How a Captured Regulator Will Endanger Residents in Northern Los Angeles

The California Public Utilities Commission voted to keep the hazardous Aliso Canyon storage site open indefinitely

Published on Medium.com on December 23, 2024

Aliso Canyon gas storage site on October 12, 2019, after Saddleridge Fire burnt some of the land the day before, coming within feet of the wells. Photo by Patty Glueck

“I’m appalled and flabbergasted that you would even entertain item #73 the current proposal to keep Aliso Canyon indefinitely open,” Porter Ranch resident and a co-founder of the Aliso Moms Alliance, Lori Aivazian, told the California Public Utilities Commission on December 19, 2024. She also mentioned that keeping the facility open was a violation of Section 451 of the Public Utilities Code, which requires California utilities to operate safely.

She was among the more than forty members of the public who gave public comment at the CPUC voting meeting about a proposed decision to keep the gas storage facility, located adjacent to the Los Angeles community of Porter Ranch. The decision would provide a biennial review of the “gas peak day demand target.”

Some of the other Aliso Moms Alliance co-founders also weighed in.

Jane Fowler talked about having to move out of the area, even though she misses Granada Hills. “The burning, itchy skin, the stomach issues, my livers and kidney functions have returned to normal. Yes, I’m detoxing. It’s absolutely amazing that leaving the area can result in better health.”

After pointing out that the governor has called for the facility to be shut down and reports have come in saying it can be shut down, she told the commissioners, “I’m worried for my old community. I wish you would be, too.”

Another of the Aliso Moms, Deidre Bolona pointed out that a group of more than 100 scientists sent a letter to Governor Newsom “calling on him to order the CPUC to close Aliso Canyon by 2027 or earlier. These scientists have expertise and concern about our health and community.”

“Please do the right thing and close Aliso Canyon. Think of the people, not the profits,” she urged.

I mentioned in my verbal and written comments that the 2018 CCST report, which was mentioned in the proposed decision, discusses the seismic and fire risks that can cause loss of containment (LOC), making Aliso too vulnerable to depend on for energy reliability.

I added that, despite the insistence in the decision that Cal-GEM issued regulations to make the wells safe, Cal-GEM might not be able to mitigate the risks discussed in the report. These include seismic activity on the Santa Susana fault line (which transverses every Aliso storage well), which can affect “surface infrastructure” as well as “shearing of well casings” and wildfires (the facility is located in a very high fire hazard severity zone). It also said that without the disclosure of chemicals, it’s hard to gauge how extensive the health risks to the community are.

Map showing that Aliso Canyon is located in a very high fire zone (the facility’s gate is marked by the circle near the bottom; the pink area indicates where wells are located).

I mentioned that the report said that in the first 43 years that the facility has been in operation, there had been 14 LOC incidents, and with each one, gas has been released into the environment and was no longer available to the gas company.

I also mentioned that since the CCST report came out, there have been advances in technology that reduce the need for fossil fuel gas, including the Eland project in Kern County.

Porter Ranch resident Matt Pakucko traveled to San Francisco to give his comment in person. He mentioned that it was the health problems that led to Aliso Canyon being offline for two years. “You claim your scope is limited to gas supply, reliability, and cost and not health. How can you separate the two?” He brought up that the 2022 staff proposal recognized “this reality.”

“The current biennial proposal puts costs and profits above the health and safety of Californians. Reject that proposal and prioritize community health, California’s clean energy goals, and now what two governors have said.”

The staff proposal that Pakucko and many others mentioned illustrated many ways that Aliso can be permanently shut down by 2027 without causing an energy shortage.

Kyoko Hibino followed, saying that she and others “demand Aliso Canyon be shut down by 2027 as per the staff proposal, bringing up that for nine years residents have suffered from the devastating impacts of the blowout. “Pregnant women exposed were 50 percent more likely to have premature or low birth weight babies,” adding that “Scientists agree that Aliso Canyon is a ticking time bomb, sitting on a fault line that can cause a catastrophic blowout.” She referred to the period when the facility was offline for two years and that there were no blackouts or price hikes.

State Senator Henry Stern, whose district includes the Aliso facility, told the commissioners in person that instead of voting for item 73, they should instead pass item 50, which would keep the proceeding open to give additional time to consider more information. He discussed the current investigation I23–03–008 into high gas prices that SoCalGas and other utilities charged during the winter of 2022–23 (between November 2022 and February 2023). He felt the delay would allow for the consideration of a white paper that is expected to be released in early 2025 for the investigation.

He mentioned that in the gas price investigation, “The price spike of 2022 is somehow to blame on Aliso not fully being utilized. Aliso was authorized to be used much more than it was. I still have a question as to why the gas company didn’t utilize that asset when they could have.” He mentioned how ratepayers, including himself, paid millions in overages during that winter. He added, “The PUC still has not finished that investigation, and FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) still hasn’t given us answers as to what happened. I can give you a little clue: The US at that time became the number one exporter of gas in the whole world and sent a bunch to Europe.” He explained that Sempra, the parent company of SoCalGas, gave Saudi Arabia “four Aliso Canyon’s worth of gas.”

Sempra entered into an arrangement with Saudi company Aramco in June 2024 to provide it with liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The U.S. Secretary of Energy, Jennifer M. Granholm, issued a statement warning that increasing exports of LNG could cause increased prices for consumers in the U.S. as well as increased pollutants (including volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides) in communities with LNG facilities. She mentioned the greenhouse gas emissions that would be produced from LNG production and transportation.

Besides the public comments delivered in person and by phone at the meeting, 215 written comments were submitted to the proceeding docket between November 27 and December 19, 2024. Only four comments were in favor of keeping the facility open. Besides efforts on behalf of the Aliso Moms Alliance, Save Porter Ranch, and Food & Watch Watch, the Last Chance Alliance informed many Californians of the importance of providing public comment.

Many public comments mentioned the health issues associated with the Aliso Canyon storage site. It’s worth noting that the ongoing UCLA health study has released two early findings, including the aforementioned finding regarding statistically significant low birth weights of babies born to women who were pregnant during the blowout. The other announcement, made at the November 14th community meeting, concerned satellite and aircraft images showing that the methane plume went farther than expected during the months-long blowout.

At that latest meeting, the researchers also gave a presentation about the focus groups held in the spring and the data information that has been gathered. Mentioned was the possibility that within a large set of files handed over from SoCalGas, there could be the long-awaited chemical list the community has been requesting from the beginning of the blowout. It was also mentioned that in early 2025, a survey will be mailed to a randomly selected group of residents in the affected area. Those responding to the survey may request to be selected for the upcoming clinical examinations.

As mentioned in some public comments, a group of more than 100 scientists circulated a letter about Aliso Canyon addressed to Governor Newsom, stating, “The facility is not needed and poses a continued threat to public health, safety, and the climate.” The letter by professors, researchers, engineers, medical doctors, ecologists, PhD candidates, and others details the many reasons, including the health, seismic, and wildfire risks, why the facility needs to be closed by 2027 at the latest.

One letter that was sent to the CPUC, obviously orchestrated by SoCalGas, listed 13 business groups and organizations supporting the passage of item 73. But one signer, the Californians for Affordable and Reliable Energy, is in reality an astroturf group for the Western States Petroleum Association. Seven of the groups received $171,750 in contributions from SoCalGas in 2023, per the utility’s GO-77M report. PG&E gave a total of $1,332,500 in contributions to some of those groups in 2023, per that utility’s GO-77M report. In addition, PG&E and SoCalGas managers serve on some of the groups’ Boards of Directors.

Even after hearing the many reasons the site needs to be shut down, the commissioners still voted 4–0 (with one commissioner recusing himself) to pass the proposed decision. The board said it establishes a specific gas peak day demand target. “When forecasted peak day demand for two years out decreases to the target level and an assessment shows that Aliso Canyon could be closed without jeopardizing reliability or just and reasonable rates, the CPUC will open a proceeding to review the assessment’s conclusions and address any relevant issues related to permanent closure and decommissioning.”

To push Governor Newsom into honoring his commitment to shut down Aliso Canyon, Food & Water Action has been running a 30-second ad in California as well as in New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Nevada. The hope was that he would remind the commissioners that he had asked the CPUC in a 2019 letter to expedite the site’s closure to make the 2027 deadline.

Unfortunately, the governor put that goal on hold. The statement he released following the vote tried to paint the decision as one that “has set out a reasonable path that protects residents near the facility and doesn’t throw the natural gas market into chaos.” His message for the affected communities was that the “new protocols and rigorous testing” would ensure the facility is safe. Even though all the testing was meaningless if a major quake erupts, as the scientists delineated in their letter to him.

Other matters were considered by the CPUC during this meeting. One of them also concerned SoCalGas and its general rate case opened in 2022.

The CPUC released a proposed decision on October 14, 2024, regarding the requested rate increase for SoCalGas and SDG&E that didn’t make either gas company very happy. The decision mentioned “a pattern of misclassification of costs” charged to ratepayers for “lobbying, political activities, and expenses related to outside legal firms.” It also stated that it didn’t consider the utilities’ hydrogen programs as “directly related to its core function of providing safe and reliable gas service” and that “ratepayers should not subsidize education programs for alternate fuel vehicles, including electric, hydrogen fuel cell, and renewable natural gas vehicles.” After deducting the denied portions of the utilities’ request, the CPUC approved a nearly 15% increase in spending for SoCalGas, lower than what the utility requested but is expected to result in a 5.8%, or $4.12, average increase in monthly bills.

Replies to the rate case proposed decision include the Public Advocates office, which agreed with the proposed decision but wanted to add comprehensive audits of the Sempra accounts, noting that the gas company’s “improper accounting has resulted in its customers involuntarily funding the Sempra Utilities’ political activities for over a decade,” reflecting the period between 2010 and 2023, and that the decision “should be modified to seek meaningful redress that would benefit ratepayers.”

Another utility was awarded two rate hikes. The commissioners voted that PG&E would see at least $375 million for recovery costs of its vegetation mitigation project.

PG&E, Southern California Edison, and SDG&E ratepayers, will be paying to keep the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, located west of San Luis Obispo, operating through at least 2030. The CPUC voted 4–1 (with Darcie Houck voting against) for $723 million to extend the lifespan for the one remaining producer of nuclear power in the state.

At least 30 persons commenting in person or calling in had denounced the PG&E rate hikes. One caller, representing Californians for Green Nuclear Power, gave the only pro-Diablo comment.

In other SoCalGas news, members of a community-based stakeholder group that has been advising SoCalGas on the Angeles Link Project, walked out of the company’s most recent meeting on December 17. The groups, including Food & Water Watch, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, Communities for a Better Environment, and Protect Playa Now, also sent a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission calling on them to reject SoCalGas’s request to move to Phase Two of the project despite conducting a rushed and reckless Phase One.

“The fundamental flaws in this process, paired with SoCalGas’s lack of accountability, render this engagement illegitimate,” the letter states. “SoCalGas has repeatedly disregarded CPUC requirements, basic community safety standards, and principles of environmental justice.”

“SoCalGas has failed to be transparent during Phase One of the Angeles Link Project, including refusing to engage other vital stakeholders in the process, particularly ratepayers, those who would be living around the proposed pipelines, and tribal communities,” the letter continued.

“SoCalGas has failed to address the full scope of environmental and public health risks that the Angeles Link hydrogen project could impose on communities across Los Angeles and beyond. Despite their claims otherwise, the Angeles Link project is an attempt to keep us locked into a future of fossil fuels, not provide clean, safe energy,” said Food & Water Watch’s Andrea Vega, who has been attending the meetings since the first one in March 2023.

Faith Myhra of Protect Playa Now called the phase one process “frustrating.” She added, “SoCalGas has offered a few platitudes, buried concerns in lengthy reports, and refused to address issues in any genuine or actionable way. This is especially troubling given that many of these concerns are about safety — and SoCalGas already has a terrible safety record across Los Angeles.”

From the first meeting on, some attendees of the Angeles Link meetings have felt that SoCalGas was talking out of both sides of its corporate mouth about using hydrogen to close Aliso and may try to use it as an excuse to push for Aliso’s existence to continue. In meetings covered by the quarterly report covering July 1 through September 30, 2024, there were criticisms that the Phase 1 Plan for Applicable Safety Requirements report glossed over a history of mismanagement, including at Aliso Canyon, and possible risks from the combining of hydrogen and methane.

You can read about the history of the Aliso disaster from the San Fernando Valley residents’ viewpoint as well as the battle in getting public agencies to look into the health and safety dangers that resulted.

Sadly, this latest setback was just one of the many examples of public agencies protecting the interests of SoCalGas over the health and safety of more than the 1.1 million residents living within ten miles of the wells, according to 2022 data.