Sign outside SoCalGas office
One thing that hasn’t changed is the sword of Damocles swinging over the heads of the residents of the Northern San Fernando Valley. We still have the seismic and fire risks. We still are seeing an increasing rise of serious and life-threatening illnesses.
As the affected community and environmental activists commemorate the seventh anniversary of the worst gas disaster in US history, we look back at the last twelve months in the battle to shut down this hazardous facility.
SB-1486, IF ONLY
We closed 2021 with news that Senator Henry Stern was planning a bill we were long dreaming of. On February 18, 2022, Stern announced that SB-1486 will compel the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to honor the deadline of 2027 which then-governor Jerry Brown set in 2017, around the time that post-blowout operations resumed at the site.
The bill would establish a moratorium on the use of the facility, restricting withdrawals to what’s allowed under the current Aliso Canyon withdrawal protocol, which went into effect in July 2019. It would require the facility to be shut down permanently no later than 2027, with the hope it will happen sooner. Among the steps required by SB-1486 would be the establishment of a reliable local generation plan for “extreme weather events,” an enactment of gas demand reduction, and protection for Aliso workers to transition them to clean energy jobs.
Given the years of enduring strong odors, and feeling that some elected officials and public agencies value gas company profits over people’s health and safety, many residents were looking forward to seeing the wheels in motion for closing down Aliso.
A 47-year resident of Porter Ranch, Maureen Capra said, “I am looking forward to the closing of Aliso Canyon by being able to breathe clean air and enjoy our beautiful area. I have gone solar and love it.”
Jane Fowler, who has lived in Granada Hills for fifteen years, said she had to relocate for seven months during the blowout. She said, “Shutting Aliso means my community will start to get their health back and that California will be taking steps towards transitioning off fossil fuel. Which pretty much means we may have a future living on this planet.” She said she’s planning to put her house on the market soon in order to move away from the area.
Helen Attar, who has lived in Granada Hills for a little more than thirty years, relocated for five months in 2016. She has been wanting to move out of the area, but hasn’t been able to because of health and commitment reasons. She said,“Shutting this monster facility will be a victory for humanity and our kids’ health.” She added,“It is appalling that we the victims have to work so hard to close it when that should be our government’s job,” referring to the County Department of Public Health, the county supervisors, the governor, the AQMD (the South Coast Air Quality Management District), and the CPUC.)
But, by the end of May, the senator was asking for senators to vote it down instead. How did we get here? Let’s just say that SoCalGas, with monetary help from its parent company Sempra, bought several senators.
The first hurdle for the bill had been the Senate Energy,Utilities, and Communications committee, which is headed by Ben Hueso, a favorite donee of Sempra contributions. Not surprising because Senator Hueso’s district is a short walk to Sempra Headquarters. According to the Sierra Club, Hueso had received $88,500 from fossil fuel concerns in 2019 and 2020.
To help get the bill past this committee, Food & Water Watch set up meetings between senators’ policy analysts and residents representing Save Porter Ranch and the Aliso Moms Alliance. During these virtual meetings, we explained how the gas facility has been risking lives due to seismic and fire dangers and how the health crisis was increasing due to the polytoxins that are emitted from the wells.
Making this first step difficult was Hueso.
Many residents remembered in 2017 that Senator Hueso was trying to block SB-57, which would have placed a mortarium on the use of Aliso Canyon until the completion of a root cause analysis, from being heard in the same committee. It originally was scheduled for March 21st, but only after a herculean effort on the part of residents and activists, was it finally heard on April 4th.
In 2020, Hueso helped to kill AB-345, which would require setbacks between oil and gas wells and communities.
During the committee hearing on May 3, 2022, Senator Stern said this bill is important because Aliso“has been such a disaster for our community of everyone who stood in its shadow for far too long” and the bill will give the CPUC tools for the closure. He added that the Aliso Canyon situation is not just a district issue, but “affects all of Southern California.” He said he was going to accept some amendments recommended by the committee.
When it came time for the organized support presentations, making the formal presentation on behalf of the bill was Issam Najm, former president of the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council, and a party to the CPUC’s investigation into closing Aliso. Najm discussed how his own family was affected by 2015 blowout. “No community, large or small, can flourish without healthy and safe families,” he said, urging the committee to “do right by the people of Los Angeles” and vote yes.
After only six minutes and 19 calls, Hueso cut short the supporters’ section, even though approximately seventy more callers were still in the queue.
The senate analysis issued on April 25th, listed eighty-seven organizations in support for the bill, which compared to only three locals of the Utility Workers Union and SoCalGas listed in opposition.
Strangely, the text was changed around the time of the first committee meeting to change every instance of “blowout” to“leak.” This despite the many agencies, including the CPUC, which use the term blowout to describe the disaster. Many activists attributed that to horse trading by Senator Bob Hertzberg in exchange for being listed as a bill co-author.
Hueso said that the amendments that he had added didn’t go far enough, adding,“The closure, I think, is already covered by SB-380. I think this bill in this regard is unnecessary.”
He then said,“I’m going to stay off the bill today,” meaning that he would abstain. But when the clerk called the roll, he first said,“nay,” before quickly saying he was abstaining. After two rounds of voting, the vote tallied eight votes for, 1 vote against (Senator Dahle), and the remaining six were considered “no votes recorded.” Fortunately, only eight ayes were needed.
Because the bill passed despite the chair’s opposition, this was considered “rolling the chair.”
Alex Nagy at the SB-1486 rally on March 30, 2022; Photo by Patty Glueck
The next step was the Appropriations Committee. More meetings were scheduled for community members to lobby senators’ representatives for help in getting the bill to the Senate floor. At first, the bill, along with most bills under considered were placed on the suspense file to be voted on in the third week of May.
When it was SB-1486’s turn to be considered, something strange happened. Three senators didn’t cast a vote. One of them, Bob Wieckowski, was considered a “for sure” yes. Four other senators did vote aye “as amended,” enough to pass it. Those from the community who had been closely following the vote were shocked. What was going on? Then word came down that the amendments were actually “hostile” amendments.
These amendments eliminated the timeline and the moratorium, important elements of the bill. An additional amendment would allow the CPUC to allow hydrogen to be stored at Aliso. The amendments were introduced by unnamed senators right before the Appropriations Committee took a “suspense file” vote. It is notable that many on these committee have received contributions this year from Sempra, the parent company of SoCalGas, the operator of the gas storage facility.
As described in a press release by Food and Water Watch,“In an eleventh-hour reversal, the California Senate Appropriations Committee passed SB 1486, the bill to close SoCalGas’ Aliso Canyon storage facility, after they saddled it with numerous amendments gutting the bill’s efficacy.
Among the bill’s casualties are the 2027 shutdown timeline and any language creating a moratorium on Aliso Canyon’s use as anything other than a last resort. Climate activists immediately slammed the amendments.”
The release added,“In the first three months of this year alone, Sempra Energy, the parent company of SoCalGas, spent nearly $2 million lobbying the California legislature. Among the Appropriations Committee, recipients of Sempra money included Senator Portantino (D-25) ($22,250), Senator Bradford (D-35) ($34,300), Senator Jones (R-38) ($35,000). Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins (D-39) had received $37,000.”
In his statement, Stern said,“It looks like Sempra got to the bill.”
This controversial legislative maneuver, “gut and amend,” is when a lawmaker takes an existing bill that has already been approved by several committees or even one house of the Legislature, strips the contents, and adds in new unrelated bill language.
The “gut and amend” process is the ultimate eleventh-hour attempt to circumvent the legislative process to pass bills that have already failed or purposely have not been brought up to increase the chances of success.
Instead of simply pulling his bill, Senator Henry Stern addressed the senate on May 26th. “I am in an awkward position to oppose my own legislation,” Stern told his Senate colleagues,“the gas industry is very powerful. And there are a lot of people who believe that we have to double the future of natural gas.”
“There is a need for a change of power in Sacramento and the entire state… so I respectfully request your ‘no’ vote,” he said. With Stern, 12 allies joined in killing SB 1486 in a 5–12 vote.
In his newsletter to constituents under the heading of Aliso Canyon Bill Hijacked by the Gas Company, he said, “The campaign to close Aliso Canyon has been at the core of our fight to create a green and livable future for all. My bill, SB 1486, would have closed this gas field by 2027 and accelerated our clean energy jobs plan for LA. Unfortunately, the power of the gas industry was too much to overcome in the Senate, and I was forced to take the unprecedented move of opposing my own legislation.”
He included a video of his request of his colleagues to vote down the bill.
THE CAL ADVOCATES LAWSUIT
In early February 2022, SoCalGas was hit by two court decisions. One of them was the announcement that the utility was fined almost $10-million. In this case SoCalGas was cited for improperly using ratepayer money to lobby against efforts to decarbonize California. But this amount was only a drop in the bucket as it was only 8% of what the California Public Advocates, and Earthjustice, were seeking, which showed the reluctance of the agency to show some guts against the utility.
Utilities are allowed to lobby on behalf of themselves, but not use ratepayer money to lobby against higher more efficient standards.
Among these efforts were attending hearings to comment in opposition to local bans on gas hookups in new housing as well as in statewide efforts to encourage the construction of all-electric buildings.
A CPUC administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that some actions SoCalGas had taken since May 2018 violated an order to stop using customer money to fund its energy efficiency advocacy work.
On July 15, 2019, Cal Advocates filed a motion requesting SoCalGas to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for violating a Commission order and Rule 1.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).
It was well known that SoCalGas had established an astroturf group, The Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions (C4BES), to garner support for fighting “reach codes.”
A reach code is a local building energy code that“reaches” beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction, creating opportunities for local governments to lead the way on clean air, climate solutions, and the renewable energy economy.
On the C4BES website, which is no longer accessible, there had been a sign on letter to Governor Newsom for organizations and cities, and puff pieces regarding restaurants praising the use of methane gas for cooking. The group’s state ID 04231156 filed on 1/9/19 is still listed as “active” on the California Secretary of State site.
The Sierra Club pointed to the membership of a gas company employee in the Department of Energy’s Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee, and contended that the employee was representing SoCalGas.
It was also mentioned that employees were attending meetings to make public comment including the August 12, 2020, California Energy Commission (CEC) business meeting, as well as other workshops and meetings. At other times, SoCalGas sent in comment letters.
SoCalGas managers made the rounds to various chamber of commerce and city council meetings throughout the state to argue against ordinances that would ban gas hookups for new buildings in those towns and cities. The most recent post on the C4BES Facebook page asked for support in fighting an ordinance being considered by Santa Barbara. Before that Santa Barbara city council meeting, many residents of that city were sent a text message to check out the C4BES website so that they can email a pro-gas message to the city council.
In 2018, the director of media relations and public information for SoCalGas, Chris Gilbride gave public comment at a Redondo Beach city council meeting in favor of a resolution to support the continued use of gas in buildings. This was a pre-drafted motion written by SoCalGas that was given to city councils for this purpose. But Gilbride identified himself as a resident of the city without mentioning that he worked in management for the very company that would benefit from this resolution. The council ended up voting down the motion 4–1.
The astroturf group even tried to lobby in areas outside of California. During a webinar sponsored by the Northwest Gas Association, the executive director of C4BES issued a warning.“Natural gas is under an existential threat that is sustained and will only become more acute,” Jon Switalski said, showing social media videos from his campaign with the tagline: “Want to keep your gas stove? Join us …”
The ALJ determined the penalty of $9,806,000 would be based on $1,000 penalties for the lobbying attempts found in violation. This included participation in calls and issuing comments about pool pump standards, dishwashers, portable air conditioners, energy efficiency standards for non-residential buildings, and cook top test procedures.
THE CEH LAWSUIT
That same week, another lawsuit settlement was announced.
In 2014, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) had begun working with Porter Ranch residents through the organization Save Porter Ranch on the development of a health study and community air monitoring project to determine the extent of the risks from the facility, but the blowout began in the midst of that planning.
Resident Aram Kaloustian had initiated a law suit starting with a 60-day notice of violation against SoCalGas in December 2015. Then on October 28, 2016, the CEH filed a notice of violation, joining that lawsuit, accusing the utility of violating the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, otherwise known as Proposition 65, a state law requiring companies to warn the public of substantial exposure to chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Notice of Violation of Prop 65
Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. These chemicals can be in the products that Californians purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By requiring that this information be provided, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about their exposures to these chemicals.
Proposition 65 also prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water.
According to the February 2022 consent judgment, SoCalGas install a system to monitor benzene levels at two fence line locations at the Aliso Canyon site. These were placed at two existing methane monitoring stations being used to track methane levels.
If methane levels exceed 25 parts per million for 30 minutes and additional monitors show benzene levels averaging 1.5 parts per billion or greater over half an hour, nearby residents who sign up for text or email alerts must be notified. A warning shall also be posted on the SoCalGas’ Aliso Canyon Fenceline Monitoring webpage. The alerts should go out no more than 12 hours after the monitoring system triggers a warning, though SoCalGas shall make all reasonable efforts to notify the public within six hours of confirmation.
The settlement also required SoCalGas to convert or replace its gasoline-powered, all-terrain vehicles at the Aliso Canyon site with zero-emission vehicles within 12 months in order to lower emissions.
Here’s a list of chemicals that pertain to Proposition 65.
Here’s the link from the SoCalGas website for signing up for the benzene notifications.
Note that the SoCalGas website says,“SoCalGas is providing the opportunity to receive an email or text message with a warning when the fence-line monitoring system at the Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility detects methane in the air in excess of 25 parts per million for 30 minutes, followed by a detection of benzene at a level of 1.5 parts per billion or greater averaged over any 30-minute period.” In reality, this “opportunity” is because of the CEH lawsuit.
According to the consent judgement, SoCalGas shall pay to Prop 65 Plaintiffs the total sum of $1,550,000: $500,000 as a civil penalty 25% to Prop 65 Plaintiffs and 75% to the State of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, $275,000 as an Additional Settlement Payment CEH intends to place in CEH’s South Coast Basin Clean Air Fund, and $775,000 as a reimbursement of a portion of Prop 65 Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
There are many chemicals listed on the Prop 65 list that have been documented as being found at Aliso by the Leighton Study in 2016, The Leighton/Eurofins testing in 2020, the Blade Energy analysis done in 2017, and toxicology testing of residents by Great Plains Lab in 2017. These include arsenic, benzene, chromium-hexavalent, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, lead, mercury, nickel, styrene, sulfur dioxide, tetrachloroethane, toluene, and vanadium. As SoCalGas has refused to release a list of chemicals to DPH, to the California Council of Science and Technology, and to the community, there could be more chemicals from the Prop 65 list that are being emitted into the San Fernando Valley.
Website for Consent-Decree mandated monitors
AT LONG LAST, THE BTEX MONITORS
Speaking of air monitors, one topic on the minds of residents for four years has been BTEX monitors promised to the northern San Fernando Valley by the 2018 Aliso Canyon consent decree to settle the criminal case brought by the city, county and state governments against SoCalGas.
Specified in the agreement in the Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) section of the decree was the installation of an independent air monitoring system to measure BTEX chemicals for at least eight years, as well as a system to be installed in an“Environmental Justice Community. The allotment for each system would be $1.5 million.
This agreement was signed off on February 25, 2019, by the judge handling the residents’ civil cases, with SoCalGas expected to turn over the funds within thirty days. But as months continued on, and as other projects mentioned in the agreement were being implemented, residents wondered when the monitoring system would finally be installed.
Because many residents felt the impending health study was coming too many years after the blowout, many were considering the BTEX monitors to be the most important part of the agreement. The system would measure such chemicals as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. But to date, more than two years after the consent decree was signed, the company that would install and operate the monitors had yet to be selected.
After two years and attempts by this writer and the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council to get an update, the Aliso Fund Committee, which considered of governmental attorneys, held its first community town hall on September 16, 2020. At this meeting, the committee announced that the $1-million that had been allocated from a 2017 settlement between the gas company and the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) for a health study, would instead be added to the allocation for Porter Ranch monitoring.
By the second town hall in October 2020, the AQMD had been tasked with administrating the responsibility of deciding which system should be considered and obtaining a vendor. A timeline for the process was revealed at the third meeting in March 2021. A deadline for prospective vendors would be on May 7, 2021 and the agency expected to execute the contract by July.
As the community hadn’t heard any updates since the request for proposals had gone out, I sent an email on July 22nd to Andrea Polidori of the AQMD. He replied that they had received six proposals and chose Argos/UCLA on June 8th. He said that his staff was“working on finalizing the scope of work and contract with the vendors” and would like to hold a community meeting once that happens. The contract was expected to be executed in mid-August once the AQMD has received funds from the AFC.
In response to the email I sent on September 24, 2021, I heard back that the agency received the funds for the system in late August and the draft contract with the new vendor was currently undergoing internal review. Polidori added that once the contract has been finalized, Argos/UCLA and the AQMD will hold a community meeting.
On January 7, 2022, an email said the Aliso Canyon SEP contract has been approved by the AQMD Legal Division and sent to the Argos/UCLA for signatures. Once the contract has been fully executed, the vendor will organize and hold an initial community meeting to gather feedback on the draft air monitoring plan and the overall project.
Don Gamiles of Argos Scientific and Andrea Poldori gave an update to the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council on January 12, 2022, saying that there is a plan to have a community meeting. Two months later, another update stated that there were difficulties in obtaining permits.
The town hall was held on April 12th.
In August, Gamiles told the PRNC that his company is working on securing equipment and permits. He asked for volunteer hosts. The update a month later said that the methane monitors were ready and hoped to have the BTEX ones soon.
Gamiles presented a more detailed update in September, including unveiling the website for the project.
In October, he said four methane monitors have been deployed so far as well as one benzene monitor. He hoped to have a second one in less than two weeks, but he’ll need more hosts. He also said a long path fence line system will be in place sometime in November and they’re getting a lot of data so far.
WILL THERE BE A TRUE HEALTH STUDY?
Another segment of the Aliso Canyon consent decree taking years to be implemented was the health study.
The year 2021 proved to be a contentious one between the Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and the Community Advisory Group (CAG), which had been selected among members of the community in 2019. From its first meeting in August 2019, the group contended that the research should be science-based, community-centric, and free of political influence. To that end, the CAG insisted that the primary focus of the study needed to be clinical. Also, it said the County must issue SoCalGas a subpoena for a comprehensive list of chemicals used in its Aliso operation.
Starting with the October 2020 meeting with DPH, the CAG took a monthly vote on whether we feel we have confidence in the study’s path. Our intent for this polling was“to provide a constructive perspective of the CAG’s awareness of community sentiment and desires.” Within a few months, confidence in the study eroded drastically from both the CAG and the neighborhood councils near the Aliso facility.
The county counsel advised the Board of Supervisors not to issue the requested subpoena. In addition, the DPH decided to push members of the Scientific Oversight Committee (SOC) to sign a charter or else be removed. By the deadline of February 3, 2021, two members of the SOC declined to do so: Dr. Jeffrey Nordella, the one clinician on the committee, and Dr. Christopher Sistrunk, both citing ethical reasons for their refusal. That was also the date on which DPH turned a CAG meeting into a DPH one by muzzling members of the CAG. DPH’s Dr. Muntu Davis also announced that meetings would be held on a quarterly basis instead of monthly, and that all subcommittees would be “paused.”
When the DPH issued a Goals and Priorities statement on March 18th, a majority of the CAG felt it was overly broad and seemed to throw in everything but the kitchen sink. As the Goals and Priorities will be used to foment the Request for Proposal (RFP) form to send to prospective research teams, the CAG was not pleased that what we read didn’t match the community’s desire for a community-centric and clinical health study. Because the DPH team said that the selected research team would design the study, the community became concerned that there would be an emphasis on an environmental assessment, which would not bother with examinations of the affected residents. It could become a whitewash of the health effects caused by the toxic soup emitted by Aliso.
The CAG asked to see a finalized goals and priorities statement and the RFP. We were turned down on both counts. DPH claimed confidentiality was vital, so that some researchers wouldn’t get an advantage, but didn’t answer when it was pointed out that the AQMD makes its RFPs public. (That agency’s RFP for the proposed $1-million “health study” was made available in the agenda for the AQMD Administrative Committee meeting on October 12, 2018, and the one for the BTEX monitoring system was included in the agenda for the April 2, 2021.)
The last meeting that DPH held with the CAG was on October 14, 2021. We were told soon after that meetings will be put on hold while the research solicitation process was starting.
The RFP was released on January 18, 2022 with a closing date listed as April 12, 2022. The CAG wasn’t given any more information, but a look at the contracts page of the County turned up Addendum Number 3 to the RFP, which revealed the four attendees for the Proposers’ Virtual Conference on February 15, 2022.
Craig Galanti, one of the PRNC reps on the CAG, sent an email on October 7th, asking for the status of the process so he can give a proper update at the next neighborhood council meeting. Dr. Davis sent a vague reply on October 12th.
Then just two days later, DPH sent an email to its Aliso Health study list, announcing that DPH would be presenting a draft letter to the Board of Supervisors about the selected vendor. A link in the announcement led to the County Health and Mental Health Services Cluster meeting agenda, containing the letter and the contract, which included a page that said “Scope of Work,” that was otherwise blank.
A few members of the CAG and at least one other member of the community showed up for the virtual meeting on October 19th.
Dr. Muntu Davis gave the presentation on behalf of DPH, including mentioning the roles of the administrator (DPH), the SOC, and the research team. Not mentioned was the CAG.
He said the study will start on November 1, 2022, as that’s the intended date for the Board of Supervisors to give the final approval for the contract, and the study will run at least through 2027. At that time, the SOC will determine if the study should be extended. He closed by stating that the following Sunday marked the 7th anniversary of the blowout.
A staffer for one of the supervisors asked about the“scope of work” that was missing. The Contracts and Grants administrator said she will send a copy, and said that it will be attached to the November 1st agenda for the BOS meeting.
Supervisor Barger’s health deputy Anders Corey asked about the community advisory group, what was their response, are they still active? Davis gave a vague response and Anders asked when can we expect their response. Davis replied, “That’s a good question. I do know that one of the biggest questions or concerns was around the clinical evaluations.”
My public comment: “I serve on the CAG and we’re still active. This is the first time we’re getting a chance to hear about the actual health study and the methodology and we want more details. We can’t really comment til we find out how much of a clinical aspect is involved because otherwise it’s nonsense…how it’s going to be carried out. Because we are experiencing high levels of cancer, respiratory diseases, heart palpitations, high blood pressure. And we need answers.
This is what we’ve been meeting with DPH and insisting at every meeting.
First, the clinical, scientifically driven and patient-centric study and we also need a comprehensive list of the chemicals used by SCG and what we heard is county counsel doesn’t have the courage to go after this list and without knowing all these chemicals, how is any research group going to be able to look into the health effects when there could be very synergistic effects of the chemicals with each other and how they act on our bodies.
First, we need more details...are we each going to get physicals examinations like with the Gulf study (Deepwater Horizon)?
What are the details because that’s important. We need to know what chemicals we were exposed to and how is this going to work out.”
Granada Hills resident Helen Attar gave the next public comment. Helen Attar mentioned that she is a resident and member of the Aliso Moms Alliance. She said she is representing 153 community members“who couldn’t be on this call and they asked me to call and represent them. The ones who are the victims of the gas and have been insulted greatly by DPH the last seven years. I know our disaster has created well-paid jobs for you guys, DPH and other county.
But anyone with a little knowledge of health and science…there is no way you can do a legit clinical health study and this is still in the talking stage, not ready to start after seven years. This is just ridiculous but you’re still thinking of doing this BS health study after all these years…we have been affected, other problems right now…I still feel it’ll be better to distribute the millions to the community members. That will be more useful than your health study.”
Craig mentioned he’s also a member of the CAG. “First thing that resonates with me, there was a national effort to attract top talent. I’m astonished the County of LA could only attract two bidders. I think that says volumes about the credibility the county has on a national scale and I think you guys should do a deep investigation into why that’s true.
We suspected UCLA would be picked about five years ago because of a way too cozy relationship that UCLA has with the Dept of Public Health so all of our theories have come true.
I’m so glad that Anders asked about the community’s response would be and I’m also very glad that Vera asked about the scope of work.
I sign contracts all the time as an independent contractor and the scope of work is in the contract. The fact that it is missing and is promised at some future date doesn’t allow this community to validate anything that Muntu Davis said about where the clinical evaluation are and are prioritize in the scope of work.
I suspect when we see the scope of work, we’ll probably validate any suspicion that clinical will be a tearshare or a very mild aspect of the research because DPH and political folk do not have the courage to go really find out what the impact has been to these people.”
Aliso Health Study Scope of Work on clinical aspect
Apparently, our comments worked as we received a revised agenda that included the scope of work two days later.
My notes upon reading the scope of work:
The document mentioned that approximately 232,000 residents live in the study’s five-mile radius.
The contract mentions California Health and Safety Code Section 101025 places upon County’s Board of Supervisors (“Board”), the duty to preserve and protect the public’s health.
The next section reiterates what was in the RFP:
It was mentioned that among what will be furnished to the researchers, the environmental data collected by Public Health during and/or following the Aliso Canyon Disaster that the Contractor and/or subcontractor(s) determines is needed for the proposed research.
But as far as the affected community is concerned much of the data during the blowout was collected by SoCalGas and should be considered suspect. There’s also concerns that other data, especially any about benzene levels may have been collected through flawed methodology.
At least by the time the study actually begins, the BTEX monitors should be in place; also, there’s now two benzene monitors being overseen by Sonoma Technology that are attached to two of the SCG methane monitoring stations as a result of a lawsuit by the Center for Environmental Health.
As far as communications with the public, the contract referred to using the Public Health Office of Communications and Public Affairs. Good luck with that when the affected communities don’t trust the County. And if the same staff who screwed up with outreach for the 2020 town hall helps with the ones mentioned in the Scope of Work, they may get a low attendance.
A Community Advisory Board was mentioned, but most likely there won’t be too many residents running to sign up, given how poorly the CAG was treated. More likely those who do get selected will be on the basis on their ability to be ass kissers.
As far as a clinical cohort, the number of 400 adults would represent .0017% of residents living in the five-mile radius (based on the 232,000 number mentioned in the contract). They will have blood drawn to check for biomarkers. Also mentioned was a control group of 200, but no specifics, such as geographical location, were given. Compared to physical exams given to workers and volunteers involved in the Deepwater Horizon clean up in the GuLFStudy, this number seems low.
Note that in my public comment, I mentioned the GuLFStudy conducted into the health effects from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon. The study concentrated on the approximately 11,000 workers and volunteers who handled the clean up from the oil spill. https://gulfstudy.nih.gov/en/index.html
The Gulf Long-term Follow-up Study, known as the GuLFSTUDY was designed to find answers to the questions that matter to oil spill response and clean-up workers and affected communities that participated in some way, through actual clean up and decontamination through administrative duties.
Just a year after the disaster, more than 11,000 in the cohort underwent a home visit that involved a basic clinical examination that included physiological measures (blood pressure readings and heart rate), anthropometric measures (measurements including height and weight) and specimen collection (blood, urine, hair, under finger nails). Another round involved more than 3,000 from the original cohort who were given pulmonary function, peripheral nervous system and neurobehavioral tests at two medical centers in Mobile, AL and New Orleans, LA.
In the study’s 2015 newsletter, there was a description of what happened at the clinical exams: “During these research exams, we repeat many of the procedures that were done during the home visit and carry out other tests that can only be done in a clinic. The four-hour clinic exam includes: • Measuring vital signs and body measurements • Collecting samples of blood, hair, toenails, urine, and saliva • Advanced lung function tests • Tests of nervous system function • Questions about your health, including mental health”
Flyer sent to Gulf clean up workers who reported diagnoses of cancer
At some point, the researchers were made aware that some participants had since developed cancer, or suffered heart attacks or strokes, and sent out notices asking to hear from anyone who had experienced these medical conditions and share their medical records.
This study utilized a CAG that was involved throughout the entire study: “The GuLF STUDY Community Advisory Group (CAG) includes local community leaders from the Gulf states. The CAG members help us ensure that the interests of the community are represented when we plan and carry out study activities. The study team works with the CAG to identify ways to encourage participation in the study. The CAG also helps us share our results with the community and align scientific goals with community goals. At the most recent CAG meeting, we focused on ways to report study results to the community and planned for the next phase of the study.”
Of the full cohort of 32,608 participants, 75 percent had been involved in the clean efforts in some way, either directly or in administrative roles. More than 11,000 underwent the home visit (held between May 2011 and May 2013 so 1–3 years after the spill) and some 3,000 had clinic exams between August 20–14 through June 2016, 4 to 6 year after the disaster.
Another notable study was done on residents of Parkersburg, West Virginia, after many had developed cancers.
According to the Reuters news service, in 2001, residents brought a class action against DuPont arising from the leak of perfluorooctanoic acid, which is also known as PFOA or C-8, from its plant. The company agreed in 2004 to fund medical monitoring programs and install new water treatment systems.
A panel of scientists concluded that there was a probable link to C-8 exposure with six illnesses: kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol.
In 2017, DuPont and Chemours Co agreed to pay $671 million in cash to settle about 3,550 personal injury claims from Parkersburg residents.
Some of the members of the class action lawsuit also sued DuPont individually, and the litigation was consolidated in federal court in Columbus, Ohio. The company agreed not to challenge whether C-8 can cause the diseases.
The class action suit and the medical study was discussed in the movie “Dark Waters,” and was based on an article about the lawyer who took on DuPont to get justice for the affected community. Nearly 70,000 residents gave blood samples that researchers used to find an association with seven forms of cancer among the samples.
STOVE STUDY
A major bombshell dropped this week concerned the publishing of a peer-reviewed study by PSE Healthy Energy. The key finding, published in this month’s Environmental Science and Technology, found that all of the methane samples collected from stovetop burners from 159 homes in 16 California counties contained hazardous air pollutants that can adversely affect human health. These included benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX chemicals), hexane, cyclohexane, heptane, trimethylbenzene.
Some of these chemicals are known carcinogens. For example, benzene can cause bone marrow damage, immunity system suppression, ataxia, tremors, cerebral atrophy, nystagmus, impaired speech, hearing, vision and memory, throat irritation, chest constriction, impaired lung function, anxiety,and problems with muscle control. It’s associated with diseases such as leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkins’s lymphoma. There is no safe level for benzene exposure.
Even some of the noncarcinogenic chemicals such as hexane, can cause headaches, nausea, and dizziness.
From the PSE webinar on gas stove study on October 25, 2022\
This study concluded that unburned natural gas emissions from household appliances, even while they are off, have the potential to be a health-relevant source of benzene in indoor air. It is notable that the samples were collected directly from stove burners and not from ambient air in the kitchens.
During a October 25, 2022, webinar held by PSE, it was recommended that residents with gas stoves utilize ventilation hoods (after checking to ensure they’re properly drawing up the emissions) or open a window.
The highest levels of these chemicals were found in homes located in the San Fernando and Santa Clarita Valleys, where two of the SoCalGas storage facilities are located (Aliso Canyon and Honor Rancho).
Test results for one Northern SFV resident’s gas stove
Even though only gas stoves were studied, other gas-powered appliances such as water heaters, dryers, and furnaces can also produce harmful emissions. Any such appliance that’s located inside one’s home can add to the chemical effects on the human body. And whatever appliances that are located inside garages and basements, as well as the indoor chemicals, will add to outdoor pollution.
The researchers did note that they didn’t test restaurant stoves, and they hope there’s a study on commercial gas appliances.
From the PSE webinar on gas stove study on October 25, 2022
One of the PSE Study co-authors said,“Just having a gas appliance in your house can be a potential health risk,” he said.“Eliminating gas altogether is the only sure way to completely eliminate that risk.”
During the 7th Aliso Canyon blowout anniversary workshop sponsored by Food & Water Watch, Alex Nagy, the California director for Sunstone Strategies, reported that Senator Henry Stern plans to ask for an investigation. She pointed out that the differing amounts of these chemicals found among homes is because of the various sources of the methane, as most methane, about 90 per cent, used in California is extracted from several other states.
Variables include whether gas companies (Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Gas) properly clean the gas before sending it into pipelines to distribute to homes. She also mentioned that gas stored in underground storage facilities which utilize old oil wells may contain oil residue.
As San Diego Gas & Electric doesn’t use underground storage, homes utilizing its gas will have a lower level of chemicals than homes receiving SoCalGas, which uses underground storage wells.
From the PSE workshop on Gas Stove Study on October 25, 2022
This was not the first study to show hazardous chemicals inside homes with gas appliances. The 2020 RMI study showed that nitrogen oxides are also emitted. This chemical can cause irritation of eyes, nose, lungs, fatigue, dizziness and shortness of breath.
The researchers on the study noted that people tend to spend a lot of time in their homes, so the results found in this study are worrisome. They said that when there’s methane gas leaking, that means there’s other even more harmful chemicals leaking.
This is a link to the recording of the October 25 webinar about the gas stove study. This video summarizes the conclusions.
OTHER LAWSUITS
At the end of September 2021, law firms involved with the mass tort announced they had settled with SoCalGas. Right away, there was a division among plaintiffs with some immediately opting in. Others were reluctant for various reasons, including the lack of complete disclosure from lawyers about what rights one would give away, the belief that it was a low-ball amount, among others.
Eventually, with the help of the judge opting in minors to the settlement, the threshold for the settlement was met. While heated discussions were ongoing on social media about that lawsuit, many residents were getting postcards in the mail informing them of a property class action suit. Those who lived within five miles of the damaged well SS-25 during the blowout and who were not plaintiffs in the mass tort, would get a check, unless they opt out. These checks were mailed starting in June.
CPUC Staff Proposal to Close Aliso Canyon
On September 23, 2022, a CPUC staff proposal to Phase Out Aliso Canyon was issued as part of the I.17–02–002 proceeding. The proposal mapped out five portfolios that can be used involving non-gas electricity generation and storage, energy efficiency, and building electrification with the goal of eventually closing the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility.
Portfolio 1 Gas Infrastructure. This one looked into building new gas pipeline segments to increase the ability of SoCalGas to supply gas that way.
This one was considered more expensive than continuing the use of Aliso Canyon and was deemed by the CPUC as the least desirable.
Portfolio 2 Gas Demand Reduction. This one combined three distinct approaches to reducing consumption of gas: energy efficiency, building electrification, and commercial and industrial gas demand response. This portfolio was found to have the second highest cost-benefit ratio and GHG emissions reductions in 2027.
FWW Workshop slide regarding CPUC Staff Proposal
Portfolio 3 Electricity Resources. This would involve the use of wind power, geothermal power, 10-hour storage (hydroelectric) and four-hour (battery) battery storage. Although it had the highest investment costs, the staff determined that this portfolio showed the highest benefits of any portfolio, reflecting the benefits of using these electricity resources throughout the year.
Some of the parties in the proceeding (The Utility Reform Network, the California Independent System Operator, Southern California Edison, and the California Energy Storage Alliance) expressed support for using electric generation and storage. The California Independent System Operator and Southern California Edison commented that more accurate forecasting of battery dispatch may reduce or eliminate the shortfall.
Portfolio 4 Electric Transmission. This one modeled an increased ability to import electricity into Southern California, but a target date of 2035 was considered. The staff analysis found this portfolio to have net benefits, but it has greater uncertainty than the other portfolios since actual costs would depend on specific routes and power flow studies which were not conducted here. This portfolio was also found to increase gas-fired electric generation outside California.
Portfolio 5 Combinations. This is the one that the CPUC staff recommends. It involves electricity generation and storage, combined with a feasible amount of building electrification and electric energy efficiency — as the plan to replace the services provided by Aliso Canyon. Subsequent analysis may indicate whether new electric transmission is necessary to support the generation and storage. It would have the second lowest investment cost of the five portfolios.
This staff proposal was one of the main topics during the October 23rd workshop held by Food and Water Watch. An analysis was presented of each portfolio. It was reported during the workshop that the California Air Resources Board had voted to end the sale of gas furnaces and water heaters by 2020. Also reported was that the CPUC voted to phase out subsides for connecting new homes to the gas system beginning in 2023. That second action would save ratepayers $160 million annually. And both actions would certainly decrease demand for methane gas.
It was also pointed out that Governor Gavin Newsom had established a target of three million climate-ready homes by 2030 and seven million by 2035. There’s approximately 14.2 million homes in the state.
Andrea Vega of Food and Water Watch pointed out that the staff proposal was focused on costs, and didn’t mention the reasons why those who live near Aliso Canyon want the facility to close as soon as possible: the health and safety risks to residents. She did say a positive to the proposal was that hydrogen was not mentioned at all. Hydrogen by itself is highly volatile, but mixing it with methane would increase the risk of explosion. SoCalGas has been pushing for using hydrogen as the “last gasp of air for the use of fossil fuels,” according to Vega.
And part of the efforts of SoCalGas is to continue to give the perception that Aliso is needed to keep gas appliances running. Last year, the utility requested an increase in the amount of gas stored at Aliso for use during the winter. Despite the letter from the County Board of Supervisors, letters from Congressmember Brad Sherman and Senator Henry Stern, and more than 60 public comments given during the CPUC meeting on November 4, 2021, the agency voted to increase storage at Aliso to a maximum of 41.16 billion cubic feet.
This was the day after FTI presented its shortfall analysis, scenarios modeled to replace Aliso Canyon, and its recommended portfolio of actions in a workshop in this proceeding. The CPUC refers to FTI as an independent consulting firm, but FTI has shown itself to be pro-fossil fuels and showed during the workshops for this proceeding its bias for delaying the closure of Aliso until at least 2035.
Given the green light from the CPUC, SoCalGas wasted little time in injecting more gas to get up to the 41.16 mark. In the month of December, a total of 6,029 million cubic feet has been withdrawn from the wells per the SoCalGas Envoy site.
According to the SoCalGas envoy site, there was a total of 6,019 mmcf (one million cubit feet of gas) withdrawn from Aliso in December 2021. In January 2022, the amount withdrawn was 1,635 mmcf, February 2,010, March 1,377, and in April 172. In August 2022, 731 mmcf and in September 2022, 1,362 mmcf.
December 2021 temperatures for Porter Ranch
In the heaviest month of withdrawals in December, a look at the lows for Porter Ranch, the community closest to Aliso, there were six days under 40 degrees with the lowest 36 degrees. Considering Lancaster, which tends to get colder in the wintertime, that city had 31 days with lows under 40 degrees with the lowest one 23 degrees.
At least in regards to the extreme heat during this summer, climate scientists have reported that heavy consumption of fossil fuels contribute to extreme temperatures. So utilizing fossil fuels such as methane gas to create electricity for heating and cooling seems a bit counterintuitive.
CPUC Investigations into the 2015 Blowout, Safety Culture
In June 2019, the CPUC initiated two investigations related to the Aliso Canyon Blowout.These were a response to the Blade Energy Report that came out a month before, which indicated that SoCalGas had operated the facility in a negligent manner.
The first one I.19–06–014 concerned whether there’s a lack of safety culture at the facility.
In June 2022, during a workshop to discuss a plan for SoCalGas to fix its internal safety culture, a slide show was presented by the Evolving Energy Consortium (2EC), a Swedish consulting firm, based on its report“Safety Culture Assessment of SoCalGas and Sempra Energy.”
The firm’s conclusions:
Deficiencies with both SoCalGas and Sempra • 150 areas in need of attention, supporting 4 major themes. • Recommendations SoCalGas, SEMPRA and CPUC. • Warns against a checklist approach to improvement.
SoCalGas presented its plan in a July 29, 2022, brief to the CPUC. Then the plan was presented in an August 18 workshop. Interesting that none of the slides explicitly mentioned Aliso at the June or August workshops.
In the brief, the one mention of Aliso is in this paragraph: “Several years ago, SoCalGas created Community Advisory Councils throughout its service territory to facilitate community and public engagement on SoCalGas’s operations, enable feedback, and answer questions. Following issuance of the 2EC Report, SoCalGas scheduled meetings with these Community Advisory Councils to share information about the assessment, dialogue for purposes of informing the Safety Culture Improvement Plan, receive feedback, and answer questions. As part of this effort, SoCalGas met with Community Advisory Councils from across SoCalGas’s service territory, including the Aliso Canyon, Goleta, and Honor Rancho storage facilities, from the Westside of Los Angeles, and from downtown Los Angeles. During these meetings, public representatives expressed that they were appreciative of the information shared, provided helpful feedback, and asked thoughtful questions (e.g., how they can participate in the Plan effort and whether this would have tangible impacts to them as customers).”
These “councils” have been mentioned in 2017 newsletters. But the specifics of the members nor when these meetings have been held have not been publicized. This calls into question whether the gas company has stacked these councils with pro-gas members or are there a diversity of voices.
When doing a Google search, only a few names come up. There are a couple who have been mentioned in newsletters made available to the public in complimentary quotations. For the most part, SoCalGas has not listed the members of the CACs.
Let’s consider one of these members. Note that SoCalGas kept the names of its Aliso Community Advisory Council a secret.
In 2016, those involved in the Aliso fight early on, were wondering about a woman who traveled from the Valley to Diamond Bar to make a pro-SCG comment at the Joint Agency Workshop on Aliso Canyon Action Plan for Local Energy Reliability in Winter 2016/17 held by the California Energy Commission on August 26th.
After stating that she sells houses in Porter Ranch (which many other Realtors who have been invested in the disaster had disputed), Nancy Starczyk went on to say,“And finally, I’d like to say that I support the reopening. The Gas Company, SoCal Gas, has given us so much information. Because I’m on the task force I’ve compiled it all. I have it all. And we were very impressed with what they provided us. We were never in the dark. We knew exactly what they were doing on a weekly basis. And they were available to us so that whenever I called with any issues or any questions, I got answers immediately. So, we want to make sure that when it open it’s reliable, safe, and we want it to remain affordable.”
The task force she referred was apparently for the Southland Regional Association of Realtors to study property values.
She got the attention of SoCalGas as when she was interviewed for a Daily News series on the second anniversary of the blowout, she said she was on the CAC for the gas company. She said, “I think a lot of people took advantage of this (the relocation).” The article went on,“So when SoCalGas asked her to sit on its Aliso Canyon Community Advisory Committee a year ago, her answer was an enthusiastic yes. “I wanted to support SoCalGas because I think they’re doing a very good job of taking all these extra precautions and safety measures, and I think people need to know about it,” she said.
The article described the committee as serving “as an information conduit to the community. It’s also a clearinghouse for gathering and disseminating information about developments at the underground storage facility and other issues.” The committee convenes its volunteer members when SoCalGas officials have something to share, and often hosts guest speakers representing state regulatory agencies who support what the company is saying, Starczyk said, and added that residents should educate themselves.
When SoCalGas issued a press release about installing methane monitors, it included a quote from Starczyk,“This system provides the community with transparent data and a tool for monitoring the air in Porter Ranch.”
Of course, there wasn’t any mention in the press release or its website that the monitors were part of a settlement of the criminal case against the gas company. Without that important detail, one would think that SoCalGas or the advisory council came up with the idea for the project.
Another member of the CAC was mentioned when the Northridge West Neighborhood Council mentioned that its president at that time, Peter Lasky, was invited to join.
It’s a bit difficult to find the names of members on the CAC for the other SoCalGas storage sites. On one of its Aliso newsletters, SoCalGas listed organizations that may have representatives for those CACs, but didn't give names. As far as some of the groups mentioned, some of them get GO-77M funds from SoCalGas. The ones which received contributions in the year 2021, included Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce, Santa Clarita Valley Economic Development Corporation, Goleta Valley Chamber, Friends of Ballona Wetlands, Los Angeles Airport Coastal Chamber, and Loyola Marymount University.
Also, on the list for the Honor Rancho, La Goleta, and Playa Del Rey CACs were elected offices, and during 2016, the holders of those offices were all Republicans.
In the summer 2017 “Quarterly Community Newsletter for Our Playa Del Rey Neighbors,” Nora MacLellan, a member of the Playa del Rey Community Advisory Council, said that “SoCalGas continues to be responsive and open with us, communicating regularly about various activities. The company is a great neighbor and member of the community.”
Some more googling revealed that Pat Caird serves on the La Goleta CAC.
If these Community Advisory Committees (or councils) are filled with those who willing to rubber stamp whatever SoCalGas wants, then it wouldn’t be surprising if the utility’s safety culture plan doesn’t truly address the real risks the sites have for their communities.
After SoCalGas had problems with several wells in August 2017 (just weeks after operations were resumed at the site), Lisa Alexander, SoCalGas vice president for customer solutions and communications, sent a note to the Aliso Canyon Community Advisory Council, stating, “I want to stress, Aliso Canyon is safe,” according to the Ventura County Star, KTLA, KFI-AM, and LA Times.”
CPUC Investigations into the 2015 Blowout, Sanctions
The other investigation I.19–06–016 is looking into whether SoCalGas should be sanctioned for causing the blowout.
During this proceeding there has been many exchanges between the gas company and Cal Advocates and between the gas company and the Safety and Enforcement Division of the CPUC regarding witnesses and data requests.
Among the various rulings issued during the last year, CPUC had issued a ruling in October 2021, ruling regarding the Cal Advocates requests for Boots & Coots witnesses and data requests: CPUC admits to being “deeply troubled” that SoCalGas hadn’t produced witness for cross-examination and decided that since it’s been several months, CPUC decided compelling the gas company wouldn’t “result in a different outcome.” But the ruling didn’t rule out considering SoCalGas’s conduct regarding witnesses in a“remedy phase of the proceeding.” But the agency did grant the Cal Advocates’ request for two data requests.
During a status conference on August 10, 2022 regarding an upcoming mediation between SoCalGas and Public Advocates,“well-documented animosity between the parties” was mentioned.
The mediation sessions took place in late September. On October 7th, a joint update was issued: Joint Parties have reached a comprehensive settlement and will be filing a motion to request that the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) waive the requirement under Rule 12.1 to submit settlement agreements within 30 days after the last day of hearings. Joint Parties will then proceed with the settlement process under Article 12 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The ALJ granted the waiver, but gave a deadline of October 31, 2022.
Decarbonization efforts
Another proceeding that would have bearing on whether Aliso can be closed is R1901011, which was opened in January 2019 and is now in phrase III. Phase III will consider the reasonableness of addressing building decarbonization by modifying or ending gas distribution main and service line extension allowances, refunds, and discounts. During the summer, the discussion centered around subsidies and gas line extensions. In fact, all 16 of the public comments at that time were in support of eliminating these subsidies and also the finance support of gas line extensions as a means of transitioning off of fossil fuels and meeting climate goals. The decision was adopted on September 20, 2022.
While the state is trying to determine decarbonization and electronification of buildings on a statewide basis, many cities and countries have passed “reach codes.” As mentioned before, a reach code is a local building energy code that “reaches” beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction, creating opportunities for local governments to lead the way on clean air, climate solutions, and the renewable energy economy.
According to the Sierra Club listing of cities and countries which have passed “reach codes,” the number is up to 61 which have passed building electrification codes or ordinance, with the City of Martinez the latest to join that list as of October 13, 2022. Also taking action this year was Santa Monica, which now requires all-electric construction via the city’s municipal code and an EV charger reach code; Pasadena, which enacted new rules regarding mixed-use buildings, some commercial buildings, and multi-family buildings; and San Luis Obispo, which requires all new buildings to be built all-electric.
The Los Angeles City Council voted to require new residential and commercial buildings to be build to achieve zero-carbon emissions, starting on or before January 1, 2023. Its Los Angeles 100% Renewable Energy Study (LA100), was passed last year to modernize its electricity system infrastructure. Unfortunately, the Council is mesmerized by the possibility of utilizing hydrogen as one way to achieve energy goals.
SoCalGas has been lobbying for its hydrogen project, hinting to politicians that this could be the way to eventually close its Aliso Canyon storage facility. The gas company claimed this is a way to use“renewable electricity sources” to decrease the city’s use of methane gas as well as other fossil fuels.
This was not the utility’s first attempt to promote a project that will enrich its coffers. On December 18, 2015, as the company was trying to kill off the leaking SS-25 well at Aliso, then-CEO Dennis Arriola sent a letter to Jerry Brown to convince him that converting methane released by dairy farm cows into biomethane should be considered mitigation for the carloads of greenhouse gases that filled the L.A. basin during the four-month-long blowout.
During this time, many elected officials including mayor Eric Garcetti, council member Mitchell Englander, and county supervisor Michael Antonovich, were assuring residents affected byAliso that any mitigation money would be given to green projects in LA County.
But when the 2018 Aliso Canyon consent decree was announced, mitigation funding went to the utility’s pet biomethane project in the Central Valley.
Just as with the dairy digester project, which will be a cash cow for the utility, environmentalists should consider the gas company’s hydrogen project as just another Trojan Horse.
But, according to Food &Water Watch, a major reason to look askance at the project is that for every 1 kg of hydrogen produced, 9 kg of water is needed. This use of water is especially egregious while the state is in the midst of a mega drought. Many environmental groups feel that the gas company’s hydrogen projects may block the path toward electrification and continue to create nitrogen oxide pollution, despite not emitting carbon.
Here’s more about the so-called green hydrogen that SoCalGas is pushing as a solution.
The bottom line: hydrogen is not inexpensive to produce, it’s highly explosive, its production involves quite a bit of water, it can have adverse effects on the environment, among other reasons to ditch this idea at the start.
OMBUDSMAN TOWN HALL
One section of the 2018 Aliso Canyon Consent Decree concerned the hiring of an independent safety ombudsman who will, among many other tasks, participate in the safety committee, review facility safety and make recommendations, and report to the public. The next June, the selected ombudsman Richard Gentges, held a community meeting to introduce himself to the community and explained what his duties would be.
We haven’t heard much from that office since then until this fall, when Steve Nowaczewki contacted the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council to announce that he will be holding a virtual public meeting on October 5, 2022, to discuss recent reports and answer questions. He reminded community members that they can view the annual reports and submit commits on the ombudsman website.
PROPOSED RATE INCREASE
On May 16, 2022, SoCalGas submitted a rate request to the CPUC. If approved, ratepayer bills are estimated to increase approximately $8.60 per month in 2024. The utility says its increase includes investments in four key areas: maintaining and enhancing reliability and safety, supporting sustainability, and promoting innovation and technology to meet operational and customer needs and workforce development.
The proceeding might conclude in late 2023. This is the proceeding for 22–05–015.
Then in September, the CPUC opened proceeding A22–09–006 regarding a rate hike to fund the hydrogen blending demonstration projects by SoCalGas, San Diego Gas & Electric and Southwest Gas Corporation.
For either proceeding, one can submit a written comment by clicking on the “public comments” tab.
7th ANNIVERSARY ACTIONS
Every year on or about October 23rd, residents have commemorated the anniversaries of the onset of the worst gas disaster in U.S. history.
In the past residents met for an event at a nearby park, that culminated in a march to the facility to spread roses on the entrance drive way. The second year involved a sit in that ended in the arrest of 18 activists. The third year within a two-day period, there were two press conferences, one concentrating on elected officials, the other on the health crisis that was arising from the disaster. There was also the premiere of a documentary that focused on environmental disasters involving methane, including the Aliso blowout. The fourth year featured a press conference, followed on the next day by a surprise sit-in.
The pandemic posed special challenges in 2020. A group of residents and activists travelled up north to join local groups to protest outside Governor Newsom’s suburban Sacramento home. Then a drive by protest popped up outside the SoCalGas headquarters in downtown LA (while security guards were hankered in at the Aliso Canyon gate, prepared to handle any actions there). The week was concluded by a webinar to get residents up to date.
To kick off the 2021’s events, Save Porter Ranch and Food and Water Watch set up a press conference to discuss issues, including a proposed increase on gas storage at Aliso, a proposed set back regulation, and health concerns.On the day of the anniversary, Save Porter Ranch hosted a table at the Granada Hills Street Faire at which attendees can get handouts about the CPUC meeting, make a donation, and get questions answered. At noon, more than 35 residents and activists met at the booth to start a march that circled the perimeter of the event twice, while they held signs and chanted.
This year, a workshop concentrated on recent developments that may affect a closure for Aliso. One was the just released gas stove study, that shows very high levels of benzene and other harmful chemicals that are being emitted by gas stoves. Another is the CPUC staff proposal that examines various ways to power California and hopefully close the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility permanently by 2027. Also discussed was the impending health study.
Nothing dramatic. But we have heard that workers showing up at the SoCalGas office may had the chance to enjoy an art display on Monday morning.
Let’s be inspired by these signs and continue to fight to close down this hazardous facility that continues to pollute our air and damage our health.
Disclaimer: I serve on the L.A. County’s Community Advisory Group for the Aliso Canyon Disaster Health Study. The CAG will continue to speak up for a clinically-based, community driven, and scientifically-based health study.
I am also a co-founder of the Aliso Moms Alliance, which serves to inform residents and the public at large about this issue.