Refinery Decommissioning Bill, Others Inch Forward in State Legislation
California Sen. Catherine Blakespear’s bill on refinery decommissions (SB 1259)inched closer to the senate floor last week alongside a handful of energy-focused bills.
Blakespear’s SB 1259 would require California refiners to submit a draft decommissioning and site remediation report for each facility to the State Water Resources Control Board by December 2028. The Water Board, in turn, will form guidelines focused on the total cost of decommissioning a refinery and draft cost estimates and timelines for soil and groundwater remediation.
The bill was amended to change the California Energy Commission’s role to an advisory one, a spokesperson for Blakespear said on Wednesday. The initial version of the bill required CEC to evaluate and report on the existing financial obligations of refiners.
SB 1259 bypassed the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee and is now heading to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Assembly Member Gregg Hart’s Assembly Bill 2461 wants companies in control of an oil well to submit a bond or some other financial assurance to cover the cost of cleanup. It passed the State Assembly on Natural Resources Committee meeting last week.
Supporters said the bill expands on a 2023 law (AB 1167) requiring oil companies to submit bonds to buy wells that had been applied narrowly, stating the California Geologic Energy Management division allowed oil companies to avoid the bonding requirements by using stock transfers.
Paul Deiro, Senior Director on California Policy at the Western States Petroleum Association, opposed the bill, as he argued that AB 2461 would expand full-cost bonding to all wells, not just low-producing ones. He also claimed the bill would prohibit well transfers and increase orphan wells as smaller companies would struggle to operate their assets.
“If you prohibit the sale of a well from one company to another company and the other company wants to get out of the business and is having financial problems,by preventing the sale, you will create additional orphan wells, which would be a liability to the state of California, who then are obligated to plug and abandon all of those wells,” Deiro said in the committee meeting.
AB 2711, introduced by Assembly Member Stan Ellis in February to amend existing laws surrounding drilling permits in the state, advanced last week and is headed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2711, introduced by Assembly Member Stan Ellis in February to amend existing laws surrounding drilling permits in the state, advanced last week and is headed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
With current permitting requiring a written response from CalGEM within 10 working days, the bill requires that an operator filing for a drilling notice received an approval or denial from CalGEM within 30 working days. If the drilling notice is denied, the bill text states that CalGEM must provide a comprehensive reason for the decision.
“The bill is not weak in environmental review,” Ellis said in the meeting, “It simply requires a reasonable time frame and to not hold operators in limbo. AB 2711 will restore predictability and efficiency in the permitting process.”
The California Independent Oil Producers Association and E&B Natural Resources support the bill. Ted Cordova of E&B said that permits that should take days have been taking months.
“That uncertainty makes it extremely difficult for companies like ours, a small business, to plan projects, retain workers and deploy capital,” Cordova said. “AB2711 does not weaken any environmental protections. It simply requires that CalGEM approve or deny a permit within 30 working days and provide clear reasoning if it is denied. That’s accountability, that’s transparency, and that’s just good governance.”
Opposition to the bill noted that a strict 30 working day deadline risks rushed decisions and undermines CalGEM’s regulatory discretion. The Central California Environmental Justice Network shared data on Kern County’s notice of intent in the meeting that showed only 10 wells took longer than 30 days to get approval.
Ellis’ Assembly Bill 2606 was also heard in committee, which initially intended to authorize California State University to create a demonstration zone in existing oilfields to test advanced carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery techniques to achieve neutral or net negative emissions.
Ellis argued last week that the bill could prevent thousands of marginal, idle and orphan oil wells. He added that the bill ultimately supports “reasonable innovation,” enabling the possibility of research into green, non-fossil uses of old wells in Kern County.
Despite appreciating the removal of language that included carbon dioxide oil recovery from the bill, the committee failed to pass it. Environmental advocacy groups opposed the bill, claiming its continuous use of oil and gas, as well as energy-intensive and expensive technologies will raise costs for consumers.
Approved bills are expected to reach the State and Assembly Appropriations Committee in the coming weeks. According to the official 2026 legislative calendar,May 29 is the last day for lawmakers to pass bills introduced in the Assembly and the Senate to move to the other house.
Reporting by Shaheer Naveed, snaveed@opisnet.com