Tag Archives: Oregon

Important for public to easily find current safe recommendations on vaccines

First note that today’s new CDC vaccination guidelines are based on misinformation and poor science. Second, know that our four West Coast states, California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii formed a WEST COAST HEALTH ALLIANCE (WCHA) which will offer clearer, safer guidelines based on real science.

Then note that the West Coast Health Alliance was announced over a month ago, but still seems to have no website. It’s recommendations are hard to find.

I was pleased that the tv news this morning carried an interview with Dr. Gupta, who showed a WCHA graphic, “2025-2026 RESPIRATORY VIRUS SEASON IMMUNIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS” After an extensive online search, I found the chart on the Washington State Governor’s website (see below).

Click image to enlarge – or click here for PDF version.

These recommendations need to be more widely distributed and made easier to find. Please download, copy, print, distribute! I wrote to all of my state and federal legislators encouraging a website and better distribution.

Roger Straw, The Benicia Independent

Previously on the BenIndy:

“In response to recent federal actions that have undermined the independence of the CDC and raised concerns about the politicization of science…”

Sept 3, 2025, By California Governor Gavin Newsom
…[Note also on Sep 4: “Hawaii to join West Coast Health Alliance”]

What you need to know: In response to recent federal actions that have undermined the independence of the CDC and raised concerns about the politicization of science, California, Oregon, and Washington are beginning the process to provide evidence-based unified recommendations to their residents regarding who should receive immunizations and to help ensure the public has access and credible information for confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy.

SACRAMENTO — Today, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, and Washington Governor Bob Ferguson announced they will launch a new West Coast Health Alliance to ensure residents remain protected by science, not politics. The alliance represents a unified regional response to the Trump Administration’s destruction of the U.S. CDC’s credibility and scientific integrity.

“President Trump’s mass firing of CDC doctors and scientists — and his blatant politicization of the agency — is a direct assault on the health and safety of the American people. The CDC has become a political tool that increasingly peddles ideology instead of science, ideology that will lead to severe health consequences. California, Oregon, and Washington will not allow the people of our states to be put at risk.”

Joint statement from Governors Newsom, Kotek, and Ferguson

“The dismantling of public health and dismissal of experienced and respected health leaders and advisors, along with the lack of using science, data, and evidence to improve our nation’s health are placing lives at risk,” said Erica Pan, MD, MPH, FIDSA, FAAP, Director and State Public Health Officer, California Department of Public Health. “California stands together with our public health and medical professional colleagues to uphold integrity and support our mission to protect the health of our communities.”

“Our communities deserve clear and transparent communication about vaccines — communication grounded in science, not ideology,” said Sejal Hathi, MD, MBA, Director, Oregon Health Authority. “Vaccines are among the most powerful tools in modern medicine; they have indisputably saved millions of lives. But when guidance about their use becomes inconsistent or politicized, it undermines public trust at precisely the moment we need it most. That is why Oregon is committed, alongside California and Washington, to leading with science and delivering evidence-based recommendations that protect health, save lives, and restore confidence in our public health system.”

“When federal agencies abandon evidence-based recommendations in favor of ideology, we cannot continue down that same path,” said Dennis Worsham, Secretary of Health, Washington State Department of Health. “Washington State will not compromise when it comes to our values: science drives our public health policy. Public health at its core is about prevention — preventing illness, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing early, avoidable deaths. We stand firmly with trusted medical professionals and organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as well as fellow West Coast health agencies — whose guidance remains rooted in rigorous research and clinical expertise. Our commitment is to the health and safety of our communities, protecting lives through prevention, and not yielding to unsubstantiated theories that dismiss decades of proven public health practice.”

Details about this new Alliance

Our three states share a commitment to ensuring that public health recommendations are guided by safety, efficacy, transparency, access, and trust. The Alliance will help safeguard scientific expertise by ensuring that public health policies in California, Oregon, and Washington are informed by trusted scientists, clinicians, and other public health leaders. Through this partnership, the three states will start coordinating health guidelines by aligning immunization recommendations informed by respected national medical organizations. This will allow residents to receive consistent, science-based recommendations they can rely on — regardless of shifting federal actions.

In the coming weeks, the Alliance will finalize shared principles to strengthen public confidence in vaccines and in public health. While each state will independently pursue strategies shaped by their unique laws, geographies, histories, and peoples, these shared principles will form the foundations of the Alliance. Importantly, the three states affirm and respect Tribal sovereignty, recognizing that Tribes maintain their sovereign authority over vaccine services.

CDC’s dismantling

Since its founding, the CDC has been central to protecting Americans from disease. But recent leadership changes, reduced transparency, and the sidelining of long-trusted advisory bodies have impaired the agency’s capacity to prepare the nation for respiratory virus season and other public health challenges. In a vacuum of clear, evidence-based vaccine guidance, manufacturers lack reliable information to plan production, health care providers struggle to provide consistent plans of care, and families face uncertainty about access and coverage.

In June, California, Oregon, and Washington condemned Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s removal of all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Today, we reaffirm our commitment to science-driven decision-making. We will continue to provide clear, evidence-based guidance to people living in our states, look to scientific experts in trusted medical professional organizations for recommendations, and work with public health leaders across the country to ensure all Americans are protected. The absence of consistent, science-based federal leadership poses a direct threat to our nation’s health security. To protect the health of our communities, the West Coast Health Alliance will continue to ensure that our public health strategies are based on best available science.

California, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Hawaii, Oregon, Public Health, Washington State

California, Oregon, and Washington launch West Coast Health Alliance to uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys CDC’s credibility

September 4, 2025 Roger Straw

“In response to recent federal actions that have undermined the independence of the CDC and raised concerns about the politicization of science…”

Sept 3, 2025, By California Governor Gavin Newsom
…[Note also on Sep 4: “Hawaii to join West Coast Health Alliance”]

“President Trump’s mass firing of CDC doctors and scientists — and his blatant politicization of the agency — is a direct assault on the health and safety of the American people. The CDC has become a political tool that increasingly peddles ideology instead of science, ideology that will lead to severe health consequences. California, Oregon, and Washington will not allow the people of our states to be put at risk.”

Joint statement from Governors Newsom, Kotek, and Ferguson

Details about this new Alliance

CDC’s dismantling

Benicia City Council, Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, Crude By Rail, Economic diversification, Federal pre-emption, Local land use authority, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail, Water contamination

COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE: Refinery Town decision may have huge ramifications for nation’s energy infrastructure

September 25, 2016 Roger Straw

Repost from Courthouse News Service

Refinery Town Says No to Valero’s Oil-by-Rail Plan

By Matthew Renda, Friday, September 23, 2016 5:14 PM PT

Courthouse News Service

BENICIA, Calif. (CN) — The City Council of a small city of 27,000 in California’s San Francisco Bay Area made a decision this week that may have huge ramifications for the nation’s energy infrastructure.

The five-person Benicia City Council voted unanimously to reject the Valero Crude Oil by Rail Project — a substantial setback for an oil and gas industry that operates several refineries nearby and setting an interesting precedent for local government’s assertion of jurisdiction over oil and gas routes.

The Valero Crude Oil by Rail Project would have allowed the oil company, which operates a large refinery in Benicia, to bring in crude oil by rail rather than exclusively by ship as the current arrangement dictates.

However, Benicia City Council ended a divisive community fight over the issue by finding the project is too dangerous for the community. The potential for contamination of the Sulphur Springs Creek and other watersheds in the event of a derailment proved too much for the council members to brook.

“I have seen stories piled on top of the other about what wasn’t working and what is particularly troubling is the lack of financial resources provided in the case of a catastrophic event,” Mayor Elizabeth Patterson said during deliberation on Wednesday night. “The money comes in too late, people have to go out of business and people have to move away.”

Leading up to the decision, several questions about whether the City Council even had jurisdiction hovered over the matter, with project proponents asserting that the federal government regulates rail and any decision made by the city government is preempted.

However, the Surface Transportation Board wrote the city on Wednesday before the meeting saying while the federal government does regulate interstate commerce and the railroad, the proposed $70 million rail depot was within the regulatory purview of the city.

While many local residents applauded the decision, environmental groups talked about its reverberations.

“This is a victory for the right of communities to say no to refineries’ dangerous oil train projects,” Ethan Buckner with the group Stand — formerly ForestEthics — said. “The federal government has said once and for all that there is nothing in federal law that prevents cities from denying these oil companies’ dangerous rail projects.”

In the series of meetings leading up to the decision, Valero touted its safety record and said the train project carried minimal risk and would bring jobs and economic activity to the region.

“After nearly four years of review and analysis by independent experts and the city, we are disappointed that the City Council members have chosen to reject the crude by rail project,” Valero said in a statement. “At this time we are considering our options moving forward.”

Valero is the largest employer in the city, according to a recent comprehensive financial report compiled by the city’s finance team.

However, Patterson said the city’s general plan calls for a more diversified economy that relies heavily on small businesses, many of which would be hampered by the crude oil by rail project, particularly if something went wrong.

“We have to be less dependent on the refinery as we pivot into an era of attracting different kinds of businesses,” she said.

In 2014, trains transporting crude oil spilled about 57,000 gallons of the environmentally hazardous substance, more than any other year since the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration began keeping track in 1975.

The Columbia River, one of America’s most scenic rivers as it carves out the border between Oregon and Washington state, was spoiled by 42,000 gallons of oil when a train derailed due to a defective bolt on the track.

While many celebrated the possibly precedent-setting decision undertaken by the small city body, Councilman Mark Hughes resigned himself to certain litigation and its associated expense.

“Regardless of the decision tonight, I believe a lawsuit will be filed,” Hughes said.

So whether Benicia’s decision will be the first in an onslaught of local entities attempting to regulate elements of the oil and gas industry out of their communities or whether that will be left to federal and state authorities may be a matter for the courts to decide.

There are five major refineries in the Bay Area including the Valero refinery in Benicia: Chevron in Richmond, Tesoro outside of Concord, Phillips 66 in Rodeo and Shell in Martinez also operate and contribute significantly to both the local economy and air pollution.

The five refineries process about 800,000 barrels of crude oil per day and along with other oil and gas companies generate about $4.3 billion in local tax revenue, according to a 2014 study performed by Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation and commissioned by the Western States Petroleum Association.

But Ralph Borrmann, public information officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, told Courthouse News recently that the refineries are responsible for anywhere from 4 to 41 percent of the pollutants in the area, depending on which pollutant is identified.

Air Quality, California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Regulation, Carbon emissions, Clean fuel standard, Climate Change, Emissions caps, Gasoline prices, Oil industry lobby

California regulators restore emissions-cutting fuel rule

September 26, 2015 Roger Straw

Repost from the Associated Press

California regulators restore emissions-cutting fuel rule

By Judy Lin, Sep. 25, 2015 5:49 PM EDT

Mary NIchols, Barbara Riordan — Mary Nichols, left, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, applauds after the board restored ambitious rules to cut transportation fuel emissions 10 percent within 5 years, during a hearing in Sacramento, Calif., Friday, Sept. 25, 2015. By a 9-0 vote the board restored rules requiring a 10 percent cut in carbon emissions on fuels sold in the state by 2020, despite oil industry objections that it could drive up gas prices. At right is ARB board member Barbara Riordan. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California regulators on Friday restored ambitious rules to cut transportation fuel emissions 10 percent within 5 years, a decision that gives Gov. Jerry Brown a boost for his climate change agenda.

The rules further strengthen California’s toughest-in-the-nation carbon emissions standards, but oil producers warn the changes could drive up costs for consumers at the gas pump.

The changes are expected to add a few cents a gallon to the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel in the state that already has some of the highest gas prices in the nation. The state estimates a typical commuter will pay an extra $20 to $24 in 2017, increasing to $52 to $56 in 2020.

“We are on a path to reduce our dependence on petroleum and this program is a key piece of that action,” Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, said ahead of the vote.

Brown, a Democrat, has vowed to intensify his fight against climate change after the oil lobby helped kill a Democratic legislative proposal earlier this month to slash statewide petroleum use by half in 15 years. The board is the state’s top regulatory agency to enforce rules aimed at reducing air pollution.

Regulators voted 9-0 to re-adopt its low-carbon fuel standard, which requires producers to cut the carbon content of fuels 10 percent by 2020 to help the state meet its emission-reductions goals.

The program was initially adopted in 2009 but the reduction target has been frozen at 1 percent because of a court fight. Friday’s vote allows the state to resume its program; modifies rules in response to industry concerns about price spikes; and gives companies more credits for using renewable hydrogen and other investments to reduce pollutants.

Supporters say the program is worthwhile because it will encourage greater use of cleaner biofuels and electric vehicles, which can be cheaper to operate than those powered by gasoline or diesel.

“This puts it back on track,” Bill Magavern, policy director at Coalition for Clean Air, an environmental advocacy group, said after the vote. “We have other programs that address vehicle technologies and vehicle miles traveled, and this is the one that tells oil companies to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuels.”

Oil producers counter that the rules are unworkable and too costly. They said the standard will impact consumers as the companies try to comply with the mandate or face being shut out of the market.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, which represents oil companies, said the low carbon fuel standard jeopardizes the state’s energy future and adds uncertainty.

“California motorists need to know what is coming and how these regulations will impact transportation fuels,” Reheis-Boyd said in a statement.

Unlike other rules the state has adopted requiring cleaner-burning fuel or more fuel-efficient vehicles, the standard, first proposed in a 2007 executive order from then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, calls for counting all the pollution required to deliver gasoline, diesel or alternative fuels to in-state consumers — from drilling a new oil well or planting corn to delivering it to gas stations.

In addition to tailpipe emissions, it includes factors such as whether an ethanol factory uses coal or natural gas to power production or an oil rig uses diesel fuel to drill.

Regulators are targeting transportation fuels because California’s roughly 30 million vehicles account for about 40 percent of the state’s emissions — the largest source. The rest comes from generating electricity and industrial manufacturing, as well as commercial, residential and agricultural uses.

All fuels are measured against a baseline pollution standard. If a fuel falls above or below the baseline, it generates a credit or deficit that other producers can buy and sell to meet the target.

It’s up to fuel producers to figure out how to meet the goal, whether by changing production methods, using ethanol or electric vehicles for transportation or buying credits on the market.

After the rule’s initial adoption, out-of-state refiners and ethanol companies were among those who sued, arguing that transporting the fuels into California alone made them less competitive against in-state producers. They argued the law unconstitutionally limits interstate commerce.

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a 2013 appeals court decision upholding the fuel standard.

Opponents continue to challenge the state’s authority to regulate out-of-state production. Oil firms are also trying to block a similar standard enacted in Oregon, the only other state with a clean fuel standard.

Friday’s move to restore California’s program is not related to Volkswagen drawing international attention for violating separate federal and state rules that regulate emissions from vehicles.