Category Archives: Clean Air Act

Clean Air Act, Clean water, Climate Change

Editorial: In eco-minded California, there’s still no constitutional right to clean air and water

[Note from BenIndy Contributor Kathy Kerridge: Don’t we have a right to a safe and healthy environment?  It’s time to put it in our Constitution.]

Under a proposal in the California Legislature, voters could weigh in on an amendment to add rights to clean air, clean water and a healthy environment to the state constitution. | Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times.

LA Times, by the Times Editorial Board, April 24, 2024

California may be a leader in the fight against climate change, but the state is years, even decades, behind other states when it comes to granting environmental rights to its citizens.

While a handful of other state constitutions, including those of New York and Pennsylvania, declare the people’s rights to clean air, water and a healthy environment, California’s does not.

That could change as soon as November. Under a proposal moving through the Legislature, voters would decide whether to add one sentence to the state constitution’s Declaration of Rights: “The people shall have a right to clean air and water and a healthy environment.”

The proposed green amendment could be seen as a well-meaning but symbolic change in a state that, despite tough environmental rules, struggles to address deep environmental problems like air pollution, contaminated drinking water and the worsening impacts of climate change.

But there’s a reason that powerful business interests have come out in opposition. Enshrining environmental rights in California’s constitution would give citizens a new tool to hold the government accountable for failing to act in the interest of environmental health, protection and justice. That could, in turn, force the state to crack down on polluters.

It should be obvious that we need more tools to address the climate crisis. And in California, of all places, citizens should have the chance to weigh in on whether a healthy environment is a right on par with life, liberty, safety, happiness and privacy, which are all spelled out in the constitution. Lawmakers should advance this proposal to let the voters decide.

To be put on the ballot the amendment must be approved by two-thirds of lawmakers in both the state Assembly and Senate. It must win the support of a simple majority of voters to be added to the constitution.

States like Montana, which declares “the right to a clean and healthful environment,” added this kind of language to their constitutions more than 50 years ago in response to the burgeoning environmental movement. After the advent of Earth Day, Pennsylvania in 1971 amended its constitution to add the people’s right to “clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.”

In recent years, some of those rarely invoked amendments have seen new life as bases to challenge government decisions over oil and gas permitting and the cleanup of contaminated sites and other environmental hazards. There’s now a nationwide movement to get green amendments onto more state constitutions. In 2021 70% of New York voters passed an amendment adding the right to “clean air and water, and a healthful environment” to its state constitution’s Bill of Rights, language that is nearly identical to the California proposal.

But state Legislatures have also been a chokepoint for these proposals. In some states, such as New Jersey, green amendments with bipartisan support have languished for years because key lawmakers have prevented them from being being considered.

Business interests in California are lining up in opposition to putting the proposed green amendment on the ballot. Brady Van Engelen, a policy advocate for the California Chamber of Commerce, told lawmakers during a legislative hearing earlier this month that it was a “job killer” that could spur lawsuits and be weaponized by “wealthy white NIMBYs” to block development.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) who introduced the green amendment legislation, dismissed the Chamber’s opposition as “ridiculous.” He said that lawmakers opted for simple, direct language that is more limited than other states’ to make it clear the amendment is not intended as litigation bait, but rather to establish a clear obligation that the state make decisions in a way that upholds the environmental values it espouses. A green amendment would not establish any new right for individuals to sue businesses for environmental violations.

But just as in New York, Pennsylvania and Montana, a California green amendment could be used to hold state officials accountable for their decisions, from legislation and permitting to the enforcement of existing environmental laws.

Californians should have the chance to not only send a message about how much they value a healthy environment, but to assert that something as fundamental to life as clean air and clean water isn’t just an aspiration or an ideal, but a right.

Benicia CA, Chevron Refinery, Clean Air Act, Greenhouse gas emissions, Martinez Refining Company, Solano County CA, Valero Benicia Refinery

Three of California’s biggest climate polluters are in the Bay Area (and yes, one of those three is Valero’s Benicia Refinery)

[Note from BenIndy: Valero’s Benicia Refinery is the 5th largest stationary greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter in California. As Sunflower Alliance founding member Shoshana Wechsler notes below, “[t]he thing that continues to strike me is that the Bay Area has no clue how important we are as a major fossil fuel hub. […] We need to understand that refining both petroleum and biofuels has a very negative effect on our public health and obviously contributes mightily to the climate crisis.” Let’s enter 2024 with clear eyes…and hope for clearer lungs come 2025.]

Valero’s Benicia Refinery, a principal contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in California, looms over residential neighborhoods. | Samantha Laurey / The Chronicle 2022.

SF Chronicle, by Kurtis Alexander, December 31, 2023

California’s largest greenhouse gas polluters, from power plants to oil refineries to chemical manufacturers, produced slightly fewer emissions last year than the previous year, federal data shows. But it’s still too much planet-warming gas to cut significantly into the problem of climate change, environmentalists say.

Three of the five biggest carbon emitters in the state were in the Bay Area, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2022 data on large polluting facilities. All three were refineries in the East Bay, where the process of turning crude oil into gasoline, jet fuel and other high-demand petroleum products creates substantial greenhouse gas discharges — even before the fuels themselves are used in vehicles or planes.

The refineries were among 367 large stationary sites in California that collectively reported 93 million metric tons of carbon pollution last year, a decline of about 1% over 2021, according to the data. The facilities produce about a quarter of the state’s total human-generated greenhouse gases, which does not include wildfires. Cars and trucks remain the biggest source of carbon emissions.

“The thing that continues to strike me is that the Bay Area has no clue how important we are as a major fossil fuel hub,” said Shoshana Wechsler, a founding member of the Sunflower Alliance, an East Bay group that advocates for reducing refinery pollution. “We need to understand that refining both petroleum and biofuels has a very negative effect on our public health and obviously contributes mightily to the climate crisis.”

Worldwide discharges of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, have contributed to warming the atmosphere about 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the post-industrial age. The heat, scientists say, has led to a host of problems, from an increase in drought and wildfire to rising seas and more extreme weather. The Earth’s 10 warmest years on record all were logged since 2010. This year is on track to be the hottest yet.

California regulators have established some of the most ambitious policies to restrict the release of greenhouse gases from large polluting facilities, including a cap-and-trade program that forces emitters to buy permits to pollute and requirements that electric utilities generate increasing amounts of clean energy.

Over the past decade, carbon emissions from the state’s big polluters have declined nearly 20%, according to the EPA data.

Many, though, say industry is still given too much leeway and stricter regulation is necessary given the climate challenge at hand. The state has a broad goal of reaching zero carbon emissions, on net, by 2045.

“Major polluters continue to pollute somewhat unabated,” said Nihal Shrinath, an associate attorney for the Sierra Club based in Oakland. “We really need to see much more aggressive emission reductions over the next 25 years.”

Shrinath said much of the decline in pollution from large facilities was due, not to regulation, but to unrelated factors, like Californians being more efficient with their energy use and needing less fossil fuels.

California’s top five greenhouse gas emitters were all oil refineries, according to the EPA data. Two were in Southern California in addition to the three in the East Bay: Chevron Richmond Refinery, Valero Benicia Refinery and Martinez Refining Company.

Ross Allen, a spokesperson for Chevron, described the company’s Richmond refinery as “absolutely essential to modern life in the Bay Area,” saying the facility supplied 60% of the fuel for Bay Area airports and about 20% of the gasoline used in Northern California. It also provides more than 3,000 jobs.

This is a screenshot of SF Chron’s interactive data table that shows greenhouse gas emissions from large industrial facilities in California, 2022. Click the image to be redirected to the webpage with the article and the table. Readers can use the table to search for and filter GHG emitters in this state. There may be a paywall.

“We are working to reduce carbon intensity of our operations, while continuing to provide an essential product,” he said.

The state’s refineries cumulatively emitted 22 million metric tons of carbon pollution in 2022, according to the EPA data. Refineries were the second-most-polluting type of facility, following power plants, which are far more numerous and emitted 35 million metric tons last year. The chemical industry, manufacturing hydrogen, nitrogen and other products, reported 10 million metric tons of emissions.

Also among California’s 25 biggest greenhouse gas polluters were two gas-fired power plants in Pittsburg and an oil refinery in Rodeo.

The EPA data on large polluting sites generally includes facilities discharging at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide and equivalent greenhouse gases a year, about what’s emitted by burning coal from 136 rail cars, according to the agency.

Since you’re here, learn more about Contra Costa’s search for accountability and transparency from refineries by clicking on any of the following links:

Clean Air Act, Martinez CA, Martinez Refining Company, PBF Energy Martinez

Martinez supervisors deliver letter outlining demands to refinery

[Note from BenIndy: There’s been a whirlwind of activity around Contra Costa’s troubled refineries this week. After a surprise inspection, Contra Costa Health CEO Anna Roth issued an open letter putting Martinez Refining Company “on notice” for ongoing violations before listing a series of demands . (You should really read the letter. Go on. We’ll wait.) Check out the links below the article for more information. This is all fascinating, motivating stuff for residents interested in enacting an industrial safety ordinance in Benicia. Accountability and transparency should be easy between good neighbors.]

The Martinez Refining Co. is the focus of a joint civil action over its release of heavy-metal laden dust. | Scott Strazzante / The Chronicle.

The list of demands also included records of work stoppage orders and near-miss incidents.

NBC Bay Area / Bay City News, by Tony Hicks, December 28, 2023

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors chair John Gioia and vice chair Federal Glover met with management of Martinez Refining Company on Thursday to discuss county concerns over the company’s frequency of chemical releases and other incidents since Thanksgiving 2022 when the refinery sent 20 to 24 tons of chemicals into the surrounding community.

The supervisors also delivered an open letter to Daniel Ingram, the refinery manager, from Anna Roth, the chief executive officer of Contra Costa Health, documenting incidents and ordering refinery owner PBF Energy to provide CCH’s regulators with full access to the facility, documentation related to deferred maintenance of equipment, and access and data related to maintenance and safety practices.

CCH and the Bay Area Air Quality Mangement District began a surprise inspection of the refinery this week that could last days, or even weeks, a CCH official said.

The letter, dated Thursday, called the number of releases and other incidents “unacceptable” and said they’ve “compromised health and safety at your facility, and in our community.”

“In the past year, CCH has documented 21 releases or spills of hazardous materials at the Martinez refinery,” the letter said. “According to the County’s Community Warning System records, PBF also reported using flares — devices that should only be used as an emergency safety measure to prevent more serious incidents — at a rate of nearly once per week. CCH has documented 46 flaring incidents at the refinery since November 2022.”

Roth wrote PBF is responsible for “ensuring the reliability of its systems and establishing and maintaining a culture of safety at the refinery. The number of incidents at the refinery over the past year is unacceptable for a facility operating in Contra Costa County and points to an apparent fundamental lack of investment on the part of PBF in ensuring the reliability of its systems and maintaining a facility that is safe for its workers and the neighboring community.”

Roth also included a statement Tuesday from BAAQMD executive director Philip Fine saying the air district has joined forces with the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office on civil enforcement against the refinery.

“The recent air quality violations at MRC are troubling and unacceptable. The Air District shares the community’s concern and outrage about these events,” Fine said in the statement. “We are actively investigating and pursuing all legal avenues to ensure MRC is compliant with our regulations and that future violations and community disruptions are minimized.”

Roth wrote, “CCH will not tolerate unsafe business practices at the refinery” and officially notified PBF of CCH actions, including “Beginning immediately, PBF shall allow CCH employees and agents onsite at all times and permit them access to any part of the facility upon request.”

She also wrote that PBF will give CCH all documentation relating to deferred maintenance of equipment at MRC no later than 10 a.m. Jan. 2, for CCH to decide the facility’s work plan for addressing deferred maintenance moving forward.

CCH also wants a list of every employee and resident contractor working at MRC, including job titles and description of responsibilities, and wants the ability to interview them without PBF management present.

The list of demands also included records of work stoppage orders and near-miss incidents.

CCH also reserved the right to come inside the refinery “during any incident that has the potential to impact public health or the environment in accordance with all applicable laws.”

Roth wrote CCH “reserves the right to modify the Community Warning System level of any incident impacting public health without consulting PBF. All costs associated with incident response will be borne by PBF.”

The letter also said, “At least two weeks before PBF’s planned turnaround in early 2024, PBF shall provide to CCH a comprehensive plan outlining when planned flaring will occur during the turnaround and what steps the facility will take to minimize the amount of flaring.”

A turnaround is a scheduled event in which an entire process unit is taken offline for an extended period for work to be carried out.

During that time, CCH wants observers onsite at all times and access to any part of the facility.

Roth ended the letter by writing, “We look forward to collaborating with PBF on our mutual goal of making this facility the good neighbor it aspires to become.”

More about Contra Costa’s search for accountability and transparency from refineries:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Chevron Refinery, Clean Air Act, Contra Costa Health Services - Hazardous Materials Programs, Marathon Petroleum, Martinez CA, Martinez Refining Company, Sunflower Alliance

Will a year of industrial accidents change the landscape of East Bay’s ‘refinery row’?

[Note from BenIndy: This tidbit from the article below says a lot  – “According to the regional air quality district, the number of flaring events nearly doubled last year, the most since 2019. The trend has been increasing in the last five years. That rise has led some observers to question whether these century-old refineries have reached the end of their lifecycle.” And: “’If I’ve learned one thing, it’s that nothing is going to happen overnight,’ [Healthy Martinez member Heidi] Taylor said. ‘But I believe the cumulative pressure is going to bring about a new era, and I am here for it.’” Thanks, Heidi. We’re here for it too.]

At 12:42 a.m. what appears to be a flare up is occurring at the Martinez Refinery in Martinez, Calif., on Saturday, Sept. 23, 2023. | Jose Carlos Fajardo / Bay Area News Group.

An aging industry is angering locals and sparking multiple investigations

East Bay Express, by Will McCarthy, December 16, 2023

On Friday morning, Contra Costa County Public Health warned residents about a new flaring incident at the Martinez Refinery. The agency said that unidentified chemical odors in the air could be related to the event and that “eye, skin, nose or throat irritation may be possible for some people in the affected area.”

The public health advisory in Martinez came exactly one week after the air surrounding the Chevron oil refinery in Richmond took on the distinct smell of burning tires. Over a hundred local residents, disturbed by the noxious odor, reported it to the local air quality agency.

Both incidents, although by no means the most dramatic, were more mishaps in a long year of refinery accidents and violations in the East Bay industrial cluster that forms a sort of refinery row.

Refineries have long been part of the Bay Area’s economic and energy ecosystem. Many of them have existed for over a hundred years and still serve as a significant tax base for cities and a source of reliable union jobs. This is not the first year that refineries have flared, nor is it the first year there have been facility accidents.

In November, an employee received third-degree burns covering most of his body after a fire erupted at Marathon Petroleum’s refinery in Martinez, the second fire that month. A power outage at the Chevron refinery, also in November, caused an enormous plume of black smoke to billow out of the facility for hours. Over the course of 13 months, the Martinez Refining Co., owned by petroleum giant PBF Energy, scattered coke dust and spent catalyst containing heavy metals over the surrounding town, including a high-profile incident the day after Thanksgiving last year that brought a new level of attention to the refinery’s mishaps and another that came just hours before the local high school’s spring homecoming parade.

After an investigation of the odor on Dec. 8, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District determined Chevron’s bioreactor was to blame. The agency issued a public nuisance notice of violation to Chevron — its 35th violation of the year and second in two weeks.

As the region and the nation plot a clean-energy transition, some advocates are asking whether these high-profile incidents are the last gasps of a dying industry that will try to reap as many profits as possible before they are gone.

“Companies are willing to put not just the local communities but their own workers at risk for profit,” said Jacob Klein, organizing manager for the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Sierra Club. “Community safety and worker safety does not seem to be their priority.”

As a result of the most recent accidents, numerous agencies have started investigations into the refineries’ safety practices. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office, the EPA and even the FBI all have ongoing investigations. Residents of Martinez have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Martinez Refining Company for its chemical releases.

As the calendar moves toward January, Bay Area community advocates are determined not to repeat more of the same next year. Instead they aim to build on the activism that grew after the Thanksgiving incident to permanently transform the relationship between refineries and the community.

“With all of these mishaps affecting more and more people, more and more people are being educated and are educating themselves about these issues,” said Heidi Taylor, a member of Healthy Martinez, a local watchdog group that emerged in the aftermath of the spent catalyst release. “We haven’t seen solutions come to fruition, necessarily, but I do believe there is hope on the horizon.”

According to the regional air quality district, the number of flaring events nearly doubled last year, the most since 2019. The trend has been increasing in the last five years. That rise has led some observers to question whether these century-old refineries have reached the end of their lifecycle.

“The Bay Area’s dangerous, aging refineries are all roughly 125 years old,” said Shosana Welscher, an organizer with Sunflower Alliance and the Refinery Transitions Group. “It’s well over time to decommission them and remediate the contaminated land they occupy for safer, cleaner uses.”

In a statement, the Martinez refinery said that it continues to be committed to earning the right to operate in Martinez.

When asked to comment for this story, the Martinez Refinery Company issued a statement saying, “We have apologized to our neighbors for falling short of meeting that commitment. We have implemented corrective actions, continue to cooperate with all government agencies, and have enhanced our communications with our neighbors and public officials.”

A spokesperson for Chevron, meanwhile, said the air district often provides notices of violations in batches and are sometimes issued years after the actual occurrence. They noted that because of their modernization efforts and investments in new technologies, particulate matter emissions have fallen by 36% since 2018, and flaring events have fallen in the last two years.

Chevron places the highest priority on the protection of employees, communities, and the environment, and continually works to enhance the safety of our operations,” said Caitlin Powell, an external communications advisor for Chevron Richmond.

In a presentation to the Martinez City Council in October, refinery manager Daniel Ingram positioned the company as a crucial player in the California energy economy, one that manufactures 20% of the Bay Area’s gasoline supply and 40% of the region’s jet fuel. Although refineries are a significant contributor to air pollution in the Bay Area, they are not the highest — motor vehicles and wildfires both are larger contributors to overall pollution in the region, according to the air district.

But to some, the refineries across the region are emblematic of the country’s slow shift away from fossil fuels. That creates some cognitive dissonance, where California may chart a clean-energy future as refineries around the bay continue to refine oil for overseas markets.

“We could all end up driving Teslas and the refineries polluting more and blowing up more in our communities,” said Greg Karras, a consultant on refinery transitions. “That’s one possible future.”

Still, to community advocates, that is just one of many possible outcomes. Another future is one in which increased public scrutiny and public control prevents the types of accidents and releases that occurred this year.

“If I’ve learned one thing, it’s that nothing is going to happen overnight,” Taylor said. “But I believe the cumulative pressure is going to bring about a new era, and I am here for it.”