Sacramento: Oil firms challenge state over clean fuel

Repost from SFGate

Clean fuels shaping up as fight of the year in Sacramento

New battle lines drawn in fight over low-carbon policy
By Laurel Rosenhall, CALmatters, Mar 5, 2016 Updated: 3/6/16 3:33pm
A pending fight over low-carbon fuel standards could hinge on how they affect the state’s cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. Photo: Ted S. Warren, AP
A pending fight over low-carbon fuel standards could hinge on how they affect the state’s cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. Photo: Ted S. Warren, AP

A Harvard economist known globally for his work on climate change policy sat in the Sacramento office of the oil industry’s lobbying firm recently, making the case that California is fighting global warming the wrong way.

The state has a good cap and trade system, Robert Stavins said, but some of its other environmental policies are weakening it. He pointed to a rule known as the low carbon fuel standard, which is supposed to increase production of clean fuels.

Environmental advocates consider it a complement to the cap and trade program that makes industry pay for emitting carbon; Stavins had other words.

“It’s contradictory. It’s counter-productive. It’s perverse,” he said. “I would recommend eliminating it.”

California’s low carbon fuel policy is shaping up as a major fight this year for the state’s oil industry, an influential behemoth that spent more than $10.9 million lobbying Sacramento last year, more than any other interest group.

“There’s a storm coming,” biofuels lobbyist Chris Hessler told a roomful of clean energy advocates at a recent conference on low carbon fuels. “If we don’t meet this attack vigorously, we’re all going to be in a lot of trouble.”

NEW BATTLE LINES

The oil industry was front and center in the biggest fight to hit the state Capitol last year: a proposal to cut California’s petroleum consumption in half over the next 15 years to slow the pace of climate change. The industry won its battle when lawmakers stripped the oil provision from Senate Bill 350.

But California’s larger oil war is far from over, and the newest battle lines are beginning to emerge.

Gov. Jerry Brown is plowing ahead with plans to cut vehicle oil use in half through executive orders and regulations like the low carbon fuel standard. The standard requires producers to cut the carbon intensity of their fuels 10 percent by 2020. To reach the standard, refineries will have to make a blend that uses more alternative fuels — like ethanol — and less oil.

The program was adopted in 2009 but was locked in a court battle for years. California regulators prevailed, and took action last year to resume the program. Now producers must start changing the way they formulate their fuel or buy credits if their product is over the limit.

That’s led to higher costs for fuel makers, which they are passing on to consumers at a rate of about 4 cents per gallon, according to the California Energy Commission. But the price is likely to keep increasing, the oil industry warns, as it gets tougher to meet the standard that increases over time.

Which is where Stavins’ argument comes in. It goes like this: the cleaner fuels required by the low carbon fuel standard will emit less greenhouse gas. That will reduce the need for fuel producers to buy permits in the cap and trade system (which makes industry pay for emitting climate-warming pollution) and create additional emissions by allowing other manufacturers to buy the pollution permits.

Less demand will also depress prices on the cap and trade market.

Stavins is the director of Harvard’s Environmental Economics Program and part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a prestigious group of experts who review research for the United Nations.

He’s also an advisor to the Western States Petroleum Association, which paid him to make the trip to Sacramento, where he talked with reporters before a day of meetings with lawmakers and business leaders.

Environmental advocates and California clean air regulators reject his view. They say the fuel standard works in harmony with other carbon-reducing programs and it’s an important piece of California’s effort to achieve its climate change goals.

“One of the major goals of the low carbon fuel standard… is to drive innovation of new and alternative low carbon fuels,” said Stanley Young, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board. “The cap and trade program on its own cannot do that.”

Alternative fuel producers gathered in a ballroom near the Capitol days after Stavins’ visit to Sacramento. During a presentation on the rising price of low carbon fuel credits, Hessler, the biofuels lobbyist, warned that the program is coming under “political attack.”

He defended the fuel standard by saying the regulation limits the price of the credits, and the cost to consumers will be kept down as some fuel producers make money by selling credits to others. He urged conference participants to share his information with California policymakers to counter opposition to the low carbon fuel standard.

“We’ve got to be ready for this,” Hessler said.

HOW THINGS COULD GO DOWN

A fight last year over a low carbon fuel standard in the state of Washington may provide some clues about how things could go down here.

There, Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee proposed a low carbon fuel standard but failed to earn enough support for it in the Legislature. The fuel standard became a bargaining chip for Republicans in negotiations about funding for transportation infrastructure.

Here in California, lawmakers and Gov. Brown are also negotiating a plan to pay for a backlog of repairs to state roads and highways. Brown has pitched spending $36 billion over the next decade with a mix of taxes and other revenue sources.

Republican votes are necessary to reach the two-thirds threshold for approving new taxes. So far, Republicans have balked at the plan, with some suggesting that the fuel standard should be included in the negotiations.

“As we’re having the discussions about transportation funding in general in California, and transportation taxes in particular, this ought to be part of the discussion,” said Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia.

It’s a message echoed by the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, which advocated against the low carbon fuel standard in Washington.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd said she wants California lawmakers to “take a very hard look” at the low carbon fuel standard as they consider the future of climate change policies and the desire to repair the state’s roads.

“All those things interplay,” Reheis-Boyd said. “That’s a big conversation. I think people across the state are willing to have it, and I think we’re at a pivotal point to have it this year.”

CALmatters is a nonprofit journalism venture dedicated to explaining state policies and politics. For more news analysis by Laurel Rosenhall go to https://calmatters.org/newsanalysis/.

Explosion rocks refinery in Texas, injuring one

Repost from ABC13 KTRK-TV, Houston TX

Explosion rocks refinery in Pasadena, injuring one

By Deborah Wrigley, Saturday, March 05, 2016 11:06PM


PASADENA, TX (KTRK) — One person was burned after an explosion at a Pasadena refinery Saturday morning.

Officials at Pasadena Refining Systems, Inc., say the fire began around 10:15am at their refinery off SH 225 and Lawndale Street.

The victim suffered burns to his hands.

Residents in the area told abc13 they felt a powerful blast right before flames began to rise from the plant.

A spokesperson says it all started with an issue involving a compressor. A fire quickly broke out, with burning diesel fuel sending huge plumes of black smoke into the air.

The refinery has their own firefighters, who were able to put out the blaze. Pasadena Police and fire are on standby to assist. The fire was able to be contained and air monitoring indicated no issues.

Drivers and bystanders tell Eyewitness News they could see the smoke miles away from the site of the fire.

The Washburn tunnel was closed by authorities after the explosion.

Viewer photo from the explosion at Pasadena Refining System off SH 225
Viewer photo from the explosion at Pasadena Refining System off SH 225.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the plant has a history of ‘significant violations’ of the U.S. Clean Air Act, and was assessed $1,143,000 in fines because of these violations.

A complaint was filed against the company for failure to follow regulations in connection with the storage of a motor vehicle and engine fuels. The company also paid $2,000 in fines for this in August 2014.

The plant is known to store several chemicals, including Ammonia, Benzene, Ethylene, Hydrogen Cyanide, N-Hexane, Propylene, and Sulfuric Acid.

According to the EPA, there are 20,901 households in the area around the plant, and 24,484 children also live in the area.

Berkeley report finds overwhelming opposition to project that would bring crude-by-rail through Bay Area cities

Repost from the Contra Costa Times

Report finds overwhelming opposition to project that would bring crude-by-rail through Bay Area cities

By Tom Lochner, 03/04/2016 04:44:34 AM PST

Berkeley report on SLO hearingsBERKELEY — A crude-by-rail project in Central California that could bring up to five trains a week through Berkeley and other East Bay shoreline cities has garnered overwhelming opposition among local politicians and the public, an observer for the city reports.

Ray Yep, a member of the Public Works Commission working with Councilwoman Linda Maio, represented Berkeley at hearings before the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission last month on the Phillips 66 Rail Spur Project. The proposal calls for bringing out-of-state crude oil, likely the tar sands variety, to the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery via 80-car trains, via a 1.3-mile spur that would connect the refinery with the Union Pacific mainline.

Possible access routes to the refinery from outside the area would be from the south via the Los Angeles Basin, and from the north via the East Bay and South Bay along Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor tracks.

As early as 2014, the Berkeley and Richmond city councils voted to oppose the transport of crude oil through the East Bay.

Hearings were held Feb. 4 and 5, with at least one more hearing before the planning commission votes on the project. The next hearing is 9 a.m. March 11.

At the Feb. 4 hearing, the county staff gave a presentation, ending with a recommendation to deny the project. A county attorney followed with a discussion of federal pre-emption, characterizing it as a “gray area,” according to the Berkeley report.

Phillips 66 has challenged the county’s standing to evaluate Union Pacific mainline issues — including possible effects on the communities it traverses. In an ensuing presentation, the company held that mainline issues fall under federal regulations, the Berkeley report noted.

Phillips 66 said the rail spur project is needed because of declining of oil production in California, and that it would keep the refinery in operation and provide local jobs and taxes, according to the Berkeley report. The company declared willingness to reduce the volume of trains to three per week, which critics have derided as a tactic to facilitate approval without addressing the danger of fire, explosion and pollution.

Without approval of the rail spur project, 100 trucks would transport crude oil daily from Kern County to the Santa Maria refinery, according to the report.

About 300 people submitted speaker cards at the Feb. 4 hearing and 69 spoke that day, from as far away as Crockett, Davis and Sacramento, according to the Berkeley report. Some 430 speaker cards were submitted at the Feb. 5 hearing.

The report noted that 17 elected officials spoke, all but one against the project.

Maio is expected to present the report to the City Council on Tuesday. It is available online at bit.ly/1QsQL6w.

Valero appeal letter: blatantly false opening statement

By Roger Straw, March 4, 2016

Valero appeal letter: blatantly false opening statement

2015-06-21 RDS Guerneville indoors (edited, soft, noexit whiteout 350px bdr)Every time there’s an oil train derailment, and especially when that oil train erupts in shocking balls of fire, the tv reporters run to capture video, bloggers like me post a week’s worth of stories on the catastrophic explosions, and the public gathers in City Park to say “no more, not here.”

Imagine how many hidden stories go unnoticed and unreported every day when our air is polluted. Imagine how many videos are impossible, untaken, unwatched of children with asthma. How many dead fish, how many forests destroyed, how many cancer victims along the rails and in oil production communities and refinery towns.

Every day that extreme North American crude is produced, transported and refined, MORE toxic emissions pollute mother earth and enter into our bodies and the bodies of land on which we live.

My blog, the Benicia Independent, may seem to focus primarily on the extreme safety hazards of these dangerous oil trains. Shocked by news of the many horrific oil train accidents, I have taken to scanning the national news every day for stories on train derailments, discussions of safety regulations and other news relating to hazardous material transport. But I have also faithfully posted Valero’s project documents, Benicia’s studies and staff recommendations, and the massive outpouring of citizen and expert comments critical of Valero’s proposal, comments based on a wide range of health and safety issues.

This week, Valero’s attorney submitted a letter appealing the unanimous decision of Benicia’s Planning Commission. With the backing of Benicia’s staff, Valero wants our City Council to review and dismiss the authoritative deliberations of our Planning Commission and the Commission’s decision to deny the project.

Valero’s appeal letter opens with a flat-out falsehood. It states, “All of the public discussion about the Project has focused on the impacts of rail operations….”

Valero wants to characterize opponents of the project as ONLY concerned about safety, and uninterested in any environmental and health impacts related to Valero’s proposal.

But from the very beginning in 2013, Benicia citizens submitted comments easily accessible as part of the official public record documenting scientific expert analyses that raise serious concerns about toxic emissions during transport, offloading, storage and refining of sweet light crude (Bakken) and ultra-heavy diluted bitumen (tar sands). Benicia’s Good Neighbor Steering Committee, and later, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) specifically critiqued the environmental impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed new facility here in Benicia.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, California’s Attorney General, experts Dr. Phyllis Fox and Dr. Petra Pless, the Goodman Group, SAFER California, regional governmental staff and electeds, and many other knowledgeable commenters have joined with local opponents in raising extensive and detailed warnings about the environmental consequences of 1) building and operating the offloading rack, 2) positioning it in the heart of our Industrial Park so near Sulfur Springs and Valero’s existing storage tanks, and 3) refining extreme North American crude oil.

Concerns have been raised repeatedly regarding the “fugitive emissions” escaping during transport on rail cars in and out of the refinery, and especially during the daily repetition of opening and closing valves on 100 train cars in the proposed offloading rack (as compared to many fewer openings and closings of valves for a marine delivery of crude).

Commenters have documented asthma and cancer concerns. We have submitted letters, studied lengthy analyses, and spoken out at hearings in 2013, 2014, 2015 and again last month.

Valero would like not to have heard us.

Our Planning Commission was listening. I hope that our City Council is deep into the 25-inch stack of documents, with ears and eyes open. We (and our Planning Commissioners) should NOT have been mischaracterized and demeaned by Valero’s attorney.

Someone described the harsh and untruthful Valero appeal letter as a “scorched earth” approach. It seems that Valero would like to frighten our City Council members into voting in favor of the project in order to avoid facing a lawsuit by the huge corporation.

The Council will be called upon for courage to do the right thing, regardless of the threats and misleading statements of the project proponent.

All of the public’s comments on health and safety can be found on the City’s website, or at BeniciaIndependent.com/project-review/. Valero’s appeal letter can be found here.