375 Beale St #600
San Francisco, CA 94105
USA
ALL HANDS ON DECK!
We Need GREEN
HOUSE
GAS
Caps,
Not Massive Emissions Increases!
11th-hour Air District staff changes to Rule 12-16, scheduled for a vote this coming Wednesday, effectively sabotage what was to be the first-in-the nation rule to regulate local refinery-emitted greenhouse gases. In a stunning reversal, the Air District is now trying to grandfather in horrendous emission increases. Staff’s history of reckless permitting is causing them to propose a total gutting of the caps by raising permissible emissions levels by 25% – the equivalent to adding a whole other Chevron or Shell refinery to our air load! We must pack the house and express our outrage.
We need the GHG emission limits that were in Rule 12-16 when the staff proposed it at the continued adoption hearing on May 31, and which Board voted to direct staff to bring for adoption on June 21.
The Board must resist staff chicanery and stay the course. Now more than ever the community needs to stand up in support of meaningful caps on refinery GHGs, not faux-caps that allow massive emissions increases.
Read the Sunflower Alliance update at http://www.sunflower-alliance.org/urgent-defend-real-ghg-caps-not-allowances-for-increased-emissions-june-21/
Please arrive no later than 8:30 AM so that we can fill the hearing room. There will be massive oil industry & building trades turnout, so come early to stand at the head of the line.
============================
Original note:
Regulating criteria pollution—included within the original proposal for 12-16—will not be considered at this time. But it will be addressed in other rule-making, including Rule 13-1, to be presented by staff for consideration in a few months.
Air District staff dropped its opposition to capping GHGs after the Air Resources Board delivered a game-changing letter on April 5th. Richard Corey, ARB’s executive officer, declared his support for Rule 12-16 and Rule 13-1, the related staff proposal to limit greenhouse gases via an emissions-per-barrel approach. “We support the intent of these rules and agree more can and must be done to deliver real reductions in pollutants that are impacting the health of residents living near refineries,” Corey wrote. “We agree both approaches could help to ensure that these sources do not add to the state’s overall emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria or toxic pollutants.”
The co-pollutants emitted by refineries along with greenhouse gases have very local impacts, which state policy is beginning to address. A growing body of research shows that people who live closest to refineries are most heavily impacted by these toxic and criteria emissions. Bay Area public health experts have estimated that a cap on local refinery emissions could save 800–3,000 lives regionally over 40 years. Without it, fenceline communities would face an 8–12 times worse per capita mortality impact.
Rule 13-1 does not currently call for directly controlling particulate matter and could allow refinery-wide emissions to increase. Making sure that rule is loophole-free is our next big struggle. But for now, this first step towards GHG caps is a very giant step in the right direction.
Please arrive at 8:45 AM so that we can fill the hearing room. There will be massive oil industry turnout, so come early to stand at the head of the line.
Additional Information
Here is the analysis, conducted by local public health experts, of the deadly local health impacts of a tar sands transition.
For background, listen to this April 19th KALW report, which includes interviews with members of the Richmond community whose very lives depend on the passage of this rule. (Both the broadcast and a transcript are available.)
Reporter Will Parrish has done excellent investigative work on the issue. See his recent articles in the Monthly and the Nation.
Finally, follow this link to more detailed background on this website of the four-year struggle to cap refinery emissions.