In recent years, California has been grappling with the challenge of balancing its ambitious climate policy objectives with the need to meet its energy demands. However, a new bill, SB 556, threatens to tip the scales by imposing an impossible burden of liability on operators and owners of oil and gas production facilities. This legislation, if passed, would assume that every case of cancer, pre-term birth, high-risk pregnancy, or respiratory ailment within 3,200 feet of a wellhead in California was caused by that wellhead. In this blog post, we will delve into the implications of SB 556 and its potential consequences for the state's business community and energy industry.
n
n
Unreasonable Presumptions and Burden of Proof: SB 556 establishes a presumption of guilt for operators and owners, requiring them to prove that their activities were not the cause of any health condition within the specified radius. The scale of this presumption is staggering, covering a wide range of ailments, including cancers unrelated to oil wells, premature births, and respiratory illnesses, even if the individual engaged in behaviors known to contribute to such conditions. This means that operators will bear the burden of disproving causation in every case, leading to invasive and exhaustive investigations into the affected individuals' lives. The exorbitant costs associated with litigation, regardless of the ultimate outcome, would place a heavy financial burden on the accused operators.
n
n
Impossible Standards for Defendants: The bill presents two avenues for operators to overcome the presumption of liability, both of which are virtually impossible to meet. First, they can prove that they implemented the "best available technology and remediation efforts" for preventing the listed conditions, without interruption, for the entire two-year period an individual resided in the 3,200-foot zone. However, the bill fails to define the technology required, making it difficult to determine compliance. Furthermore, even if an operator invests significant resources to implement cutting-edge technology, any subsequent advancements could render their defense void.
n
n
Second, operators can attempt to demonstrate that their facilities were not the cause, in whole or in part, of the alleged condition. However, this burden is equally challenging, as the bill places the onus on defendants to prove their innocence regarding complex medical conditions that even doctors struggle to attribute to a single cause. For example, how can an operator prove that their well was not in any way responsible for lung cancer in a long-term smoker? The presumption of liability, coupled with an impossible factual burden, renders this defense illusory.
n
n
SB 556 does not address the state's energy demands nor provide a viable solution for reducing California's reliance on foreign oil. Instead, it creates an atmosphere of impossible liability for all operators, discouraging investment in the state's existing inventory of wells and hindering necessary upgrades to ensure environmental protection. As California continues to import a significant percentage of its crude oil supply, this legislation undermines the state's ability to maintain control over its energy sources and exacerbates its dependence on foreign nations.
n
n
SB 556's approach to addressing health concerns near wellheads is flawed, as it creates an unjustifiable presumption of liability without requiring any proof of causation. By placing an impossible burden on operators and owners, this bill not only stifles investments in California's infrastructure but also fails to offer viable alternatives to meet the state's energy demands. Balancing environmental objectives with economic considerations is undoubtedly a complex task, but SB 556's extreme liability provisions are neither practical nor fair. It is imperative to seek a more balanced approach that fosters innovation and investment while addressing legitimate health concerns.
