The Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility Update for Fall 2024

Published on Medium.com on October 6, 2024

This article has been updated on October 19, 2024.

Now that the ninth anniversary of the blowout is upon us, there are two developments that residents should be aware of: an upcoming vote that will determine the future of the storage facility and a program aimed at reducing fossil fuel gas demand.

Quick Background

On October 23, 2015, a storage well in the northern Los Angeles’ Aliso Canyon gas storage facility sprang a leak that soon became an uncontrollable blowout. Methane, mercaptan odorants, and many other chemicals spewed out from well SS-25 for four months before the well was finally “killed” and sealed off.

In the meantime, more than 20,000 residents from the north San Fernando Valley had to relocate after suffering from numerous health conditions, including headaches, nosebleeds, and respiratory problems.

The independent root cause analysis, performed by Blade Energy, released in 2019, found that SoCalGas caused the blowout through its negligence.

First, let’s discuss the impending vote.

CPUC Proceeding to Shut Down Aliso Canyon

In February 2017, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) opened an investigation I.17–02–002 into whether operations at the Aliso Canyon facility can be minimized or completely shut down. More than five years later, ,the Commission’s staff came up with a proposal outlining ways the facility can be shut down based on reducing the demand for fossil fuel gas.

The protocols are based on “non-gas electricity generation and storage, energy efficiency, and building electrification” to be used to reduce the demand for gas. The selected plan will complement other efforts to achieve decarbonization, including the building of all-electric homes.

In addition, Californians can take advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Congress in 2022. This legislation provides rebates and tax credits for purchases of energy-efficient heat pumps and electric vehicles. It also provides rebates for homeowners to replace gas appliances such as cook tops with electric ones. As more people make the switch off of the use of fossil fuels and more alternative means of producing energy come into play, SoCalGas loses its reason to claim the existence of the Aliso Canyon storage facility is necessary for energy reliability.

Here is the staff proposal as issued on September 23, 2022. A possible revised staff proposal may be issued in the week of October 28th, with the commissioners voting on the proposal at its December 20, 2024 meeting. This is a presentation made about the 2022 proposal by former PRNC president (and a party to the proceeding) Issam Najm.

The Aliso Moms Alliance, along with other groups, such as Save Porter Ranch and Food and Water Watch, are asking that anyone who wants to cut down on our dependence on fossil fuels, especially those who live near Aliso Canyon, help persuade the CPUC commissioners to vote for the protocol that will shut down Aliso Canyon by 2027 at the latest.

One way to do this is to submit a written comment to the proceeding (go to the link I.17–02–002, click on the “public comments” tab, then click on the “Add Public Comment” button to bring up a pop up in which you can write your comment). It can be just a few sentences saying that Aliso Canyon needs to be closed down. You can add that the facility is a fire and seismic danger and that it’s causing serious and often life threatening health conditions. If you’ve experienced problems due to the blowout and aftermath, please add those if you wish. You can even mention that the gas company’s other facilities, such as the Playa Del Rey storage site and the Ventura compressor station (which is literally across the street from an elementary school), should be shut down too.

You may want to reference an early finding by the team studying the health effects from the blowout on residents. A video and slide presentation about this can be found here.

We also ask that you reserve time on December 20th to give a one-minute public comment via phone. The public comment period is held near the beginning of the meeting, which will start at 11am. Here is the voting meeting page with instructions.

Instructions for calling in comments to CPUC voting meetings

In the meantime, there will be a concerted effort to push Governor Gavin Newsom into honoring his promise to get Aliso closed. Food and Water Watch has organized two call in dates, October 9th and October 23rd (which will be the 8th anniversary of the onset of the blowout), during which you can call and ask that the governor talk with the CPUC commissioners about Aliso. His office number is (916) 445–2841. His Twitter account is @cagovernor.

The second development concerns a program that provides money for residents to switch to non-gas appliances started with a sanctions proceeding.

CPUC Proceeding into Sanctioning SoCalGas for the Blowout

In July 2019, two months after Blade Energy’s root cause analysis into the blowout was released, the CPUC opened a proceeding I.19–06–016 into whether the gas company should be sanctioned.

The Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) for the CPUC issued an opening testimony on December 5, 2019, listing 330 alleged safety, health, and recordkeeping violations and multiple instances in which SoCalGas did not cooperate with the SED’s investigation, resulting in additional violations of statutes and CPUC rules and regulations.

For example, the utility delayed handing over documents requested by Blade Energy Partners, which was conducting the root cause analysis into the disaster. The resulting data dump pushed back for two months the release date of the RCA.

After a mediation session that took place in late September, SoCalGas, the SED division, and the California Public Advocates Office came to a joint decision on October 28, 2022, as to the adjudication of the sanctions.

SoCalGas agreed to a violation of Public Utilities Code Section 451 (relating to the “uncontrolled release” of gas during the blowout), which entailed paying $610.1-million in fines. These fines consisted of “$105.1 million fine in full resolution of all violations or claims related to the Incident. The $105.1-million fine is offset by $34.1-million pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 972 for costs incurred by SoCalGas in fully mitigating the gases emitted by the leak. The balance of the fine, $71-million, will be paid to the Aliso Canyon Recovery Account pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 2104.7.”

On February 17, 2017, Senator Henry Stern introduced SB-801, which would require certain moneys collected by the CPUC for an administrative enforcement or legal proceeding relating to the well failure to be deposited in the Aliso Canyon Recovery Account, which the bill would create. The bill would authorize moneys in the Account to be allocated, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of mitigating impacts on local air quality, public health, and ratepayers resulting from the well failure at Aliso Canyon. It was signed by Governor Brown on October 17, 2017.

Stern introduced SB-305 in 2023 to require, rather than authorize, the moneys to be allocated for those purposes and clarified the use for mitigating impacts on public health in vulnerable communities.

In August 2023, more than nine months after the mediation, the CPUC issued the “Presiding Officer’s decision” about the agreed terms.

The Budget Trailer Bill (The Plan for the $71 Million Sanctions Penalty)

The Aliso Moms Alliance, along with Save Porter Ranch and the Southern California organizer for Food & Water Watch, were invited to advise the energy consultant for the California state senate on how we wanted the Aliso Canyon Recovery Account money to be spent. We agreed with the original plan that the money should be used for sustainable projects, but strongly felt that some of that money needed to be directed to projects directly affecting those living in the area most affected by the blowout.

The resulting plan was included in AB-157, the budget trailer bill that Governor Newsom signed on September 30th.

The Fund will be used in four specific ways, with three of them limited to benefiting Porter Ranch, Granada Hills, Northridge, Chatsworth, North Hills, Canoga Park, Reseda, Winnetka, Lake Balboa, Van Nuys, and West Hills, all communities within a ten mile radius of the Aliso Canyon facility.

One section, the TECH Clean California Healthy Homes (Technology & Equipment for Clean Energy Heating Initiative) section will provide $40-million for electric heat pumps to replace gas space and water heaters for those who are in the SoCalGas territory, with prioritization for the impacted communities.

$15-million will go toward the Green Schoolyards section. This involves increasing nature and tree cover on K-12 public schoolyards and nonprofit childcare facilities in the impacted areas to increase green space and reduce heat impacts.

Another program will be the Extreme Heat & Community Resilience section. The $14-million will support senior community centers with adequate and efficient air conditioning.

The fourth program is for Community Outreach & Building Decarbonization Education. The $2-million will be used by community-based organizations to provide education and outreach about the electrification effort and provide information on how to apply for the programs.

Why It’s Important for the Northern SFV to Get Priority for the Sanction Money

Even before the damaged well was sealed, many elected officials were united in the belief that fines and mitigation money levied against SoCalGas should be returned to the community that was harmed.

But unfortunately, that did not happen.

Denied Restitution

The first instance of the residents being disregarded came in September 2016. Earlier that year, Los Angeles County had filed criminal charges against the utility. SoCalGas agreed to plead no contest to a misdemeanor violation of failing to timely report the leak. The county agreed to allow the rest of the counts to be dismissed. Under the terms of the agreement, SoCalGas would pay up to approximately $4.3 million. Of this money, $553,500 covered fines and the cost of the investigation and emergency response by the County Fire Department’s Health Hazardous Materials Division. The rest of the settlement was to cover the cost of installing and operating methane monitors along the fenceline. As many residents would soon learn, often these monitors would be offline, and in at least one case, while a well was leaking in December 2017, the access to the public was set to private.

SoCalGas managed to turn this loss into a public relations victory, sending out a newsletter to its “neighbors” regarding steps it was taking to be “transparent.” The utility discussed its new infrared methane detection system “as part of our overall effort to identify potential releases.” Of course, the monitoring system was not the gas company’s idea but was part of the agreement in settling criminal charges brought against the utility.

No money was allocated back to the area that was harmed by the delayed notification, and in addition, residents were denied restitution, which is counter to the state Constitution under Marsy’s Law.

There would be further attempts by residents’ lawyers to appeal this decision to block residents from being able to seek restitution. But, on September 20, 2020, a petition for Writ and Mandate for case number B292786 was filed. The petition was summarily denied on October 21, 2020.

The AQMD Abatement Order’s Health Study

The next time the residents were cheated out of reparation for the harm to their communities came early in 2017.

As part of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) abatement order issued on January 23, 2016, the AQMD included a health study to be conducted by a third party. SoCalGas officially committed in writing on February 2, 2016 to funding with reasonable costs an Aliso Canyon health study.

But despite that commitment, the AQMD had trouble getting an agreement with SoCalGas as to how the study would be conducted.

In late May, SoCalGas sent a letter to the AQMD saying it would pay for only a “health assessment” for approximately $300,000. In July, AQMD initiated a lawsuit based on noncompliance of the abatement order on this issue.

Around this time, the assembly member representing the area at the time, Scott Wilk introduced a bill in the Assembly to fund a health study. Unfortunately, the bill ended up in Appropriation Committee purgatory, otherwise known as the suspense file.

In October that year, the AQMD convened a panel of experts to scope out what a health study should consist of and the cost. The consensus was that a proper health study should cost around $40-million to start. The panel that convened on October 26th included experts from Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH), The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the California State Department of Public Health, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), AQMD, and academic researchers from USC and UC Irvine. The scope the expert panel agreed to would cost in the range of $35–40 million, similar to the initial scope proposed by OEHHA earlier in the year.

The study recommended by those experts would examine health outcomes associated with toxic releases from the facility, and monitor the health and well-being of exposed members of the population over several years. In addition, it would include an estimation of long-term toxicological risks, continuous air monitoring at the field and in the community to evaluate ongoing exposures, and an evaluation of the broader impacts of the blowout on quality of life and well-being. It would also include community engagement.

At the January 31, 2017, Board of Supervisors meeting, L.A. County Counsel Scott Kuhn said that the AQMD lawsuit was “in discovery” and that there wasn’t a trial date set yet.

The community was shocked when, on February 8th, it was announced that the AQMD and SoCalGas lawyers agreed to end the abatement order for $8.5-million, which included a $1 million “health study.” This payout by SoCalGas was to fund “an enhanced assessment of residents’ exposure to air pollution from the leak; a community health survey; and an analysis of potential associations between reported health effects and exposure to air pollutants.”

So despite a panel of health experts recently scoping a health study that would cost at least $35-million, the lawyers representing the AQMD governing board decided to agree to let SoCalGas off the hook with paying for an assessment for less than five percent of that amount.

Besides the questionable health study allotment, the settlement would include $5,650,000 to pay off the annual emissions fees, $1,600,000 to reimburse the district for the air quality monitoring, and $250,000 to reimburse for legal fees and costs. On top of that, there was a provision that said SoCalGas doesn’t have to admit to violating the California Health & Safety Code or District Rule 402.

But that wasn’t all. At the March 2017 governing board meeting, there was more injustice against the affected communities. The board agreed to give $1-million from the lawsuit settlement to a pet project of SoCalGas. This project would involve turning waste into “renewable natural gas” that would be transmitted through the “SoCalGas pipeline system.” In other words, the gas company would benefit financially from the fines it incurred.

By the way, this project entailed the use of pyrolysis, which is problematic in several ways, including being energy intensive. The process can also emit carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, leading to air and water pollution.

In December 2017, a team from the AQMD gave a presentation in a community town hall about their proposed health study, which had two options. The first option would involve having residents talk about their symptoms, with possible environmental testing inside participants’ homes. Even the scoping handout admitted that only a limited number of people can be studied this way.

The second option would involve conducting exposure modeling as well as comparing that to previously collected health complaints and environmental samples.

The residents let the team know that anything short of a true, clinically-based health study was not welcomed. After the presentation, residents took turns at the microphone, expressing skepticism that any kind of useful study can be gleamed from a one-million-dollar study.

In late 2018, the AQMD gave up on the idea of conducting a health study. By this time, the consent decree came out, allocating $25-million to a health study. The governing board decided to transfer the $1-million to be added to the money allocated for the monitoring system the AQMD would administer as part of that consent decree.

How CARB Dissed Residents

Besides not allocating at least $35-million to a health study, there was another controversial aspect with the consent decree. One which many in the affected area considered another way the residents got screwed.

In early 2016, then-supervisor Michael Antonovich promised the affected residents that any fines against SoCalGas would be returned to the community. The AQMD executive director said the governing board felt greenhouse gas mitigation funds as fines from the disaster should benefit the Porter Ranch area, or alternatively fund other projects within Southern California.

In March 2016, CARB released its Aliso Canyon Methane Leak Climate Impacts Mitigation Program. As this document placed emphasis on the agricultural and waste sectors for achieving the mitigation of the greenhouse gases released during the four-month blowout, other agencies and officials sent in responses to indicate the need to use any fines to fund projects in the affected area.

The AQMD Governing Board voted to insert language in its letter to CARB that the distribution of any money from the lawsuit will be decided by the board and not by CARB. They reiterated that mitigation money should go to the affected area in a letter to Governor Jerry Brown.

Mayor Eric Garcetti sent a four-page letter to the CARB giving a wish list for any mitigation money, especially for a plan to create a Net Zero neighborhood in Porter Ranch. “Efforts should only move to other parts of the state if there is a shortage of suitable project areas in Los Angeles and the L.A. Basin,” he wrote, adding, “However, I am confident that there’s no such shortage.”

The idea would be that CARB would send any mitigation money back to the area that was affected to help fund some net zero projects in Porter Ranch.

LA City Council member Mitchell Englander sent a letter expressing his disappointment with the CARB report, giving reasons for not diverting that money. “Remediation for the methane impacts needs to start locally, in the affected communities — starting with the homes and businesses in the five-mile relocation radius. I am familiar with Mayor Garcetti’s proposal for a Net Zero Energy Neighborhood in Porter Ranch and the surrounding, affected communities, and I believe that this would be a positive start to the Program. In addition to providing benefit to the most affected communities, there is an additional benefit of reducing the natural gas dependency of the City of Los Angeles,” he wrote.

The plan’s call for solar panels, solar water heaters, EV chargers, and energy efficiency upgrades serves the methane reduction goal of the Program while making up to the affected communities some of what was lost from this catastrophe — including the reduced value of their homes,” his letter explained.

Angelo Bellomo, who was the deputy director for health protection for DPH, added his thoughts in a March 24th letter to CARB, asking that the local community and agencies, including DPH, US EPA, and AQMD, be involved in prioritizing the mitigation projects. He added that the mitigation should be focused on the affected community, or at least “dedicated to projects in Southern California,” as proposed by Supervisor Antonovich at an AQMD meeting. The deputy director suggested that the CARB consider bicycle and pedestrian projects.

On August 8, 2018, state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Supervisor Kathryn Barger, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Council member Mitchell Englander, and City Attorney Mike Feuer announced a $119.5-million Aliso Settlement with SoCalGas. The consent decree was a resolution of governmental charges against the gas company for causing the blowout.

The allocations was as follows: $12.58-million to the County General Fund to partially repay attorneys’ fees, DPH costs, and expert costs in litigation; $7-million for County consumer protection enforcement civil penalties; $25-million for a “Long-Term health study of impacts from exposure to natural gas”; $5.2-million for lead paint clean-up in communities near the now-closed Exide plant; $2-million for 3 electric Breathmobiles for the County Department of Health Services; $3-million to paid for 25 to 30 electric buses for various school districts in L.A. County; $7.1-million for an AQMD program to install indoor air filtration systems in L.A. county schools; $3-million for enhanced air monitoring systems in Porter Ranch and an environmental justice community in L.A. County; and $26.5-million for loans to dairies to install dairy digesters.

So, when residents heard that more than 20 percent of the 2018 consent decree would be spent on the gas company’s pet project for a dairy digesters project to capture methane from cow excrement in Central Valley for $26.5-million, they became livid.

This program was a project on the SoCalGas’s dream list for some time. In April 2012, the utility filed a brief with the CPUC to establish a tariff for the biogas project under its Rule 30, which pertains to the transportation of customer-owned gas.

In late 2015, SoCalGas was plugging the (misleading) message about “renewable” gas on social media. Around this time, the then-CEO of the gas company, Dennis Arriola, wrote a letter to Governor Brown with the pledge to “mitigate the environmental impact of the actual natural gas released from the leak.”

After the consent decree was announced, a petition containing more than 1,000 signatures opposing the dairy digesters project was submitted. In addition, many residents, environmentalists, and several members of the California State Senate and Assembly also provided comments in opposition. They all felt priority should have been given for projects in the San Fernando Valley, where the true victims of the blowout reside, rather than rewarding the company that caused such a massive emissions problem in the first place. And many felt the dairy digesters project would create more emissions.

Many of the comments said that SoCalGas was the instigator and promoter of the idea of converting cow manure into bio-methane. The utility would gain financially by buying from the digester and then selling the product as cheap fuel. And on top of that, SoCalGas would store this corrosive and explosive compound in its storage facilities, including Aliso.

In short, any funding for mitigation should go to the true victims of the blowout, rather than rewarding the company that caused such a massive emissions problem in the first place.

It was pointed out that even though methane produced from Central Valley dairy farms had been a problem for years, the money from the consent decree shouldn’t be used for fixing it when the true victims of the blowout live some 100 or more miles away. Instead, legislative means of directly funding any projects to reduce this methane should be independent of the Aliso consent decree money.

Of the allotments listed in the consent decree, only one program listed, the electric buses for LA County schools, would cut down on emissions in Southern California, as there’s a dearth of dairy farms located here.

After the comment period ended, CARB rebutted those who felt SoCalGas stood to gain financially from the project, even though the utility would be able to buy the end product to store at Aliso.

Next Steps for the $71-million Settlement Projects

The CPUC has called for comment on this plan from among “parties” to the Decarbonization proceeding, R.19-01-011. We’re inviting residents to submit public comments to this docket in support of the Aliso Canyon Recovery Account settlement funds plan as stated in AB-157. See the above section on the staff proposal for how to give comment.

Once vendors for the heat pumps installation are vetted, the application period will open, possibly in early 2025.

Upcoming Rally to Commemorate the 9th Anniversary of the Blowout

Residents and environmental activists plan to meet on Wednesday, October 23rd, exactly nine years after a well suffered a crack at the facility, to emphasize the health crisis the blowout caused among the North SFV. The SoCalGas Makes Me Sick rally will start at 5pm at the southeast corner of Tampa and Rinaldi. Participants are encouraged to wear “lab coats” or scrubs if they have them.

Food and Water Watch gave examples of wording on signs that people can make and bring: “SoCalGas Makes Me Sick”, “Are you experiencing nosebleeds, migraines, rashes, and nausea? Call your Governor today at (call-in number) to shut Aliso Canyon down”, “If you or a loved one has been exposed to carcinogens, call your Governor at (call-in number)”, “You may be exposed to benzene, call your Governor today (call-in number)”