California lawmakers are advancing an effort to preserve oil refinery safety rules that were designed to prevent fires, explosions and other catastrophes despite industry opposition. <\/p>\n
The union-backed proposal, Senate Bill 966<\/a>, would enshrine existing worker protections into state law as California regulators move to revise them in response to a legal settlement with the state\u2019s oil lobby.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re trying to get the best regulations possible for these industries,\u201d said Nick Plurkowski, a leader of a Bay Area local of the United Steelworkers. \u201cAn industry where you have to write into regulation \u2026 that it\u2019s OK to refuse work that could lead to your death.\u201d<\/p>\n The bill would lock in workers\u2019 rights to refuse dangerous work, participate in safety reviews, choose their own representatives for safety planning and report hazards anonymously. <\/p>\n The measure is among several targeting the oil and gas industry this year, including proposals aimed at refinery closure plans<\/a> and a bid to curb high gas prices during wartime<\/a> by expanding the state\u2019s price-gouging law. Lawmakers\u2019 focus on refineries comes as California drivers<\/a> face the nation\u2019s highest gasoline prices<\/a> and the Iran war pushes up the global price of crude oil.<\/p>\n The worker safety bill would lock in provisions adopted after a 2012 Chevron refinery fire<\/a> in Richmond that prompted 15,000 people to seek medical attention. The Western States Petroleum Assn., the state\u2019s main oil lobby, formally opposes the measure, arguing it would override a 2024 legal settlement the industry reached with regulators.<\/p>\n The industry and union players fighting over the bill do not contribute much money directly to lawmakers, according to CalMatters\u2019 Digital Democracy database<\/a>. Campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry can be toxic in elections for the state\u2019s politically dominant Democratic Party.<\/p>\n But WSPA is a powerhouse when it comes to lobbying. It\u2019s routinely the biggest spender in the Capitol among the many interest groups that hire lobbyists, according to state records<\/a>.<\/p>\n WSPA<\/a> reported lobbying on the measure, and is joined by some of the state\u2019s largest refiners, Chevron<\/a>, Marathon Petroleum<\/a> and PBF Energy<\/a>, according to lobbying reports reviewed by CalMatters. Those three companies run refineries<\/a> that make up nearly 90% of California\u2019s crude oil refining capacity.<\/p>\n The proposal, which cleared a key fiscal committee this week, is written by state Sen. Lena Gonzalez<\/a>, (D-Long Beach), and comes after an explosion last year<\/a> at Chevron\u2019s El Segundo refinery. That blast rattled windows across nearby neighborhoods and shot uncontrolled columns of flame into the air, raising new concerns about the safety of the state\u2019s aging refineries.<\/p>\n Zach Leary, a lobbyist for WSPA, in testimony at a legislative hearing earlier this summer, argued the proposal would override a 2024 settlement under which California regulators agreed to pursue changes to refinery safety rules in exchange for the industry dropping years of litigation. <\/p>\n \u201cUnfortunately, it\u2019s this type of regulatory and legislative whiplash that creates a business environment that is very difficult to operate in,\u201d Leary said in June<\/a>. <\/p>\n Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s Department of Finance also opposes the bill<\/a>, arguing it adds additional costs not included in this year\u2019s budget, could expose the state to further litigation expenses and may conflict with an ongoing process to rewrite the rules following the 2024 settlement.<\/p>\n California has some of the nation\u2019s toughest refinery safety measures because of two earlier explosions: the 2012 Richmond refinery fire, and another in 2015<\/a> at a refinery in Torrance then owned by ExxonMobil that came close to releasing modified hydrofluoric acid, a potentially deadly industrial chemical.<\/p>\n The worker rules are built around the concept of process safety, which requires refineries to identify and address hazards before they lead to accidents and gives workers a direct role in safety reviews and investigations. The goal is to prevent failures that can lead to refinery fires and explosions.<\/p>\n But WSPA sued to block the rules in 2019, calling them unclear and invalid. California quietly settled<\/a> in 2024. In response to the settlement, the California Environmental Protection Agency finalized amendments<\/a> this year to its refinery safety rules, including how workers take part in safety decisions and how hazards are reviewed. A companion rule revision<\/a> at the state\u2019s workplace safety agency is ongoing.<\/p>\n Plurkowski, of the local United Steelworkers union, said that the outcome at CalEPA prompted the push for the worker safety measures to be written into law. The regional United Steelworkers District 12 sponsored the measure.<\/p>\n \u201cPart of what led to SB 966 was how quickly CalEPA folded,\u201d Plurkowski said. \u201cPeople\u2019s lives are at stake, communities are at stake, we\u2019ve learned enough lessons to know better at this point.\u201d<\/p>\n