|Chevron Unable to Back Up Claims Made in
Letter to KPFA
July 21, 2007
On June 28, 2007, Mayor Gayle McLaughlin appeared on KPFA to discuss the planned expansion of the Chevron Refinery (Chevron Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project). To listen to a recording of the program, visit http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=20968.
KPFA invited Chevron to participate in the discussion, but the company declined, instead sending the following letter:
Thank you for your inquiry. We are not available to participate in your interview, however we wanted to provide you with some information on the Refinery's Renewal Project.
The Renewal Project is a win-win for the City of Richmond and Chevron. The Renewal Project provides job opportunities and generates millions of dollars in new tax revenues for the City of Richmond that could be used to help fund public safety programs, street and road repairs, and other essential services. Additionally, the project will improve the reliability and energy efficiency of the Refinery, reduce total emissions and make additional fuel available to the California market.
Chevron Richmond Refinery
Subsequently, I forwarded to Chevron the following questions regarding the claims made by Camille Priselac, to which Chevron has not responded over three weeks later:
1. How many and what kind of jobs will be created? Will they be short or long term jobs? What level of participation in these new jobs is expected or guaranteed from Richmond residents? What is the percentage of Richmond residents employed at the refinery currently, and what is the projection after the completion of this project?
2. What is the magnitude and specific source of new tax revenues projected (property tax, UUT, etc.)?
3. What are the tangible benefits for Richmond, if any, of improving the “reliability and energy efficiency of the Refinery?”
4. Provide specific details regarding reduction of overall emissions. This is a very vague statement that seems at odds with the EIR.
5. What is the tangible benefit to Richmond, if any, of making “additional fuel available to the California market?” I was under the impression that earlier statements by Chevron indicated this project would not result in an increase in production.
6. Are there other specific tangible “wins” for the City of Richmond?
Meanwhile, the comment period for the EIR has closed, but the authors of the EIR retained by the Richmond Planning Department have gotten an earful, including an almost unprecedented letter from the California attorney general asserting that the Draft EIR is defective, inadequate, incomplete and out of conformance with CEQA for its failure to adequately cover flaring, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, and VOC emissions. Click here for a copy of the attorney general’s letter.