Category Archives: Valero Benicia Refinery

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Davis CA, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Daily crude oil through Davis… Averted for now

Repost from the Davis Vanguard
[Editor:  See also the February 16 follow up in the Vanguard by Elizabeth Lasensky, Phillips 66 and Valero – A Tale of Two Oil Train Projects.  – RS]

Daily crude oil through Davis… Averted for now

By Lynne Nittler and Jean Jackman, February 14, 2016
Protesters of Oil Trains in Benicia / Courtesy Photo
Protesters of Oil Trains in Benicia / Courtesy Photo

It has been an exhausting and dramatic week for Davis activists and those from Sacramento and other cities uprail from the proposed Valero Refinery expansion in Benicia.

Ten of us have traveled from Davis in two carpools to testify on the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project.   We have participated actively in the stages of a complicated public review process that began in 2013. Now a final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) came up for a last public hearing before the Benicia Planning Commission.

A city of Davis official and a representative of the 7 regional Air Quality Management Districts also spoke.

We’ve been here before, and we were met with grateful hugs from our friends in Benicia, though we came to protect our own vulnerable city as much as theirs.

The Valero Refinery wants to bring two 50-car trains through Davis daily carrying highly volatile crude oil from North Dakota and other places. That would be 1.5 million gallons daily. It all hinges on whether or not Valero can get a permit to build a rail loading station.

Fortunately, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) gave our region legal standing, and our governmental agencies and individuals used it fully with letters when the draft EIR failed to include any mention of uprail impacts. The CEQA process protects people and the environment! Without it, the uprail communities like Davis would have had no voice at all. We will defend it fiercely from those who would weaken or dismiss this legal recourse.

The Revised DEIR recognized 11 “Significant and unavoidable Impacts” uprail but dismissed them all as “impacts without mitigations” by claiming “federal preemption” of the railroads.

For the third time, our Davis Council and Yolo County Supervisors sent letters and urged the Planning Commission not to certify the Final DEIR. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) which represents 22 cities and 6 counties sent a letter severely critical of the FDEIR, calling for the Benicia Planning Commission to “provide full and adequate responses to our comment letters,” and “to fully evaluate all measures to mitigate the significant environmental impacts that this Project will inevitably have on our communities and our residents.”

The sticky big issue is the interpretation of federal preemption. The contract attorney for Benicia insisted that it is illegal to raise objections to anything regarding the trains because that is all governed by the feds. The Benicia staff and the contract attorney recommended allowing the refinery to go forward.

Last week, the San Luis Obispo staff demonstrated a different take on the federal preemption issue. They recommended denying an expansion of the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery stating that the benefits were outweighed by safety concerns. Their Planning Commission is now opposing the project.

Fortunately, among those who testified were two lawyers from Sierra Club, two speakers for the Stanford Law School representing Center for Biological Diversity and two attorneys from Adams Broadwell Attorneys on behalf of SAFER California. All six of them put forward strong cases that the FDEIR does not meet CEQA, cannot be certified, and that the Benicia staff interpretation of federal preemption is not correct.

A Washington Post article was titled “Trains are carrying — and spilling —a record amount of oil.” It stated that “more than 141 unintentional releases were reported from railroad tankers in 2014…a nearly six-fold increase over the average of 25 spills per year during the period from 1975 to 2012 according to records of the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Record.”  Neighbors who witnessed 14 tanker cars derailed and exploded near Mount Carbon W.V. likened the fireball to a scene from the apocalypse.  We are all familiar with the grizzly Canadian Lac-Mégantic wreck that wiped out the downtown near the Maine border and killed 47 people.

Public comment ended at 11:30 p.m. on Wednesday night. The Planning Commissioners listened politely and attentively to five-minute public comments by over 70 people, often personal, sometimes brilliant, and all but 6 opposed. They also allowed visual power points such as the one put together by Davis resident Elizabeth Lasensky which showed oil cars rolling past hordes of people at Picnic Day, tank cars traveling over the Sacramento River (a drinking water source for many communities), and the path of oil cars through downtown and next to the Mondavi Center. In Sacramento, 13,000 children attend 17 schools in the blast area—the area vulnerable to an accident. Our California State Capitol is also in the blast zone.

 After four nights of deliberation, the Benicia Planning Commission unanimously chose not to certify the FDEIR and denied a project permit. It is likely that Valero will appeal the commission’s decision to the Benicia City Council. For detailed reporting see benindy.wpengine.com.  Read our testimony at yolanoclimateaction.org.

We activists let out a big sigh of relief…for now. And feel immense gratitude to the public service, endurance and respect demonstrated by the volunteer Benicia Planning Commission.

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD: Benicia commissioners deny Valero’s crude by rail application

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor:  Vallejo Times-Herald reporter Irma Widjojo gets BenIndy’s Media Award for enduring all four late-night hearings, and for her four news reports.  See FRIDAY’s final report below and TUESDAY: Benicia Planning Commission begins hearing to decide on crude-by-rail project, WEDNESDAY: Public comment begins on Valero Benicia Refinery’s proposed project, and THURSDAY: Passionate testimonies pour in on Valero proposed project.  – RS]

Benicia commissioners deny Valero’s crude by rail application

By Irma Widjojo, 02/12/16, 11:45 AM PST
The Benicia Planning Commission receives comments from the public Wednesday night, the third day of the hearing for Valero Benicia Refinery’s crude-by-rail project. About 200 people signed up to speak. IRMA WIDJOJO — TIMES-HERALD

Benicia >> The Benicia Planning Commission has denied the use permit application by Valero Benicia Refinery to bring crude oil by rail against the recommendation of city staff.

After four late-night meetings and hours of public testimony, the commissioners unanimously voted to not certify the final Environmental Impact Report and deny the application for the project.

Protesters hold up signs against Valero’s proposed crude by rail project during a rally Monday at Benicia City Hall. The Benicia Planning Commission began a series of special meetings Monday to consider Valero’s permit application for the project. Irma Widjojo — Times-Herald

“We are feeling great.” said Andres Soto, spokesman for Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community, a grassroot organization in opposition of the project.

“It’s been a three-year battle. We knew we were right the whole time,” Soto said.

Valero has 10 business days, beginning Tuesday due to the holiday weekend, to appeal the decision to the Benicia City Council.

Valero officials said Friday they are evaluating the company’s option for an appeal.

Valero Benicia Refinery General Manager Don Wilson speaks with supporters of the refinery’s proposed crude-by-rail project during a break at the Planning Commission hearing Tuesday night. Supporters can be seen wearing “It’s good for Benicia” stickers or carrying fans with the slogan. IRMA WIDJOJO — TIMES-HERALD

“We are disappointed that the Planning Commission did not agree with the staff recommendation to certify the project EIR and approve the use permit. Most disappointing was the commissioners disregard for the opinions of a multitude of environmental and legal experts who spent over three years to evaluate this project,” said Chris Howe, Valero’s Heath, Safety and Environment director, in an email.

In December 2012, the refinery submitted the use permit application to begin construction to allow up to 70,000 barrels of North American crude oil to be transported via two 50-car trains.

Since then, the project has been met with a strong opposition from a number of Benicia residents, as well as those who live “uprail,” including Davis and Sacramento. The report states that there are 11 “significant and unavoidable” impacts related to the rail transport of the project.

Though city staff said any mitigation to these rail-related impacts are preempted by federal laws, on Thursday the commissioners disagreed with the staff’s findings, calling the law surrounding the issue “murky.”

Many attorneys representing organizations, as well as the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, said Benicia is not preempted by federal laws. One of the arguments is that the applicant for the permit is Valero Benicia Refinery, and not Union Pacific Railroad.

“If Valero doesn’t get the permit, Union Pacific will go on business as usual,” an attorney said.

She added that any mitigation required by the city for Valero’s project will not interfere with the railroad’s current business operation.

Thursday night, city staff again reasserted its position on preemption, stating that any actions by the commission taken surrounding rail-related impacts are not allowed.

“The local agency will run afoul if it adopts a regulation that will indirectly or directly affect the railroad,” said Brad Hogin, an attorney contracted by the city.

The city is also not allowed to deny the project based on these impacts, Hogin said.

A couple commissioners took issue with the staff’s opinion.

“We’re asked to find that the benefits do not outweigh the risk, but we are not allowed to do anything about it,” Commission Chair Donald Dean said. “Do you see how this is a conundrum?”

Commissioner Steve Young, who has been the most vocal during the hearing, also expressed his displeasure.

“You’re very certain in your position, and the other lawyers are very certain of their positions,” Young said. “You’re asking us to make a decision based on what is not a set law.”

They also said there are too many risks that come with the project, citing inadequate methods of assessing the greenhouse gas emission and traffic impacts.

“There are serious flaws with the EIR,” Commissioner George Oakes said. “And to be told at the 11th hour that we have no options on the rail impacts, it’s not nice. … What are we really talking about here? Is it the additional profits for a couple of companies?”

In his conclusion, Young quoted Valero General Manager Don Wilson saying that Valero will not close the refinery if the permit was not approved.

Valero has contended that the project would benefit Benicia economically through the creation of jobs. The additional option to transport crude oil would also make the company more competitive and flexible in the market, officials said.

The commission also has agreed that staff will work with Dean to add the commissioners’ findings into the report.

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

CBS News: Benicia Commission Derails Valero’s Plan To Deliver Crude Oil By Train

Repost from CBS SFBay Area

Benicia Commission Derails Valero’s Plan To Deliver Crude Oil By Train

By Hannah Albarazi, February 12, 2016 6:28 PM
Refinery at Sunrise
The Valero refinery in Benicia at sunrise. (James Irwin/CBS)

BENICIA (CBS SF) — A proposal to deliver crude oil by train to a Benicia refinery was rejected unanimously by the city’s Planning Commission Thursday night.

The proposal, by Texas-based Valero Energy, would allow for crude oil to be delivered to Benicia’s refinery from around North America by rail.

The planning commission, however, rejected the company’s request for approval of a use permit that would allow the refinery to transport up to 70,000 barrels of crude oil per day by rail, instead of the marine vessels currently in use. The refinery also gets crude oil via pipeline.

The commission also declined to approve the project’s environmental impact report.

Valero, a large source of revenue for Benicia and it’s largest private employer, pays the city a combined property, sales and utility user tax that makes up more than 20 percent of the city’s general fund revenue, according to city officials.

But citizens spoke out this week and demanded the rejection of Valero’s proposed rail terminal in Benicia.

The project’s Environmental Impact Report brought to light significant issues with the project, including air quality, hazards, biological resources, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Andres Soto, spokesman for the citizen group Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, said in a statement following the decision, that “The unanimous vote by the Planning Commission to reject this deeply flawed environmental review is a vindication of the concerns that people in the community have had since this project was first proposed.”

Soto said it took three years to build public pressure and that he felt the Planning Commission was “thorough and methodological in their deliberation.”

Last month, when a three-car train carrying sulferic acid derailed in Martinez, a five minute drive from Benicia, Soto said the community dodged a bullet because the acid didn’t leak out.

He said it represented a warning sign and reminded residents that transporting hazardous materials by railroads has its dangers.

Soto said the commission’s message to the city council is absolutely clear – “they must reject this proposal and reevaluate how much trust they can put in their own staff and city attorney.”

During the days of hearings that led up to the commission’s decision, city officials reminded the commission “again and again that Valero’s tax contributions make up a quarter of the general fund,” said Ethan Buckner, a campaigner with environmental non-profit ForestEthics.

Buckener said that on Thursday night, “commissioner after commissioner ripped apart the (sic) Valero’s faulty environmental review and questioned the motives of city staff and the Benicia city attorney. Commissioners affirmed the actual charge of their commission to protect the health and welfare of the community.”

The Sierra Club was also among the environmental groups to support the commission’s decision to stop the oil train project.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Oil prices, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

REUTERS: California planners reject Valero oil-by-rail project

Repost from Reuters – Markets

California planners reject Valero oil-by-rail project

By Kristen Hays, Feb 12, 2016 1:29pm EST

Feb 12 Valero Energy Corp’s proposed oil-by-rail project at its northern California refinery was quashed by local planners this week, the first such facility on the U.S. West Coast to end a years-long wait for permits with a rejection.

The Benicia Planning Commission late Thursday unanimously renounced Valero’s request to build the project at the conclusion of four consecutive public hearings dominated by scores of opponents.

Valero first proposed building the rail facility at its 145,000 barrels per day Benicia refinery to offload up to 70,000 bpd of inland U.S. and Canadian heavy crude three years ago.

Several other West Coast rail projects await such decisions by local or state governments. Those include Tesoro Corp’s proposed 360,000 bpd railport in Washington State – the largest in the nation – and Phillips 66’s newly-trimmed 25,000 bpd facility at its Santa Maria refinery in Arroyo Grande, California.

Others gave up with U.S. crude prices down more than 70 percent since mid-2014 on global oversupply. That decline squeezed discounts of inland U.S. crude to global crudes, eroding oil-by-rail’s profitability.

Global Partners LP last month laid off workers and said the company would drop crude handling at its ethanol terminal in Oregon in the fallout of the oil rout.

Valero can ask the Benicia City Council to override planners and approve a permit for the project. A spokeswoman said on Friday that the company would “evaluate our options for appeal.”

The staff for Benicia’s planners recommended approval.

When Valero first proposed the project, oil-by-rail was growing fast and U.S. and Canadian crudes were much cheaper than global crudes, even with added transportation costs of moving via train. Rail also gave West Coast refiners a way to tap those crudes as no major oil pipelines cross the Rocky Mountains.

Not anymore. Shipments originating on top U.S. railroads fell 23 percent by the third quarter last year from the peak of 1.02 million bpd in the third quarter of 2014, according to the American Association of Railroads.

The Tesoro project remains under review by a state council in Washington, which will hold hearings in June and July.

San Obispo County planners are expected to decide on the Phillips 66 project next month, the company said. Staff for those planners recommended rejecting the facility.