Benicia oil train decision postponed

By Victoria Brandon
Redwood Chapter Chair
On April 19, after several days of packed public hearings, the city of Benicia decided to postpone its decision on the Valero Refining Company’s plan to run half-mile-long oil trains through northern California to its local refinery.

As reported in previous editions of the Redwood Needles, the company has applied to build facilities that would allow two 50-car trains of crude oil daily to pass through a series of California cities including Sacramento and Davis, potentially exposing millions of residents to significant health and safety risks, as detailed in the project’s Environmental Impact Report.  Citing these concerns as well as more localized impacts such as increased air pollution at the refinery site, the Benicia Planning Commission rejected the project in February by a unanimous vote, which was followed by an appeal by Valero to the city council.

Much of the debate has centered on federal law, with Valero asserting that interstate commerce rules bar local governments from regulating rail transport. According to this interpretation, the city is precluded from taking environmental hazards during transport into consideration when making its decision. On the other side, the previous week California Attorney General Kamala Harris submitted a powerful letter to the city, maintaining Benicia’s right and indeed its obligation to review environmental risks, and pointing out that federal rail preemption rules do not apply in this matter because Valero is not a railroad company.

Valero representatives then requested the city to delay its decision until an opinion about jurisdiction could be obtained from federal officials.

Although public testimony made the local community’s objections to the project abundantly obvious, several council members said they were confused by contradictory legal opinions and supported the request for delay, which was opposed by environmental activists as well as by Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, who asked “is that what we want to do, wear out the public?” she asked. “We have other things we want to do in this city. I want to move on.” Patterson also objected to letting Valero frame the debate by taking the matter to another body.

Valero now plans to submit a request to the federal Surface Transportation Board for a ruling on the preemption issue, which is expected by September.