Description: Challenge to environmental review in connection with repurposing of refinery in City of Rodeo as a biofuel refinery.
-
Communities for a Better Environment v. County of Contra Costa
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/21/2023 Decision Download Remanded for reconsideration of odor mitigation measures, cumulative impacts, and piecemealing issues. California Court Rejected Some Challenges to CEQA Analysis for Renewable Fuels Refinery Conversion, but Remanded for Redo of Other Analyses. A California Superior Court rejected some challenges to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the conversion of an existing refinery in Rodeo to a renewable fuels refinery. The court found that a failure to include information about the mix of feedstocks—which would effect carbon emissions and hydrogen usage—did not negatively affect the analysis of environmental impacts. The court also found that the petitioners failed to show the project would have significant indirect land use impacts, including deforestation impacts. However, the court found that discussion of odor mitigation measures was insufficient. The court also found that the project description should have included changes to a rail terminal that increased its feedstock capacity and that an initial project to convert a hydrotreater to process renewable feedstocks had been improperly left out of the analysis of cumulative impacts. 06/07/2022 Petition for Writ of Mandate Download Verified petition for writ of mandate filed. CEQA Lawsuits Challenged Biofuel Refineries in California. Communities for a Better Environment and Center for Biological Diversity filed two lawsuits in California Superior Court alleging that Contra Costa County failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the repurposing of refineries in the City of Rodeo and the City of Martinez as biofuel refineries. The organizations contended that the County’s environmental impact report improperly used prior oil and gas refinery operations as the baseline for its CEQA reviews and failed to disclose the types of feedstocks would be used. The organizations alleged that without information about types of feedstocks, where the feedstocks would come from, and how much would be processed, the analysis of environmental harms such as climate change was “speculative guesswork.” The petition also alleged that the CEQA review failed to analyze the combined impacts of the two projects, which were located 10 miles from each other. In addition, the petition alleged that the review obscured impacts—including climate change-related impacts—from biofuel crop production.