SAN FRANCISCO – The Bay Area Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board are announcing today a nearly $82 million penalty in a joint case to address significant air pollution violations by Valero Refining Co. at its Benicia refinery. This penalty is the largest ever assessed in the Air District’s history.
Over $64 million of these funds will be returned to the local community to finance projects aimed at reducing air pollution exposure, mitigating air pollution impacts and improving public health in areas surrounding the refinery. These projects will be selected through a public process with input from residents, community organizations, elected officials and advocates representing the impacted area. The remainder of the penalty will be used to fund beneficial clean air projects in overburdened communities throughout the Bay Area, as well as to offset the costs of investigating and prosecuting the case. In total, nearly $80 million of this historic penalty will be returned to Bay Area communities.
“Today’s historic penalty against Valero Refining Co. for its egregious emissions violations underscores the Air District’s unwavering commitment to holding polluters accountable and safeguarding the health of those living in refinery communities,” said Dr. Philip Fine, executive officer of the Air District. “Investing these funds back into the community will empower local residents to drive air quality projects that benefit the surrounding neighborhoods, advancing our mission of cleaner air for all.”
“CARB is pleased to have supported the Air District in investigating and settling this important case that helps remediate the harms Valero’s operations caused to surrounding communities,” said CARB Executive Officer Dr. Steven Cliff. “The Air District’s new community fund provides critical funding for projects that improve air quality and public health for impacted local communities. CARB is proud to direct the majority of its share of the penalties from this settlement to the community fund to expand the reach of its projects.”
“This penalty sends a strong message; adherence to air quality standards is both necessary and expected, and failure to do so can lead to significant fines,” said Steve Young, Benicia Mayor and a member of the Air District Board of Directors. “Benicia residents need to know that air quality violations are taken seriously. The use of these funds will help us address local air quality issues going forward. I am grateful for the work of the Air District, CARB and the California Department of Justice in helping bring this long-standing issue to conclusion.”
The penalty stems from a 2019 inspection that found unreported emissions from the facility’s hydrogen system containing harmful organic compounds in violation of Air District regulations. These organic compounds contributed to the Bay Area’s regional smog and particulate pollution problems, and they contained benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, or BTEX, compounds, which cause cancer, reproductive harm and other toxic health effects. Air District inspectors discovered that refinery management had known since at least 2003 that emissions from the hydrogen systemcontained these harmful and toxic air contaminants but did not report them or take any steps to prevent them. The refinery emitted an estimated 8,400 tons of these organic compounds in total over this period in violation of Air District regulations – an average of more than 2.7 tons for each day on which a violation occurred, over 360 times the legal limit.
Subsequent investigations uncovered a host of other problems involving the hydrogen system, including emissions in violation of applicable limits, failure to install required emissions abatement equipment, failure to inspect equipment for leaks and failure to report required information, among other violations.
The Air District sought abatement orders from its independent Hearing Board to require Valero to abate ongoing violations. In conjunction with CARB, the Air District has now assessed this monetary penalty to resolve all the violations. In addition to the penalty, Valero will be required to undertake several measures to prevent future violations. Valero will be required to reconfigure the facility’s main hydrogen vent and vents in its hydrogen production plants to prevent emissions from being released directly into the atmosphere. Valero will also be required to implement a training program to ensure that its staff are fully aware of all relevant Air District regulations.
In May 2024, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors adopted a groundbreaking policy that directs a significant portion of penalty funds to the communities most impacted by air quality violations. Under this policy, most of these penalty funds will be reinvested in local projects specifically designed to reduce pollution and enhance public health. To help improve regional air quality and advance the Air District’s environmental justice and equity goals, penalty funds will be allocated in accordance with this new policy. The policy will ensure that significant amounts of large penalties benefit the community where the violation occurred while also setting aside funds to address the needs of communities overburdened with air pollution that may not have industrial sources that could be subject to large penalties.
This penalty is the third major fine the Air District has assessed against Bay Area refineries this year. In February, the Air District announced a $20 million penalty against the Chevron refinery in Richmond, and earlier this month the Air District announced a $5 million penalty against the Marathon refinery in Martinez. “These significant penalties should put the refineries and other industrial operations on notice,” said Alexander Crockett, the Air District’s general counsel. “If you violate our regulations and pollute our air, we will hold you accountable to the maximum extent provided for by law.”
The joint prosecution with CARB is also indicative of a new level of cooperation among enforcement agencies for air quality violations. The Air District will look to partner with other agencies where appropriate to ensure that maximum enforcement resources are brought to bear for significant violations.
CARB is charged with protecting the public from the harmful effects of air pollution and developing programs and actions to fight climate change. From requirements for clean cars and fuels to adopting innovative solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, California has pioneered a range of effective approaches that have set the standard for effective air and climate programs for the nation, and the world.
[BenIndy: This win shows why Benicia residents are demanding local oversight through the enactment of an Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO). While we’re grateful to Baykeeper for taking a stand for our health and safety, we shouldn’t have to rely on nonprofits for protection. Nor should we accept City leaders’ seeming reluctance to rock the boat in a refinery town by supporting an ISO. The polluted waters this metaphorical boat now floats on demonstrate that inaction and waffling in our leadership is as risky as industrial pollution. It’s time for Benicia’s leaders to pick up their oars and navigate us all to safer, cleaner shores—even if it means making waves.]
Valero and Amports Agree to Clean up Their Acts
Baykeeper drone footage of a petcoke spill at the Port of Benicia. | Baykeeper.
Baykeeper’s 300th Legal Win: Hard Evidence Holds Polluters Accountable
After four years of drone investigations, rigorous evidence collection, and court filings: We won! Valero and Amports—the two companies operating an export terminal at the Port of Benicia—have agreed to stop polluting the Bay and nearby neighborhoods. What’s more, this settlement officially marks Baykeeper’s 300th legal victory over 35 years, and it includes the largest Clean Water Act mitigation payment in our history.
It all started with a report to Baykeeper’s pollution hotline. The tipster let us know that the companies were spilling some dark material into the water while loading cargo ships at the port.
When our field team investigated, we documented long black plumes of petroleum coke drifting out into the Bay. We also recorded clouds of petcoke dust rising off the conveyor belts, fouling the air and threatening people in nearby neighborhoods.
Companies Commit to Cleaner Operations
Valero and Amports have agreed to make significant infrastructure upgrades and operational changes to improve activities at the site. These changes will include thorough cleaning and maintenance, installing state-of-the-art equipment to prevent spills and aerial drift, as well as monitoring and recording all petcoke loading operations. Baykeeper’s experts will be evaluating the companies’ compliance with the agreement over the next three years to ensure they are no longer polluting.
$2.38 Million for Local Nonprofits
The companies have also agreed to pay $2.38 million in environmental mitigation payments to help offset the harm of their past pollution. They will send the payment to our partners at the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, which will re-grant it to non-profit organizations around the Bay Area to fund projects that benefit the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed. None of these grants will go to Baykeeper.
With this latest pollution settlement, Baykeeper has directed more than $15 million to the community over our 35-year history. Those funds have supported hundreds of Bay-focused environmental initiatives.
“Baykeeper stood up to these two big companies and made them clean up their acts,” said Baykeeper executive director Sejal Choksi-Chugh. “It’s a big win for the Bay and the people around Benicia. It makes me proud to know that there will be less toxic pollution harming the community, and that lots of local grassroots nonprofits will get a big funding boost to support projects like creek cleanups, wetlands restoration, and environmental education programs because of our win.”
This victory was made possible because of our dedicated supporters. Thank you for enabling us to hold this major fossil fuel polluter accountable, defend local communities, and protect San Francisco Bay.
In a previous post, I shared the Baykeeper press release announcing the photo and video evidence of illegal polluting of the Carquinez Strait and San Francisco Bay by Benicia AMPORTS.
Re: Notice of Ongoing Violations and Intent to File a “Citizen Suit” Under the Clean Water Act
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) regarding violations of the Clean Water Act1 (“CWA” or “Act”) at the Amports Port of Benicia Terminal, owned and operated by Amports, Inc. (“Amports”) at 1997 Elm Road, Benicia, CA 94510 (“Facility”) and 1007 Bayshore Road, Benicia, CA 94510. The purpose of this letter (“Notice Letter”) is to put Amports on notice that, at the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date the Notice Letter is served, Baykeeper intends to file a “citizen suit” action against Amports in U.S. Federal District Court. The civil action will allege significant, ongoing, and continuous violations of the Act and California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit2 (“General Permit”) at the Facility, including but not limited to, the direct deposition of petroleum coke (“petcoke”) into the water from the conveyance system, equipment, and ship, aerial deposition of petcoke directly to the water from the deck of the ship, and the uncontrolled discharge of polluted storm water to the Carquinez Strait, a part of the San Francisco Bay.
Detailed list of violations
As described in detail below, Amports is liable for ongoing violations of the Act as a consequence of the Facility’s: (1) direct discharge of petcoke into the Carquinez Strait, both through deck washing and direct aerial deposition; (2) inaccurate use of SIC code designations to avoid coverage for regulated industrial activities under the General Permit; (3) failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the General Permit resulting in unpermitted storm water discharges, including but not limited to the preparation and implementation of a proper Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan related to Amports’ petcoke loading operation, preparation and implementation of a Monitoring Implementation Plan, and compliance with technology-based Effluent Limitations.
60-day notice and offer of settlement
CWA section 505(b) requires that sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of a civil action under CWA section 505(a), a citizen must give notice of their intent to file suit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). Notice must be given to the alleged violator, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State in which the violations occur. As required by section 505(b), this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit provides notice to Amports of the violations that have occurred and which continue to occur at the Facility. After the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit, Baykeeper intends to file suit in federal court against Amports under CWA section 505(a) for the violations described more fully below.
During the 60-day notice period, Baykeeper would like to discuss effective remedies for the violations noticed in this letter. We suggest that you contact us as soon as possible so that these discussions may be completed by the conclusion of the 60-day notice period. Please note that it is our policy to file a complaint in federal court as soon as the notice period ends, even if discussions are in progress.
Background and photos
A. San Francisco Baykeeper
San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) is a non-profit public benefit corporation….
Members of Baykeeper reside in Benicia, California, as well as in many of the surrounding communities. Baykeeper’s members and supporters use and enjoy San Francisco Bay and other waters for various recreational, educational, and spiritual purposes. Baykeeper’s members’ use and enjoyment of these waters are negatively affected by the pollution caused by the Facility’s operations….
B. The Owner and/or Operator of the Facility
Amports, Inc. is a dba of APS West Coast Inc. and is identified as the owner and operator of the Benicia Port Terminal Company. All three entities have the same address, CEO, Secretary, CFO, and Controller.
C. The Facility’s Industrial Activities and Discharges of Petcoke and Other Pollutants
The Facility is a roughly 400-acre site which includes marine cargo loading equipment, the petcoke loading equipment and conveyor system, parking for cars, docking area and equipment for ships, silos to store petcoke, train car petcoke offloading area and equipment, vehicle maintenance, equipment cleaning, ship cleaning, ship maintenance, and other facilities. According to Amports’ 2015 Notice of Intent to comply with the General Permit under the Clean Water Act, at least 8 acres at the Facility consisted of areas that were exposed to storm water.
The Valero Benicia Refinery processes crude oil by separating it into a range of hydrocarbon components or fractions. Petroleum fractions include heavy oils and residual materials used to make asphalt or petcoke, mid-range materials such as diesel (heating oil), jet fuel, and gasoline, and lighter products, such as butane, propane, and fuel gases.
The petcoke is transported via rail to the Facility and is stored there in silos. Amports transfers the petcoke from the silos to a ship’s hold at the Facility’s dock by way of a covered conveyor system. During this process, the petcoke may escape in half a dozen or more ways.
First, petcoke spills off of the conveyor belt system and is deposited onto the wharf and directly into Carquinez Strait. This occurs while the crane boom is in the lowered position, and, as depicted below, continues as the boom is raised while the conveyor continues to operate.
March 2021
Second, petcoke is deposited onto the deck of the ship and into the water, potentially due to overspray from the loading mechanism or other operations, leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.
February 2021
Third, at the conclusion of the loading, longshoremen hose off the deck of the ship, and the related loading equipment on and around the ship, cleaning the equipment and forcing contaminated runoff directly into the Carquinez Strait, again leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.
February 2021
Fourth, as the ship is being loaded, large visible clouds of black particulate matter, presumably petcoke dust, drift through the air away from the ship before being directly deposited into the water and/or onto the nearby shoreline.
Additionally, petcoke may escape and be deposited onto the Facility or into the water during: (a) the offload from trains, (b) the movement of petcoke around the Facility, (c) storage at the Facility, (d) from equipment and vehicle cleaning, (e) from equipment and vehicle maintenance or repair, and (f) each time a sufficient rain event occurs due to the Facility’s discharge of pollutants from industrial activity in storm water, through direct discharges of industrial pollutants.
The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds.
Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.
Detailed harmful effects of Petcoke
The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds. Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.
Amports is permitted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to process and load 2 million tons of petcoke onto export ships over a 12-month period. Amports does not have any permits from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”). Amports is not permitted to discharge petcoke directly into the Carquinez Strait. And Amports is also not permitted to discharge any storm water, directly or indirectly, that is the result of industrial activity, including water that is commingled with industrial discharges.
Baykeeper’s suit will allege that petcoke is deposited on the site with every instance of: petcoke being transported by rail to the site, petcoke offloading from a train at the Facility, and petcoke being handled and transported on the Facility’s premises. Additionally, Baykeeper will allege that petcoke enters the Carquinez Strait with every instance of: petcoke being loaded and/or oversprayed onto a ship docked at the Facility, petcoke-related equipment, including the conveyor systems, cranes, and ships, being maintained and/or cleaned, and each storm event at the Facility in excess of 0.1” of precipitation.
The discharge of pollutants from industrial facilities contributes to the impairment of surface waters and aquatic-dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for ecosystems to regain their health and to protect public health. As part of its investigation of the Facility, Baykeeper observed and documented by video numerous instances of illegal discharges during Amports’ various activities and handling of marine cargo (specifically petcoke) at the Facility between November 2020 and March 2021.
Additionally, with every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted storm water originating from industrial operations such as the Facility pour into storm drains and local waterways. The consensus among agencies and water quality specialists is that storm water pollution accounts for more than half of the total pollution entering surface waters each year. Such discharges of pollutants from industrial facilities contribute to the impairment of downstream waters and aquatic dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for the ecosystem to regain its health.
Click image for full 20-page notice
THE REMAINDER OF THE DOCUMENT is organized into the following sections, which you can study at length here.
II. THE CLEAN WATER ACT (p. 7) A. The NPDES Permit Program (p. 7) B. California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit (p. 8) C. The Facility’s Permit Enrollment Status (p. 12) III. NAME AND ADDRESS OF NOTICING PARTY (p. 13) IV. COUNSEL (p. 13) V. VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND GENERAL PERMIT (p. 13) A. Amports’ Direct, Non-Storm Water Discharges Without an NPDES Permit (p. 14) B. Amports’ Illegal Indirect Discharges Without An NPDES Permit (p. 15) C. Amports’ Illegal Storm Water Discharges (p. 15) D. Violations of the Act and General Permit Reporting and Monitoring Rules (p. 16) E. Violations of the General Permit’s SWPPP Requirements (p. 17) VI. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (p. 17) VII. CONCLUSION (p. 18) ATTACHMENT 1: DATES OF ALLEGED EXCEEDANCES BY AMPORTS FROM OCTOBER 4, 2016 TO OCTOBER 4, 2021 (p. 19) ATTACHMENT 2: SERVICE LIST (p. 20)
[Note from BenIndy: The following Politico article suggests a way for Benicia to address its budget crisis, while acknowledging the presence of a financial powerhouse in our back yard. Oh, and, do you suppose this playbook would work with regard to a port tax, too?]
California city’s $550m deal with Chevron could be a national model for environmentalists
California environmentalists have a new playbook for beating Big Oil.
The Chevron Richmond Refinery is seen in 2023. In the summer of 2012, a massive blaze broke out at the refinery. | Eric Risberg/AP
RICHMOND, California — In mid-August, this Northern California city extracted a half-billion dollar payout from Chevron, one of the most powerful companies in the world. It didn’t require a lawsuit, or a refinery disaster, or years of negotiations.
Instead, Chevron caved in the face of a local initiative that would have taxed every barrel it produced within Richmond’s city limits at its century-old, 3,000-acre plant just north of San Francisco. Within weeks of the tax being placed on the ballot, the oil and gas giant offered an unprecedented $550 million settlement to make it go away.
The local activists and city council who initiated the process had not set out to win a compromise, but they have revealed a new source of leverage that can be used to win concessions from large corporations with little political bloodshed. In doing so, they may have inadvertently created a playbook for other local governments by proposing a 50-year tax that would have left Chevron’s business future to the whim of voters.
“The community of Richmond has created a movement that will echo across the nation,” Mayor Eduardo Martinez said upon accepting a deal that will increase the city’s annual general fund by about one-quarter annually over a decade and dramatically shift its medium-term financial outlook. “Other communities too can require their polluters to do the right thing, either by negotiation, or by ballot measure.”
In the weeks since the settlement was ratified, some of those plans are already being set into motion. Representatives from Healthy Martinez, a watchdog group in a nearby Bay Area city home to PBF Energy’s Martinez Refining Company, say they are exploring their own tax initiative. Organizers who helped launch Richmond’s measure say at least two other California cities with major refineries have contacted them for guidance.
Statewide initiatives in California are frequently used as leverage by business groups and deep-pocketed activists to catalyze negotiations with elected officials. Last year, the threat of a referendum over a $22 minimum wage for fast-food employees led restaurant chains and unions to settle on a $20-per-hour accommodation. This summer, a half-dozen measures — on matters as varied as pandemic preparedness and personal-finance education — were pulled off the statewide ballot after lawmakers appeased their proponents by compromise legislation.
Chevron officials minimize the Richmond deal as simply the latest “historical wrinkle” in a sequence of tax agreements with the city, and one that sets no new precedent.
But the speed with which the company succumbed to political pressure has activists asking whether the approach of forcing environmentally damaging industries to defend their business practices before voters can’t be exported across the state, or even the country.
“All of these refinery communities should be considering this kind of effort,” said Healthy Martinez member Heidi Taylor.
A fire fight
It started with a fire.
On a gusty August evening in the summer of 2012, a massive blaze broke out at the Chevron refinery that since 1902 had sat on the flatlands near a wide point jutting out into the San Francisco Bay.
A thick band of black smoke stretched southward across the bay toward Oakland and Berkeley, the dark cloud billowing up from Richmond like a noxious beast released from its bonds. Emergency sirens rang out late into the day. Commuter trains stopped running. The county health department warned residents to remain inside.
By late evening, the flames were contained, but the damage was done. In the days and months to come, 15,000 people sought treatment at local hospitals for respiratory problems related to the fire. Chevron pleaded guilty a year later to criminal charges for failing to fix deficient equipment and paid $2 million in fines.
The refinery had caught fire before — an explosion in 1989 that injured eight people, and then another conflagration in 1999 — but the 2012 fire severed the fragile trust between the city and Chevron in a new way.
Chevron already had a billion-dollar expansion project underway. Two environmental justice groups, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and Communities for a Better Environment, successfully challenged the project in court, on the basis that aspects of Chevron’s environmental impact report were lacking. After notching a victory against the company, activists who had worked for a decade to mobilize residents against the city’s largest employer suddenly found many more were fed up with its presence.
“For organizers now who are now adults, that was an awakening moment for them,” said Megan Zapanta, who in 2011 joined APEN to work with communities living alongside polluting industries. “We started talking about how to hold Chevron accountable.”
A year after the fire, thousands of people marched from the Richmond metro station to the gates of the refinery to raise awareness of its safety record.
The city, after a legacy of siding with Chevron and the thousands of jobs it represented, filed a lawsuit in August 2013 against the company for “a continuation of years of neglect, lax oversight and corporate indifference to necessary safety inspection and repairs.” (Chevron settled with the city in 2018 for $5 million without admitting fault over the fire.)
Activists pushed back when Chevron plastered the city with ads arguing that the update was a mere “modernization” needed to ensure safety after the 2012 fire. Through sustained electoral and community pressure, the groups ultimately helped extract a $90 million community benefits agreement in exchange for the city council approving it in July 2014.
The groups saw an opening to escalate the conflict. Communities for a Better Environment convened local meetings to discuss refinery impacts on residents’ health. APEN held leadership training, aiming to empower people to advocate for their neighborhood. The Richmond Progressive Alliance helped win elections and shift the city council away from corporate influence that former Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said used to put it “under Chevron’s thumb.”
“What could we do in Richmond, something that galvanized our local bases?” APEN’s Zapanta said. “Not just something defensive. We were going all in on something.”
What it looked like to hold a refinery accountable changed dramatically over the course of that decade, amid growing awareness of climate impacts and the shifting sands of oil economics. In 2020, California set ambitious deadlines for ending fossil fuel refining. Nearby refineries converted to biofuel. The activists began thinking about how to prepare for a day when the refinery would pack up and leave town.
That same year, the Richmond City Council tried to increase the share Chevron paid to the city by proposing a tax on businesses’ gross receipts, modeled on one approved three years earlier in Carson, the Los Angeles area city that is home to a Marathon Petroleum refinery. California law requires any special tax to go before voters, and after a campaign driven largely by service unions, Richmond voters approved Measure U by a 50 point margin.
But the environmental justice groups were not satisfied with the $9 million in revenue generated by the new tax. Activists dreamed of a larger fund that would help transform Richmond, mending streets and funding new parks and bringing in job training programs and new businesses.
In searching for ways to secure revenue beyond the city’s standard business tax and license fees, the groups’ attorneys alighted on the idea of taxing Chevron for every barrel it refined in Richmond over the next fifty years. Such a tax would bring in as much as $90 million annually, according to the city’s projections.
“It was a question of what are the tools that are available to us,” said Kerry Guerin, a lawyer with Communities for a Better Environment. “We began to see that a ballot measure general tax would be a way to develop revenue streams for the city.”
Zapanta and other activists wanted to time the necessary initiative for the 2024 general election to capture the type of high turnout that progressives generally think boosts their causes. They chose to get there through the newly friendly city council, rather than qualifying the initiative by collecting signatures, even though it risked putting control of the measure’s language in the hands of politicians with their own interests.
Lawyers from Communities for a Better Environment drafted the proposal while Asian Pacific Environmental Network organizers worked to think through a fundraising and campaign strategy. Although the tax proponents had been actively talking with city council members, they still tried to work in secret to prevent Chevron from learning of their plans, delaying any public report on the measure until they were ready for a campaign.
In the spring of 2024, the groups delivered a proposed initiative to Richmond City Council, whose seven members were all generally supportive, according to current Councilmember McLaughlin. In May, the council voted unanimously to place the tax on the November ballot. Elected officials pitched the tax to their constituents as part of a grand vision that would permanently transition the economy of Richmond, a smokestack city in the early stages of gentrification, away from its industrial history.
Chevron appeared intent on escalating the conflict. A corporate employee and a newly formed group called Coalition for Richmond’s Future sued the city for producing what they called an “aspirational” and “misleading” ballot measure. A company spokesperson said Chevron would be forced to leave Richmond if the tax was enacted, and accused Richmond officials of “playing chicken with the region’s economic future.” Soon after, the company appeared to give weight to the threat by announcing plans to move its headquarters from nearby San Ramon to Texas.
In private, Chevron struck a more accommodating posture. By early August, company representatives were quietly negotiating with the city attorney, the mayor and an ad-hoc committee in what a spokesperson later described as an “open dialogue.” The company initially offered $300 million, and the city countered with a higher number, according to a city presentation. The negotiations were up against a hard deadline: Aug. 14, the final date for a ballot initiative to be removed from the fall ballot.
That day, the council called a special meeting to announce a compromise with unanimous support from its members. Officials would drop the pursuit of a tax on the refinery in exchange for $550 million paid out over ten years, during which time members said it would provide about as much money as the tax would have.
Members who feared the uncertainty that would accompany protracted litigation after the initiative’s passage — as happened in Carson, which had to place the vast majority of its tax revenue into escrow as it awaits the outcome of lawsuits — welcomed the settlement as a “bird in hand.”
“It’s not necessarily a win-win, because I don’t think anyone actually won through this process,” said Ross Allen, a company spokesperson. “But I do think it’s something both sides can probably live with.”
Initiative proponents knew council members were seeking a settlement but were surprised by the timing of the announcement, according to Zapanta and others within the campaign. They had hired a canvassing team to call voters and were organizing a volunteer program for door knocking. A campaign film shoot was scheduled for the day after the city council meeting.
Those who had been chasing Chevron for a decade saw politicians allowing the corporation to buy its way out of a tax it viewed as an existential threat. “Our campaign didn’t approach the city just so Chevron could cut a deal that is pennies to them,” Guerin said.
When the levy breaks
While the activists who brought Chevron to heel are left with mixed feelings about the settlement, other communities are approaching them as victors.
Policy staff with Local Progress, an organization composed of progressive local elected officials nationwide, are in discussions about bringing the per-barrel tax to other cities. McLaughlin said she held meetings last week with a group that aims to use a similar ballot initiative to tax Chevron’s refinery in El Segundo. More communities will likely follow, and possibly look to go after other polluting industries like chemical companies, cement and steel plants, or even auto factories with specialized taxes.
“I don’t think anything is plug and play,” Zapanta said. “But we’re very excited to share lessons.”
Robb Korinke, the founder of a California political consultancy specializing in local ballot-measure campaigns, said the Richmond activists’ represents a “maturation of organizing tactics” in the environmental justice movement. That includes a shift away from emphasizing global themes like climate change toward a local environmental approach that can appeal to a more diverse coalition.
There will be challenges in exporting Richmond’s process to other jurisdictions. It is not entirely unusual for cities to try to pull money from the big businesses within their jurisdiction. But ironically, it is the California law that was supposed to make it more difficult to enact a special tax, by requiring voter approval, that may have given Richmond a unique source of leverage over Chevron through the threat of an all-consuming ballot fight.
Not all local organizers can credibly threaten a large corporation at the ballot. According to David Hackett, the chair of the board of transportation fuel consulting firm Stillwater Associates, there’s no guarantee that other communities have the same level of antagonism that Richmond has toward Chevron. Plus, a less deep-pocketed refinery might simply fold in the face of a $50 million yearly tax.
The success of the initiative in Richmond was a result of decades of organizing and research by a grassroots base that became formidable enough to scare Chevron. The Healthy Martinez coalition, which formed in response to a different high-profile refinery disaster in 2022, is in its infancy compared to what has been built in Richmond.
“The Richmond refinery is a unique asset and the Bay Area is a unique community and political environment,” said Allen. “Chevron maintains continuous dialogue with the jurisdictions where we have assets. The agreement was fruit of that conversation and reflects our long-term discussion with city officials.”
The organizers of the Richmond campaign insist from the outset they had more in their sights than just taxing Chevron. Their initiative, they point out, would have been called Polluters Pay.
“It was always our intention to set a precedent,” Zapata said.
[BenIndy: This information is at the bottom of the release, but it’s worth repeating top and center. You can view data from the Benicia-Fitzgerald air monitoring station (BFAMS) on the Air District website by Air Quality Index level and by pollutant concentration level. If you go to those pages, scroll down to the “Eastern Zone” section to check on BFAMS’s data. More info on the effort to expand air monitoring in communities near refineries can be found here. A brief BenIndy overview of the site with screenshots follow this release. To be totally transparent, the BenIndy has unilaterally assigned the station acronym of BFAMS as it’s currently unclear if there’s an official acronym.]
July 18, 2024, 10:01 AM
SAN FRANCISCO – The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is announcing a new air monitoring station in Benicia as part of the agency’s efforts to establish or expand air monitoring stations in areas where large sources of pollution may contribute to localized pollution sources that are not captured by the Air District’s existing network.
The additional data generated by community monitors, like the Benicia air monitoring station, will provide refinery frontline communities with real-time, local-scale air pollution data, reflecting day-to-day cumulative air pollution levels. This data also supports analysis of air quality trends and other air quality assessments.
“This new, state-of-the-art air monitoring station in Benicia is a major step forward in assessing and addressing refinery emissions in a community impacted by those emissions” said Dr. Philip Fine, executive officer of the Air District. “The station will provide crucial data to better respond to incidents and to inform our plans to better protect residents. It is one of many tools the Air District is employing to improve air quality in communities near large pollution sources such as refineries.”
“This new Benicia air monitoring station is a vital addition to our community, providing us with the detailed, real-time data needed to understand and address our air quality concerns,” said Steve Young, Benicia mayor and member of the Air District Board of Directors. “It’s a step in the right direction for ensuring the health and safety of Benicia’s residents.”
The Air District is prioritizing communities with petroleum refineries and large renewable fuels manufacturing facilities, such as Benicia. The new station, the Benicia-Fitzgerald air monitoring station, is located near East 2nd and East J Street in Benicia.
The Benicia-Fitzgerald air monitoring station provides real-time data on the following pollutants: particulate matter, or PM2.5, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and black carbon.
While the Air District operates numerous ambient air monitoring stations across the Bay Area, the data from those stations does not reflect pollutant concentrations in every neighborhood. In addition, exposure to pollution varies from place to place and some communities near large industrial facilities bear a disproportionate burden from emissions or other forms of air pollution.
So what does this new beast look like? Let’s take a look. The following screenshots were taken around 7 pm on July 18, 2024. They are here for illustrative purposes only.
This screenshot from BAAQMD’s Air Quality Data webpage shows the Benicia-Fitzgerald Air Monitoring Station’s (BFAMS) readings of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), helpfully indicating elevated levels with yellow.
Users can click the Pollutants button to toggle the display to check on other pollutants.
The pollutants BFAMS is monitoring include Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter, High Conditions, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Sulfur Dioxide. Clicking the pollutant you are interested in will change the display to show those readouts specifically.
Per BAAQMD’s explainers, “High Conditions displays the highest overall AQI value estimate for each hour, and in the right-hand column the highest AQI for the day, which will usually be for ozone in the summertime and PM2.5 in the wintertime.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.