California v. Southern California Gas Co.

On August 8, 2018, the California attorney general, Los Angeles city and county officials, and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) lodged a proposed consent decree in the California Superior Court that would resolve the governmental parties’ civil claims arising from the natural gas leak from SoCalGas’s Aliso Canyon storage facility in 2015. The consent decree requires SoCalGas to mitigate 109,000 tons of methane emissions in accordance with the terms of a Mitigation Agreement, which provides that the mitigation projects will at least initially be dairy-digester biomethane projects. The Mitigation Agreement was subject to 35 days of public comment. The proposed consent decree also requires payment of $119.5 million to fund the methane mitigation obligation, a mitigation reserve, civil penalties, supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), and the governmental plaintiffs’ costs. The approved SEPs include projects to improve air quality in public schools in environmental justice communities, enhanced air monitoring and reporting requirements in the area near the Aliso Canyon facility and in other areas in the county, mobile asthma clinics, electric school buses and infrastructure, a study of the long-term health effects of natural gas and its constituents, and lead-based paint abatement projects. In addition, SoCalGas must continue to conduct fenceline methane monitoring for at least eight years and comply with associated public disclosure, notice, and reporting requirements.

In February 2016, the California Attorney General sought to join the action both in her independent capacity and on behalf of the California Air Resources Board.

The causes of action in the second amended complaint included public nuisance and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The complaint alleged that the release of methane would have detrimental impacts on the state, city, county, environment, and economy due to the exacerbation of climate change impacts. The alleged unfair business practices were also grounded in part in the release of significant quantities of a potent greenhouse gas. The action sought injunctive relief and civil penalties.