Maddy Revives Environmental Exemption Bill : Pollution: Senate GOP leader says legislation easing regulations on L.A.-area refineries would help in riot recovery. Environmental groups dispute his reasoning.

Arguing that his proposal would help Los Angeles rebuild from recent rioting, a Republican lawmaker is asking the state Senate to reconsider a controversial bill to exempt oil companies from state environmental review for plant renovations needed to produce cleaner gasoline.

The exemption proposal, introduced by Senate Republican leader Ken Maddy (R-Fresno), was killed in committee last April after opposition from environmental groups and some labor unions.

Ordinarily, that would have been the end of the legislation, because the deadline for introducing bills has passed.

But Maddy is seeking reconsideration of his measure, now limited to Los Angeles-area refineries, as part of a special dispensation for bills intended to help Los Angeles rebuild.

The bill will be heard by the Senate Governmental Organization committee today.

In an interview, Maddy said major oil companies “cannot meet the time lines” set by the state Air Resources Board for production of cleaner-burning fuels if they must comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

“After the disruptions in Los Angeles, my principal thought was, we need a huge infusion of money into the L. A. area,” Maddy said. “We need to get things rolling down there and this seemed one way to do it.”

Maddy said oil companies plan to spend as much as $7 billion statewide to retrofit their refineries to meet a 1996 state deadline. He did not know how much of that would be spent in the Los Angeles area.

The new standards would make gasoline 30% to 40% less smog-producing, according to an Air Resources Board spokesman.

Environmentalists accused Maddy of seizing on the riots as an excuse to revive pet legislation that had been rejected.

The measure “is nothing but a crass attempt by the oil companies to capitalize on the suffering related to the Los Angeles riots,” Jennifer Jennings, general counsel for the Planning and Conservation League, said in a letter to the Senate committee.

“Providing a (California Environmental Quality Act) exemption for the oil refineries will hurt the residents of Los Angeles County, because they may be exposed to greater levels of toxic emissions as a result,” Jennings wrote. “It is also very unlikely that the oil companies will hire unemployed residents to work on the refinery modifications.”

V. John White, legislative advocate for the Sierra Club, said, “It’s tragic to see the special session used in this fashion. . . . The way for the oil companies to get environmental permits is to file the necessary documents, instead of playing around in the Legislature.”

White said the law provides the only opportunity for residents of the largely low-income, minority neighborhoods around the South Bay refineries to find out about the possible negative effects of the refinery construction and what could be done to mitigate the damage.

But Maddy said other local, state and federal reviews are sufficient to assure the environmental safety of the projects

Maddy, who has sometimes referred to California’s process for issuing environmentally sensitive permits as a “well-oiled job-killing machine,” said those who oppose his bill “can’t have it both ways--they can’t speak out about the need for economic recovery and jobs and then oppose the people who are going to provide these jobs.”

But White replied: “This isn’t a business-climate issue, this is a case of the biggest business enterprise in the state seeking special favors for a multibillion-dollar project. The fact is, they don’t want to have to go through the CEQA process, but we have seen no evidence that they need these exemptions.”

Maddy’s original bill was supported by the Western States Petroleum Assn., but this time the industry group is less enthusiastic.

“There’s no way a bill that helps only Southern California does us any good,” said Terry Frost, a spokesman for the petroleum group. “Our argument has been that all the companies have to get there (to the point of producing cleaner fuel) at the same time. Otherwise, the company that gets there first will be selling at a higher rate and will be at a competitive disadvantage.”

Organized labor is divided on the issue. The Pipe Fitters and Plumbers union is strongly opposed because the Maddy bill does not include a provision that new construction jobs must go to California workers. But the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers union, representing workers inside the refineries, supports the legislation.