The Martinez Refinery $10.6 million settlement is a civil judgment entered on February 18, 2026, by Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Benjamin T. Reyes II resolving 163 air-quality violations issued against Martinez Refining Company between early 2020 and late 2024. The case, brought jointly by the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, ended with the refinery paying $10 million in civil penalties and $600,000 in supplemental environmental projects, plus a set of required operational changes. The refinery, operated by PBF Energy on Pacheco Boulevard, cannot appeal the judgment.
What the Settlement Covers
The 163 notices of violation span nearly five years of incidents at the refinery. They include illegal flaring, refinery fires, leaking storage tanks, odors strong enough to qualify as a public nuisance in downtown Martinez, and repeated releases of coke dust — a powdery byproduct of petroleum refining — beyond the refinery’s fence line onto residential properties.
The centerpiece is the Thanksgiving 2022 incident. Over the holiday, the refinery released an estimated 20 to 24 tons of spent catalyst into the surrounding community. Residents woke to vehicles, yards, and gardens coated in a white, ash-like metallic dust. Contra Costa Health testing found elevated levels of aluminum, barium, chromium, nickel, vanadium, and zinc, metals associated with respiratory harm.
The refinery failed to notify the county health department or activate the community warning system within 15 minutes of the release, as required by law. County officials only learned about it days later, after seeing social media posts from residents. On January 5, 2023, Contra Costa Health formally asked the District Attorney to pursue legal action over the failure to notify.
Three further coke-dust releases in 2023 fed into the case. A July 11 release lasted about a minute but carried dust into residential areas, settling on parked cars and garbage cans. A July 22 release was reportedly contained on-site. An October 6 release was described by the company as brief, and county investigators found no visible dust in the community during that event.
The case, titled The People of the State of California v. Martinez Refining Company, LLC (Case No. C-26-00490), was prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Bryan Tierney and Assistant District Attorney Stacey Grassini, along with Air District Assistant Counsel Brian Case. The counts drew on the state Health and Safety Code, Business and Professions Code, and Fish and Game Code.
How the $10.6 Million Is Divided
The $10 million civil penalty goes to four recipients:
- $6.35 million to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, most of it earmarked for reinvestment in projects benefiting Martinez and surrounding communities under the district’s Community Benefits Penalty Funds Policy.
- $3.5 million to the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office Environmental Unit to fund future enforcement work.
- $100,000 to Contra Costa Health Services.
- $50,000 to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
An additional $600,000 funds supplemental environmental projects:
- $450,000 for high-performance air filtration systems in public schools near the refinery, with priority based on proximity.
- $100,000 for scholarships to train environmental regulators through the Certified Unified Program Agency.
- $50,000 to the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee’s Community Propagation Fund.
Operational Changes Required
Money is only part of the judgment. The refinery must modify its catalytic cracking unit so that emissions-control equipment stays running during startup and shutdown. It must also install enhanced emissions monitoring systems on various pieces of equipment.
District Attorney Diana Becton described the outcome as both accountability and public safety enforcement. “The residents of Martinez deserve to feel safe in their communities,” Becton said. “This civil action holds the Martinez Refining Company accountable for numerous violations, enforces compliance with the law, and reinforces our office’s dedication to protecting public health and safety through all available legal means, including civil action.”
What the Settlement Does Not Cover
The judgment explicitly excludes the February 1, 2025 refinery fire. That fire started when two contract workers from a Texas-based firm called TIMEC mistakenly loosened bolts on a flange containing hot hydrocarbons during routine maintenance. It burned for three days, released more than 7,000 gallons of hydrocarbon materials, and triggered a Level 3 shelter-in-place order, the highest level available. Combustion byproducts included benzene, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide, xylene, and particulate matter.
An independent investigation by JEM Advisors, commissioned by Contra Costa County health officials, attributed the fire to inadequate supervision and training of the contract workers, and found that one team had created the maintenance plan while a different team carried it out without proper oversight. The report also noted that a 2013 California law (SB 54) requires refineries to hire contractors from local union halls, which the report said limits a facility’s ability to rehire experienced personnel, and that co-employment rules prevented PBF Energy from directly overseeing contractor safety plans. The 2025 fire remains the subject of a separate Air District enforcement action, with a full-facility safety audit underway as of mid-2025.
Two other resolved cases sit outside this settlement. In October 2024, Martinez Refining Company agreed to pay $4,482,000 to settle allegations by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board that the facility violated the Clean Water Act. That case covered 25 wastewater-discharge exceedances for contaminants including nickel and total suspended solids, three unauthorized discharges into nearby marshes totaling millions of gallons of partially treated wastewater, and a late climate-change adaptation report. Half the penalty went to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account; the other half funded projects including water-quality improvements at Peyton Slough Marshes and a regional monitoring program for San Francisco Bay.
A labor class action, DiMercurio v. Martinez Refining Company LLC, involved refinery operators who were required to be on standby between February 2020 and August 2022. The court granted final approval of a $1,224,210 settlement in January 2024, and all class members received their checks. That case is closed.
Residents’ own claims are also separate. In November 2023, the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of residents Alena Cruz and Shannon Payne against Martinez Refining Company, PBF Energy Inc., and PBF Energy Western Region LLC. The complaint alleges the refinery created a public nuisance through its chemical releases, failed to alert the community as required, and engaged in “years of obfuscation and secrecy.” It cites six claims, including violations of the Clean Air Act, strict liability for ultrahazardous activities, negligence, and public and private nuisance. It seeks medical monitoring, environmental monitoring, and injunctive relief to halt operations until a verified contamination-prevention plan is in place. The case had not reached class certification or a resolution on the merits as of the available reporting. Investigations by the FBI and EPA into the refinery’s operations were reported as ongoing in 2023, with no federal criminal charges publicly announced.
How the Penalty Compares
The $10.6 million figure is substantial but sits below the largest recent environmental penalties against Bay Area refineries. In October 2024, the Air District and the California Air Resources Board assessed an $82 million penalty against Valero’s Benicia refinery for unreported hydrogen-system emissions that management had known about since at least 2003, the largest penalty in the Air District’s history. The Chevron refinery in Richmond was penalized $20 million in February 2024, and a Marathon refinery in Martinez received a $5 million penalty in October 2024. Over the previous decade, Martinez Refining Company had accumulated $741,500 in penalties across 323 total violations before this settlement. Alexander Crockett, general counsel for the Air District, said direct comparisons between refinery penalties are “difficult” because each case involves distinct circumstances.