Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Public permitting, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD: Valero asks Benicia City Council to delay decision on oil train project

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald

Valero asks Benicia council to continue hearing

By Irma Widjojo, 03/16/16, 6:25 PM PDT

Benicia >> Responding to new information revealed by Valero Benicia Refinery, Benicia City Council is set to decide in April if it would wait to make a decision on the refinery’s proposed project.

The council on Tuesday began the appeal hearing on the Planning Commission’s decision on Valero’s proposed crude by rail project.

Going against the city staff’s recommendation, the commission last month unanimously decided to deny certifying the project’s final Environmental Impact Report and deny the use permit application, which would allow the refinery to bring two 50-car trains a day carrying up to 70,000 barrels of North American crude oil.

The company’s oil is now being transported into the city by marine vessels and pipeline.

One of the major factors in the commission’s final decision was the issue of federal preemption.

During Valero’s presentation Tuesday, an attorney that has been working with Valero said the refinery intends to submit a petition to the Surface Transportation Board, or STB, to request for a declarative action regarding preemption in relation to the proposed project.

“The purpose is to get a decision from the STB of preemption as applied to the project,” said the attorney, John Flynn. “It should answer to the most important questions from both sides.”

City staff and Valero said any mitigations on impacts caused by railroad operations are preempted by federal laws, and that the commission is not allowed to deny the project based on railroad impacts.

Railroad operation is regulated by STB, a federal entity.

However, 11 “significant and unavoidable” impacts that were identified in the report are all rail related.

After four long-night meetings and hours of discussion and testimony regarding the issue, the commission unanimously agreed that the issue of preemption was very vague.

“We received letters from regional agencies who repeatedly say that federal preemption was not as broad as the city’s interpretation,” Commission Chair Donald Dean said Tuesday during his presentation. “There was a considerable discussion about how broadly are we interpreting the preemption issue. … It’s murky as best.”

He said the impacts presented in the report not only affect Benicia, but other communities where the trains would pass if the project is approved.

“To me the definition of a community goes beyond the boundaries of the city,” Dean said. “The commission had a conundrum. … (The staff’s finding) we don’t think we can make in good conscience.”

On Feb. 29, Valero filed a letter to appeal the decision.

Tuesday’s meeting was designated for presentations by the staff and Valero, and council’s questions for them. Public comments are set to be received on the next scheduled meeting April 4.

Flynn also said Valero agrees with the staff’s view on preemption.

“Your own attorney clearly and correctly advises the Planning Commission on preemption,” he said. “There was incorrect and highly misleading information by the opponent. The Planning commission unfortunately took the bait.”

Due to the newly revealed intent, Valero asked the council to continue the hearing until STB responded.

At the end of the meeting Tuesday, council agreed to discuss in April if a decision on the project should wait for STB’s response but will continue to receive public comments on the project then.

The rest of the hearing is set for April 4, 16 and 19, if necessary.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Rail Safety, Traffic, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

ABC7 VIDEO: Benicia City Council Considers Valero Refinery’s Plan to Ship Crude Oil by Rail

Repost from ABC7 / KGO News, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose

Benicia City Council Considers Valero Refinery’s Plan to Ship Crude Oil by Rail

By Katie Marzullo, March 16, 2016 11:37AM


BENICIA, Calif. (KGO) — Benicia considered a controversial topic Tuesday night, transporting crude oil by train. Opponents say it’s an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen, but supporters say it’s safe.

Tuesday is the city council’s first pass at hearing Valero’s proposal to move crude oil by rail. The planning commission rejected it last month and Valero appealed. It’s an hours-long process to reintroduce all of the reports council members were still asking questions late into Tuesday night.

The Valero refinery in Benicia already brings crude oil into the facility by pipeline and ship and it wants to add rail. Members of Benicians For a Safe and Healthy Community have been opposed since the beginning.

“Air emission impacts, traffic impacts, as well as the risk of catastrophic explosion here in Benicia that could destroy the economy and estroy the culture of this community for generations to come,” said Andres Sotos, a member of Benicians For a Safe and Healthy Community.

The city might not have a choice. Staff and consultants point to federal laws that don’t allow cities to regulate railroads. But others say Benicia has every right to reject Valero’s proposal.

“I’ve never seen a city, and I’ve been on the city council. I’ve never seen a city give up their permitting power and I think it’s the wrong direction for the city to take,” said Benicia resident Jan Cox Golovich.

Last month, the planning commission unanimously rejected Valero’s plan. Now it’s fate is in the hands of the city council. Valero is optimistic.

“We believe it can be done safely and we’re looking forward to making that case to the city council in our appeal,” said Valero director of health and safety Chris Howe.

Valero wants to move 70,000 barrels of crude oil by rail and rely less on shipping. Public comment on the issue is scheduled for April 4.

Big Oil, Canadian regulation, Climate Change, Climate change denial, Fossil fuels, Greenhouse gas emissions, Renewable energy

Big Oil’s scorched-earth legal approach to climate change

Repost from iPolitics

Big Oil’s scorched-earth legal approach to climate change

By Keith Stewart, March 14, 2016
Alberta oilsands
A highway loops around the southeast end of Mildred Lake at a Syncrude facility as seen from a helicopter tour of the oilsands near Fort McMurray, Alta., on July 10, 2012. Jeff McIntosh, The Canadian Press

I want to believe the oil company CEOs who say they’ve seen the light and now support action on climate change. I really do.

But it’s hard to take them at their word when their lawyers are simultaneously engaged in what one legal scholar has called “the first case in which a party has challenged the constitutional validity of any federal greenhouse gas regulations.”

A consortium of seven oil companies is challenging the right of the federal government to adopt a regulation designed to substitute renewable energy for fossil fuels — in part on the grounds that “that the production and consumption of petroleum fuels is not dangerous and does not pose a risk to human health or safety”, and so, “there is no evil to be suppressed”.

Those words are taken from a 2014 legal ruling against the companies. The judge in that case went on to refute their argument at length: “The evil of global climate change and the apprehension of harm resulting from the enabling of climate change through the combustion of fossil fuels has been widely discussed and debated by leaders on the international stage. Contrary to Syncrude’s submission, this is a real, measured evil, and the harm has been well documented.”

Case closed.

Or maybe not. Syncrude was back in court last November to appeal that ruling.

Few Canadians have heard of Syncrude because it’s a consortium of oil companies that jointly operate three massive tar sands mines. Suncor became Syncrude’s largest shareholder when it bought Canadian Oil Sands earlier this year, but the mines’ day-to-day operations are managed by Imperial Oil, the Canadian subsidiary of ExxonMobil.

It’s no surprise to see Exxon involved in this case; the company has a long history of opposing action on climate change. Exxon is now under investigation in New York and California for publicly claiming that the science of global warming was too murky to warrant policy action by governments — even as the company redesigned its drill rigs and pipelines destined for the Canadian Arctic based on company scientists’ predictions of a warming world. Exxon also was the only major oil player not on stage with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley as she announced the province’s ambitious new climate policy.

Yet it’s surprising to see companies like Suncor — which are trying to rebrand themselves as climate leaders — involved in such legal shenanigans. In his assessment of the original case, University of Calgary law professor Nigel Bankes wrote that this litigation “suggests that at least the sector of big oil represented by the Syncrude interests will fight federal greenhouse gas regulations in all of its forms and that it will fight them hard.

“There was no stone left unturned in this litigation. Counsel for Syncrude pursued every possible avenue, no matter how small the chance of success or creative the argument. Big carbon may be just like big tobacco in protecting its turf.”  — University of Calgary law professor Nigel Bankes

That doesn’t sound like something climate leaders ought to do.

As the largest shareholder, Suncor should tell their colleagues to withdraw this appeal. They should then take the money they were spending on lawyers and use it to map out how their businesses can thrive in a world that has moved beyond fossil fuels.

Keith Stewart is the head of the climate and energy campaign at Greenpeace Canada, and teaches a course on energy policy at the University of Toronto
Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia City Council public comment will be on April 4, 6, 18 and 19

By Roger Straw, February 9, 2016
[Editor:  UPDATE – Note additional hearing date of Monday, April 18. This new date is IN ADDITION TO the previously scheduled hearings.  – RS]

Benicia announces City Council dates for hearings on Valero Crude by Rail appeal

Hearings will begin on March 15 and continue for public comment on April 4, 6, 18 and 19

The Benicia City Council Agenda for March 15 included staff recommendations on Valero’s appeal of the Benicia Planning Commission’s unanimous February 11 decision to deny Valero Crude By Rail.

Staff is recommending that Council begin the hearings on March 15 and continue for public comment on Monday, April 4, Wednesday, April 6, and Tuesday, April 19 if needed.  Note that these dates for public hearings are NOT CONSECUTIVE EVENINGS as was the case in previous hearings.

Staff recommended the Council hear city staff and representatives of Valero on March 15, and then ask questions. UPDATE ON MARCH 11 – The Planning Commission has been granted 15 minutes to present its case at the March 15 City Council meeting. Chair Don Dean will represent the Commission.

Other documents released today include the following:

Written public comments are encouraged now!  Send your thoughts to the City Council by email directed to Amy Million, Principal Planner, Benicia Community Development Department:amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us. You may also send your letter Amy Million by mail to 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510, or by Fax: (707) 747-1637.

And mark your calendar now, so you don’t forget.  Please plan to attend on Tuesday, March 15 for the presentations, and again on Monday, April 4, Wednesday, April 6 and Tuesday, April 19.  All meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chamber, 250 East, L Street, Benicia.

For safe and healthy communities…