Tentative Ruling Deals Major Blow to California’s Fracking Ban

An October 8 tentative decision by Kern County Superior Court Judge Bernard C. Barmann, Jr., could reopen a path to hydraulic fracturing in California. The ruling challenges both CalGEM’s blanket denial of well stimulation permits beginning in 2021 and the formal prohibition that took effect in October 2024. The consolidated cases were brought by the Western States Petroleum Association, Chevron, and Aera Energy.

The court tentatively found that CalGEM’s earlier denial policy constituted an unlawful “underground regulation” imposed without required rulemaking or individualized application review. It separately found the 2024 regulation to be inadequately supported, faulting the agency for failing to reconcile its greenhouse gas justification with its prior finding that replacing California production with imported oil would increase net global emissions.

That reasoning strikes at a central weakness in California’s approach to energy policy. Restricting production does not eliminate demand. CIPA’s position is that California should meet its continuing energy needs through responsible domestic production, preserving jobs, investment and accountability under the State’s regulatory framework.

The potential resource implications are substantial. The New York Post’s coverage highlights the prospect of accessing significant remaining oil resources. In related KGET reporting, California oil company CEOs described potentially as much as one billion barrels remaining in Kern County’s diatomite formation, where tight rock makes hydraulic fracturing necessary for recovery. That figure represents an industry estimate of potential resources, rather than a court finding or a guarantee of future production.

CIPA supports all responsible recovery methods, including hydraulic fracturing. Permit decisions should rest on sound science, applicable law, and the circumstances of each proposed operation. Producers deserve a transparent process in which applications receive meaningful consideration and environmental safeguards guide responsible development.

The decision remains tentative. Its proposed remedy would vacate the 2024 prohibition and return denied and pending applications to CalGEM for individualized review. It would not compel permit approvals. The court also expressly left unresolved whether CalGEM could adopt a categorical prohibition through a legally sufficient regulation.

For California’s independent producers, the development is encouraging. It offers a potential path back to lawful consideration of an important recovery method while reinforcing the need for evidence and accountability in the State’s permitting decisions.