An Analysis of the Formulation of California Senate Bill 4
Chapter IV: Findings
The research had the ambitious goal of identifying the political process that took for the passing of SB 4. The subject was especially interesting because hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has taken place in California for several decades. In this chapter, data collected about the drilling style in California was presented with an effort to include the variety of data available from viewpoints of different stakeholders and their support or lack of support for the duration of the legislative process. Fracking is a national as well as a state political issue. Both external and internal factors impacted the policy process. Decisions made at federal government agencies have a direct or indirect impact on Californians’ perceptions on fracking as well as the public policy process. Regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rippled across all public policy on the local level so some of the history of the EPA on fracking has been included below. In Chapter V, the evidence was addressed by discussing policy processes linked to the objectives of identifying the following factors
- What made fracking a policy issue for the general public, business and organizations which focused the attention on the issue;
- How was fracking kept in the limelight long enough to have legislative action taken;
- Establishing the variability in the consensus dynamics ,
- Recognizing the greatest influencers of legislators and the perspectives of the influential stakeholders,
- Naming the stakeholders and which ones were highly involved in the CA SB 4 debate, and
- Identifying the driving force the pushed through the passing of the CA SB 4.
Earlier in this paper another assumption was expressed that the election of Governor Jerry Brown was a focusing event. The public The public attitude to environmental issues and sustainability had effects to identify Sorting out the public attitude to the environmental issues associated with fracking in California
Oil and gas products drilled both onshore and offshore in California since at least 1994 according to the California Coastal Commission from the Energy, Ocean Resources and Federal Consistency division of the California Department of Conservation (Dettmer, 2014, pp. 7 & 12). Figure 2a shows sites of fracking in waters considered as belonging to California and figure 2b shows the federal waters, considered as belonging to the U.S. Forty seven percent of land in California is federally owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (Freyman, 2014, p. 59). Therefore, the BLM has a regulatory role in the state.
SB 4 was the first bill in California to address regulation of the fracking process and was the first to address the issue of well stimulation processes. The CA Coastal Commission was particularly involved in the treatments that came under the umbrella of the term well stimulation. The addition of the well stimulation regulations on SB 4 was not expected by some of the stakeholders, especially the petroleum companies and their supporters, as discussed later.
The definitions for the terms used in this chapter were reviewed below; the definitions were based on SB 4 and retrieved from the CA Department of Conservation (2014). ‘Well’ in these definitions did not apply to water wells, but to the fossil fuel exploratory or drilling well made by the petroleum company.
California SB 4 Policy Progression
The hydraulic fracturing policy process was described in the 2012 to 2013 Budget Act in the published Floor Report that amended Assembly. The Department of Conservation addressed the issue of the Underground Injection Control Program Compliance and Fracking Regulations. The main concern of the California conservation lobby was the fact that Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal (DOGGR) had never regulated fracking by requiring permitting, environmental impact studies, and regular up-dates on environmental impact of the process. Two and a half million dollars was needed to be appropriated to a special fund for regulatory activities and 18 more positions were created at the Department of Conversation for that purpose. The regulatory recommendations included the four following measures.
- On January 1, 2014, regulations requiring full disclosure of the “composition and disposition of fracking fluids” were initiated (Bluemenfield, 2012, p. 27).
- The requirement of the “direct well owners” to notify DOGGR thirty days before fracking was started (Bluemenfield, 2012, p. 27).
- Chemical compounds associated with the fracking procedure must be listed and accessible to the public no later than sixty days after the use of the chemical compounds. (Bluemenfield, 2012)
- Protection for “trade secret chemicals” and “confidentiality for exploratory wells” were provided (Bluemenfield, 2012, p. 27).
The third reading for the senate took place September 6, 2013. The vote in the Senate received 28 yes votes and 11 no votes. In the Natural Resources committee, Chesbro, Garcia, Muratuschi, Skinner, Stone, and Williams voted yes; whereas Grove, Bigelow, and Patterson voted no. The Appropriations Committee voted ten ‘yes’ to five ‘no’ for the legislation. The ‘yes’ votes were cast by Gatto, Bradford, Calderon, Campos, Eggman, Gomez, Hall, Holden, Pan, and Quirk. The ‘no’ votes were cast by Harkey, Bigelow, Donnelly, Linder, and Wagner.
SB4 established the regulatory framework for the use of well stimulation techniques to drill for fossil fuels in California. The bill required that by January 1, 2015 The Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency must provide a report on the environmental health impacts of the procedure. DOGGR was directed to work with other agencies including the Department of Toxic Substances, the Water Resources Control Board, the State Air Resources Board, the Department of Resources and Recycling Recovery and local and regional agencies involved with water protection.
The recommendations of the Conservation Board were addressed by requiring certification by the well operator or owner with “disclosure and notification requirements in the bill” (Senate Third, 2013, p. 2). DOGGR must receive a complete history and disclosure information for the well by March 1, 2015 from the operator or owner (Senate Third, 2013, p. 2). DOGGR was made responsible for an environmental impact study accessible to the public by January 1, 2015 (Senate Third, 2013, p. 2). Trade secrets must be retained by the well owner or operator except for with DOGGR; DOGGR must know what chemical compounds have been or will be used to simulate well extraction (Senate Third, 2013, p. 3). Annual reports to DOGGR were required by the bill. Monetary penalties were set at “$10,000 to $25,000 per day “against a person” in violation of the “well simulation requirements” (Senate Third, 2013, p. 4).
Bill AB 1464 and SB 1004 Senate Bill No. 4 were published in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest (2013). Senate Bill No. 4 Chapter 313 was amended to Chapter 1 of Division 3 of the Public Resources Code and Section 10783. The amendment was made to parts of the Water code that related to oil and gas. Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill into law September 20, 1013. The Secretary of State filed the amendments the same day. The amendments stated that not enough was known about hydraulic fracturing and other California well simulation technologies like acid simulation. The amendment called the public “transparency and accountability . . . of paramount concern” (SB 4, 2013). The hydraulic fracturing information that SB No. 4 listed that the public should know included the following.
- Environmental emissions into the atmosphere,
- Well simulation wastes handling,
- Well simulation wastes processing,
- Well simulation wastes disposal, and
- All related wastes from hydraulic fracturing.
Senate Bill No. 4
California fracked wells
Fracked wells were the oil and gas wells created by oil and gas companies to gather fossil fuel product. The CA Department of Conservation referred to well formed by hydraulic fracturing, ‘fracked wells.’ Figure 1a depicts 195 fracked wells in the Long Beach Unit, eight fracked wells in the Belmont Field and nine fracked wells on the Platform Ester (Dettmer, 2014, p.7). The map on the right (1b) shows the fracked wells located in federal waters. The well on the right was drilled in 1997; the name is the Platform Hidalgo. The top right balloon with writing in purple lists nine fracks and eight fracking wells which were made between the years of 1994 to 2002 (Dettmer, 2014, p. 12). Four new fracks were pending as of April 2012 (Dettmer, 2014, p. 12). The bottom balloon with light orange lettering depicts Platform Gail where one fracked well was made in 1992 and one fracked well was made in 2002 (Dettmer, 2012, p. 14).
Figure 1a & 1b Hydraulic fracturing in California (Source: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/)
The Monterey Shale and other rock formations
Less than 50 hydraulic fractured wells were drilled in to the Monterey Shale formation which covered much of California (Freyman, 2014, p. 59). The shale formation made up a large portion of California’s geology but making extractions was technically difficult in that type of rock (Freyman, 2014, p. 59). The amount of oil predicted as available in California Monterey Shale was stated to be approximately 15 billion barrels of oil, equal to about 66 percent of the shale oil reserves in the lower 48-states (Freyman, 2014, p. 59). Fracking took place in California geology for decades and the wells lie in the water stressed areas of the state (Freyman, 2014, p. 59).
Fracked wells in water stressed areas
Figure 2 depicts one map where hydraulic fracking is taking place and where the water stressed areas were located. The oil drilling that used the fracking method was done in rock formations into the Monterey shale geology. (See fig. 2) The black dots on the map in eastern California represented the wells. The numbers of wells, represented by the black dots, are 19 gas wells and 829 wells under the control of eight petroleum operators (Freyman, 2014, p. 59). Occidental, Aera (Shell and Exxon), and XTO (Exxon) used the most water compared to the other five (Freyman, 2014, p. 59).
The dark red orange color represents the amount of area where wells were made in severely water stressed regions. Therefore, the wells had a 98 percent exposure to ‘water risks’ and the wells are located in high or extreme water stress regions (Freyman, 2014, p. 59). The light orange color on the map (to the south of the severely stressed area) represents the proportion of wells that that are in medium to higher water stress region; a 100 percent exposure to water risk has been determined (Freyman, 2014, p. 59). (See figure 2) All of the information on figure 2 is from the California Data Summary for the duration between January 1, 2011 and May 31, 2013 (Freyman, 2014, p. 59). A large portion of the area is dedicated to agricultural land use and provides the U.S. with almost 50 percent of the fruit and vegetables consumed (Freyman, 2014, p. 59).
Figure 2 California fracking and water stress (Feyman, 2014, p. 59)
Looking only at the amount of water used in the drilling process, the amount seemed small because of the use of acid matrix stimulation instead of water as the main hydraulic fluid. The risk of groundwater exposure to fracking chemicals and the droughts make water an important issue associated with the wells. The water demand for the fracking was not considered high; but the impact of the water use was considered high. On the other hand, the combination of drought emergencies and the risk to groundwater was expected to cause a negative public reaction to any more fracking in the region (Freyman, 2014, p. 59). One hundred and thirteen million gallons of water were used in California from January 1, 2011 to May 31, 2013; less than one percent of the total gallons were used per well (Freyman, 2014, p. 59).
During the time from the 1960s until now the amount of groundwater depletion equalled approximately 60 million acre-feet which is about equal to 19 trillion gallons of groundwater (Freyman, 2014, p. 59). Freyman (2012, p.60) explained that 19 trillion gallons of water is enough to supply all the Californian residents with an 8 year supply of water.
Gas prices and gas taxes
Figure 3 depicts the raising trend of retail gas prices for three California cities Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose over 72 months. The graph began in the summer of 2008 when retail gas prices were between $4.42 and $4.72/gallon. (See fig. 2) The retail gas prices in California dropped to the low of $1.69/gallon in November 2008. That was the lowest price of gas from November 2008 to summer of 2014. The trend for gas prices was rising over time since the $1.69/gallon low. The $4.72/gallon high was reached again in October of 2012 and summer of 2014 shows an expected price range between $4.12 and about $4.22/gallon. The price was calculated as the average price of gas for the time units labeled on the horizontal axis.
Figure 4 showed the “current average gas price” charged in California, New York and Texas (McMahon, 2014). The prices ranged from $.089 (California), $3.862 (New York) and $3.444 (California). McMahon (2014) explained that the prices do not rely as much on the site of the wells but they rely mainly on shipping costs to the refineries. California had seventeen refineries compared to twenty eight refineries in Texas and none in New York state (McMahon, 2014). The amount of gas taxes highly influenced the price as can be seen in figure 5. California charged the highest state tax 71.29 cents per gallon compared to 68.26 cents/gallon in New York and 38.40 cents/gallon in Texas. The federal excise tax was 18.40cents/gallon for the whole country so California has the highest gas taxes of the three states (See fig. 5).
Figure 3 Historical Gas Price Charts (source: inflationdata.com
Figure 4 The lowest prices for regular gas compared between CA, NY, and TX
Figure 5 Comparison of gas taxes between CA, NY, and Texas
The California Board of Equalization was recorded the amount of resource surcharges revenue collected for every fiscal year (FY) from FY 1974-75 until the present day. Energy resources surcharge and gas consumption surcharge revenue, FY 1974-75 to 2012-13. From FY 1974-75 to 1999-00 only an Electrical Energy Tax was charged but starting in FY 2000 – 01 the gas consumption surcharge was added. (See table 1) The revenues were proportional to the amount of electrical energy and gas consumption so a trend can be identified. In FY1974-75 the electrical energy tax revenue equaled approximately $1,885,000 and in a generally increasing trend increased to $71,673,000 in FY 2012-13. In 2000-01 a gas consumption surcharge was initiated. The revenue from the first year equaled about $30,511,000. The next year the revenue from the gas consumption surcharge increased to $179,107,000 and has steadily increased to approximately $647,505,000 for FY 2012-13.
California has experienced periods of slowed employment growth that have been greater than the national employment. In 2007, the employment rate decreased dramatically. (See fig. 6) California was in better shape than the nation in terms of employment from 2006 to 2007 but the slowdown started in the second quarter and continued until the end of the year. In April 2009, the San Francisco Chronicle quoted Mike Bernick, employment attorney, saying “California jobless rate climbs to 10 percent” (sedgewicklaw, 2009). The Jose Mercury News and the Sacramento Bee reported an 11 percent unemployment rate equaled to a net loss of 62,000 California jobs (sedgewicklaw, 2009).
Figure 6 Quarterly employment growth 2007
In December 1999 the civilian unemployment rate was 4.7 percent meaning 782,000 civilian unemployed. In December of 2000 the rate was 4.4 percent, by December of 2001 the rate was 6.2 percent and in December 2002 the rate was 6.7 percent representing 1,165,600 civilian unemployed. The table below lists the December unemployment rates from 2003 to 2011. (See table 2) The two highest rates in the time period were December 2009 and December 2010.
The largest increases in the rate of unemployed happened between December 2007, 5.8 percent and December 2008, 12.0 percent. That meant that approximately 598,900 more people were unemployed at the end of 2008 than had been employed at the end of the previous year. And then the trend continued with a increase in the unemployment rate to 12.0 percent in December 2009, meaning 519,600 more people were unemployed than at the end of the previous year. In December 2010 the unemployment rate was 12.1 percent and by December 2011, the rate had only dropped by one percent to 11 percent. December 2012 showed decrease to 9.6 percent and December 2013 another decrease had occurred to 7.9 percent. Seven was better than 12 percent but 7.8 percent unemployment rate meant that 1,462,700 people were unemployed in California in December 2013.
Lawsuits against the fracking had been initiated earlier in other parts of the U.S. where fracking had been applied more obviously. The communities and the media started understanding the extent the strategy was used for oil drilling in California at the end of 2010. The risks to the environment, especially ground started to become better known at that time. Two high profile lawsuits were initiated by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club against the BLM and Ken Salazar, Secretary, Department of the Interior and against Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Department of the Interior in 2013. In 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the California Department of Conservation and others.
Michael J. Mishak (2012) reported in the Los Angeles Times that hydraulic fracking had been occurring in California with little to no oversight. State regulators told him that drinking water was protected by the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act and California environmental laws but said they were not aware of the degree of fracking or the risks (Mishak, 2012). Los Angeles County was sued by a health advocacy group, Community Health Councils, due to impacts from an oil extraction well in Baldwin Hills. The executive director of Community Health Councils, Lark Galloway-Gilliam was quoted in Mishak’s (2012) article, “We are looking to our regulatory agencies to protect us, and they are scratching their heads and turning a blind eye.” On the other hand Tupper Hull, Western States Petroleum Association claimed that the technology was a safe practice “It is a tested, proven technology” (Mishak, 2012).
Fran Pavley (D), California state senator was chairwoman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Water when she questioned state regulators about where fracking is being done, how many times is hydraulic fracturing used and what are the risks. She did not find out very much because the regulators told her no reporting requirements existed in California for fracking. Senator Pavley authored SB 4; the history of the bill began in the Assembly, after that the assembly was sent to the Senate. (See table A-1)
Corporate opinion was the opposite of environmental organizations. The information on economic benefits were considered a legitimate reason for pursuing fracking in shale; but conflicts grew due to the environmental concerns weighed against corporate profits and public revenues. “Energy independence and the profit motive is strongly entangled in (the fracking) debate” according toShapiro & Warner (2014, p. 489)
Stakeholder and Attitude Summary
As of January 1, 2014, oil and gas well operators cannot “fracking or performing other well stimulation operations, such as acidizing, unless they test the groundwater, notify neighbors and disclose the chemicals used” (fracking 2014). Neighbors must be notified at least 30 days prior to drilling (Senate.ca.gov). The location of wells must be disclosed, as well as the source of water used for the extraction process; large volumes of water are used during the process. More detailed regulations are being formulated and will take effect in July 2015 (fracking 2014). Two more activities motivated by SB 4 are related to fracking. Firstly, the California Department of Conservation is in the process of producing an Environmental Impact Report. Secondly, the Natural Resources Agency is in charge of an independently produced scientific study of well simulation technologies and the risks associated with the practice. (Senate.Ca.Gov 2014).
Senator Fran Pavley, Democrat from Agoura Hills was the hero of the legislative session to many in the public who support clean water, clean air and natural gas extraction regulation (biography 2014). She also supported the clean vehicle and fuel technology programs that passed during the 203-2014 legislative session. Another accomplishment by Pavley was the first regulation bill for California groundwater (biography 2014). Pavley was empowered to push for changes in the environmental areas of her interest because of her position as Chair on the Senate Natural Resources and Water senate committee. Even given all this background on an environmentally-friendly senator, environmental activists and organizations are unhappy with SB 4 due to reason described below.
Failed moratorium bill
Environmental activists and environmental organizations ended up disappointed with SB 4 because the bill “killed” a California moratorium on hydraulic fracking and all other well stimulation operations. The fossil fuel industry opposed the moratorium bill, spending approximately $1.5 million in three months fighting against the moratorium. In total, from 2009 to 2013, the petroleum industry spent over $56 million to lobby the California legislators to vote against the bill (RT 2014).
Two Democratic Senators, Holly J. Mitchell and Mark Leno proposed the bill, claiming that a scientific study for health and environmental impacts of well stimulation operations on-shore and off-shore must be carried out before fracking could continue. The bill also would have established regulations making the Natural Resources Agency responsible for the oversight of all operations in California. The bill did not pass because the 12 Republicans voting ‘nay’ were joined by 24 Democrats. On top of that, three Democratic Senators abstained from voting. According to the LA Times, the Republican vote was based on the assumption that “the state approved a fracking study last year with the complete understanding that the oil industry’s activity would be closely monitored until the end of the study” (RT 2014). The identity of the monitoring party was not made clear (RT 2014; Reuters 2014).
The California oil and gas industry advertises a fast arriving ‘peak oil’ arrival. Peak oil is an expression used to refer to the greatest amount of fossil fuel that can be extracted will be reach, so amounts of extraction volumes will decrease from that point. Another claim from the petroleum industry and their lobbyists’ such as the director of California Energy in Depth, hydraulic fracturing creates jobs, decreases dependence on foreign imports, and increases state revenue. Republican Senator Andy Vidak claimed that the fracking done over the years had been carried out safely and that any ban would decrease jobs substantially (RT 2014). Another argument point for the Republicans was the potential loss in California revenue of “tens of millions” (RT 2014). The claim of such a large loss is difficult to substantiate though, because the EIA downgraded the amount of natural gas available from the California Monterey Shale in the southern San Joaquin Valley. May 23, 2014 the EIA reported the amount of natural gas available was reassessed to 96 percent lower than earlier estimates (RT 2014). The estimate of natural gas available was reduced from 13.7 billion to 600 million barrels (RT 2014).
The downgrading of the EIA estimates motivated an op-ed piece from the East Bay Express editor, Robert Gannon to say, “There's not going to be a giant oil boom in California's near future, and the state, as a result, is not going to add 2.8 million new industry jobs or see its tax revenue increase by $24.6 billion annually, as oil and gas interests had claimed” (RT 2014). The editor also highly recommended that the “state lawmakers and the governor . . . catch up to the general public” (RT 2014).
The vote did not reflect public opinion according to a survey by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associated. According to the survey, approximately 66 percent of California voters supported the moratorium (RT 2014). A majority of California voters indicated they would be ‘more likely’ to vote for a legislator who supports a ban than another candidate (RT 2014). A member of the progressive organization, Credo, stated that the reasons voters against fracking will continue to work towards a moratorium are the health and environment risks, higher earthquake risk, and the negative influence on climate change (RT 2014).
The California governor has the power to stop hydraulic fracturing by executive order, but Gov. Brown keeps his attitude that fracking is good for California and that the problem is basically that the lack of regulation of the practice (Reuters 2014). Because of the lack of leadership on banning hydraulic fracturing, local laws have been passed to ban the practice. For example, Beverly Hills and Santa Cruz County both ban fracking (Reuters 2014).
The chapter reviewed a diverse set of data that all related to stakeholders’ attitudes towards hydraulic fracturing in California. The subject of the data sets were the path of hydraulic fracturing after passing in the Assembly and moving into the Senate, the state agencies now involved in regulation activities, a map of fracking wells, locations of water stress, gas prices and gas prices, unemployment to employment comparison, lawsuits and stakeholder attitudes. After SB 4 was passed the two strongest opponents, the environmental groups and the oil industry, were both dissatisfied with the resulting bill.
Biography. (n.d.) Senator Fran Pavley. Representing Senate District 27. Senate.Ca.Gov Available from http://sd27.senate.ca.gov/biography
Blumenfield, B. (2012 July 15) Floor Report for the 2012-13 Budget Act as Amended in AB 1464 and SB 1004, Subcommittee No. 6 on Budget Process, Oversight & Program Evaluation, Assembly Budget Committee, pp. 50.
California Board of Equalization (2014) “Table 34, Resources Surcharges: Energy resources surcharge and gas consumption surcharge revenue, FY 1974-75 to 2012-13.” Board of Equalization (BOA). Retrieved from http://www.boe.ca.gov/annual/2012-13/tables_13/table34_13.pdf
Capitol Alert. (2013 Sept. 11) Fracking bill passes California Assembly. Sacramento Bee http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/09/fracking-bill-passes-california-assembly.html
----- (2013 May 16) As climate danger mounts, the global spotlight shines on California Senate California http://sd27.senate.ca.gov/news/press-releases?page=8
------ (15 May 2013) Sen. Fran Pavley to oversight hearing on climate impacts in California.
-----(7 May 2013) Sen. Fran Pavley to lead hearing on regional water solutions in Malibu
-----(6 May 2013) Sen. Pavley welcomes anti-fracking advocate and Goldman environment winner Jonathan Deal to California.
------(1 May 2013) California moves a step closer to regulating fracking.
------(5 April 2013) Pavley fracking bill gets first committee test.
------(12 March 2013) Senator Pavley statement on second water bond hearing held by natural resources committee.
Carroll, R. (2013 Sept. 11) Bill to regulate fracking passes California State Assembly, Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-california-fracking-idUSBRE98A19X20130911
Dettmer, Alison. (2012 April 14). “Briefing on Offshore Fracking and Other Well Stimulation Treatments “ Item W7A, New and Notable, California Coastal Commission, the Energy, Ocean Resources and Federal Consistency division, California Department of Conservation. Retrieved from New and Notable at http://coastal.ca.gov/
Fracking. (11 March 2013) Sentor Pavley amends fracking legislation to better protect health and safety of Californians. Capital Alerts. http://sd27.senate.ca.gov/fracking
Freyman, Monika. (2014 February). “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress: Water demand by the numbers.” Shareholder, Lender & Operator Guide to Water Sourcing. A Ceres Report, CERES. Retrieved from www.ceres.org/shalemaps
Lifsher, M. (2013 Sept. 11). State Assembly passes bill to strictly regulate oil ‘fracking’ Los Angeles Times. Available from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/11/business/la-fi-mo-assembly-passes-oil-well-fracking-bill-20130911
Mishak, Michael J. (2012 March 14). “Oil extraction method widely used in California with little oversight” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://sd27.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-03-15-oil-extraction-method-widely-used-california-little-oversight
McMahon, Tim. (2014). “Historical Gas Price Charts.” Inflation Data, retrieved from http://inflationdata.com/articles/historical-gas-price-comparison-chart/
RT (2014 May 30) Fracking moratorium fails in California despite strong public support. RT.com. Available from http://rt.com/usa/162616-california-senate-kills-fracking-ban/
Senate Bill No. 4, Pavley, Chapter 313, “(2013) An act to amend Sections 3213, 3215, 3236.5 and 3401 of, and to add Article 3” Legislative Counsels Digest
Senate Third Reading (2013 Sept. 6) SB 4 (Pavley and Leno), Assembly Bill Analysis, California State Senate.
Table A- 1 History of SB 4 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml)