December, 18 2012, 02:59pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Bill Allayaud, EWG California Director of Government Affairs, 916-601-9280
California Issues Early Draft of Fracking Regulations
SACRAMENTO, Calif.
The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has released a preliminary draft of regulations that for the first time would require oil and gas drilling companies in the state to report where they are using hydraulic fracturing technology and disclose what chemicals they are using.
Currently state officials and the public have no way of knowing when or where energy companies are using "fracking," a widespread and potentially risky drilling technology that involves injecting huge volumes of chemical-laced water into the ground under intense pressure to break up rock formations and release trapped oil and/or gas.
A 2011 investigation by Environmental Working Group revealed that fracking has been widely used in California for decades, contrary to assurances by officials that its use was uncommon in the state - even though they had never attempted to track the use of the controversial extraction method.
The agency termed its proposal to begin regulatory oversight of fracking a "discussion" draft. It said it welcomes public comment as it continues work on formal draft regulations expected to be released early in 2013.
Bill Allayaud, Director of Government Affairs for EWG's California office, said, "EWG is pleased that the Division held public meetings this year and has proceeded quickly to produce regulations. This release is an important milestone on the road to having fracking regulations for the first time in California. EWG welcomes the agency's continued effort to keep the public involved as it develops its regulations."
Allayaud added that EWG has not had time to thoroughly review the draft document, but a quick review reveals many positive features as well as potentially serious negatives in the path the agency is taking.
"We laud the provisions that require drillers to assess the local area around proposed fracking operations to ensure that existing oil or gas wells, geologic formations or groundwater will not be adversely affected," Allayaud said. "Requiring drillers to reveal where they are fracking and to report the chemicals they use are basic necessities to assure that it will no longer be a secretive process."
However, he said that EWG has some serious concerns about the preliminary draft:
1. The proposed regulations allow drilling companies to claim that the identity of some chemicals in their mix of injected fluids are trade secrets that should not be disclosed to the public. Experience in other states has shown that such trade secret exemptions are being widely used and likely abused. The public is potentially placed at risk by allowing a cloak of secrecy around the use of toxic and persistent chemicals.
2. Under the draft proposal, drilling companies can frack a well without prior notification to surrounding property owners or the general public. The reporting requirements do not apply in advance and no permit is required. The public might not find out that fracking has taken place for up to four years after the fact, since existing, unchanged rules allow granting "confidential well" status for 2-to-4 years.
3. There appears to be no provision for monitoring groundwater that could be affected by fracking. EWG believes that assessing baseline water quality conditions in the surrounding area before a well is fracked is essential when working with toxic chemicals that can be harmful in even minute quantities.
4. There is no provision for alerting the public, regional water boards, or water purveyors when a well casing has failed and could therefore threaten to pollute groundwater.
5. The proposal to use the industry website FracFocus.org to disclose fracking locations and chemical usage is inadequate. EWG understands that the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources is behind in modernizing its databases and website, but in its present form FracFocus.org is not acceptable as the sole repository for this data. Information and data disclosed under state regulation must be treated as a public record. Currently, FracFocus.org does not release original data sets to the public, nor can the online data be sorted and aggregated into a database that allows for robust cross-sectional analysis.
"EWG welcomes this discussion draft as an important first step," Allayaud said, "but it will need considerable improvement to be sufficiently protective of public health and the environment. EWG is committed to working with the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources to improve these deficiencies and to helpCalifornia adopt fracking regulations in 2013."
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982LATEST NEWS
Listen Live: US Supreme Court Hears Outrageous Argument That Trump Is Above the Law
"The American people deserve a Supreme Court that does not hesitate to declare that no one is above the law, including a former president," said one campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
After months of delay, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will hear oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss—an argument that legal experts say is both absurd and dangerous.
Listen live to the oral arguments, which are set to begin at 10:00 am ET:
Thursday's proceedings mark the high court's final argument of its current term, and pro-democracy campaigners are calling on the justices to quickly reject the former president's sweeping immunity claim so he can face trial on federal election subversion charges before his November rematch with President Joe Biden.
As Bloomberg's Greg Stohr noted earlier this week, Thursday's oral arguments give "Special Counsel Jack Smith only a narrow window to put the former president in front of a Washington jury before voters go to the polls on November 5."
"With the trial on hold until the high court rules," Stohr added, "Smith needs a clear-cut victory, and he needs it quickly."
Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's right-wing majority has already handed Trump a temporary victory by stalling this case for months, allowing him to delay accountability for his criminal attempts to cling to power."
"With so much at stake for our democracy, the Supreme Court should rule swiftly and decisively in this case," said Eldridge. "Accountability delayed could mean accountability denied."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 88 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Correction: This article originally said Trump faces 91 federal and state felony charges. The correct number is 88.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular