Bay Area Air District Charts Groundbreaking Clean Air Plan, Proposes First Flare Rule Overhaul in 20 Years

The Bay Area Air District's Stationary Source Committee heard two landmark presentations April 8 that could reshape how the region regulates pollution — a new Clean Air Plan designed to target neighborhood-level health disparities for the first time, and proposed refinery flare rule amendments that drew immediate pushback from Chevron and the petroleum industry. Neither item required a vote, but both signal the district's most ambitious regulatory agenda in years.

• New Clean Air Plan moves beyond federal standards to address community-level pollution disparities, air toxics, and cumulative health impacts — with board action targeted by end of 2028

• Staff proposes sweeping refinery flare rule updates including annual emission limits, community notification requirements, and third-party audits — the first major changes since 2003–2005

• Chevron and WSPA push back hard, calling flare emissions just 0.5–1% of total refinery output and warning new rules would drive economic harm

• Communities for a Better Environment fires back, citing Richmond asthma rates nearly double the state average

• Director Hopkins calls for CARB partnership on ocean-going vessel emissions, which account for nearly 30% of regional NOx

• Committee directs staff to route flare rule concepts through Refinery Technical Working Group before public release

A New Kind of Clean Air Plan

The basics: The Air District's current Clean Air Plan dates to 2017. Federal law requires periodic updates tied to meeting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), but those plans have historically focused on regional pollution averages — not the block-by-block reality of who breathes the worst air.

Why it matters: The new plan, presented by Executive Officer Philip Fine and Principal Environmental Planner Alesia Lau, fundamentally departs from that model. It would combine multiple objectives: meeting federal standards, reducing localized air quality disparities, addressing air toxics, cutting cumulative health impacts in overburdened communities, and maximizing climate co-benefits. It draws on a decade of experience under AB 617, the state's landmark community air protection program, and attempts to scale that community-level analysis across the entire nine-county region.

Where things stand: Lau's data showed that Bay Area PM2.5 concentrations have plateaued near the revised 2024 federal standard of 9 micrograms per cubic meter — meaning the region is likely headed for a non-attainment designation whenever EPA acts. Areas like San Pablo and San Jose experience disproportionately high levels. Key emission sources include ships (29.7% of regional NOx), heavy-duty trucks (18% of NOx), and residential wood burning (12.1% of PM2.5).

Fine described the plan as something he's personally invested in: "I'm really excited about. But in order to get everyone else excited, I have to go into a little detail about how esoteric these clean air plans are," he told the committee.

On the question of what the district can actually control, Fine broke it down bluntly: "Looking at NOx, 90% is outside of this air district's control. But if you're looking at PM2.5, it might be closer to 50/50, and for air toxics, it's almost entirely under our authority to reduce those local impacts."

He also argued the board should set its own targets regardless of what happens in Washington: "Even if the 9 micrograms per cubic meter was revoked or tossed out in court, this board could say, doesn't matter to us, we're going to try to hit that nine."

The other side: Director David Haubert, Alameda County, pressed on how much of the region's pollution problem originates locally versus externally. He zeroed in on one statistic: "Residential wood burning 12.1%, a huge chunk. And we still allow that in the 617 neighborhoods. We can make a lot of progress in those highly impacted neighborhoods by just stopping wood burning."

Supervisor John Gioia, Contra Costa County, emphasized that regional emission pie charts understate neighborhood-level exposure: "While the regional contribution may be 16.9, the impact on communities near the facilities is where it's significant. Unlike NOx, which is more regional, PM2.5 has a local impact."

Director Lynda Hopkins, Sonoma County, raised a different equity concern — that rural communities with unreliable electrical grids depend on wood burning for heat and that restrictions must account for infrastructure gaps. She also pushed hard on maritime emissions, calling for the district to convene discussions with the California Air Resources Board: "Would it be possible to convene a conversation with CARB? We are being so aggressive and progressive on other sources of NOx, and yet those sources pale in comparison to what we're seeing from the ocean-going vessels."

Ships on Pacific Rim trade routes tend to be the oldest and dirtiest vessels, staff noted, and the International Maritime Organization moves slowly. Fine agreed to bring a maritime emissions presentation to the Planning, Rules and Research Committee.

Director Tyrone Jue, San Francisco, asked about monitoring technology and how the plan accounts for evolving data capabilities over its multi-year horizon.

In public comment, Kathy Kerridge, a Benicia resident, urged the district to celebrate its air quality successes and expand public education about fireplace pollution, citing a neighbor's respiratory problems. Kevin Buchanan of the Western States Petroleum Association asked about the currency of PM2.5 data and whether wildfire contributions were excluded.

What's next: Internal scoping is expected by spring 2026, with stakeholder engagement beginning fall 2026. Technical analysis and control measure development would follow through fall 2027, environmental review in winter 2027, and board consideration by end of 2028.

Flare Rule Overhaul Draws Sharp Industry Opposition

The basics: Refinery flares burn off excess gases during maintenance, upsets, or emergencies — a safety mechanism, but also a significant source of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds for nearby communities. The Air District's flare rules, 12-11 and 12-12, have not been significantly updated since 2003–2005.

Why it matters: Senior Air Quality Specialist Engineer Katie Gong presented an extensive overview of refinery flaring mechanics and outlined potential amendment concepts modeled on South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1118. The proposed changes would impose annual SO2 and NOx emission limits for flares — with potentially declining targets over time — plus mitigation fees for exceedances, standardized reporting methodologies, community notification for planned flaring, continuous sulfur monitoring, video monitoring access, and third-party audits triggered by recurrent flaring patterns. The amendments would also clarify the distinction between emergency and non-emergency flaring.

Where things stand: The presentation sparked one of the meeting's most heated exchanges. Committee members probed the concepts from multiple angles.

Chair Ken Carlson, Contra Costa County, stressed the public education value: "It's really important for me too to get the 101 out there to make sure that community understands what's going on and why."

Director Steve Young, representing Benicia, called for advance community notification of planned flaring, citing the Valero decommissioning that generated visible dark smoke and worker complaints. Chair Carlson echoed this, noting "if it's a planned flare because of maintenance or other things, that notification ought to be provided in advance to the community and to the local fire department."

Director Ray Mueller, San Mateo County, urged staff to integrate actual flaring events into the bimonthly Refinery Technical Working Group meetings: "There's a difference between talking about things in the abstract and then having bimonthly meetings and talking about things that are actually occurring. It gives the opportunity for a much more collaborative relationship."

Director Haubert cautioned against penalizing safety-driven flaring: "I just want to avoid the unintended consequence of maybe eliciting poor behavior where, for example, somebody may choose not to take the safest approach because of fear of a fine."

Supervisor Gioia pressed on whether PG&E could be held accountable when its power outages trigger refinery flaring: "Is there an ability to also put requirements on PG&E or to fine PG&E when their actions led to the power disruption at the refinery and therefore the need to flare?" Staff acknowledged this would likely require PUC involvement.

Director Jue requested data separating planned versus emergency flaring to assess the cost-benefit of the proposals: "It's hard to tease out exactly what difference this would make. That would be helpful — even your example around South Coast — like, what did they see in terms of the reduction of flares?"

Director Gabe Quinto, El Cerrito, requested breakdowns by flaring type and emission category, and expressed concern about third-party audit costs.

The other side: Industry representatives pushed back forcefully. Todd Osterberg, senior air specialist at Chevron Richmond Refinery, argued the Bay Area is already in attainment for NO2 and SO2, that flare emissions represent only 0.5–1% of total refinery output, and that California Health & Safety Code requires a demonstration of necessity before amending rules.

Brandon Sutter, Chevron's lead air specialist, said the proposals would divert capital from proven reduction projects toward fines and audits. He noted Chevron has reduced flare volume by 43% and reportable events by 36% since 2023 through capital investment.

Kevin Buchanan of the Western States Petroleum Association recommended sending the concept paper back to the Refinery Technical Working Group, noting no emission estimates were provided to justify rule development and that monthly technical meetings have excluded WSPA and the refineries.

Morgan Zellers of Phillips 66's Rodeo Renewable Energy Complex reported SO2 from its flares dropped to approximately 200 pounds for all of 2025 after transitioning to renewable feedstocks, and asked that renewable facilities be distinguished from petroleum refineries.

Community advocates drew the sharpest contrast. Caitlin Alcontin, a legal fellow with Communities for a Better Environment, strongly supported the amendments, citing SO2's respiratory and cardiovascular impacts and Richmond's asthma rates, which are nearly double the state average.

Supervisor Gioia responded directly to industry claims: "For the refineries to say that there's no health impacts — give me a break. There are flaring incidents that are health impacts. Talk to our public health director in Contra Costa."

Executive Officer Fine offered technical context that undercut the industry's "small percentage" argument: "If you look at it from when the event is happening, it's a very large percentage of the emissions coming out of the refinery. So there could be acute impacts, there could be short-term impacts."

Decisions: The committee directed staff to route the flare rule concept paper through the Refinery Technical Working Group before public release — a process expected to take several months.

What's next: The working group review is expected to proceed through mid-2026, with formal rulemaking to follow. The deep divide between industry and community advocates ensures this will be a closely watched process as the district attempts its first major flare regulation update in two decades.

Minor Items

• Consent calendar: February 11, 2026 meeting minutes approved by roll call vote (For: 6, Against: 0, Absent: 5 — Directors Haubert, Jue, Quinto, Gioia, Medina, and Carlson voted yes).

• Next meeting: May 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at Metro Center.