Category Archives: Surface Transportation Board

Benicia City Attorney Heather McLaughlin, Benicia City Council, Benicia city staff, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Crude By Rail

Valero Benicia Crude By Rail: No news is, well, a bit of news

By Roger Straw, September 2, 2016
[UPDATE as of Sept. 19, 2016 10AM PDT – still nothing from the STB.]
The Latest …STB logoEvery day, I check the Surface Transportation Board’s website, watching to see if they post a decision on Valero’s end run to delay the proceedings. Nothing yet. [If you go to their website, under E-Library, go to Decisions & Notices, or Filings, and search for “valero” under Case Title.]

Opponents of Valero’s dirty and dangerous proposal are trying to plan for the City Council’s September 20 meeting when Crude By Rail will again be on the agenda, but…

  1. no one knows at this time whether the STB will have issued an advisory or declined to do so, and if so, what the STB advice will be, and
  2.  no one is sure exactly what procedures will guide Council and the public in either case!

The latest guidance from City Attorney Heather McLaughlin is complicated, a bit confusing, and perhaps inconclusive.  In response to Benicia resident Marilyn Bardet’s inquiry, McLaughlin wrote on 8/30:

I am sorry but I have to give you the lawyerly “it depends” answer at this point. It will depend if we get an answer from the STB. If we don’t get an answer, the Council already closed the public comment. They would have to take action to re-open the hearing. If we do get an answer, the Council would have to open the public hearing to allow comment only on the new information from the STB. The Council discussion is a continuance from the last appeal hearing. They specifically continued the item to September 20th.

Then on 8/31, McLaughlin added:

If the STB responds in time for the meeting on the 20th, the Council would open the hearing for comments as it relates to the STB response. Public comments would have to relate to the response. I can imagine a range of public comments along the lines of the STB’s response means the EIR must be redone, or that the EIR is good enough, or that some aspect of it must be redone, or that some permit condition should be applied to address the STB response. As long as comments relate to the STB response, then the comment is ok. Comments on the EIR or permitting that do not relate to the STB response would not fit in since the hearing for general comments has already happened.

Quickie Background…

Last February, after 3 years of study, public and expert comments and lengthy hearings, Benicia’s Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny Valero Crude by Rail. Valero immediately appealed the decision to Benicia’s City Council.

In March, as Valero presented its appeal to the City Council, the refinery’s attorney surprised everyone by asking for a delay so that it could ask the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) for a declaratory order favoring Valero’s proposal. Valero’s petition asks the STB to clarify whether the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, or ICCTA, prohibits the city from taking rail-related impacts into account while deciding on the project.

In April on a 3-2 vote, ignoring the advice of city manager and staff, the City Council granted Valero’s request for a delay.  As part of the motion, the Council “approved continuing discussion on this item to September 20.”

After a delay of its own, Valero submitted its petition to the STB on May 31. On Jun 10 the STB granted an extension for public comments until July 8.  The STB has received multiple letters pro and con on Valero’s petition. Among the many letters is a response by the City of Benicia to Valero’s petition, in which the City asserts local land use permitting authority.

No one knows if – and when – the STB will give an opinion; and if the STB does weigh in, no one knows to what extent they will support Valero or uphold local land use permitting authority.

For complete background on the Appeal and STB, see the Benicia Independent’s APPEAL PAGE.  For public comments and City transcripts, see the Benicia Independent’s PROJECT REVIEW PAGES.  All things Valero CBR can also be found on the City of Benicia website.

 

Benicia City Council, Benicia city staff, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Local land use authority, Local Regulation, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Department of Transportation, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia Mayor outlines possible outcomes for City Council on Sept 20

Repost of an E-Alert by Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, September 18, 2016
[Editor: I would expect considerable discussion on Tuesday to center on whether to continue waiting for a Surface Transportation Board response to Valero’s end run around local permitting authority. Valero has been openly urging Council to continue to delay making a decision.  City staff and the Mayor are certainly expecting a motion to delay; 3 of the 4 possible scenarios outlined below center on continuation. (Don’t miss the quote from Christopher Hart, chairperson of the National Transportation Safety Board, and Mayor Patterson’s question, at the bottom of this E-Alert.)  – RS]

elizabethpatterson
AN E-ALERT FROM YOUR MAYOR,
ELIZABETH PATTERSON
Benicia, California

 

The Tuesday Council meeting’s main item is the decision on Valero Crude by Rail EIR and Land Use Permit. The complete packet is online here.

The following are potential scenarios for action:

  1. Valero could submit a formal written request for continuation of the appeal in order for the Federal Surface Transportation Board to render a decision on federal preemption of local land use authority. This request would be considered under the Open Government Ordinance as “new and substantial information” and the Council would decide whether or not this request is new and substantial. If the council votes in the majority, the consideration for delay for STB decision would be on the next agenda. The council would then have to decide whether to proceed or not with the action on the current agenda which is the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the project. Staff is recommending approving the appeal.
  2. No request in writing for continuation but during the council consideration of the Valero appeal, Valero could request a “point of order” and ask for council consideration of continuing the delay. Council again would have to act on the point of order before proceeding to the agenda item. There could be the same outcome as in #1.
  3. No request for continuation by Valero and consideration of the appeal of the denial by the Planning Commission. A councilmember could request a continuation but council cannot continue the item without Valero’s consent – so a council member could ask for a continuation and if Valero agrees the consideration of continuation would have to be at the next meeting. See #1 for steps.
  4. No request for continuation by anyone. The council will hear staff report – there is no public comment on this item unless there is demonstrably new and substantial information (see above for steps by council for consideration). So the decision can be as follows:
    1. motion and second to deny appeal and thus let stand Planning Commission denial of the land use permit with or without prejudice (with means a new application of the same project must wait one year; without means no such restriction. A modified project would be considered a new application).
    2. motion and second to consider certification of Final Environmental Impact Report followed by a motion to deny appeal.
    3. motion to certify the FEIR and grant the appeal and approve the land use permit.
“We’ve been lucky thus far that derailments involving flammable liquids in America have not yet occurred in a populated area,” Hart [current head of the National Transportation Safety Board] said. “But an American version of Lac-Mégantic could happen at any time. Instead of happening out in the middle of a wheat field it could happen in the middle of a big city.”
The Bakken oil train explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada, killed 47 people. As these safety issues are ignored, dismissed, or continued to be studied, an important question remains: How long until that luck runs out?
Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Local land use authority, Local Regulation, Phillips 66 Nipomo Mesa refinery, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Maria Refinery, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Phillips 66 seeks six-month delay in San Luis Obispo rail spur hearing

Repost from the New Times, San Luis Obispo, CA

Phillips 66 seeks six-month delay in rail spur hearing

By Chris McGuinness, August 18, 2016

The oil company proposing one of SLO County’s most controversial projects is asking the SLO County Planning Commission to wait six months before taking up the issue again.

After months of lengthy hearings, Phillips 66 requested that a planned commission meeting on its proposed rail spur extension project scheduled for Sept. 22 be pushed back until March 2017.

The move comes as the company waits for a decision by federal regulators on another controversial proposal also involving oil-carrying trains in the Northern California city of Benicia.

Hearings for Phillips 66’s project, which would allow the company to bring in crude oil by train to its Santa Maria Refinery on the Nipomo Mesa, began in February. In a July 10 letter to county planning staff, the company said it wanted to wait until the Federal Surface Transportation Board ruled on a petition involving an oil train-related project in Benicia. The company in charge of that project, Valero, is seeking declaratory relief from the three-person federal board after the oil company’s proposal to transport 50 trains per-day carrying crude oil through the city was denied by the Benicia Planning Commission and appealed to its City Council.

At the heart of the Benicia case is the issue of pre-emption, or the extent of a local government’s authority over interstate rail transportation, which is the purview of federal government.

The same issue is at play in SLO. The hearings on the Phillips 66 project featured discussions over the county’s ability to set limits or conditions on the project.

“In the interest of efficiency of the commission as well as the planning staff, we believe it would be prudent to further continue the hearing on Phillips 66’s Rail Spur Extension Project until March 2017, so that all parties can benefit from the direction expected from the Surface Transportation Board,” the letter from Phillips read.

Andres Soto is a member of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, an organization of residents who oppose Valero’s proposed project. Soto told New Times he was concerned that the impact of a decision that favored Valero would have far-reaching consequences.

“It would gut local land-use authority across the country,” he said.

Whether Phillips 66 gets the delay will be up to the SLO County Planning Commission. The commission will take up the request at the Sept. 22 meeting.

Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Surface Transportation Board, Valero Crude By Rail

Surface Transportation Board – no decision yet, but 2 new letters pro and con

By Roger Straw, August 5, 2016

STB logoChecking today on the Surface Transportation Board’s website, I found two new letters from stakeholders commenting on Valero’s petition for a declaratory order.  Both were filed after the July 8 deadline for comments.

A letter dated June 18 but filed on July 14 represents the view of Qep Energy, a “crude oil producer in the Williston Basin of North Dakota and has been a consistent supplier to Valero Refining and Marketing for several years.”  The letter supports Valero’s petition and requests that the STB “institute a proceeding and grant Valero’s Petition affirming its right to receive rail service.”

A second letter dated July 11 and filed on July 27, was sent by the League of California Cities, and urges the STB “to deny Valero’s Petition for Declaratory Order because it is an overbroad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act and would have significant and detrimental impacts on local land use authority over non-rail carriers.”

Below are links to these letters.

Note that the Benicia City Council has asked the STB for an expedited decision on Valero’s request, and has set September 20 as the date for its next hearing on Valero’s Crude by Rail proposal. Local opponents continue to urge City Council members to take a deeply critical look and vote to deny this dirty and dangerous proposal.

Date Docket # ID Filed For Type Case Title
7/27/2016 FD_36036_0 241198 League Of California Cities Comment VALERO REFINING COMPANY- PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER
7/14/2016 FD_36036_0 241123 Qep Energy Reply VALERO REFINING COMPANY- PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER