Itโs now a waiting game as California regulators decide whether to reopen the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility in Los Angeles County, the site of an October 2015 blowout that released an estimated 97,000 metric tons of methane over fourย months.
Since the leaking well was capped in February 2016, 34 of 114 natural gas wells have been overhauled and certified by the state as safe for moving gas in and out of the underground reservoir. The facilityโs operator, Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas), says that it has made extensive infrastructure enhancements and the facility is ready to go back online.ย
But residents near Aliso Canyon say they donโt trust SoCalGas or regulators. They point to an investigation, which found that SoCalGas had removed a safety valve that could have prevented the blowout and hadnโt informed regulators. Last year Los Angeles County had to sue SoCalGas to force installation of new valves.ย ย
Activists say nothing short of a permanent shutdown is acceptable. And they say SoCalGas has been manufacturing a fake shortage crisis to influence regulators and the governor to allow the facility to open as soon asย possible.ย
SoCalGas Settlement Will Fund Independent Healthย Study
On February 7, 2017, Southern California Gas Co. agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle a lawsuit with local air quality regulators over the massive blowout at its Aliso Canyonย facility.ย
This settlement, which includes $1 million to fund a three-part health study of the communities impacted by the gas leak, ends months of negotiations between the utility and regulators at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the air pollution control agency for several Southern Californiaย counties.
The study resulting from the settlement will be conducted by independent experts and include three deliverables: a determination of chemical exposure levels in the impacted community; a community health survey; and an analysis of possible associations between symptoms reported in the community and estimated exposure levels. SoCalGas had proposed paying $400,000 for a less comprehensive health study lastย May.
The four-month-long gas leak caused thousands of residents living in the downwind community of Porter Ranch to relocate. People who stayed behind, even in communities farther afield, reported headaches, dizziness, rashes, and various respiratoryย irritations.
But even a year after the leak was plugged, residents continue to experience problems that have health expertsย stumped.
Wayne Nastri, air quality districtโs executive officer, said in a statement that the independent study would โbuild upon existing health information and help inform the community about potential health impacts from the gasย leak.โ
However, not everyone was satisfied with the settlement and the promised healthย study.
Liza Tucker, a consumer advocate with the group Consumer Watchdog, told DeSmog that the settlementโs $1 million assessment is not enough for a serious epidemiological study of the health effects of the Aliso Canyonย blowout.
โSempra, parent of SoCalGas, can well afford to pay for the hiring of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to set up an independent advisory committee to oversee the study,โ Tuckerย said.ย
On February 8 a local physician, Dr. Jeffrey Nordella, spoke out against reopening the facility, referring to it as โan act ofย negligence.โย
Beyond the health assessment, the settlement calls for SoCalGas to pay $5.65 million for leak-related emissions, $1.6 million to regulators for air quality monitoring, and $250,000 to cover officialsโ legalย fees.
โAir regulators should have held SoCalGasโs feet to the fire and should have levied much bigger penalties, and they could have asked for up to $250,000 in penalties for each day of that leak,โ Tuckerย said.
Residents and Legislators Say Root Cause Analysis Isย Necessary
The settlement came a week after a contentious public meeting over the fate of Aliso Canyon was shut downย early.ย
Angry local residents from the community of Porter Ranch and environs shut down the publicย meeting on whether to reopen the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility. Cedit: Larryย Buhl
State officials had called meetings on February 1 and 2 to get public comments before determining whether it wasย safe to resume gas injection. On the agenda were presentations from the California Public Utility Commission and the state Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources about a safety review conducted on the facility. The meeting was the last hurdle before regulators were to decide whether SoCal Gas can resume injecting and withdrawing gas at the storageย facility.
About 500 people filled the meeting room at the Woodland Hills Hilton. Soon after the meeting started, Matt Pakucko, head of the community group Save Porter Ranch, grabbed a bullhorn and declared that the residents were taking control of theย meeting.
โIf you cannot state with a root cause analysis what caused the blowout then you cannot state that the facility is safe,โ Pakuckoย said.ย
As stony-faced state officials watched, residents testified about illnesses they attribute to the gas storage field, even after the leak was plugged. Save Porter Ranch allowed elected officials to speak, including Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, City Councilman Mitchell Englander, Los Angeles Unified School District Board Member Scott Schmerelson, and newly elected state Senator Henryย Stern.
A โroot cause investigation,โ which would involve dismantling the well that ruptured and removing parts of the well shaft for examination, is still in the planningย phase.
On February 6, Stern introduced California Senate Bill 57, which would continue the moratorium on gas injections and withdrawals at Aliso Canyon until an independent โroot causeโ analysis is complete. Not long after, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced her support for the bill in a letter toย Stern.
โI believe it is important for state regulators and the public to be fully aware of what caused the disastrous natural gas leak last year before proceeding to determine whether the facility is safe to reopen,โ Feinsteinย wrote.
SoCalGas spokesperson Chris Gilbride released a statement saying SB 57 would not enhance safety at Aliso Canyon, which he said was needed to meetย demand:ย
โInstead, it needlessly puts more than 20 million people, thousands of businesses, and critical facilities, like electric generators, refineries, universities, and hospitals, at risk of natural gas and electricity serviceย interruption.โ
Manufacturing Shortages to Reopenย Facility?
Activists, local residents, and some geothermal experts roll their eyes when they hear about the potential service interruptions which Gilbrideย referenced.ย
For more than a year, SoCalGas has predicted rolling blackouts if Aliso Canyon remains closed, but those blackouts havenโtย materialized.ย
On January 24 and 25, state oil and gas regulators allowed the utility to withdraw gas from Aliso Canyon, despite a moratorium, in order to meet an increasing โhourly demandโ during a coldย snap.ย
Advocacy groups Food and Water Watch and Consumer Watchdog call that withdrawal a fake crisis and petitioned California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to investigate a possible manipulation of gas supply to influenceย regulators.ย
In a written statement, Gilbride said the claims of a fake crisis were without basis and credited Aliso Canyon with fending off a potentialย shortage.
โThe rapid changes in customer demand we experienced on Jan. 24 and 25 are examples of the sudden peaks we regularly experience with changes in the weather,โ heย wrote.
But San Diego engineer Bill Powers, who testifies as an expert before state regulators, told DeSmog the utilityโs rationale for the January gas draws doesnโt hold up to scrutiny, saying customer demand โnever got closeโ during thatย period.ย
Powers went on to speculate that SoCalGas was in danger of losing money in a โuse it or lose itโ clause of the California Public Utilitiesย code.ย
โIn California if a facility is not used for more than nine months, and Aliso Canyon has been idle more than that, rate payers can petition to have that utilityโs funds reduced,โ Powers said. โItโs about money, and I was predicting for weeks that [SoCalGas] would try to withdrawย gas.โย
For months, Powers has refuted the utilityโs claims that Aliso Canyon is needed to meet the regionโsย needs.ย
โAliso Canyon has been a giant piggy bank for SoCalGas, letting them park gas there and having ratepayers pay for them to do it,โ heย said.
At this point, regulators from DOGGR could give the green (or red) light on reopening Aliso Canyon at any time. However, California Governor Jerry Brown has the ability to overrule their decision, but Brown is holding his cards close.ย
Main image:ย Residents march on the first anniversary of the Aliso Canyon blowout in October 2016. Credit: Save Porterย Ranch
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts