After Sharp Criticism Over Transparency, Air District Postpones New Refinery Regulation

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's staff and board of directors faced scathing criticism Wednesday over a lack of transparency surrounding last-minute changes to a new regulation capping greenhouse gas emissions from petroleum refineries.

At their last meeting May 31, the board directed staff to move forward on Rule 1216, capping emissions of greenhouse gases and other forms of pollution - but since that time staff revised the rule several times in an
effort to make it "legally defensible" and "technically feasible," according to district CEO Jack Broadbent.

The original proposal, put forward by Communities for a Better Environment, limit the future emission of greenhouse gases by analyzing a refinery's emissions from a five year base-line period and capping them at seven percent over the highest annual measurement. It would have also limited other pollutants, including particulate mass 2.5, particulate mass 10, sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

"Staff cannot support this approach due to legal and technical issues," district staffer Eric Stevenson said Wednesday. "We tried to revise this so it would be legally defensible and technically feasible."

The revised methodology before the board Wednesday did not seek to regulate pollutants other than greenhouse gas emissions, basing the cap on a refinery's mean emissions with exemptions or allowances for equipment that's already permitted but not yet fully utilized.

Some of the revisions were made less than 24 hours before Wednesday's meeting, according to Greg Karras, chief scientist with Communities for a Better Environment.

Roughly 25 stakeholder groups and more than 40 individuals condemned the changes during public comment, but the first speaker was a representative from the office of state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who read from a prepared statement urging the board to postpone any decision on the matter to allow sufficient time for a full and transparent analysis of Rule 1216's impacts.

Bob Brown, speaking on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Commission, said "we feel very strongly that 1216 is not the answer."

He also expressed concern about regulatory rule making at multiple levels of government, and how Rule 1216 might affect statewide regulatory efforts.

"This is the fourth change since the May 31st version," Brown said. "The district does not appear to have provided an updated EIR for public review and comment."

"Don't allow this historic agreement to be changed at the last minute by staff," said Linda Hutchins-Knowles of Moms Out Front.

"It kind of feels like 1984," Hutchins-Knowles said.

A number of public health officials expressed concern over the possibility for hundreds of premature deaths in the future due to greenhouse gas emissions, urging the board to adopt the version of Rule 1216 that was presented on May 31.

Union leaders spoke to the possibility of job loss associated with new regulations, and one man went so far as to call for a criminal investigation of the district's board and staff.

Board chair Liz Kniss initially gave commenters three minutes to speak, but later truncated that to two minutes, then 90 seconds. By the end of public comment individuals were allotted just 30 seconds to speak, leading to several hostile exchanges.

Karras, with Communities for a Better Environment, said later that he had been instructed my staff to prepare a 10-minute presentation but was cut short due to the irregular procedural decision.

"This process has been incredibly troubling," said Director Hillary Ronen, who also serves as a San Francisco County Supervisor. "I've never heard anything like it in many years of working in government."

"I think it's extraordinary that the Attorney general wrote a letter to this board expressing his concern about the process," Ronen added. "I believe we're going to have a legal problem if we go forward."

Director Mark Ross, who also serves on the Martinez City Council, noted that he hadn't heard any of the speakers during public comment speak in favor of the revised rule.

"We're either very brave or very deaf," Ross said.In a 13-6 vote, they approved a motion to continue the matter to a date uncertain, essentially punting the decision to another meeting. Kniss estimated that would be at least two to three months away.

– By Bay City News Service / Image via Pixabay