LOS ANGELES - An environmental impact study that concluded a California oil refinery project would reduce air pollution has been upheld by the California Court of Appeal.
Communities for a Better Environment filed a lawsuit in 2017 challenging the environmental impact study on Tesoro’s proposed Los Angeles Refinery Integration and Compliance Project. The study was approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
A trial judge ruled against Communities for a Better Environment and the group appealed. The Appeal Court on April 7 upheld the lower-court decision.
Tesoro’s project would integrate the company’s refineries in Carson and Wilmington.
“The improved integration would increase Tesoro’s flexibility in altering the ratio of outputs like gasoline and jet fuel,” the appeal court held. “If the price of one goes up and the other goes down, for instance, Tesoro (like any commercial enterprise) would like to respond to price signals by shifting its output to maximize profits.”
The project calls for installing new storage tanks, which would decrease shipping costs and air pollution by reducing the number of oil tanker trips, the ruling said.
The project would also reduce air pollution by lowering gas emissions from burners, also called heaters, according to the ruling.
“Reducing these pollutants was a major goal of Tesoro’s project and correspondingly a major focus of the environmental impact report at the heart of this case,” the ruling states.
The court rejected Communities for a Better Environment’s challenge to the baseline that was used in the environmental impact study to measure the project’s impact on air pollution.
“Substantial evidence supports the agency’s baseline choice,” the ruling said.
The court also rejected three other challenges to the environmental impact study.
“We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court, which rejected Communities’ attacks on this environmental impact report,” the ruling states.
Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, B294732