Tag Archives: Keeping Watch on Earth News

‘We have to stop’: Plan for fossil-fuel drilling on the flanks of San Francisco Bay draws protest

[Note from BenIndy Contributor Kathy Kerridge: The Suisun Marsh is the largest brackish marsh on the West Coast. It deserves our protection. It will play an important role in mitigating climate chaos that is only getting worse. The county is working to approve this proposed drilling site with a mitigated negative declaration that does not cover some of the biggest problems with the drilling. The decision to approve this project and the mitigated negative declaration will soon be in front of the county planning commission.  If you want to be kept informed of action on this proposed drilling project please email me at kathykerridge@gmail.com  It would be great to have people write the planning commission and appear at the meeting.]

` A great egret takes flight over Grizzly Island in Suisun Marsh south of Fairfield. A natural gas well has been proposed for the area. | Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle.
SF Chronicle, by Kurtis Alexander, October 29, 2023

Two years after public opposition halted a bid to drill natural gas in Suisun Marsh, next to San Francisco Bay, a Florida energy company is taking another run at it.

Lantos Energy LLC submitted an application with Solano County last month to construct a well and a possible pipeline alongside wetlands about 10 miles east of Benicia, where the bustling East Bay eases into the quiet of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

The area historically has been a bastion for natural gas, with many companies, including Pacific Gas and Electric Co., still getting a bulk of their fuel from the region. Hundreds of wells, for nearly a century, were drilled into the area’s rich fossil-fuel deposits to heat homes and generate power — without much fanfare.

Map: Todd Trumbull/The Chronicle • Source: Lantos Energy LLC.

But that was then, and this is now. Anxieties about fossil fuels overheating the planet and a better understanding of their ecological impact and potential for pollution are bringing increased scrutiny to even the most mundane projects. Some who fought the 2021 proposal for a well in Suisun Marsh, which included the state attorney general, have begun mobilizing to resist the new drilling effort.

“Do we really need more gas wells?” said Kathy Kerridge, a Benicia resident who was active in the opposition campaign two years ago. “Can’t we just be building solar panels and wind farms?”

Ducks swim in Suisun Marsh south of Fairfield. A Florida energy company has submitted an application to build a new natural gas well in the area, but it’s meeting resistance. |
Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle.

Solano County’s Department of Resource Management has determined, despite the emerging criticism, that the proposed drilling operation will have no “potentially significant adverse environmental impacts,” clearing the way for the county’s Planning Commission to decide whether the proposal should move forward, likely early next year. Approvals from several state agencies will also be required.

While county documents cite possible problems for plants and wildlife in and around the marsh, including the San Joaquin kit fox and Western burrowing owl, they prescribe measures for reducing disturbances. The proposed well would be in grassy uplands adjacent to wetlands, which like the marsh are subject to some level of protection under the state’s Suisun Marsh Preservation Act.

As far as climate change goes, the county’s evaluation of the project says building a well won’t produce significant greenhouse gases, but it doesn’t address heat-trapping emissions that would result from the production and consumption of newly drilled fossil fuel.

Officials with Lantos Energy did not return calls to discuss the project with the Chronicle.

According to county documents, the company’s plan is to first drill to see if there are sufficient reserves of natural gas at the site, and if so, proceed with the construction of a pipeline to an existing pipeline nearby. Where the natural gas will end up is not clear.

The state has enacted an ambitious plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector — by 48% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels — and to be carbon neutral by 2045, in an effort to combat climate change. However, with renewable energy facilities still ramping up to meet demand, natural gas and oil wells continue to be developed.

Part of their endurance, says Rob Jordan, an earth scientist at Stanford University with expertise in global warming and energy extraction, is the limited window that fossil-fuel facilities have to operate as California winds down fossil-fuel production.

“California may be getting out of the oil and gas business, so there is some urgency for companies to get wells permits while they can,” he said.

Two years ago, Brentwood’s Sunset Exploration rolled out plans to drill at an abandoned well just west of the site of the current drilling proposal. The project drew a litany of concerns, including the potential for methane leaks that natural gas wells inherently pose and its proximity to low-income communities.

The company withdrew its application shortly after going public with the plan.

“We have to stop extraction,” said Shoshana Wechsler, a founding member of the Sunflower Alliance, an East Bay group that fought the Sunset Exploration project and is now sounding alarm about Lantos Energy. “We’re so far behind where we should be. We’re so heavily periled. We have to stop.”

6,000-gallon ‘hot asphalt tar’ hazardous spill closes westbound I-780, no estimated time for reopening

[There is a massive hazardous spill fully blocking westbound I-780 lanes near the East 2nd Street exit. The closure is at East 2nd Street with traffic diverted off at 5th Street. Scroll down past the NBC post to see Benicia PD’s Facebook post regarding the incident. BPD has also reported that the liquid asphalt is entering a highway culvert, possibly on its way to Benicia storm drains, and we’ll follow up on that s we can. Benicia residents, folks picking up kids from Benicia schools, commuters – be warned, be safe and please find alternate routes home. ]

Overturned tanker truck spills asphalt across westbound I-780, injuries reported

Photo from BPD Facebook Page.

Initial reports from a California Highway Patrol incident information page said “6,000 gallons of hot asphalt oil slurries” spilled onto the freeway.

KRON4, by Alex Baker, August 6, 2023 (as of 12 pm)

An overturned tanker truck collision resulting in injuries occurred on I-780 near 2nd Street in Benicia Wednesday morning. The truck has spilled asphalt across the westbound lanes, according to a Sig Alert.

The truck that overturned was hauling 6,000 gallons of hot asphalt. All lanes are currently blocked. The California Highway Patrol said no one was hurt in the crash, which happened just before 9:30 a.m.

The tanker ended up leaking across all the lanes of the westbound I-780 and on the right embankment of the freeway and into a ditch.

Environmental regulators have been called to assess whether any of the substance has reached local waterways. At least one resident asked authorities if the substance hit her fence.

All traffic is being diverted off the freeway at Fifth Street. The CHP is asking people to avoid the area while the cleanup is ongoing Wednesday afternoon. There is no estimate for when the highway will reopen.

Bay City News contributed to this report.

Keep reading, there’s more.

Here’s another amazing photo, this time from the folks at NBC that shows the spill from the NBC chopper:

Photo from NBC Bay Area report.

And from Benicia PD’s Facebook Page:

Here’s the full text:

Westbound I-780 in Benicia is closed at East 5th Street due to a semi-truck turnover and hazardous materials spill. Please take alternate routes. It is expected to be closed for an extended period of time.
At approximately 9:15 a.m. on Wednesday, September 6th, the Benicia Fire Department responded to a report of a semi-truck turnover. Upon arrival, firefighters found that the semi-truck had been transporting 6,000 gallons of hot asphalt tar in two 3,000 gallon trailers. Both asphalt tar trailers ruptured. The product spilled across the westbound lanes of I-780 along the shoulder and into the culvert. One patient was transported to a local hospital.
Benicia Fire Department, Benicia Police Department, Solano County Environmental Health, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, Caltrans, and California Highway Patrol have responded.
For more information, contact Della Olm, Benicia Fire Public Information Officer at dolm@ci.benicia.ca.us or 707-746-4272.

This is NOT Benicia…

By Roger Straw, February 23, 2024
Over the last three weeks, communities everywhere have watched in horror and solidarity with the people of East Palestine, Ohio. Few of those communities have experienced the depth of concern and understanding as here in Benicia, California.
Here’s my 1-minute video commentary.

Backstory, and looking ahead…

In 2013, the Benicia Valero Refinery proposed bringing in two 50-car bomb trains every day, filled with Canadian tar sands crude oil. It took 3 years, but a staunch group of citizens and an incredible army of allies eventually overcame Valero’s slick campaign. On September 20, 2016, with backing from the Benicia Planning Commission, the California Attorney General and the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, Benicia’s City Council voted to deny Valero’s proposal. The City breathed a sigh of relief. And we continue to marvel at our good fortune, and the good fortune of communities uprail from here.

Our collective breath of relief, however, must be challenged by the everyday passage of trains carrying multiple hazardous cargos through our town and across the bridge to other San Francisco Bay Area cities. Stricter regulations are needed from federal and state authorities. Regulations on the trains and the profit-seeking companies that run them, on the rails, and on public preparations for potential disasters. As I said in the video, This is NOT Benicia, but WHO WILL BE NEXT? 

For more, see SafeBenicia.org and the Benicia Independent’s Crude By Rail Archive.

Roger Straw
The Benicia Independent

Watered-Down Bill to Punish Refinery Pollution Gets Scrapped After Oil Industry Pushback

Proposal that would have punished oil refineries is dead – gutted and amended in Senate after approval by full Assembly –

KQED News, by Ted Goldberg. Aug 24, 2022

AUG 28 UPDATE
After this story was published – this refinery penalty bill was gutted and amended and now has nothing to do with refineries. Its author killed the proposal after it was weakened so much that the oil industry dropped its opposition.  – Ted Goldberg, @KQEDnews
A proposal that would have punished oil refineries that illegally pollute the air with toxic chemicals is dead, after opposition from the industry led to such a weakening of the bill that its own author pulled her support.

The state Senate was poised to vote later this month on a proposal to increase the maximum penalties for California oil refineries that violate air quality laws. If passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor, it would have marked the first major change to the penalty structure specific to the oil refining industry in the state in more than two decades.

AUTHOR WICKS:
‘I’m disappointed that changes made to the bill by the Appropriations Committee weakened the maximum penalties for polluters.’ – Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland)
But two weeks ago, legislators weakened the bill so much that California’s leading oil industry group dropped its months-long opposition to it. Now, the East Bay Assemblymember behind the push, whose district includes one of California’s largest refineries, has decided to kill the bill and push for another piece of legislation that has similar goals but does not go as far as her original proposal.

The legislation’s changes did not take place during multiple public hearings where lawmakers debated AB 1897 and then overwhelmingly backed the bill four separate times.

GUTTED:
You can see here how after multiple committees and the full Assembly approved the bill – and it was about to get a vote in the State Senate – it was killed, gutted and amended: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1897 – Ted Goldberg, @KQEDnews
Instead, in a hearing behind closed doors earlier this month, state senators apparently bowed to oil industry demands, reducing some of the bill’s proposed fine increases and making the standard for the hikes more stringent.

The changes were made in the Senate Appropriations Committee, a panel charged with weighing the costs of proposed legislation. During their annual suspense file hearing, legislators decide the fate of hundreds of bills away from the public eye — and legislative leaders often use the opaque process to kill or change bills that aren’t just expensive but politically unpalatable.

“I’m disappointed that changes made to the bill by the Appropriations Committee weakened the maximum penalties for polluters,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), the proposal’s author.

Wicks represents the area of Chevron’s Richmond refinery, which has committed scores of violations against local air regulations over the last decade. On Tuesday she decided to drop AB 1897, prompted by its recent changes.

Environmentalists have long criticized fine structures for California’s refineries, complaining that companies that own the state’s petroleum plants end up paying small penalties when they often make significant profits. For example, Chevron says it made $11.6 billion in the second quarter of this year.

When Wicks proposed the bill in February, the legislation would have increased the civil penalty maximum for violations of air quality regulations from $10,000 to $30,000 if that violation resulted in “severe disruption to the community.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee cut out that phrase and replaced it with a much higher standard: “a significant increase in hospitalizations, residential displacement, shelter in place, evacuation, or destruction of property.”

The initial proposal called for maximum $100,000 fines against refineries with a “subsequent violation” within a one-year period. The appropriations panel cut that down to $50,000.

“I was watching, like, everyone else to see what would happen with the bill,” said Alan Abbs, the legislative director for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which sponsored Wicks’ proposal. “I didn’t know what the amendments would be until I saw them in print later in the day.”

In March, the Western States Petroleum Association sent a letter to Wicks, expressing opposition to the bill. The industry group said  then that AB 1897 unfairly singled out refineries.

That opposition was not enough to deter majorities of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, the Assembly Judiciary Committee, the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the full Assembly, the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee — all panels that advanced the bill.

But after the changes were made in the Senate Appropriations Committee, the petroleum association changed their position last week.

“The change in our position is due to amendments that make the proposed legislation more consistent with the way air quality violations have been assessed in the past,” stated Kevin Slagle, a representative for the industry group, in an email.

A representative for Wicks says her office had no control over the amendments and was left in the dark about what prompted them.

“We don’t know who ultimately pushed these changes — the appropriations process is very opaque, and we don’t have visibility into the decisions or control over what gets adopted,” said Erin Ivie, the lawmaker’s communications director.

“Some of these changes seem to respond to criticism of the bill made by the oil industry … While we don’t know who exactly, the why seems to be to make the bill less objectionable to the oil industry.”

Earlier in the summer, the Newsom administration also quietly expressed opposition to the original version of AB 1897. In June, months before it was changed, state finance officials raised concerns about a part of the proposal that directed penalty revenue to communities affected by violations that led to the fines — instead of to local air districts charged with monitoring emissions.

“(The California Air Resources Board) maintains that the bill would effectively defund the districts due to the districts’ historical reliance on the civil penalties collected, in part, to fund their operations,” the Department of Finance wrote in its fiscal analysis of the bill.

The administration argued that if local air districts couldn’t collect enough penalty money, the state’s air resources board would need to provide more support to such agencies, something finance officials said would create “cost pressures” on state funds.

A staff analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee made a similar argument in the days before the committee amended the bill and sent it to the Senate floor.

The death of Wicks’ bill marks the third time in the last 10 years that a proposal specifically to increase fines for refineries died in the state Legislature.

In 2013, on the heels of a major fire at Richmond’s Chevron refinery, then-state Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, introduced legislation to raise such penalties. The state Senate approved the bill, but it died on the Assembly floor amid opposition from energy companies.

Five years later state Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, proposed tripling some of the most serious penalties for refineries. He said then that he authored that bill, in part, because of a major refinery accident at Valero’s Benicia plant in 2017. That proposal never received its first committee hearing after opposition not only from the oil industry but also from environmentalists and the mayors of Richmond and Benicia, who said it wasn’t strong enough.

On Tuesday, Wicks decided to abandon her bill and join as a co-author on AB 2910, which would increase maximum fines for large industrial facilities that violate air pollution regulations, including refineries, from $10,000 to $30,000.

But, unlike the other bill, it would not increase penalties associated with multiple violations. And while AB 2910 calls for some revenue from those fines to go to local communities affected by authorized industry facility releases, it’s unclear how much.

The Western States Petroleum Association did not add its name to the list of groups opposed to that bill. The state Senate is expected to vote on AB 2910 next week.