Available energy resources

Energy is produced in every state, using nonrenewable sources (e.g., coal, oil, or gas), renewable sources (e.g., hydropower, wind, or solar energy), or both. According to the United States Department of Energy, fossil fuels comprise the majority of the resources used to generate power in the United States. However, not every state has fossil fuel resources; states lacking these resources import these types of fuel. Renewable sources are used to generate power in every state, with hydropower accounting for about half of all renewable energy production in the country, according to the Department of Energy.^[1]

Production

The table below provides information regarding energy production in California in British thermal units (Btu). A British thermal unit is a means of measuring the heat contained in fuels. The United States Department of Energy defines a Btu as "the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit." Fuels are sometimes discussed in terms of Btu to facilitate comparisons between different types of fuels with different energy contents and prices. For context, one gallon of gasoline equals 120,524 Btu.^[2]

Energy production, 2014 (in billion Btu)
State	Biomass	Coal	Crude oil	Nuclear energy	Natural gas	Renewable	Total*
California	25,373	0	1,184,760	177,656	284,953	766,125	2,438,867
Arizona	5,939	173,337	325	338,044	109	123,235	640,989
Nevada	0	0	1,833	0	3	69,304	71,140
Oregon	5,844	0	0	0	974	478,961	485,779
U.S. average	38,759	404,181	307,301	160,980	585,731	187,132	1,684,085
*Total figures were computed by Ballotpedia by adding up the other production columns for each state. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Google Sheets API"

Nonrenewable energy production

The table below provides information regarding nonrenewable energy production in California. For coal data, the phrase productive capacity refers to the maximum amount of coal that could be expected to be produced in 2014. The natural gas and crude oil production data refer to the amounts of natural gas and crude oil produced in December 2014 and April 2016, respectively.^[3][4]

Nonrenewable energy production
State	Coal, productive capacity (short tons)	Natural gas (million cubic feet)	Crude oil (thousand barrels)
Date	2014	December 2014	April 2016
California	0	21,085	15,676
Arizona	8,500,000	12	0
Nevada	0	0	26
Oregon	0	80	0
U.S. average	24,874,314	43,350	4,388
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Google Sheets API"

Oil and gas extraction

Private lands

The graph and table below provide information about crude oil production in California. Information from select surrounding states is provided for comparative purposes.^[5]

Crude oil production in California and adjacent states, in thousand barrels
State	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	Percent of total 2014 production	2014 Rank
California	240,138	229,291	223,378	218,456	214,465	206,976	201,241	194,194	197,211	198,928	204,269	6.42%	3
New Mexico	64,517	60,964	59,454	59,180	60,143	61,143	65,377	71,286	85,218	101,373	123,623	3.89%	6
Nevada	463	447	426	408	436	438	426	408	368	334	316	0.01%	28
Oregon	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%	N/A
United States	1,991,394	1,891,227	1,857,044	1,853,166	1,830,002	1,952,670	2,000,861	2,060,398	2,377,806	2,722,171	3,180,813	--	--
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Crude Oil Production" Note: The data above are field production data.

The graph and table below provide information about natural gas production in California. Information from select surrounding states is provided for comparative purposes.^[6]

Natural gas production in California and adjacent states, in million cubic feet (MMCF)
State	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	Percent of total 2013 production	2013 rank
California	375,306	355,793	358,729	355,946	346,678	340,048	312,315	325,445	284,293	251,873	257,780	0.86%	16
New Mexico	1,616,179	1,644,738	1,656,850	1,619,528	1,555,450	1,487,123	1,425,222	1,341,475	1,287,682	1,276,296	1,271,185	4.24%	8
Nevada	6	5	5	5	5	4	4	4	3	4	3	0.0%	32
Oregon	731	467	454	621	409	778	821	1,407	1,344	770	770	0.0%	29
United States	24,118,978	23,969,678	23,456,822	23,535,018	24,663,656	25,636,257	26,056,893	26,816,085	28,479,026	29,542,313	30,005,254	--	--
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production" The data presented above are gross withdrawals in million cubic feet (MMCF). Production data for 2014 were estimated for some, but not all, states; "--" indicates data were not available.

Coalbed methane, a type of methane that is similar to natural gas, was produced in 12 states from 2003 to 2013. California was not one of these states.^[7][8]

Shale gas, natural gas found in shale plays, was produced in 14 states from 2007 to 2013. Shale gas was not produced in California from 2007 to 2013.^[9][10]

Wells

The bar graph and table present information about the number of crude oil wells in California. Information from select surrounding states is provided for comparative purposes.^[11]

Crude oil wells in California and adjacent states
State	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Percent of total 2009 wells
California	44,255	44,416	44,535	44,702	44,933	45,885	47,186	47,880	49,440	49,153	13.65%
New Mexico	14,170	14,628	14,625	14,749	14,902	15,008	15,454	15,706	16,322	16,498	4.58%
Nevada	74	73	74	73	71	72	69	72	73	70	0.02%
Oregon	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
United States	355,077	354,544	350,529	347,138	346,466	347,028	353,328	354,667	365,459	360,074	N/A
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Distribution and Production of Oil and Gas Wells by State" "--" indicates data were not available.

The bar graph and table below present information about the number of producing natural gas wells in California. Information from select surrounding states is provided for comparative purposes.^[12]

Producing natural gas wells in California and adjacent states
State	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	Percent of total 2013 wells
California	1,249	1,272	1,356	1,451	1,540	1,645	1,643	1,580	1,308	1,423	1,346	0.28%
New Mexico	37,100	38,574	40,157	41,634	42,644	44,241	44,784	44,748	32,302	28,206	27,957	5.74%
Nevada	4	4	4	4	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
Oregon	15	15	15	14	18	21	24	26	24	27	28	0.01%
United States	393,327	406,147	425,887	440,516	452,945	476,652	493,100	487,627	514,637	482,822	487,286	--
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Number of Producing Gas Wells" These well counts include gas and gas condensate wells that were producing natural gas; "--" indicates data were not available.

Injection wells

Injection wells are used to store fluid or other substances (e.g., carbon dioxide) under the earth. There are a variety of injection well types, some of which are shallow and are used to store water and non-hazardous liquids. Class II wells are used to store salt water and other fluids produced during the oil and gas extraction process. In 2011, 32 states had Class II injection wells. The table below provides information about injection wells in California and select surrounding states. The map in this section displays the distribution of injection wells in each state that has Class II injection wells.^[13][14][15]

Class II injection wells in California and adjacent states, in 2011
State	Class II injection wells	Percent of total Class II injection wells
California	47,624	28.33%
New Mexico	4,616	2.75%
Nevada	18	0.01%
Oregon	8	0.0%
United States	168,089	--
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "UIC Inventory by State - 2011"

Injection wells by state, 2011 A darker color indicates a greater number of wells; scroll over a state to see the number of wells it had in 2011.

Economic impact

Taxes, fees and revenue

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, oil and gas booms (including fracking booms) can increase local government revenues through increases in property and sales tax collections. Federal and state governments collect revenues through mineral leasing and severance taxes. Mineral leasing revenues are generated by those who lease their property to oil and gas developers. Severance taxes are intended to compensate present and future citizens of the state from which natural resources are extracted ("severed") for the loss of those natural resources.^[16][17]

The pie charts below compare oil and gas severance taxes in California to the United States average. The table below the charts presents tax revenue data for California and select surrounding states. This information comes from the United States Census Bureau.^[18]

California state tax revenue by source, 2014

U.S. average state tax revenue by source, 2014

Severance and other taxes collected in California and adjacent states, fiscal year 2014 in thousands of dollars
State	Severance taxes	Percent severance tax of total revenue	General sales and gross receipts taxes	Individual income taxes	Corporation net income taxes	Documentary and stock transfer taxes	Total
California	$38,686	0.03%	$37,224,077	$67,995,659	$8,858,498	$0	$114,116,920
New Mexico	$1,066,343	22.84%	$2,098,676	$1,297,493	$205,702	$0	$4,668,214
Nevada	$111,395	2.78%	$3,828,869	N/A	N/A	$64,712	$4,004,976
Oregon	$23,424	0.33%	N/A	$6,649,418	$495,134	$3,114	$7,171,090
United States	$17,778,758	2.72%	$271,956,649	$310,956,374	$46,275,970	$6,823,581	$653,791,332
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "State Government Tax Collections Summary Report: 2014, Table A-1" "--" indicates data were not available.

Economic impact studies

The studies below estimate the economic impact of the oil and natural gas industry (also categorized as the mining industry in some studies) in California and across the United States. The author(s) and sponsor(s) of each study have been listed.

Study for the American Petroleum Institute

Economic modeling

IMPLAN and REMI are two econometric modeling systems used in both the private and public sectors to predict economic outcomes of policy changes. Their results are theoretical and may not be universally accepted. Click here for more information IMPLAN, or the "IMpact analysis for PLANning" system, came about in response to the Rural Development Act of 1972. It was designed as an economic impact modeling system under the direction of the U.S. Forest Service and later in partnership with the University of Minnesota. It has been used since 1976 to predict the economic impact of many types of proposed policy changes. IMPLAN modeling is used by the Federal Reserve Bank, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.[19] REMI, or Regional Economic Models, Inc., was founded in 1980 and models potential economic impacts of policy reforms in areas such as energy, environment, taxation, transportation, and immigration. It is used by nonprofits, such as the National Education Association, and state government agencies, such as the Florida Legislature.[20][21]

Economists use forecasting models, such as IMPLAN and REMI, to predict the impact increased fossil fuel extraction has on the economy. These studies measure both direct impacts (the jobs and income being added within the oil and gas industry) and indirect impacts (jobs created throughout the supply chain). These studies also address induced impact (jobs created through the increased spending that results from industry growth).^[22]

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), a research consulting firm, completed a study for the American Petroleum Institute about the economic impact of the oil and natural gas industry in 2011 in California. According to the PwC study, the oil and gas industry added $131.45 billion in total value in California in 2011, including direct, indirect, and induced value. Of this total, $69.47 billion was direct, $27.79 billion was indirect, and $34.19 billion was induced.^[22]

Employment

The PwC study attributed 793,210 jobs, or 4.1 percent of California's total employment in 2011, to jobs created directly or indirectly by, or induced from, the oil and natural gas industry. The industry directly employed 182,777 people. Indirectly, the industry employed 235,546 people. There were 374,887 induced jobs.^[22]

Direct, indirect, and induced labor income, according to this study, totaled $58.88 billion, comprising 4.9 percent of the state's total labor income in 2011. Direct labor income from the mining sector totaled $21.73 billion. Indirect labor income totaled $17.16 billion. Induced labor income equaled almost $20 billion.^[22]

Study by the Congressional Budget Office

In December 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is responsible for nonpartisan analysis for Congress, published a study on the economic and budgetary effects of increased oil and natural gas production. The study estimated that without the increase in oil and gas production, natural gas and oil prices would be 70 percent and 5 percent higher, respectively. The CBO also predicted that due to increased oil and gas production, gross domestic product (GDP) would be 1 percent higher in 2040. The growth in fracking would also, according to the study, contribute $43 billion in federal taxes by 2040 and $300 million annually in federal royalties by 2040.^[24][25]

Environmental impact

See also: Oil and natural gas pollution

Because of the sudden and unprecedented growth in fracking across the United States, getting high-quality, unbiased, state-specific information on the environmental impacts of fracking is difficult. Most studies that fit those first two qualifications are government studies that focus on the nation as a whole. As such, much of the information that follows in this section may only apply generally to the state. State-specific information has been added where possible. If you would like to nominate another study for inclusion on this page, please send an email to [email protected].

Air impacts

See also: Air pollution

As with any type of energy extraction, there are steps throughout the extraction process during which air pollution can occur. In the case of fracking, air pollution can occur when oil or natural gas is extracted, transported, or distributed. There are different types of pollutants that can be released, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), particulate matter, and methane. For example, methane can potentially leak as oil and natural gas wells are drilled, resulting in pollution. Fracking operations can also emit known carcinogens, which have been linked to increased rates of cancer.^{[26][27][28][29]}

Emissions

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in a July 2015 report that, on average, 1,672 pounds of carbon dioxide, 12 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and four pounds of nitrogen oxide are emitted per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced from burning oil. Natural gas-fired energy generation emits 1,135 pounds of carbon dioxide per MWh of electricity, 0.1 pounds of sulfur dioxide per MWh, and 1.7 pounds of nitrogen oxide per MWh.^[30][31]

Earthquakes

See also: Seismicity

Differences betwee wastewater, produced water, and flowback

The terms wastewater, produced water, and flowback are used interchangeably, but all three refer to different types of water. Click here for more information The contaminated water that is stored in injection wells is called wastewater; it includes both produced water and flowback. Produced water is the salt water that has been under the earth for millions of years and is released when extracting oil or natural gas. Flowback is the fluid that was used when extracting crude oil or natural gas. This fluid returns to the earth's surface along with the oil or natural gas that is extracted. Most of the wastewater that is produced during the fracking process is produced water.[32][33]

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), "the number of earthquakes has increased ... over the past few years within the central and eastern United States. Nearly 450 earthquakes magnitude 3.0 and larger occurred in the four years from 2010 to 2013, over 100 per year on average, compared with an average rate of 20 earthquakes per year observed from 1970 to 2000." Regarding the possible link between fracking and the increased frequency of earthquakes in the eastern and central United States, the USGS made the following observation:^[34][35]

“	Many questions have been raised about whether hydraulic fracturing — commonly known as 'fracking'— is responsible for the recent increase of earthquakes. USGS’s studies suggest that the actual hydraulic fracturing process is only very rarely the direct cause of felt earthquakes. While hydraulic fracturing works by making thousands of extremely small 'microearthquakes,' they are, with just a few exceptions, too small to be felt; none have been large enough to cause structural damage.[36]	”
—U.S. Geological Survey

According to the USGS, "scientists have found that at some locations the increase in seismicity coincides with the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells. Much of this wastewater is a byproduct of oil and gas production and is routinely disposed of by injection into wells specifically designed for this purpose." Once a well has been fracked, water returns to the earth's surface; this water contains salt and other contaminants. Some of this water can be recycled, but the water that cannot be recycled is often stored in injection wells. According to NPR, injection wells are generally considered the safest and most cost-effective place for wastewater to be stored. Injection wells are located thousands of feet underground and are encased in cement. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that, as of 2011, there were 144,000 injection wells across the United States receiving 2 billion gallons of frack fluid per day. According to the EPA, California had 47,624 injection well(s) in 2011, 28.33 percent of all such wells across the country.^{[34][37][38][39][37]}

Water impacts

See also: Water pollution

2016 EPA study on fracking

See also: The EPA study on fracking and drinking water resources (2016)

On December 13, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final report requested by Congress in 2010 on the impact of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on drinking water resources. The EPA report stated that there was "scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources in the United States under some circumstances." An earlier draft version of the report, released in June 2015, concluded that fracking had not resulted in any widespread or systemic impact on drinking water quality. That conclusion was deleted in the report's final version. Instead, according to Tom Burke, EPA Deputy Administrator, "We [the EPA] found scientific evidence of impacts to drinking water resources at each stage of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle."^[40] According to the report, the agency based its study on 1,200 scientific sources, peer review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board, and input from federal, state, local, tribal, and industry officials.^[41][42] However, the EPA acknowledged that its findings were limited in scope, reporting that "uncertainties and data gaps limited the EPA's ability to fully assess impacts to drinking water resources both locally and nationally."

The December 2016 report is a finalized version of an interim report issued by the EPA in 2015. To read more about the interim report, see this article.

Findings

The EPA concluded that, in some circumstances, poorly constructed drilling wells and incorrect wastewater management affected drinking water resources, particularly near drilling sites. According to the report, effects on drinking water "ranged in severity, from temporary changes in water quality to contamination that made private drinking wells unusable." Instances where drinking water resources were more vulnerable included the following:

“	Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources; Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources; Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.[36]	”
—Environmental Protection Agency[41]

The report focused on the potential impact on water sources during five stages of the fracking process:^[41][42]

• The acquisition of water to be used for fracking
• The mixing of chemical additives and water to make fracking fluids
• The injection of fracking fluids into a production well to create and enlarge fractures in the targeted production zone.
• The collection of wastewater that returns through a well after the injection of fracking fluids
• The management of wastewater through disposal or reuse.

Reactions

• The American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents the oil and natural gas industry, criticized the EPA report as misleading. "It is beyond absurd for the administration to reverse course on its way out the door. The agency has walked away from nearly a thousand sources of information from published papers, technical reports, and peer-reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that industry practices, industry trends, and regulatory programs protect water resources at every step of the hydraulic fracturing process. Decisions like this amplify the public's frustrations with Washington," said API Upstream Director Erik Milito. Milito further stated, "Fortunately, the science and data clearly demonstrate that hydraulic fracturing does not lead to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources. Unfortunately, consumers have witnessed five years and millions of dollars expended only to see a conclusion based in science changed to a conclusion based in political ambiguity."^[43]

• Energy in Depth, a website established by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, an oil and gas industry group, endorsed the EPA's conclusion, which it argues reinforces its view that there is no systematic impact from fracking, but also criticized the EPA's role in the report. A spokesperson for the website said, "EPA’s report blows apart the anti-fracking campaign’s most common claim, namely that hydraulic fracturing is polluting groundwater all across America" but that the "EPA did its best to inject politics into this good news by inflating concerns about groundwater, no doubt as a parting thank-you gift to the ‘Keep It In the Ground’ movement." The Keep It In the Ground movement refers to a collection of individuals, legislators, and organizations that oppose future oil and natural gas drilling.^[40][44]

• Food and Water Watch, an environmental group that opposes fracking, said the report confirmed its view that fracking contaminates drinking water. According to Wenonah Hauter, the group's executive director, "The EPA has confirmed what we’ve known all along: fracking can and does contaminate drinking water. We are pleased that the agency has acted on the recommendations of its Science Advisory Board and chosen [sic] be frank about the inherent harms and hazards of fracking. Today the Obama administration has rightly prioritized facts and science, and put public health and environmental protection over the profit-driven interests of the oil and gas industry."^[45]

• The Sierra Club, an environmental group that opposes fracking, said the report confirmed its view that fracking negatively affects drinking water. According to the group's official statement, "The Sierra Club applauds the EPA for its science-based fracking report, confirming what so many already knew; fracking presents a clear and present threat to our water, our public health, and our communities. For far too long, communities around the country have faced the daily threat of contaminated water, earthquakes, and an uncertain future due to fracking, all while oil and gas companies peddled the false claim that the process was safe. Today’s report ends this charade. No longer will families be told a lie as their health and safety are threatened."^[46]

2015 Duke University study

A September 2015 study from researchers at Duke University found that fracking operations used 250 billion gallons of water from 2005 to 2014, which accounted for less than 1 percent of all water use nationwide. During that time, fracking also produced 210 billion gallons of wastewater. The study also found that "compared to other energy extraction methods, fracking is less water-intensive in the long run" because less water is used for each unit of energy that is produced. This study was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Duke University Energy Initiative.^[47][48][49]

Water use in California

There is limited information available about the amounts of water used to frack in each state. The graphs and table below present information about estimated water use in the mining sector as of 2010. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines mining as "quarrying, milling of mined materials, injection of water for secondary oil recovery or for unconventional oil and gas recovery (such as hydraulic fracturing), and other operations associated with mining activities." As such, not all of the water use detailed below can be attributed to fracking operations. According to the USGS, the mining sector accounted for the largest increase in water use from 2005 to 2010.^[50]

Water use in California, 2010

Average water use in the United States, 2010

Water used for mining in California and adjacent states, 2010 estimates in thousand acre feet
State	Fresh water	Saline water	Total water used for mining	Total fresh water used	Percent fresh water used	Total saline water used	Percent saline water used	Total water used for all categories	Percent of total used for mining
California	41	265	306	34,900	0.12%	7690	3.45%	42,600	0.72%
New Mexico	42	0	42	3,540	1.18%	0	0.0%	3,540	1.18%
Nevada	387	1	388	2,930	13.21%	13	7.91%	2,940	13.20%
Oregon	10	0	10	7,550	0.13%	0	0.0%	7,550	0.13%
United States	2,519	3,446	5,964	342,473	0.74%	51,489	6.69%	393,953	1.51%
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, "Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010"

In 2014, SB 1281 became law, requiring oil and gas producers in the state to file quarterly water use reports beginning in 2015. The Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources released the first summary of these reports in August 2015. The report, which accounted for the water used by almost 60 percent of all oil and gas operators in the state at the time (242 operators), found that the oil and gas industry consumed 69,000 acre feet of water in the first quarter of 2015; of this total, 41,402 acre feet were used for hydraulically fracturing wells.^{[51][52][53][54]}

Recent legislation

The following is a list of recent fracking policy bills that have been introduced in or passed by the California state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, then no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California fracking. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles; they are included to provide readers with the most recent news articles on the subject. Click here to learn more about this section.

Energy in the 50 states

Click on a state below to read more about energy in that state.

See also

• 

  Energy policy in the United States

• 

  Fracking in the United States

• 

  Environmental policy in the United States

Footnotes

v • e Energy Policy Background Energy policy in the United States • Fracking in the United States • Energy use in the United States • Electricity prices in the United States • Historic state electricity prices • Historic state natural gas prices • State energy production rankings • Environmental Policy • State environmental policy pages • Environmental policy in the United States • Energy and Environmental News Terms Abandoned mine drainage • Biofuels • Biomass • BTEX • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Coal • Coalbed methane • Compressed natural gas • Crude oil • Directional drilling • Directional well • Electrical grid • Energy siting • Ethanol • Flare • Flowback • Frac sand • Frack fluid • Fracking • Geosteering • Geothermal energy • Horizontal drilling • Hydrocarbons • Hydroelectric energy • Liquid Petroleum Gases • Megawatt • Megawatt hour • Methane • Mineral rights • Natural gas • Natural gas liquids • Natural gas storage • Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials • Nuclear power • Oil shale • Petrochemicals • Petroleum • Petroleum systems • Produced water • Proppants • Public Trust Doctrine • Renewable energy resources • Renewable Portfolio Standards • Seismicity • Shale gas • Shale play • Slick water frac • Slurry • Solar energy • Traditional energy resources • Vertical drilling • Volatile organic compounds • Wellbore • Wind energy State energy information Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming State fracking policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

This article is curated by the Public Policy Desk: Jerrick Adams • Sarah Groat • Taylor Kempema • Adam Vaughn Contact the desk

Public lands

See also: Oil and natural gas extraction on federal land

The federal government leases its land to private individuals and companies for energy development; this includes crude oil and natural gas drilling, solar energy development, and geothermal energy development. Approximately 166 million acres of federal land were available to be leased for energy development as of December 2014. The United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the federal agency chiefly responsible for regulating oil and gas drilling on public lands in the United States.^[1][2]

The table below provides information about oil and natural gas production on federal lands in California in 2014. Information from select surrounding states is provided for comparison.^[3][4]

Oil and natural gas production on federal land, 2014
State	Oil production (in thousands of barrels)	Natural gas production (in million cubic feet)
California	14,967	7,077
Arizona	0	0
Nevada	314	0
Oregon	0	0
U.S. average	2,976.06	49,996.92
Source: Office of Natural Resource Revenue, "Statistical Information"

Land leased

Private oil and natural gas companies can apply for leases from the BLM to develop energy resources on federal lands. If a lease is approved, the company must submit information to the BLM about how it will conduct its drilling and production operations. The BLM also inspects a company’s operations throughout the production period.^[5]

The table below provides information about oil and gas producing leases and acres on federal lands in California from 2013 to 2015. Information from select surrounding states is provided for comparison.

Oil and gas producing leases and acres on federal land, 2013-2015
State	FY 2015		FY 2014		FY 2013
	Producing leases	Producing acres	Producing leases	Producing acres	Producing leases	Producing acres
California	320	82,736	323	82,697	325	82,736
Arizona	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nevada	36	21,637	32	22,077	31	21,637
Oregon	0	0	0	0	0	0
U.S. average	485	257,505	483	258,996	480	262,870
Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Oil and Gas Statistics"