastal waters. The release was from a 10.6 mile long, 24-inch diameter pipeline (Line 901).
The main oil spill stretched over 9 miles of California coastline and tar balls associated with the spill were found, as far south as Los Angeles County. Shoreline and beaches were affected by the spill and nesting areas for protected species were also affected. Hundreds of birds and mammals, in addition to a large number of marine invertebrates, were known to be impacted by the spill. Although some of the birds and mammals were released following treatment, most died from their exposure to oil. A 23 mile by 6 mile area was closed to fishing for over one month and beaches were closed, including over the Memorial Day weekend, resulting in economic losses.
A subsequent investigation by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for this then-interstate pipeline found that the direct cause of the leak was external corrosion on the pipeline. Corrosion in the pipeline had been indirectly tested two weeks before the spill and the in-line inspection tool failed to accurately determine the degree of corrosion in the line. Discrepancies between the tool’s inferred measurement and actual corrosion were as much as 40% in the location of the failure.
While in-line inspection tools are useful to inferring pipeline integrity, the failure to detect serious corrosion prior to the Refugio spill highlights the limitations of indirect measurements of pipeline integrity. A direct assessment of pipeline integrity – such as a hydro test – provides a clear unequivocal measure of pipeline integrity, although more intensive in time and expense to conduct.
Office of Spill Prevention and Response. The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (Act)(Government Code (GOV) §§8574.1 et seq., GOV §§8670.1 et seq., Public Resources Code §§8750 et seq.) established the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Act helps to fulfill the state’s responsibilities for oil spill prevention and response as established by federal laws and regulations within the national framework for oil spill prevention and response. For example, OSPR’s leader, the OSPR administrator, is required to implement the California oil spill contingency plan and to ensure that those trained in oil spill response and cleanup are onsite to respond to, contain, and clean up any oil spill in waters of the state as soon as possible after notice of discharge.
OSPR’s mission is to provide the best achievable protection (GOV §8670.3) of California's natural resources and the public health and safety by preventing, preparing for, and responding to spills of oil and other deleterious materials; and to restore and enhance affected resources. Best achievable protection incorporates the use of best achievable technology. Oil spill prevention and response to leaking pipelines is under OSPR’s jurisdiction and existing law requires that pipeline operators prepare oil spill contingency plans, as specified.
Under the Act, an operator of a vessel or facilities is required to obtain a certificate of financial responsibility (COFR) in order to transport oil that, when spilled, may threaten the waters of the state. (see GOV §§8670.37.51 et seq.) The COFR is a demonstration of the ability of the operator to pay for any potential environmental damage resulting from a spill, and is determined based upon a “worst-case spill.” The maximum amount of a COFR for tank ($1 billion) and non-tank ($300 million) vessels is set in statute. (GOV §§8670.37.53, 8670.37.58, respectively) The maximum amount of a COFR for a facility is set in regulation.
Proposed Law:
This bill would prohibit the restart of an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without passing a hydrostatic testing program. It would also require there to be a public notice and comment process before the administrator of oil spill response issues a certificate of financial responsibility, and would require the administrator to review and revise the formulas for calculating reasonable worst case spills and the financial assurances necessary to respond to an oil spill, as provided.
Related Legislation:
AB 1448 (Hart, 2025) would require a 2/3s vote of the State Lands Commission or a local trustee to take certain actions related to offshore oil and gas-related leases, and require that certain conditions be met for offshore oil pipelines under the Coastal Act, among other provisions.
SB 1030 (Limón, 2022) would have revised provisions of the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 by removing an exemption from the definition of "pipeline," authorizing the State Fire Marshal to require the operator of a pipeline to maintain records, make reports, and provide information, as specified, and would have authorized the State Fire Marshal to disclose certain records, as provided, among other provisions.
AB 3214 (Limón, Chapter 119, Statutes of 2020) potentially doubled certain financial penalties for failing to notify state and federal agencies of the discharge of oil and the discharging of oil into waters of the state, as provided.
SB 414 (Jackson, Chapter 609, Statutes of 2015) made several changes to state law regarding oil spill preparedness, prevention, and response.
SB 295 (Jackson, Chapter 607, Statutes of 2015) required the State Fire Marshal to annually inspect all intrastate pipelines and operators of intrastate pipelines under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal, among other provisions.
AB 864 (Williams, Chapter 592, Statutes of 2015) required new or replacement pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone to use best available technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife and to submit a plan to retrofit the pipeline.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Monique Limón, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: SB 542 Hearing Date: April 22, 2025
Author: | |||
Version: | Amended | ||
Urgency: | Fiscal: | ||
Consultant: | |||
Subject: Oil spill prevention: administrator for oil spill response: duties
SUMMARY
This bill would prohibit the restart of an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without a hydro test in order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, among other provisions.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The 2015 Refugio Beach oil spill and its consequences.
On May 19, 2015 a pipeline then owned by Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline (Plains) ruptured spilling over 140,000 gallons of heavy crude oil along the Gaviota coast at Refugio Beach in Santa Barbara County of which over 100,000 gallons reached coastal waters. The release was from a 10.6 mile long, 24-inch diameter pipeline (Line 901).
The main oil spill stretched over 9 miles of California coastline and tar balls associated with the spill were found, as far south as Los Angeles County. Shoreline and beaches were affected by the spill and nesting areas for protected species were also affected. Hundreds of birds and mammals, in addition to a large number of marine invertebrates, were known to be impacted by the spill. Although some of the birds and mammals were released following treatment, most died from their exposure to oil. A 23 mile by 6 mile area was closed to fishing for over one month and beaches were closed, including over the Memorial Day weekend, resulting in economic losses.
A subsequent investigation by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for this then-interstate pipeline found that the direct cause of the leak was external corrosion on the pipeline. Corrosion in the pipeline had been indirectly tested two weeks before the spill and the in-line inspection tool failed to accurately determine the degree of corrosion in the line. Discrepancies between the tool’s inferred measurement and actual corrosion were as much as 40% in the location of the failure.
While in-line inspection tools are useful to inferring pipeline integrity, the failure to detect serious corrosion prior to the Refugio spill highlights the limitations of indirect measurements of pipeline integrity. A direct assessment of pipeline integrity – such as a hydro test – provides a clear unequivocal measure of pipeline integrity, although more intensive in time and expense to conduct.
Sable Offshore Corporation purchase of pipelines and offshore and onshore oil production infrastructure.
Both Line 901 and 903 were ordered to be shut down following the 2015 Refugio Beach spill leak. The lines start on the Gaviota coast and are located in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern Counties. Production on Platform Holly in state waters and from offshore federal leases (the Santa Ynez Unit – Platforms Hondo, Harmony, and Heritage) ceased as a result. Without a method to transport its oil to shore, Venoco, the operator of Platform Holly, subsequently sought bankruptcy protection. Plains originally sought to replace the pipe in Lines 901 and 903 and returns the pipelines to service once the replacement was completed. Plains ultimately dropped this effort and sold lines 901 and 903 to Exxon in 2022. Exxon entered into an agreement to sell the pipelines and other oil production infrastructure to Sable Offshore Corporation (Sable), and the sale was finalized in early 2024. The pipelines were re-classified as intrastate pipelines as part of settlement of litigation, and had been renamed CA-324 and CA-325. Sable is seeking to restart oil production in the Santa Ynez unit (in federal waters) and restart CA-324 and CA-325. Sable is not replacing the pipe, but rather making any necessary repairs to the pipeline.
In a recent investor presentation, Sable estimates that initial production from the Santa Ynez units will be between 20,000 – 25,000 barrels of oil per day in 2026 before reaching 29,000 barrels of oil per day in 2027 and declining to about 15,000 barrels of oil per day in 2028 through 2035.
Since Sable became owner of the pipelines, multiple state agencies have determined that it has conducted unauthorized repairs and other work on the pipelines. Sable’s efforts to comply with regulatory requests appears to vary by regulator.
Office of Spill Prevention and Response
In response to the significant 1989 oil spill from the Exxon Valdez that fouled the waters of Prince William Sound, a series of federal laws were established or amended, including the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Clean Water Act, and others. These laws established a national framework for addressing oil (and other hazardous material) spills within the United States and its waters in order to effectively respond to a spill in a coordinated and comprehensive manner.
At the state level, the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (Act)(Government Code (GOV) §§8574.1 et seq., GOV §§8670.1 et seq., Public Resources Code §§8750 et seq.) established the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Act helps to fulfill the state’s responsibilities for oil spill prevention and response as established by federal laws and regulations within the national framework for oil spill prevention and response. For example, OSPR’s leader, the OSPR administrator, is required to implement the California oil spill contingency plan and to ensure that those trained in oil spill response and cleanup are onsite to respond to, contain, and clean up any oil spill in waters of the state as soon as possible after notice of discharge.
OSPR’s mission is to provide the best achievable protection (GOV §8670.3) of California's natural resources and the public health and safety by preventing, preparing for, and responding to spills of oil and other deleterious materials; and to restore and enhance affected resources. Best achievable protection incorporates the use of best achievable technology. Oil spill prevention and response to leaking pipelines is under OSPR’s jurisdiction and existing law requires that pipeline operators prepare oil spill contingency plans, as specified.
Under the Act, an operator of a vessel or facilities is required to obtain a certificate of financial responsibility (COFR) in order to transport oil that, when spilled, may threaten the waters of the state. (see GOV §§8670.37.51 et seq.) The COFR is a demonstration of the ability of the operator to pay for any potential environmental damage resulting from a spill, and is determined based upon a “worst-case spill.” The maximum amount of a COFR for tank ($1 billion) and non-tank ($300 million) vessels is set in statute. (GOV §§8670.37.53, 8670.37.58, respectively) The maximum amount of a COFR for a facility is set in regulation.
March 13, 2025 Town Hall
As part of its effort to receive approval to restart CA-324 and CA-325, Sable sought a waiver of the requirement to have cathodic protection on the pipelines from the State Fire Marshal (intrastate pipelines are under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal). Cathodic protection is a standard method to help protect against corrosion. In December 2024, the State Fire Marshal approved the waiver, and conditioned it upon compliance with other requirements. This action resulted in significant community concern.
On March 13, 2025, a town hall was convened by Senator Limón and Assembly Member Hart to inform the local community about the status of Sable’s efforts to restart the pipelines and featuring presentations from multiple state regulators led by the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, Wade Crowfoot. In addition, representatives of the California Coastal Commission, the State Lands Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, OSPR, the State Fire Marshal, the Department of Conservation, the Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), and the State Water Resources Control Board were present. As noted above, Sable does not appear to have been consistently cooperative with state regulators.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would prohibit the restart of an existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without a hydro test in order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service, among other provisions.
Specifically, this bill would:
- Prohibit any existing oil pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years from being restarted without a hydro test in order to reduce the risk of an oil spill upon returning to service.
- Require a public process to occur prior to the OSPR administrator issuing a COFR to an owner or operator of a facility where an oil spill could impact waters of the state, as provided.
- Specify that no reimbursement is required to local agencies and school districts for this state mandate, as provided.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, “There has been an extensive and unfortunate history of disastrous oil spills along the Central and Southern California coasts. Even with technological advancements and expansion of spill response capabilities, damaging spills cause millions of dollars in damage, severely impact the economies of local communities, and kill innumerable animal life.”
“SB 542 strengthens current statute to help reduce the risk of an oil spill by requiring a public process prior to the issuance of a Certificate on Financial Responsibility for oil pipelines and require, prior to the restart of any pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years, a comprehensive hydro test to in addition to any other in-line pipeline tests.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Western States Petroleum Association, writing in opposition, notes that the State Fire Marshal “holds the appropriate certification from [the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] to regulate intrastate pipelines” and flags concerns that “adding a public process for proving financial assurance is overly broad as it will apply not only to pipelines, it would also apply to tank vessels and marine terminals.”
They further write that restarting a pipeline idle for over five years is a “rare” event and write that “coordinating a hydro test in an emergency would be time consuming and require multiple resources that may be difficult to mobilize on such short notice. An exemption for emergencies may help maintain business continuity during such an unplanned event.”
COMMENTS
Need for the bill. While this bill applies more broadly than to the Sable pipelines alone, the Sable pipeline restart currently underway illustrates the shortcomings motivating the bill. The failure of the pipeline that resulted in the Refugio Beach spill was due to corrosion – and, it is well documented that corrosion was not accurately characterized by an in-line measurement tool two weeks before the failure. The then-owner of the pipeline initially sought to replace the pipeline in its entirety, and the new owner has instead sought to repair or replace only portions. Given the multiple environmentally-sensitive areas, such as marine protected areas, that could be impacted by a spill for the pipelines, a direct measurement of the pipelines’ integrity – using a hydro test – appears to be warranted. Further, the COFR required for the offshore and onshore facilities operated by Sable was calculated to be $101 million. While the worst-case spill calculation for the onshore portion came out to more than $100 million, $100 million is the cap set in regulation. While Sable has complied with the COFR requirements, it is unclear if the cap is appropriate in the circumstances.
The language describing the hydro test could be usefully refined to address the specific testing protocol and reference existing regulatory standards. Further, specific direction on the term “public process” with respect to the approval of a facility COFR would improve the bill.
The Committee may wish to amend the bill to provide additional specificity regarding the hydro test and the public process. [Amendment #1]
In addition, as the COFR requirements for facilities are set by regulation, regular updates to the regulation – to ensure that worst-case scenarios do not result in spills that cost far greater than an outdated cap – are also warranted.
The Committee may wish to amend the bill to require that COFR regulations are reviewed and revisited every 10 years. [Amendment #2]
The author, as the bill moves forward, may wish to continue to refine the bill’s language and consider how to address concerns raised by the opposition.
Recent Sable-related news and additional state regulator action.
Within the last week, environmental advocacy organizations have filed two lawsuits against the State Fire Marshal regarding the approval of the waiver. Sable has also challenged the authority of the California Coastal Commission over it in court. At a meeting last week, the California Coastal Commission voted to impose up to an $18 million fine on Sable for repeated noncompliance with the Coastal Act and issued another Cease-and-Desist order for unauthorized activities.
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has an item on its April 17 – 18, 2025 agenda for a referral to the California Office of the Attorney General regarding Sable’s continuing unauthorized discharges to state waters in order to consider options available to prevent future unauthorized discharges, among other issues, associated with Sable’s pipeline remediation work on CA-324 and CA-325.
State Parks is in discussions with Sable regarding pipeline repair work conducted without appropriate authorization in Gaviota State Park.
Recent related legislation
AB 1448 (Hart, 2025) would require a 2/3s vote of the State Lands Commission or a local trustee to take certain actions related to offshore oil and gas-related leases, and require that certain conditions be met for offshore oil pipelines under the Coastal Act, among other provisions. (This bill is pending before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.)
SB 1030 (Limón, 2022) would have revised provisions of the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 by removing an exemption from the definition of "pipeline," authorizing the State Fire Marshal to require the operator of a pipeline to maintain records, make reports, and provide information, as specified, and would have authorized the State Fire Marshal to disclose certain records, as provided, among other provisions. (This bill was placed on the inactive file on the Assembly floor.)
AB 3214 (Limón, Chapter 119, Statutes of 2020) potentially doubled certain financial penalties for failing to notify state and federal agencies of the discharge of oil and the discharging of oil into waters of the state, as provided.
SB 414 (Jackson, Chapter 609, Statutes of 2015) made several changes to state law regarding oil spill preparedness, prevention, and response.
SB 295 (Jackson, Chapter 607, Statutes of 2015) required the State Fire Marshal to annually inspect all intrastate pipelines and operators of intrastate pipelines under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal, among other provisions.
AB 864 (Williams, Chapter 592, Statutes of 2015) required new or replacement pipeline near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in the coastal zone to use best available technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife and to submit a plan to retrofit the pipeline.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
- Clarify and specify the hydrotesting protocol
- Clarify “public process” in the review of the certificate of financial responsibility for a facility.
AMENDMENT 2
- Where the value is set in regulation, review and update, as applicable, the maximum amount of financial responsibility required in the certificate of financial responsibility regulations every 10 years.
SUPPORT
Center for Biological Diversity
Environmental Defense Center
OPPOSITION
Western States Petroleum Association
-- END --
Discussed in Hearing
2MIN
Senate Floor
1MIN
Assembly Floor
6MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Emergency Management
7MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources
2MIN
Senate Floor
30SEC
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
20MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water
Bill Author
