Tag Archives: Center for Biological Diversity

Judge halts major Bay Area refinery project for state environmental review

The Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery in Rodeo. | Photo By Dreamyshade, Wikimedia Creative Commons.

Phillips 66 cannot begin operations at a new California biofuel refinery until Contra Costa County fixes flaws in an environmental analysis of the project.

MARTINEZ, Calif. (CN) — Phillips 66 must halt a plan to start operating a new biofuel refinery in Rodeo, California, after a San Francisco Bay Area judge said the county that approved it must fix legal issues with the project’s environmental report card.

Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Edward Weil ordered Phillips 66 to put on hold what would be one of the world’s largest biofuel refineries, to produce some 800 million gallons of biofuel products per year. The county must show that the project fully complies with environmental review requirements which he found had been violated when authorities first approved it.

Petitioners Communities for a Better Environment and the Center for Biological Diversity asked Weil to vacate his prior judgment and prohibit operations while the county works on the known legal flaws in its environmental analysis of the project. They said Weil’s prior judgment allowed the project’s land use permit to remain in place and failed to enjoin operations while the county proved its compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act — the state’s bedrock environmental protection and community right-to-know law.

The judge said in a tentative order that his prior judgment’s purpose was to allow for construction, not operations, while environmental legal issues are considered. He said that he must consider whether there is any conflict between the statement of decision and the judgment.

“There is, however, a potential conflict between the statement of decision and the judgment because the court allowed the land use permit to remain in place but did not specifically enjoin project operations,” Weil said. “Therefore, the court grants petitioners’ motion to vacate the judgment and to issue a new judgment that specifically enjoins project operations until further order of the court.”

Weil ruled from the bench Thursday to execute the tentative order as his official judgment.

Attorney Kurtis Keller, representing Contra Costa County, declined to comment on the ruling Thursday.

Hollin Kretzmann, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, lauded Weil’s decision. She noted that construction on the refinery can continue.

“Counties are required to evaluate, disclose and reduce the environmental harms of a project before approving it,” Kretzmann said. “Communities long suffering from refinery pollution have every right to demand maximum protections against toxic emissions and foul odors, and the county needs to secure them.”

The planned refinery is near the Marathon-Tesoro biofuel refinery in Martinez, which itself could eventually produce more than 700,000 gallons per year of biofuel products and become one of the largest biofuel refineries in California. The petitioners say that the two projects would require at least 82,000 truck trips, nearly 29,000 railcars and more than 760 ship and barge visits annually.

That increases pollution, traffic and the risk of spills and accidents from the projects, while generating and processing biofuels that would worsen existing impacts on communities nearby fossil fuel processing plants. The state considers people who live near the refineries to be “disadvantaged” because of their high exposure to pollution from existing industries. The proposed refineries would cement ongoing or increased air and odor pollution for these residents for decades, the petitioners say.

“This is a huge victory for nearby residents who’ve raised serious concerns about pollution that will come from this giant refinery,” said Shana Lazerow, legal director of Communities for a Better Environment. “Allowing this project to operate before the environmental review process is complete would’ve rigged the whole decision in favor of the refinery operator.”

Sara Evall, a student attorney at the Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, said Thursday: “The county is obligated to reassess the project based on community members’ input and an unbiased record. Rights of the public to informed democratic decision-making come before Phillips 66’s bottom line.”

The judge’s prior order, which found that the county had violated the California Environmental Quality Act by approving the biofuel refinery without properly assessing major components or adopting mitigation for odor impacts on local communities, came down this past July.

Suisun Marsh gas drilling plan runs into environmental buzz saw

SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA – APRIL 7: Suisun Marsh as seen from Solano County, Calif., on Wednesday, April 7, 2021.There is a proposal to drill into the Suisun Marsh for fossil fuels. (Nhat V. Meyer/Bay Area News Group)
SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA – APRIL 7: Suisun Marsh as seen from Solano County, Calif., on Wednesday, April 7, 2021. There is a proposal to drill into the Suisun Marsh for fossil fuels. (Nhat V. Meyer/Bay Area News Group)
East Bay Times, by Shomik Mukherjee, April 12, 2021

The Suisun Marsh — known as the largest swath of contiguous wetlands on the West Coast and a haven for thousands of migrating waterfowl — has become the Bay Area’s latest battleground between fossil fuel producers and environmentalists hellbent on fighting climate change.

A Brentwood company, Sunset Exploration Inc., announced in January it wants to explore for natural gas by drilling a section of the 116,000-acre marshland about 9 miles southwest of Suisun City in an area known as Hunter’s Point, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Sunset proposes to construct a gravel drilling pad almost an acre large and drop a volleyball-sized drill bit about a half-mile into the sandstone ground, probing to see if there’s enough gas worth extracting. This first-phase process would last several weeks.

If the well yields enough natural gas, Sunset next plans to build a pipeline from the drilling pad to send the gas to an existing pipeline about a mile and a half away, There, the gas would be tapped to serve about 30,000 homes in the surrounding region for up to 10 years.

Because Sunset already has mineral rights to more than 4,400 acres in the Suisun Marsh, it can technically drill without a permit. But it won’t be able to if the Army Corps determines the well and pipeline would harm the environment.

A coalition of environmental groups, including San Francisco Baykeeper and Center for Biological Diversity, has already taken a stand against the project and wrote a Feb. 26 letter urging the Army Corps to reject Sunset’s request for a permit.

They contend the drilling operation would contribute to climate change because combusting natural gas to produce energy releases carbon emissions. Plus there’s the added risk of gas leaks.

In addition, opponents contend the project would threaten hundreds of bird, fish, mammal and reptilian species that thrive in the marsh, as well as sensitive plants such as the Suisun thistle that doesn’t grow anywhere else on Earth.

So swift and fierce was their response that Sunset is contemplating a retreat.

“It may not be worth the fight,” Bob Nunn, president of Sunset Exploration, said in a recent interview.

Joining the chorus against the project is the state Department of Justice’s Office of the Attorney General, which sent its own letter recently telling the Army Corps that it’s concerned drilling would disrupt natural habitats and produce more carbon emissions at a time when the state is attempting to tamp down its fossil fuel production.

“The proposed fill and drilling in areas of Suisun Marsh could harm unique and irreplaceable habitat for endangered California Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, numerous migratory bird species, listed fish species, and the very rare Suisun thistle,” the attorney general’s office wrote.

Asked why a state law enforcement agency would weigh in on a drilling project, the office replied in an email, “We’ll let the letter speak for itself.”

Even if the Army Corps signs off on the drilling plans, Sunset Exploration would need to get the OK of other federal and state environmental regulatory agencies, such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

If approved, Sunset’s wouldn’t be the only natural gas well at Suisun Marsh. Several other active gas wells operate there, their locations shown on an online map created by the California Geological Energy Management Division. About a dozen other gas wells have been plugged and are no longer active for various reasons. Nunn said these wells are similar in size to what he proposes to build.

“We were surprised at the level of opposition,” Sahrye Cohen, a regulatory chief at the Army Corps who will review the permit application, said in an interview. “I think it’s an indication of the times. People don’t want fossil fuels in California.”

SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA – APRIL 7: Suisun Marsh as seen from Solano County, Calif., on Wednesday, April 7, 2021. There is a proposal to drill into the Suisun Marsh for fossil fuels. (Nhat V. Meyer/Bay Area News Group)

Sunset’s Nunn acknowledged his company is pondering whether the costs of an extended review process are justified given the stiff resistance.

“The environmental community likes to thrust longer and longer delays on the smaller projects, until eventually the project becomes unrealistic and the operator says, ‘To hell with it,’” Nunn said.

While natural gas is cleaner than oil, producing less greenhouse gas emissions when it combusts, it still is a fossil fuel — and California’s goal is to reduce its emissions by 40% before 2030, an ambitious plan that involves transitioning to fully renewable energy sources.

Nunn called critics of oil and gas drilling hypocritical for participating in a carbon-fueled society and argued that shipping oil to California from elsewhere emits more carbon than would his local drilling project.

San Francisco Baykeeper’s executive director described Nunn’s comments as “nonsense,” saying there’s no tolerance in the Bay Area for “dinosaur oil companies” amid a transition to cleaner energy sources.

“Any time there’s drilling in the vicinity of wetlands, you need to evaluate thoroughly the environmental impacts of that drilling,” Sejal Choksi-Chugh said in an interview. “The Bay is no place for oil and gas drilling — the fact that (the company) is reconsidering is a big step and we’re pleased to hear that.”

Jacob Klein, an organizer with the Sierra Club’s Redwood Chapter, described Nunn’s justification for drilling locally and extracting natural gas instead of oil as “common talking points” that ignore the bigger picture.

“Rather than make comparisons between petroleum-based energy sources, we just need to be leaving (natural gas) in the ground,” Klein said.

Project opponents also point to the immediate environmental damage that drilling can wreak. A pipeline operated by energy company Kinder Morgan burst in 2004, spilling more than 120,000 gallons of oil into the marsh and killing numerous species.

Sunset Exploration acquired an existing Solano County permit and 4,400 acres of mineral rights for Hunter’s Point in 2018 after previous holder Venoco went bankrupt as it was seeking to obtain a drilling permit from the Army Corps.

Sunset was hoping to finish the job, though the opposition is now giving it second thoughts.

“They’re singling me out,” Nunn said. “If this gets drawn out for months and years, the real loser will be the environment.”

Benicia City Council to consider findings for FINAL denial of Valero CBR

By Roger Straw, October 4, 2014

benicia_logoBenicia City staff released the AGENDA for the October 4 City Council meeting, including an important staff report, CONFIRMATION OF THE RESOLUTION TO DENY THE USE PERMIT FOR THE VALERO CRUDE BY RAIL PROJECT.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the September 20, 2016 City Council meeting, the Council denied the use permit for the Valero Crude By Rail project and requested a revised resolution be brought back for final approval at the October 4th Council meeting. Per the Council’s direction, the proposed resolution incorporates some General Plan policies as well as issues raised by the state Attorney General, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Caltrans.

The agenda also included the following important documents:

It will be an important Council meeting tonight. Plan to attend if you can – 7pm in Council Chambers, 250 East L Street, Benicia.

 

Surface Transportation Board grants extension for public comments on Valero’s petition

By Roger Straw, June 10, 2016

BEFORE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD: Request for extension granted

On June 6, 2016, a formal request was filed with the Surface Transportation Board seeking additional time (until July 8, 2016) for replies to the Petition for Declaratory Order filed by Valero Refining Company.

The request was made by attorneys representing Benicians For A Safe and Healthy Community, Center for Biological Diversity, Communities For A Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco Baykeeper, Sierra Club, and Stand. The petition sought

The STB granted the request on June 9.