Communities for a Better Environment v. County of Contra Costa

A California Superior Court rejected most challenges to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the conversion of an existing refinery in Martinez to a renewable fuels refinery. The court found that a failure to include information about the mix of feedstocks did not negatively affect the analysis of environmental impacts, noting that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions had assumed the maximum operating capacity of the natural gas-fired hydrogen plant that produces hydrogen to process the feedstocks into fuel, which was effectively a worst-case scenario. The court further found that the information about the greenhouse gas estimates being based on maximum operating capacity of the hydrogen plant was disclosed in the record. 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.

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.