California lawmakers are pushing forward with legislation to lock in place refinery safety protections that were put in place after a string of dangerous incidents at oil facilities across the state, despite pushback from industry groups who say the effort could unravel a recent legal settlement.
Senate Bill 966, backed by labor unions, would write into state law a set of worker protections currently under review by California regulators. Those protections stem from safety rules adopted after major refinery accidents, and are now being revised as part of a 2024 settlement between the state and the oil industry.
“We’re trying to get the best regulations possible for these industries,” said Nick Plurkowski, a leader with a Bay Area local of the United Steelworkers union. He pointed to how far the current rules go, noting that regulations spell out something as basic as a worker’s right to refuse an assignment that could put their life in danger.
The bill, authored by state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach Democrat, would guarantee refinery workers the right to decline unsafe tasks, take part in safety inspections, select their own representatives for safety planning, and report hazards without fear of retaliation.
The measure is one of several this legislative session aimed at the oil and gas industry, alongside proposals addressing refinery closures and efforts to rein in gas price spikes tied to global conflicts. The renewed attention on refinery oversight comes as California motorists continue to pay the highest gas prices in the nation, with tensions in the Middle East adding further pressure to crude oil markets.
SB 966 traces its roots to the 2012 Chevron refinery fire in Richmond, an incident so severe that roughly 15,000 people sought medical treatment afterward. Rules adopted in response to that disaster are what the bill seeks to protect. The Western States Petroleum Association, California’s dominant oil industry lobbying group, opposes the legislation, arguing it would undercut a 2024 settlement in which regulators agreed to revisit refinery safety requirements in exchange for the industry dropping a lengthy legal challenge.
While neither the unions nor oil companies pour large sums directly into legislative campaigns, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, the petroleum association remains one of the most influential lobbying forces in Sacramento, consistently ranking among the top spenders at the state Capitol.
Records show the petroleum association has lobbied against the bill, joined by major refining companies including Chevron, Marathon Petroleum and PBF Energy. Together, those three companies operate refineries that account for nearly 90% of California’s crude oil refining capacity.
The bill cleared a key fiscal committee this week. Its momentum follows an explosion last year at Chevron’s refinery in El Segundo, which sent flames shooting into the night sky and shook homes in surrounding neighborhoods, reviving public concern about the safety of California’s often-decades-old refining infrastructure.
Zach Leary, a lobbyist representing the petroleum association, told lawmakers earlier this summer that the bill would conflict with the terms of the 2024 settlement, under which the state agreed to revise its safety rules through a formal regulatory process rather than new legislation.
“Unfortunately, it’s this type of regulatory and legislative whiplash that creates a business environment that is very difficult to operate in,” Leary testified in June.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Department of Finance has also raised objections, saying the bill would create costs not accounted for in the current state budget, could invite additional legal challenges, and risks clashing with the ongoing rulemaking process tied to the settlement.
California’s refinery safety standards are already among the strictest in the country, a legacy of two major incidents: the 2012 Richmond fire and a 2015 explosion at a Torrance refinery, then owned by ExxonMobil, that nearly released a potentially lethal industrial chemical known as modified hydrofluoric acid.
At the heart of the existing regulations is a concept known as process safety, which requires refineries to proactively identify and correct hazards before they escalate into major incidents. The rules also ensure workers have a direct voice in safety reviews and post-incident investigations, with the broader goal of preventing the kind of catastrophic failures that have plagued refineries in the past.
The petroleum association sued in 2019 to block those rules, arguing they were vague and improperly enacted. The state quietly settled the case in 2024. Following that settlement, the California Environmental Protection Agency finalized changes this year affecting how workers participate in safety decisions and how hazards are evaluated. A related rule revision is still underway at the state’s workplace safety agency.
Plurkowski said the speed with which state regulators agreed to revisit the rules is part of what motivated the push to codify worker protections into law.
“Part of what led to SB 966 was how quickly CalEPA folded,” he said. “People’s lives are at stake, communities are at stake, we’ve learned enough lessons to know better at this point.”
Original source: CalMatters
