Air District Weighs Tougher Refinery Flare Rules, Fees and Real-Time Alerts

The Bay Area Air District's Stationary Source Committee spent most of its Oct. 14, 2026, meeting on a question that hangs over Richmond, Martinez and Benicia: how much refinery flaring could be prevented, and who should pay when it isn't. Staff presented nine concepts to overhaul flare rules that have barely changed in 20 years. No vote was taken, but members gave staff direction and began arguing over how much say the refineries should have.

---

• Nine concepts to tighten Rules 12-11 and 12-12 could bring new limits, fees and audits to all five Bay Area refineries
• Staff say more than half of flaring was "reasonably preventable," a finding refineries dispute
• Directors warn a proposed mitigation fee must not become "pay-to-pollute"
• Committee leaders clash over the refineries' role in shaping the rule
• Advance notice, live flare video and "Flaring 101" videos are on the table for neighbors
• Biofuel refineries: a commenter urges no exemptions and members ask for facility-by-facility data

---

Nine Ideas to Rewrite 20-Year-Old Flare Rules

The basics: Flaring is the burning of excess vent gas at refinery flare stacks. Rules 12-11 and 12-12 govern how Bay Area refineries monitor, report and minimize it.

Why it matters: The rules have been essentially unchanged for two decades. The concepts could bring Bay Area requirements closer to those of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and add new costs for refineries.

Where things stand: Katie Gong, Senior Air Quality Engineer, Regulatory Development Division, said the effort grows out of the District's 2024-2029 strategic plan and the Richmond-North Richmond-San Pablo community plan. The concept paper contains nine ideas:

• Extend combustion-efficiency rules to alternative-feedstock refineries
• Set emission and vent-gas limits that decline over time
• Require mitigation measures or an in-lieu fee when certain criteria are triggered
• Require more causal reports after flaring events
• Require third-party audits
• Require more detailed flare minimization plans
• Standardize reporting
• Clarify how flaring causes are defined
• Require continuous vent-gas monitoring, real-time video access and community notification

Gong said the list is a starting point. It is "unlikely that all of these concepts will be adopted as published in the concept paper," she said.

What's next: Staff will review comments, write a draft proposal and hold public workshops. A socioeconomic analysis, an environmental analysis and a public hearing would follow. No dates were set.

---

The 'Preventable' Number Driving the Debate

Why it matters: The finding that most flaring was preventable is the main justification for new rules. Its accuracy will shape the fight with industry.

Where things stand: Gong said the data show that "more than 50% of vent gas volume and emissions were due to causes that were preventable."

Director Dionne Adams, vice mayor of Pittsburg, asked the basic question: "What problem are we trying to solve and what's the gap in the framework?" Staff pointed to community priority and the flaring data. Staff member Greg said "more than half of the flaring events were reasonably preventable."

Director Steve Young, mayor of Benicia, asked whether gas buildup counts as preventable. Greg said the test is what happened before the flare. Director Lynda Hopkins, a Sonoma County supervisor, pressed for concrete examples. Those discussed included a Martinez refinery fire tied to contractor issues, improperly installed valves and outdated electrical drawings. Hopkins asked: "What safety protocols can we create to try to reduce the incidence of human error?"

Director Tyrone Jue, a San Francisco mayoral appointee, noted that the staff pie chart showed 59% to 74% preventable by volume and emissions. Greg said he relied mostly on vent-gas volume and acknowledged that refineries disagree with the figure.

The fee question: Staff are modeling an in-lieu mitigation fee on South Coast's approach. Greg described pricing it against the annualized capital cost of capturing all vent gas. Hopkins asked where the money would go: "Would that potentially flow into our community benefits funds?" Greg said statutory requirements apply. He also acknowledged that "there's been some concern about kind of a pay-to-pollute approach."

Jue echoed that concern. "That's always a tricky one because of the risk of the pay-to-pollute model being perpetuated," he said.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: How the fee is designed will decide whether refineries invest in prevention or simply pay to flare. Neighbors want fewer flaring events. Refiners face new capital or fee costs either way.

---

Who Writes the Rule: Regulators vs. Refiners

Why it matters: This process dispute will decide how industry input shapes the draft. It also exposed a split between the committee's two Contra Costa County supervisors.

Where things stand: Director David Haubert, an Alameda County supervisor, asked staff to "describe the refining technical workgroup meetings and the quality and level of participation by the refineries." Greg answered, "We've had good participation from the Refinery Technical Working Group, from the refiners on the Refinery Technical Working Group." He said staff will meet one-on-one with each refinery and keep working with labor.

The other side: Industry commenters disagreed with that account.

• Kevin Buchan, WSPR, asked that the concept paper go back to the working group. He said staff must supply the technical basis, a disaggregated inventory, estimated reductions and available controls. He said the group lacked meaningful engagement and that a Valero capacity request was denied.
• Todd Osterberg, Chevron Richmond Refinery, said Chevron supports reducing flaring. He urged staff to identify the gap, avoid safety risks, and consider what drove South Coast's improvements and existing Contra Costa warning systems.

Committee Chair Ken Carlson, a Contra Costa supervisor, wanted refineries to lead a response at the working group. "I do want to see it really put on the refineries to say, okay, here's the concept paper, here's everything we've done," he said.

Committee Vice Chair John Gioia, whose Contra Costa district includes Richmond, pushed back. "I don't think as a health protective regulatory agency we should be turning over the decision-making to the facility that we have a role in regulating," he said. He invited colleagues to "come to our communities when there's ongoing flaring and see firsthand and hear from residents firsthand."

Carlson replied, "What I'm not abdicating is our authority to be a regulatory agency and turn it over to our industry partners."

Dr. Fine, Air District staff, suggested a dedicated flaring-rulemaking group. "I'm trying to avoid just this endless loop," he said.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Director Ray Mueller, a San Mateo County supervisor, asked that minutes of stakeholder meetings be kept so that all attendees can sign off on them. Staff took that as direction. Haubert said he is "cautiously optimistic that we will be able to work together because that's the only way it's going to happen."

---

Warning Neighbors: Notice, Live Video, Flaring 101

Why it matters: No notification system exists for planned flaring. South Coast requires 24-hour advance notice of planned flaring and real-time alerts for unplanned events.

Where things stand: Young noted past refinery claims that the timing of turnarounds is market-sensitive. Turnarounds are scheduled maintenance shutdowns that can cause flaring. He asked, "Can we require notification to the community when the refinery knows that they're going to be doing this work?"

Greg said staff are examining the question with legal counsel. Dr. Fine said turnaround timing is generally a state matter. "I don't think the Air District would ever try to tell a refinery when and how to do a turnaround," he said. Gioia noted that Shell has voluntarily notified communities, while other operators have not.

Live video: Rule 12-11 requires one flare picture per minute, reported after the fact. The federal rule requires four. Staff are considering requiring real-time feeds, which would need secure-access work on the refinery side. Director Otto Lee, a Santa Clara County supervisor, called flaring "really more of a last resort." He suggested "we could start as a pilot project or proof of concept." Greg said the requirement would come through rulemaking as a package. He noted that Chevron already has real-time speciated data.

Flaring 101: Community and labor input led staff to plan short videos for the District's website and social media. "I'm really excited about the Flaring 101 videos," Hopkins said. She asked for a release timeline and board notification. Gioia cautioned that residents already understand flaring and that notification matters too.

What's next: Staff took direction to release Flaring 101 before the draft-rule workshops.

---

Biofuel Refineries: Separate Treatment or None?

Why it matters: Two large Contra Costa facilities have converted to renewable fuel. Whether they are treated differently affects both compliance costs and protection for nearby communities.

Where things stand: Gioia noted that converted facilities process smaller volumes. "I would ask for that information to be highlighted in a slide for us in the future and sent to us," he said, seeking facility-by-facility flaring data. Staff agreed to provide it.

Jue asked whether the rule could treat renewable and crude refineries differently. Staff said the socioeconomic analysis would address that while weighing the fact that health impacts are the same.

The other side: Gary Hughes, Biofuel Watch, opposed any special exemptions. He said 10 of the last 20 flaring incidents occurred at biofuel refineries, and he challenged renewable diesel's claims.

---

Minor Items

• Minutes approved: The Sept. 9, 2026, minutes passed on a motion by Director Rico E. Medina, mayor of San Bruno, seconded by Jue. For: 7 (Carlson, Gioia, Haubert, Jue, Lee, Medina, Young). Abstain: 1 (Hopkins). Absent: 1 (Mueller). Votes from Directors Adams and Quinto were not recorded.
• Rule 9-6 housing study: Mueller said a CARB study did not meet his request. "I'm asking today just that this recital and notation of it be reflected in our next minutes under committee member comments," he said.
• Rule 9-6 timing: Haubert said the Rule 9-6 discussion moved to November. He relayed community suspicion that the delay was meant to get past the election.
• Permit backlog: Adams requested an update from the Permit Efficiency Task Force. Staff cited biweekly reports and a deep dive at the January board retreat.

---

Looking Ahead

The committee next meets Dec. 9, 2026, at 10 a.m. at the Bay Area Metro Center. The draft flare proposal, including its fee, monitoring and notification elements, will be the next major decision point.