California Environmental Quality Act: geothermal exploratory projects: lead agency.
The bill's provisions effectively alter how geothermal exploratory projects are governed within California, particularly by altering the delegation of responsibilities from the Geologic Energy Management Division to county authorities. By enabling counties to take lead roles irrespective of their pre-existing regulatory frameworks, AB 1359 is positioned to enhance the local governance of geothermal resources—facilitating potential growth in this energy sector while aligning with California's climate goals. The bill underscores an urgent push for increased geothermal energy utilization, which is perceived as vital for achieving the state's ambitious climate and renewable energy targets.
Assembly Bill 1359, championed by Assemblymember Papan, seeks to amend Section 3715.5 of the Public Resources Code concerning geothermal exploratory projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Primarily, the bill removes the previous obligation for counties to complete their lead agency responsibilities for project applications within 135 days, allowing for a more flexible timeline. It also mandates that, upon request, a county will assume lead agency responsibilities for geothermal exploration projects, regardless of whether it has a geothermal element in its general plan, thereby expanding the scope of local government engagement in environmental assessments.
Support for AB 1359 is primarily grounded in its alignment with California's energy transition objectives, focusing on renewable sources such as geothermal energy. Proponents argue that this flexibility will significantly expedite project timelines and improve local responsiveness to developmental needs, thus bolstering local economies and energy independence. Conversely, there may be concerns regarding the environmental oversight and thoroughness of local agencies in managing such projects, particularly in balancing rapid deployment of energy resources against ecological integrity and community health.
The legislation's potential to remove the 135-day completion requirement has sparked debate regarding the efficacy of local oversight versus centralized regulation. Critics argue that, while streamlining processes may accelerate project initiation, it could compromise the quality of environmental reviews. The bill suggests an imbalance in local versus state oversight that may lead to varying standards of environmental protection across different counties, raising alarms about the need to maintain rigorous assessments in light of local capacities and expertise.