Exhibit 1: Land Use Permit Application Crude by Rail Project, Valero Benicia Refinery (Dec. 2012)
Exhibit 2: Excerpts – City of Benicia, Valero Benicia Crude By Rail Project, Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (2015)
Exhibit 3: Excerpts – Transcript of Record Benicia Special Planning Commission Meeting (Feb. 11, 2016)
Exhibit 4: City of Benicia, Cal., Planning Comm’n Resolution No. 16-1 (Feb. 11, 2016)
Exhibit 5: Excerpts – Transcript of Record Benicia City Council Meeting (Mar. 15, 2016)
Exhibit 6: Excerpts – Transcript of Record Benicia City Council Meeting (Apr. 19, 2016) [Note that this transcript was made available to Valero well in advance of its June 2 posting for public review on the City website)
Exhibit 7: Excerpts – Transcript of Record Benicia Special Planning Commission Meeting (Feb. 9, 2016)
I have a great deal of respect and gratitude toward municipal politicians, particularly those who toil on the city council and commission level. The hours are long, the decisions tough, and the pay bad to non-existent. Heaven knows that without good folks looking after the stuff that keeps a social contract intact, Thomas Hobbes’s “natural state” of chaos, violence, and potholes would be the norm.
This goes for the folks who lead our fair city. Benicia’s mayor and members of the council seem like fine people. They attend the meetings, do the horrific amount of homework required to be conversant with the issues, and overall appear to be decent folks with a sincere believe that they are doing the collective good by serving their fellow citizens. I’m grateful for their service; but I just wish that three of them—Alan Schwartzman, Christina Strawbridge and Mark Hughes—would resign.
Their collective efforts to secure Valero’s delay of the crude-by-rail decision against overwhelming community disapproval, the unanimous rejection of the project by the Planning Commission, the concerns of every major city along the proposed rail path, and the thousands of letters and statements against the project by informed and credible experts raises the bar of small town political shamefulness.
That it was clear from the start that the three council members were going to side with Valero verges on chicanery. Why put the town’s citizens through the hope of believing that their concerns of health and wellbeing are being heard and matter, if you support a volatile project that has a blast zone that includes an elementary school?
Since none of the three has stepped forward with a clear and convincing argument about why they sided with Valero—after all Valero would still bring the oil in by existing means and really doesn’t need the continuous line of daily rail tankers to stay in business and pay its taxes—we are left with the impression that once again, a small American town is at the mercy of a major oil company.
The history of the US oil industry is a trail of tears going back to the early days of ruthless land grabs, the mendacity and murder of Standard Oil’s oligarchy, the tragic violence of the Middle East, and the rise of climate change and environmental pollution. And to think, all this could, and still can, be avoided by shifting from carbon-based to renewable energy.
(As an aside, look at Denton Texas. This small Texas oil town, home to many of Dallas’s oil executives, banned fracking and drilling in the city limits. Evidently, they didn’t want to run the risk of an accident close to parks and schools. There’s a lesson here for Benicia. As a state, New York stood tall against the oil industry, but Denton is the only US small town I know of to have the self-respect required to say enough.)
So, the question before the citizens of Benicia is now what? What good is Benicia’s formal planning process if corporate power can bludgeon a thorough and lengthy review and rejection of the crude-by-rail proposal? Why put the residents through all the work and hope of participating in the democratic process if there is no intention by the council to understand their concerns or follow their wishes?
I grew up in rural America and know what a “company town” is. In some ways, it was simple and easy, letting the company bosses tell you where to work, what and who to like, what to believe in and who to vote for.
But it lacked fulfillment and self-determination, and I moved to the Bay Area to be part of the epicenter of the world’s intellectual and scientific renaissance where freedom of thought, action, and the ideals of local democracy are so highly acclaimed. Yet, ironically, I end up in a “company town”, where a huge carbon polluter can seemly send three decent council members scurrying to service its greed.
The problems of 21st century cities, big and small, are complex and can no longer be inclusive of one economic driver or administered by one major corporate power. For Benicia to move forward and join the extraordinary Bay Area knowledge-based economy we need to say goodbye to those three council members who lack the wherewithal to help the city past its company-town era.
Other once-rural Bay Area cities have thrown of the oppressive yoke of being run by a single company, exchanging “easy” for self-determination. Cities like Sunnyvale and Mountain View long ago threw off the yoke of the defense industry and learned to reinvent themselves and flourish. Walnut Creek, Livermore, and now Richmond are joining the prosperity of a sophisticated diverse economy. Vallejo and the other cities along I-80 are showing signs of change as the robust modern Bay Area economy moves outward from Silicon Valley.
If Benicia hopes to continue as a fully functioning city with a compliment of services and a healthy and vigorous citizenry, it has to look forward, shed its dependence on Valero, and embrace a 21st century reality.
Benicia Oil-by-Rail Battle Hinges on Legal Controversy
Opponents of oil-by-rail shipments want the city to block a proposed Valero facility, but Valero says the city lacks this power.
By Jean Tepperman
Andres Soto said Benicia shouldn’t wait on federal regulators to reject Valero’s oil-by-rail project. BROOKE ANDERSON
An oil-by-rail facility that Valero wants to build at its Benicia refinery has been stalled by opponents concerned about environmental impacts and safety issues for over three years now. But Valero and an attorney working on contract for the City of Benicia claim that the city cannot stop the project because federal railroad law preempts the city’s powers. Project opponents say this is a flawed interpretation of federal law, however, and that Valero’s new oil facility should be cancelled.
Valero’s original proposal was presented in 2013 as a simple plan to build a couple of rail spurs from the main railroad line to the company’s refinery, and the city announced its intention to approve the plan without doing an environmental impact review. A torrent of opposition greeted this announcement, however. As a result, the city was forced to conduct three environmental impact reviews and hold public hearings. Then, last February, Benicia’s planning commission unanimously reversed approval for the project. Now the oil facility is pending a final decision by the city council.
Supporters say the crude-by-rail project is necessary to preserve Valero’s — and Benicia’s — economic viability and the nation’s energy independence. Opponents say it will cause increased air pollution and environmental destruction, and that expanding oil-by-rail transportation increases the risk of catastrophic accidents like explosions and fires due to derailment.
But according to Bradley Hogin, a contract attorney advising the city, the federal government’s authority over railroads means that local governments are not allowed to make regulations that affect rail traffic — even indirectly. And when they’re deciding on a local project, cities are not allowed to consider the impact of anything that happens on a rail line, claims Hogin. The legal doctrine Hogin is referring to is called federal preemption.
But other attorneys call Hogin’s interpretation of federal laws “extreme” and say that the city has every right to block the project if it so chooses. Environmentalists have also pointed out that Hogin has represented oil companies against environmental and community groups in the past. Project opponents say Hogin is biased in favor of Valero, and is not giving the city accurate legal advice. When asked if Hogin’s previous work suggests that he could be biased, Benicia City Attorney Heather McLaughlin said no. “I think he has had great experience in the refinery industry and I think that’s been helpful for us,” she said.
Hogin’s legal argument that cities are preempted from influencing oil-by-rail projects has major national implications. As the shipment of crude oil via railroad has grown in recent years, so have the number of derailments, oil spills, fires, and explosions, including the 2013 explosion that killed forty-seven people in Lac Megantic, Quebec. As a result, communities across North America have demanded that local authorities stop rail shipments of crude oil through their towns. In addition to Benicia, San Luis Obispo County is currently in the midst of a battle over crude by rail.
“Hogin is making a case that would affect cities across the nation dealing with crude by rail,” said Marilyn Bardet, a founder of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community. “They [are trying] to create a legal precedent here.”
Many lawyers, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, say the exact extent of federal preemption of local authority is still being worked out in the courts. In her legal opinion on the Valero project’s environmental review, Harris cited several cases in which local governments were allowed to implement health and safety regulations involving railroads.
Several lawyers submitted opinions and testified in Benicia City Council hearings held on April 4 and 5 challenging Hogin’s interpretation. And in one of the hearings, Berkeley City Council member Linda Maio told her Benicia counterparts that the city council has the right to make its own land-use decisions. “This is in your town and you’ve been elected to see to the health and safety of your citizens,” said Maio.
Valero and its critics have been arguing about the extent to which Benicia’s authority is preempted by federal law since last summer. After the planning commission rejected Valero’s project in February, the company showed up at the March city council meeting with a surprise request: that the council delay voting on the project until Valero has a chance to make an appeal to the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), which regulates railroads.
That didn’t sound right to Benicia resident Andres Soto, who works for Communities for a Better Environment, an environmental group opposed to the project, so Soto called the STB and talked to staff attorney Gabriel Mayer. In a report Soto submitted to the city council, he wrote that Mayer told him that the STB is not the final authority on federal preemption, and that the state and federal courts serve that purpose.
Soto also said that the STB deals with disputes among railroads, and since Valero is not a railroad, it’s unlikely the agency would take its case. Many speakers at last week’s hearings urged the city council to deny Valero’s bid for a delay and reject the project immediately.
But project supporters emphasized the economic benefits of bringing crude oil by rail to Benicia. Berman Olbadia of the Western States Petroleum Association, an oil industry lobbying group, said that Valero creates jobs and generates tax revenue. Michael Wolf, of Ageion Energy Services, said that oil by rail reduces California’s dependence on foreign oil.
Later, however, Greg Karras, senior scientist at Communities for a Better Environment, said North American crude would create serious new problems that the environmental reviews for the Valero project did not address. Canadian tar sands produce very heavy oil with an extra load of toxic chemicals, said Karras. In addition, refining tar sands oil would dramatically increase the refinery’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the main pollutant causing global warming. The other major type of North American crude from North Dakota’s Bakken fields produces highly explosive oil. Trains carrying Bakken crude have been involved in a number of fires and explosions.
People from “uprail” communities have also turned out at Benicia hearings to oppose the Valero project. “The oil trains will pass through our downtown and pass my house,” said Frances Burke, a resident of Davis. “We will have the fumes and particulate matter from increased daily trains. I’m also a potential victim of a deadly accident, explosion, or derailment.”
Benicia resident Bardet said the project site is especially dangerous because the crude-oil-offloading tracks would be “adjacent to crude oil storage tanks and Sulphur Springs Creek, in a flood-plain zone and active fault zone, and also directly across from the industrial park along East Channel Road.” According to Bardet, derailment or fire involving flammable crude oil could have catastrophic results.
College student Jaime Gonzalez said the project would further proliferate fossil fuels, which accelerate climate change, and that future generations will bear more of the burden. “The consequences would fall on the shoulders of my generation,” he said.
Hearings will continue April 18 and 19 in Benicia, and the city council will then decide whether to wait for Valero’s federal appeal, or vote to approve or deny the project.
Repost from the East Bay Express [Editor: I am posting this excellent review by Jean Tepperman belatedly, with thanks for East Bay Express’ regional coverage of a Benicia story with huge regional and national implications. I’ve not read a better review of the Feb. 8-11 Benicia Planning Commission hearings. – RS]
Benicia Blocks Oil-By-Rail Plan
By Jean Tepperman, February 12, 2016
Valero Refinery in Benicia. – WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
The little town of Benicia is looking to become the next link in the chain barring crude oil from traveling by rail to the West Coast. After four evenings of contentious hearings, the Benicia Planning Commission on Thursday unanimously rejected Valero refinery’s proposal to build a rail spur that would allow it to import up to 70,000 barrels a day of “North American crude oil” — meaning extra-polluting crude from Canada’s tar sands and the highly explosive crude from North Dakota’s Bakken shale fields. Both fossil fuels have been involved in numerous derailments, explosions, and fires, including a 2013 fire and explosion in Lac Megantic, Quebec that killed 47 people.
Starting on Monday, planning commissioners, led by Commissioner Steve Young, grilled staff members about their decision to recommend approval of the Valero project, identifying inconsistencies and pointing to problems that the project would create, from blocking traffic to increasing pollution to potential oil spills and other emergencies that the city would not be able to cope with. The central issue that emerged, however, was whether the city had the authority to make decisions about the project.
The staff report actually said the benefits of the project did not outweigh the potential harm. Shipping crude oil by rail, the staff found, would have “significant and unavoidable” impacts on air quality, biological resources, and greenhouse gas emissions. These impacts would conflict with air quality planning goals and state goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But the city can’t prevent any of this, the staff report said, because only the federal government has the authority to regulate railroads.
Bradley Hogin, a lawyer whom the city hired on contract to advise on this project, said federal law prevents local governments from interfering with railroads, a principle referred to as “preemption.” According to the interpretation of “preemption” described by Hogin and city staff, local governments are not permitted to take actions that “have the effect of governing or managing rail transport,” even indirectly. And they are not allowed to make decisions about a project based on impacts of rail shipping connected with that project.
“Hogin is making a case that would affect cities across the nation dealing with crude by rail,” said environmental activist Marilyn Bardet in an interview. “They were going to create a legal precedent on preemption here.”
Bardet reported that public testimony by representatives of environmental organizations and “two young women from the Stanford-Mills Law Project made it clear that “there are many people who would disagree with Hogin’s interpretation.”
Roger Lin, lawyer with Communities for a Better Environment, said in an email that, contrary to Hogin’s claims, the California Environmental Quality Act actually requires local governments to consider “indirect or secondary effects that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project, but occur at a different time or place.” Valero is not a railroad, he said, so the “preemption” doctrine does not bar the city from using its land-use power to reject the project.
However “preemption” is interpreted, Bardet said, “the commissioners seemed uncomfortable with being told they would have to approve the project based on considerations they couldn’t accept.” Late in the hearing process, commission chair Donald Dean said, “I understand the preemption issue on a theoretical legal level, but I can’t understand this on a human level.”
Bardet expressed appreciation for the commissioners’ concern. “My sense was that these guys are real human beings,” she said. “They all listened carefully. None of them was asleep.”
Project opponents packed the hearing room for four straight nights, filling two overflow rooms on the first night. People came from “uprail” communities, including Davis and Sacramento, as well as allies from across the Bay Area, Bardet said.
Opposition to the project has been led by a community group, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, formed in 2013 when the city seemed ready to approve the project without requiring any environmental impact study. “We joined with other refinery communities in the Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition” and in a coalition working to persuade the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to pass tough new regulations on refinery pollution, Bardet said. She said support from the National Resources Defense Council and Communities for a Better Environment was also important. “The grassroots came alive together,” she said.
Many of these organizations, like the Benicia group, are concerned, not only about the hazards of shipping crude by rail, but by the impact of refining the extra-polluting crude oil from Canada’s tar sands, Bardet said. She noted that the city’s environmental review of the project made no mention of this issue, although it is well established that refining dirty crude oil, like oil from tar sands, emits more health-harming pollution as well as more greenhouse gases.
Valero is expected to appeal the planning commission decision to the city council, which could meet to decide on the issue as early as mid-March. “The city council is going to be hard-pressed to reject the views of their own planning commission,” Bardet said.
She emphasized the significance of this decision for the national and international issue of shipping crude oil by rail. “The whole world is watching,” she said. “I just got a message from a guy in New Jersey congratulating us.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.