Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Refinery Closure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee advances bill requiring refinery closure planning and public cost estimates
Summary
SB 1259 was advanced out of committee after testimony from refinery communities, environmental groups and industry. The bill would require refineries to submit estimated cleanup timelines and costs and would have the State Water Board develop an overview to guide planning; opponents called the measure onerous and warned of economic impacts.
Sen. Blakespear presented SB 1259, a bill to require additional transparency and planning ahead of refinery closures. The measure would direct the State Water Board to prepare an overview of remediation technologies, likely costs and timelines and would require refineries to report estimated cleanup timelines and costs to help communities plan for land reuse and remediation.
"When a refinery closes, communities are left in the dark," Sen. Blakespear said, arguing the information is necessary for local planning and to avoid long delays and orphaned contamination. Benicia City Council member Carrie Birds Eye testified that an active refinery closure in her city is expected to create an estimated $10,000,000 hole in local tax revenue and that the city needs information now to coordinate redevelopment.
Opponents including the State Building Construction Trades Council and the Western States Petroleum Association told the committee the bill is onerous, risks discouraging investment and could be perceived as planning for refinery demise. The trades council urged the committee to prioritize policies to retain refineries and protect jobs; WSPA said California already has robust multi‑agency oversight and offered alternative checklist-style amendments that the author rejected.
Committee members asked technical questions about overlap with existing reporting to DTSC, regional water boards and federal disclosures. The author said the bill was written to provide limited, ten-year projections and to avoid duplicative requirements where possible. After debate and amendment, the committee voted to pass SB 1259 as amended to the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee; the roll call showed recorded ayes and nays and the chair left the vote open for absent members.
The bill now goes to the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee for further consideration.
