Introduction
The Senate Bill 4 Pavley is a law approved by the Governor of California on the 20th September 2013 and hence immediately becomes law. The law falls under the ambit of environmental sustainability in the exploitation of oil and gases. It is imperative to appreciate the main drafter of the law, Senator Fran Pavley whose commitment to environmental sustainability knows no boundaries. In addition, it is essential to appreciate that the law comes in the backdrop of the discovery of billions of barrels of oil in the Monterey Shale in California.
Policy
The law’s main concern is on hydraulic fracturing otherwise known as fracking. Fracking is the act of employing the use of chemicals for purposes of blasting the earth to release oil and gases. However, Senator Pavley has observed that the general language of the Act includes all other well stimulation methods that use chemicals. It is instructive, therefore, that the law is not limited to fracking, but also extends to activities such acidification.
The law imposes a number of conditions and terms which go into permitting, notification, disclosure and reporting by companies in the oil industry in respect to the use of fracturing. In other words, as Senator Pavley argued, the law seeks to regulate the use of fracturing in the oil industry in California. This should be appreciated for California now joins the ranks of states that produce oil and have comprehensive regulation on the application of fracturing. Some of the provisions of the law worth mentioning include the requirement to disclose what chemicals have been employed in the fracturing process, conducting of clear tests for underground water to note any effects of the fracturing and the need to notify the residents before fracturing begins, among others. In overall, the spirit of the law is to regulate the industry with the intention of protecting the interests of the public and the environment.
As has been noted by critics, the law was intended to ensure the achievement of the triple bottom line, which are, profits, the public and the planet. However, critics have registered their reservations that the law may not necessarily protect the planet and the public especially after a contentious amendment was forced in the last minute.
Purposes
The purposes of the law are multiple in form and content. Foremost, the law seeks to impose conditions on the use of fracturing as a well stimulation method. These conditions are purposely intended for the protection of the public and the environment against chemical effects. Some of the noted effects that the regulations seek to prevent include exposure to chemicals which have been related to cancer, the seismic effects of fracturing which could make California a potential ground for earth quakes, the pollution of water whether underground or otherwise and the protection of the employees working in the fracturing companies, among others. The long list shows the importance of this law. However, it is essential to note at this point that critics have observed that the regulations imposed by this law are minor and would not have an impact. In fact, extremists have called for the complete banning of fracturing. They argue that this would be the only sure way of protecting the people and the environment in the State of California. Secondly, the law intends to provide a clear legal regime for the functioning of the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, hereinafter DOGGR.
Stakeholders
The law has a number of stakeholders especially due to its complex character. However, the biggest stakeholders are the industry players and regulators. In this context, the players are the oil companies who have invested in the oil mines. From the statements by the Western States Petroleum Association, WSPA, the oil companies have agreed to comply with the provisions. Implementation challenges are, therefore, not anticipated given that WSPA had withdrawn their initial objection after its interests were taken care of by the amendment. On the other hand, the State Government of California under the direct auspices of DOGGR is the main regulator. It is expected to ensure that the oil industry players comply with the law to the letter. In addition, it should be appreciated that the latter’s mandate is not limited to the provisions of this law. It has overriding mandate on general environmental laws in relation to mineral and oil exploitation regulations. The law has been implemented despite the disquiet and opposition it received from environment lobbyists. The Green groups such as Food and Water Watch, Center for Biological Diversity, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Sierra Club, among others had all opposed the law. Their argument is that this law is deficient and fails to meet the spirit and intention of environmental protection and sustainability. Extremist views in this group have advocated for a complete ban on fracturing. The last group of stakeholders is the citizens of California. It is them (citizens) that are placed in the ring and would be affected by the fracturing effects. As stakeholders, it is upon them to actively advocate for the compliance to the provisions of the law. Otherwise, the adverse effects would be taken in by them and their descendants.
Analysis employing the strategic triangle
Strategic triangle refers to the tripartite consideration of the substantive values of the law, its legitimacy and political sustainability and the operational and administrative feasibility. It is the contention of this paper that the law meets all the three considerations. The paper shall analyze each consideration. The law is intended to ensure the protection of the public and environment through regulation of use of chemicals. This approach applies a precautious method which seeks to prevent the contamination of the environment. This arguably is the cheapest method to ensure public health safety. Secondly, the law meets the standard of legitimacy and political sustainability. This is because it balances the interests of the public and the industry. Indeed, while the law does not effectively ban fracturing, it regulates its application and thereby protects the dual yet contrasting interests of the public and the industry players. Lastly, the regulator entity, DOGGR, is furnished and institutionally capable. In addition, the levies and taxes imposed on the players are sufficient for purposes of funding the regulation. On that premise, it can be deduced that the law is operationally and administratively feasible.
In conclusion, this paper supports the enactment of the law. Indeed, Senator Fran Pavley needs to be congratulated for her unrelenting support for environmental awareness and consciousness. In the long run, laws must portray the characteristic of sustainability and show regard to the three interests which are profits, the planet and the people.
References
American Gas Association. (2013, September 23). Hydraulic Fracturing . Retrieved September 25, 2013, from American Gas Association: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059987122
California Legislative Assembly . (2013, September 23). Senate Bill No. 4. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from California Legislative Assembly : http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB4
Goodnow, F. (2009). Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. In J. Shafritz, Classics of Public Administration. New York: Cengage Learning.
Schaffner, B. F. (2010). Politics. New York: Cengage Learning.
Senator Fran Pavley. (2013, September 24). Senator Pavley's 2013 Legislation. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from Senator Fran Pavley: http://sd27.senate.ca.gov/legislation/2013-legislation
Stillman, R. J. (2009). Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, 9th ed.: Concepts and Cases. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
