Category Archives: Benicia City Council

Benicia City Council, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Fossil fuels, Global warming, Public permitting, Rail routing, Surface Transportation Board, Sustainable development, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

SF CHRON LETTERS: Deny the Permit | Abandon the crude-by-rail project

Repost from the San Francisco Chronicle

SFChron_logoDeny the permit

By Jan Curtis, Palo Alto, Apr 22, 2016

Thank you for “Stopping oil trains is right thing for Benicia and planet” (Editorial, April 15). I am thankful some people are paying attention. Oil trains ought not to be on tracks going through populated areas. I sincerely hope the City Council of Benicia will deny the permit.

Jan Curtis, Palo Alto 

Abandon the crude-by-rail project

By Allen Carroll, San Jose, Apr 23, 2016

Regarding “Stopping oil trains is right thing for Benicia and planet” (Editorial, April 15): On Tuesday evening, the Benicia’s City Council delayed its decision on permitting the Valero refinery to add a terminal for crude-by-rail shipments. Three council members are hoping for clarification of certain legal niceties via an opinion from the federal Surface Transportation Board. This is in spite of assurances from California Attorney General Harris that the council has the requisite authority, and needs nothing from the board.

Some comments expressed at Monday evening’s council session supported the idea that Valero has been a good corporate citizen, and therefore the project should be approved. But circumstances have changed. Although it can be said that we, whether residents of Benicia or not, owe our prosperity in large measure to the clever exploitation of fossil fuels, it does not follow that we owe our future to it. Quite the opposite: With each passing month, as global temperature records are repeatedly set and again broken, we find that our former friend begins to resemble a dope pusher.

We must use the resources we have to rebuild our energy infrastructure to be more sustainable. In the interest of all, and the Surface Transportation Board notwithstanding, Valero should abandon this project.

Allen Carroll, San Jose
Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

ARGUS: Benicia seeks federal guidance on Valero rail

Repost (lead-in only) from Argus Media

Benicia seeks federal guidance on Valero rail

21 Apr 2016, 5.46 pm GMT

Houston, 21 April (Argus) — Officials in Benicia, California, have delayed a decision on an embattled Valero rail project proposal for up to five months to seek clarification from federal regulators.

The Benicia city council on 19 April voted to delay a decision until as late as 20 September as they seek an opinion from the Surface Transportation Board on whether federal rail regulations preempted local control over land use involving a proposed 70,000 b/d railed crude unloading facility at Valero’s 170,000 b/d refinery in the city.

“That is a precious decision-making ability that we have as a city and I wouldn’t give that up easily,” Benicia mayor Elizabeth Patterson, a project opponent, said before voting against the decision during the meeting. “I will go down fighting.”  (continued…)

 

 

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD: Valero crude oil by rail decision delayed to September

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald

Benicia: Valero crude oil by rail decision delayed to September

By Irma Widjojo, 04/21/16, 12:01 AM PDT

BENICIA — The public will have to wait until at least late summer for a possible resolution on Valero Benicia Refinery’s controversial crude-by-rail project, after the City Council voted 3-2 to postpone a decision to Sept. 20.

Vice Mayor Mark Hughes, Councilwoman Christina Strawbridge and Councilman Alan Schwartzman said they need more information to make any decision on the project, while Mayor Elizabeth Patterson and Councilman Tom Campbell said they are ready to move forward.

In December 2012, the refinery submitted an application seeking permission to build infrastructure to bring two 50-car trains a day carrying up to 70,000 barrels of North American crude oil into Benicia. The issue has sparked intense debate in the Solano County city amid growing environmental and safety concerns surrounding crude-by-rail traffic nationwide.

The issue of postponement was raised when Valero submitted the request last month during the first day of the appeal hearing. An attorney representing the company said the refinery is seeking to send a request for a declaratory order from the Surface Transportation Board, or STB, on the issue of federal pre-emption in regards to the project.

“I’m really frustrated with the whole pre-emption issue,” Schwartzman said following Tuesday’s vote. “If there’s an opportunity to narrow down that pre-emption issue, then gosh darn it, I want that opportunity. Let’s ask (Surface Transportation Board) and get some type of feedback. I know this is an emotional issue … but in my mind, at this particular point, there’s a lot of uncertainty.”

Much of the discussion during the Planning Commission hearing on the project revolved around federal pre-emption.

City staff and Valero asserted that the city is legally prohibited from imposing any mitigation measures on rail-related impacts, or denying the project because of those reasons. However, the commission unanimously voted to deny the project and declined to certify its environmental report citing vagueness in the law.

The report indicates that all 11 “significant and unavoidable” impacts are rail-related.

Valero officials said they plan to send the request to STB in 30 days, and estimated that an order will be issued within six months.

If no response is received by Sept. 20, the council would decide if it would wait further or make a decision based on current information.

“We are glad that the council took up our recommendation to seek more info from STB,” said Chris Howe, Valero’s health, safety and environment director.

Patterson and Campbell, who opposed the postponement, also said they were going to vote to deny the permit use application based on the information given. While Patterson said she was not going to vote to certify the project’s environmental impact report, Campbell said he would.

Meanwhile, state Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office sent a strongly worded letter to the city earlier this month saying it disagrees with the city staff and Valero’s conclusion that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination ACT, or ICCTA, prohibits the city from taking rail-related impacts into account while deciding on the project.