Category Archives: Valero Crude By Rail

ETHAN BUCKNER: Derailing Big Oil’s Plans for San Luis Obispo and Benicia

Repost from STAND (Stand.earth, formerly ForestEthics)
[Editor:  Apologies for not posting this sooner – great wrap-up of the February Benicia Planning Commission hearings by our friend Ethan Buckner.  – RS]

Derailing Big Oil’s Plans for San Luis Obispo and Benicia

By Ethan Buckner, Extreme Oil Campaigner, February 18, 2016
Andrés Soto of Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community leads a rally outside the Benicia Planning Commission Hearings on February 8, 2016

In early February, two California planning commissions held hearings and faced decisions on permitting dangerous new oil train projects. In both cases local grassroots groups, supported by people and organizations across the state, spoke loudly and clearly against the projects. The question then became, would commissions listen?

San Luis Obispo is a town of 46,000 on the Central Coast between LA and San Francisco. Three years ago the Phillips 66 refinery, just south of town, proposed a new train terminal to bring in five oil trains a week, about 10 million gallons of crude. Around the same time in Benicia, a town of 27,000 in the Northernmost reaches of San Francisco Bay, Valero proposed an almost identical oil train terminal. Trains traveling to either refinery would travel right through downtown SLO or Benicia, and through the downtowns of cities and towns across California.

So for three years grassroots activists in both cities — as well as in cities all along the rail lines – have built campaigns to stop these dangerous proposals. And in early February the Planning Commissions for Benicia and San Luis Obispo held hearings to allow citizens, industry and others to comment before commissioners made decisions on the permits that would allow or deny the projects.

Staff reviewed roughly similar data in both cases, but came to starkly different conclusions. In Benicia, staff recommended that commissioners approve the Valero oil train plan. In San Luis Obispo, county staff recommended that commissioners deny the Phillips 66 proposal. But the decision, of course, lies with the commissioners.

On February 4 and 5, hundreds of Californians descended from all corners of the state to San Luis Obispo to speak at SLO Planning Commission hearings on the proposed project. During two impassioned days of public testimony, commissioners heard from dozens upon dozens of teachers, nurses, students, firefighters, elected officials, and neighbors. A highlight of the day was testimony from Gabby Davis, a high school student from Paso Robles, who told commissioners, “oil trains are dinosaurs, and dinosaurs belong in museums.”

At noon on Thursday, February 4, 600 rallied behind signs and a 90-foot-long inflatable oil train, making front page news. The rally highlighted the breadth of opposition to oil trains and reflected how communities across the state and the nation are tied together by the rail lines. By the end of February 5, only a fraction of those signed up to speak had delivered public comments. The decision remains pending and hearings will continue February 25.

In Benicia, Planning Commission hearings kicked off on Monday, February 8. For four consecutive nights hundreds of Benicia residents and allies flooded the hearing chambers to urge commissioners to deny Valero’s proposal. After a dramatic final night of hearings on Thursday, February 11, the Benicia Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the project’s land use permit.

The decision by the Benicia Planning Commission came despite unrelenting pressure from big oil and railroad lobbyists, even city staff. The city attorney reminding the commission over and over again that Valero’s tax contributions constitute a quarter of the city general fund. But late into the night, when the commissions finally got their chance to speak, they spoke with one powerful voice. They tore apart the project’s faulty environmental review and questioned the motives of city staff and their attorney. They expressed gratitude for the tremendous display of public opposition and affirmed the actual charge of their commission: to protect the health and welfare of the community.

In a dramatic moment, Commissioner George Oakes, who had listened intently during the four days of the hearings, said “I don’t want to be complicit with what has become a social nightmare across the country. What we are talking about here is some additional profit for a couple of companies.” Commissioner Susan Cohen Grossman followed up on Oakes’ comment by saying, “I don’t want to be the planning commissioner in the one city that said screw you to up-rail cities.”

The hearing was a beautiful display of democratic and thoughtful local governance. Today, the Benicia Planning Commission released this extraordinary resolution affirming the project’s denial. The denial will most certainly be appealed to the Benicia City Council, so it’s not over yet — but this is a victory worth celebrating.

The heroes here are the tireless and passionate leaders of Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community, Mesa Refinery Watch Group, the ProtectSLO Coalition, and many, many others. These folks built community power that proves that no matter where big oil tries to go next with their dangerous oil train plans, there will be people power there to stop them.

FAIRFIELD DAILY REPUBLIC: Valero taking oil-by-rail to feds; Benicia stays its course

Repost from the Fairfield Daily Reporter

Valero taking oil-by-rail to feds; Benicia stays its course

By Todd R. Hansen, March 18, 2016
Tank cars sit on the railroad tracks, near Cordelia Road and Chadbourne Road on January 1, 2016. Benicia's Planning Commission denied Valero's bid to build a rail offloading facility for crude oil, and now the company is seeking the opinion of the federal Surface Transportation Board. (Robinson Kuntz/Daily Republic file)
Tank cars sit on the railroad tracks, near Cordelia Road and Chadbourne Road on January 1, 2016. Benicia’s Planning Commission denied Valero’s bid to build a rail offloading facility for crude oil, and now the company is seeking the opinion of the federal Surface Transportation Board. (Robinson Kuntz/Daily Republic file)

BENICIA — More than four hours of staff and Valero testimony this week ended with the oil company asking the Benicia City Council for a delay and the city moving forward with its public hearing process.

Valero will seek an opinion from the federal Surface Transportation Board to determine if the city has any authority to require environmental impact mitigation for a proposed railway off-loading facility at its refinery.

The company wants to move crude oil on trains to its refinery in the Benicia Industrial Park. It has applied to the city for a use permit to construct the necessary off-loading facility.

Planning commissioners in February denied the use permit, stating in its resolution:

“(T)he proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated and maintained would not be consistent with the General Plan as it would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of the use, or to the general welfare of the city as well as uprail communities.”

Valero appealed that decision to the City Council, which started its public hearing process Tuesday. The hearing was continued to April 4 to receive comments from the public. April 6 and April 19 are also dates set aside as needed.

Valero representatives told the city it would take a month or more to submit material to the federal board, and that the decision-making process could take three to six months more.

Valero officials could not be reached Thursday. A message was left seeking comment.

Essentially, the company does not believe the city has the authority to impose conditions on railway matters, which typically falls under federal authority, according to city documents.

The city, while admitting it does not have any authority about what happens on the railways themselves, believes it does have planning and land-use authority over the refinery facility.

“The issue is where does (the railway pre-emption) start, and where does it stop,” said Amy Million, principal planner for Benicia.

Pre-emption, in this case, is basically a concept in which state and local laws are pre-empted in favor of interstate commerce regulations, which are governed under federal authority.

The Surface Transportation Board was given its authority in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, which “pre-empts state and local regulation, i.e., ‘those state laws that may reasonably be said to have the effect of ‘managing’ or ‘governing’ rail transportation.’ ”

The act gives “the Surface Transportation Board exclusive jurisdiction over: (1) transportation by rail carriers and the remedies provided with respect to rates, classifications, rules (including car service, interchange, and other operating rules), practices, routes, services, and facilities of such carriers; and (2) the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, or facilities, even if the tracks are located, or intended to be located, entirely in one state.”

Transportation board spokesman Dennis Watson said he could not comment on a project that had not yet been received by the agency.

The proposal is for oil to be transported on 50-car trains, twice daily, using Pacific Union tracks, which would pass through Fairfield, Suisun City, Dixon and into Benicia.

The shipments would replace about 70,000 barrels of oil currently brought in daily by ship.

The project has generated a great deal of comment. The city reports it tallied 1,800 substantive comments on the Environmental Impact Report, of which 550 discussed hazards, 260 focused on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, 80 on transportation, 60 on biological resources, 50 on hydrology and geology and 40 on noise.

VIDEO: Benicia City Council, March 15, 2016: Valero Attorney John Flynn surprises everyone, calls for a delay

This is a video clip of Valero’s presentation at the City Council meeting of March 15. The clip begins with a 7 minute presentation by Valero Environmental Engineering Manager Don Cuffle.  Attorney John Flynn follows, speaking for only 2 1/2 minutes, first dismissing local opposition, other attorneys and Benicia’s Planning Commissioners, and then asking Council to delay the hearings while Valero petitions the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the agency’s backing on Valero’s legal argument, a process which could take three to six months.  (See also Marilyn Bardet’s analysis of Valero’s delay tactic.)

This clip runs for about 12 minutes. (On the City’s longer and unindexed video, this clip begins at minute 1:56:14. and ends at 2:08:16  Note that the video archive of the entire meeting can be found on the City of Benicia website at ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas.)

VIDEO: Benicia City Council, March 15, 2016: Benicia Planning Commission Chair Donald Dean

This is a video clip of the presentation by Benicia Planning Commission Chair Donald Dean at the City Council meeting of March 15. This clip runs for about 15 1/2 minutes.  Many thanks to Benicia videographer Constance Beutel for her Youtube video recording. (On the City’s longer and unindexed video, Chair Dean’s comments begin at minute 1:36:48 and run to 1:51:45. Note that the video archive of the entire meeting can be found on the City of Benicia website at ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas.)