SB 819 directs the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to prepare a legislatively mandated study assessing the issues that would arise if geothermal waste currently subject to generator and handling fees were made exempt from those fees. The bill sets a hard submission date for the report and includes a built‑in sunset for the statutory study authority.
The measure also makes non‑substantive edits to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings in the Public Resources Code. The core practical effect: the Legislature would receive a targeted analysis that could inform whether to change fee policy for geothermal waste — a change with implications for industry costs, state fee revenues, and hazardous‑waste oversight practices.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires DTSC to study and report to the Legislature on issues that would arise if geothermal waste now paying generation and handling fees were exempted from those fees, and it sets a statutory expiration for that study authority. It also tweaks the CEQA findings in Section 21000 without changing substance.
Who It Affects
Directly relevant actors include geothermal operators and producers, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (which collects the fees), DTSC staff who must prepare the study, and industries that handle or dispose of geothermal waste. Local permitting authorities and environmental consultants will also watch outcomes closely.
Why It Matters
A policy decision on fee exemptions could shift operating economics for geothermal projects, change revenue flows that fund hazardous‑waste programs, and alter incentives for proper waste handling and disposal — with knock‑on effects for permitting, project finance, and environmental oversight.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
California currently treats some geothermal byproducts differently under hazardous‑waste law: certain geothermal wastes are exempt in specific contexts, while other geothermal wastes remain subject to hazardous‑waste requirements and associated generator/handling fees collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. SB 819 does not itself change fee liabilities; instead, it charges DTSC with producing a focused study that lays out the issues lawmakers would face if they were to exempt additional geothermal waste from those fees.
The statute requires the study be delivered to the Legislature by a fixed date and compels DTSC to comply with routine state reporting procedures. Because the bill does not prescribe the study’s contents, DTSC must decide what problem areas to examine: possible revenue loss to fee‑funded programs, public‑health and environmental risks tied to handling and disposal, effects on waste management infrastructure, and how exemptions would interact with existing hazardous‑waste regulations.
The agency will also need to coordinate with the Department of Tax and Fee Administration to quantify current fee collections tied to geothermal waste.SB 819 also includes a sunset for this study authority, so the statutory obligation lapses after several years unless the Legislature acts again. Separately, the bill amends the CEQA findings statute with non‑substantive language changes; those edits appear intended to modernize phrasing rather than alter CEQA’s operational requirements.
Taken together, the bill creates a narrow analytic checkpoint: it forces a formal, documented reckoning over whether removing fees is appropriate, but it leaves any substantive policy change to later legislative action.
The Five Things You Need to Know
DTSC must submit a written study to the Legislature by July 1, 2026, analyzing issues that would arise if geothermal waste currently subject to generator and handling fees were made exempt.
The study obligation is codified as Article 3.7 (Section 25138) in the Health and Safety Code and is tied to Government Code report procedures (Section 9795).
The statutory authority to require this study becomes inoperative on July 1, 2030, and the article is repealed on January 1, 2031.
SB 819 does not itself create or remove any fee exemptions; it only requires DTSC to analyze the consequences of a potential exemption.
The bill makes only non‑substantive edits to Public Resources Code Section 21000 (CEQA findings), leaving CEQA’s procedural rules intact.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
DTSC study requirement on geothermal waste fee exemptions
This section obligates DTSC to prepare a study for the Legislature examining the issues that would arise if geothermal waste currently subject to generation and handling fees were made exempt. Practically, DTSC must frame the analytical questions, gather data from fee administrators and industry, and produce a deliverable that legislators can use to weigh policy options. The statute references state reporting rules, which dictate formatting and distribution requirements, but it does not prescribe an analytic scope, methodology, or stakeholder process — leaving those choices to DTSC.
Timebound study authority with automatic sunset and repeal
SB 819 attaches an expiration mechanism: the article becomes inoperative on July 1, 2030 and is repealed Jan. 1, 2031, consistent with Government Code Section 10231.5. That means the statutory authorization to compel this study is temporary and any ongoing data collection or policy monitoring would require separate statutory authority or agency action. The limited window also pressures DTSC for timely work but does not bind future legislatures.
Non‑substantive edits to CEQA findings
The bill revises the legislative findings and declarations that introduce CEQA. The changes are labeled nonsubstantive in the bill text; they alter wording without changing CEQA’s substantive duties for lead agencies, the requirement to prepare environmental impact reports, or the standard for negative and mitigated negative declarations. The practical implication is administrative housekeeping rather than any change to environmental review obligations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Geothermal operators and developers — a study that leads to fee exemption could lower operating costs, improve project economics, and reduce barriers for exploration and development if policymakers act on DTSC’s findings.
- State policymakers and legislative staff — the report provides an evidence base to weigh trade‑offs between promoting geothermal energy and preserving hazardous‑waste oversight, reducing the political and technical uncertainty around such a decision.
- Investors and project financiers — clearer analysis of fee exposure and potential exemption scenarios helps underwrite project risk and informs due diligence, especially for early‑stage geothermal plays.
Who Bears the Cost
- State hazardous‑waste and environmental programs funded in part by generation/handling fees — if exemptions are adopted, those programs could lose revenue used for oversight, permitting, or cleanup, shifting costs to other state funds or requiring fee restructuring.
- DTSC and participating agencies — preparing a high‑quality study will require staff time, data collection, and likely interagency coordination; those are real, unfunded workload costs unless otherwise budgeted.
- Waste handlers and disposal facilities — an exemption could change waste streams, fees and demand for permitted disposal capacity, creating business and compliance adjustments that carry administrative cost.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: remove or reduce a cost barrier to accelerate geothermal development, or preserve fee‑funded hazardous‑waste oversight that protects public health and the environment — a choice that shifts economic burden between industry, state programs, and potentially taxpayers, with no free lunch.
The statute leaves major analytic choices to DTSC without prescribing the study’s scope, methods, or stakeholder process. That creates two practical risks: DTSC may produce a narrowly framed report that fails to quantify fiscal impacts and long‑term environmental liabilities, or it may overreach into policy recommendation territory without legislative direction.
Neither outcome addresses the underlying question of who pays if fee revenue falls — the statute does not identify contingency mechanisms or alternative funding paths for programs currently supported by those fees.
Another tension concerns data availability and definitional clarity. ‘‘Geothermal waste’’ covers heterogeneous streams (brines, cuttings, filter cake, scaling) with different hazardous properties and management pathways; existing exemptions already treat drilling‑related wastes differently. Accurately modeling disposal costs, transport, and public‑health exposure requires granular data that may not exist in centralized form, so the study’s utility depends on DTSC’s access to industry records and interagency cooperation.
Finally, the bill’s sunset clause helps limit open‑ended mandates but risks premature termination of oversight if follow‑up monitoring or statutory fixes are needed after the study is delivered.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.