Proponents of a bill that would require disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid might run out of time to get the bill out of a California state Senate committee before the end of the legislature's session early next month.
The bill (AB 591) passed the state Assembly in June but has been held up in the California Senate Appropriations Committee, Jeff Barbosa, a spokesman for the bill's author, Democratic assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, said Tuesday. The bill's proponents had hoped to get the legislation to the Senate floor for a vote by the end of August.
"We're still trying to see if we can get it out before the session ends on September 9," Barbosa said. "There are still some negotiations going on."
If the proponents of the bill are unable to guide it to passage by the end of the session, it will become a two-year bill that will be reintroduced when the lawmakers come back into session in January, Barbosa said.
AB 591 would require oil and gas companies to inform state officials as to what fracking fluid chemicals they inject into each well drilled, the source of water used, the volume of water used, and whether any radiological components were injected.
The bill, which Wieckowski introduced in February, appeared headed for swift passage earlier this summer, having gathered the support of the state's influential environmental community and having managed to avoid the outright opposition of the state's exploration-and-production industry.
If it becomes law, the legislation would require oil and gas drillers to release the information on fracking fluid to the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. The DOGGR would then be required to publish online the drillers' chemical lists and locations of specific wells where those chemicals were used.
"We haven't given up for trying to move the bill this year," said Bill Allayaud, director of government affairs for Environmental Working Group, one of two environmental organizations that sponsored the legislation.
Allayaud said the bill has attracted broad support from both environmental and industry representatives. "Both sides want to see more transparency; both sides want to see that the Division of Oil and Gas is able to gather and disseminate information about fracking," he said.
He said members of the Appropriations Committee apparently decided that advocates of AB 591 had not addressed all the issues surrounding the bill, including the cost of implementing the legislation.
"The committee felt that there are costs in the bill and if you can find any reason to hold a bill, in addition to the costs, you hold it," he said.
However, he said the oil and gas industry, which supplies most of the money needed to fund the state's energy regulations, is likely to agree to bear the cost of implementing AB 591 as well.
"They've shown a willingness to go along with a small increase in their assessments," Allayaud said.
He added that the bill's ultimate chance of passage in the current legislative session could hinge on getting the state's oil and gas producers completely on board to back the legislation, but as of yet, the bill's sponsors still have not come to a complete agreement with the E&P industry on several issues.
Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, said he thinks the two sides still can reach a consensus in time to present a united front to the lawmakers in order to assure the bill's passage.
"There continue to be conversations between a number of parties, the environmental sponsors, the author, our association. The current status is a hiatus to allow those discussions to come to fruition," he said.
"There are expectations that the bill can move this year and move in a manner that our industry can live with," Hull said.
He added that the single remaining issue separating the two sides has to do with ensuring that the legislation contains "appropriate protections" to ensure that the information about fracking fluid additives that the industry considers as trade secrets can remain confidential.
