Category Archives: Valero

Jan Cox Golovich: Many thanks to those exposing Valero’s corrupt influence

The overwhelming response from the community when Valero’s campaign contributions and deceptive practices are exposed is one of outrage.

By Jan Cox Golovich, November 1, 2022

Jan Cox Golovich, Benicia CA

I would like to express my appreciation to the many community people who have worked diligently to expose the corruption of our local city council elections with Valero’s efforts to buy council seats for Strawbridge and Largaespada during the last three election cycles (2018,2020,2022) Specifically, I would like to thank Lawrence Dutch with his Letters to the Editor, Andres Soto via his radio show on KPFA, leaders of the newly formed group Benicians for Clean Elections and Roger Straw, Editor and Publisher of the Benicia Independent.

Valero has poured massive amounts of money to secure these seats for their hand-picked candidates Strawbridge and Largaespada. In 2018 and 2020, they spent $445,000 buying ads, bombarding us with endless phone calls and smearing good, honest candidates. As far as I can tell in my research, this is an unprecedented amount for a small town of 28,000 people. Presently, Valero has a war chest of over $225,000 for the 2022 election. They have sent out deceptive mailers and conducted phone banks promoting their candidates disguised as a neutral “poll” These last minute maneuvers are difficult to counter, as they hide many of their expenditures until AFTER the election.

The overwhelming response from the community when Valero’s campaign contributions and deceptive practices are exposed is one of outrage. We cannot tolerate or accept this as the status quo in our town. The community displayed its intolerance in 2020 when Strawbridge was trounced in her bid for the Mayor’s seat, despite the massive financial backing of Valero. Yet, Valero has persisted in building its campaign coffers and coming up with even dirtier tactics.

Sadly, our elected officials have displayed an astonishing disconnect from its outraged electorate and rather than criticize Valero for corrupting our elections, they have turned on the very community people who have exposed it. The two beneficiaries of Valero’s campaign funds feign ignorance as to why Valero would support them with these massive amounts of money and complain that those exposing these “facts” are engaging in “negative campaigning”. Another elected official writes a letter to the editor calling the attacks on Valero “over-the-top”, ignoring the fact that the money Valero pours into our elections to buy council seats is much more egregious. Yet another councilmember writes a tone-deaf letter to the editor saying that Strawbridge and Largaespada would make good council members and calls for their detractors to “stop talking trash.” Strawbridge and Largaespada may make great council members for Valero, but their ability to do good for the community is completely compromised by Valero’s sponsorship.

I have lived in this town close to forty years and have always been proud of the strong voice of the community that comes together and stands up for what is right. Whether it’s preserving open space, cleaning up toxic waste, blocking petroleum coke domes on the waterfront or fighting against exploding Bakken oil trains, this community has ALWAYS won the fight; we have done this despite opposition from City Hall and powerful monied interests. I have no doubt that we will go back to having clean and honest elections one day very soon. Thanks to all that are making this happen.

Jan Cox-Golovich
Former Benicia City Councilmember

More letters, news & links about the 2022 election, Kari Birdseye and Terry Scott here on the BenIndy


And best of all – Kari’s website!

Valero Quintuples 3rd Quarter Profits: Makes Windfall Of $50 million Off California Consumers

60 cents per gallon profit – “These profits show Governor Newsom is justified in his call for a special session to mandate a price gouging refund.”

Consumer Watchdog, By Liza Tucker, October 25, 2022

Los Angeles, CA—Valero’s net income hit $2.8 billion for the third quarter of 2022, more than quintupling the $463 million reported for the same quarter last year.

Valero’s Western region profits, which are strictly from its California refineries, topped 60 cents per gallon. That is only the second time it has reported such a windfall of over 50 cents per gallon since 2001. The first time was the second quarter of 2022 when its California profits were 83 cents per gallon. Valero’s California profits were once again higher than any of its other regions in the country and the world.

“These windfall profits must be returned to California drivers if the oil refiners are to treat Californians like customers rather than ATMs,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog. “These profits show Governor Newsom is justified in his call for a special session to mandate a price gouging refund.”

In California, the Valero profits translate into an estimated quarterly windfall profit of $50.8 million that should go back to consumers, Consumer Watchdog said today, calculating all monies made over 50 cents per gallon as a windfall profit.

In the second quarter, Valero’s windfall profits made on margins of 83 cents per gallon was $161,700,000. Adding to Valero’s windfall profit from last quarter, Valero would need to refund $211 million in windfall profit back to California consumers if a price gouging refund law were in effect.

Governor Newsom has called a special legislative session in December to consider a windfall profits cap and price gouging rebate for California consumers.  Consumer Watchdog estimates that the amount of windfall profits to be returned to consumers by refiners reported so far this year is now over $1 billion. See the calculation.  

The formula used to calculate windfall profits is every dollar in profit made above 50 cents per gallon, which the company has only reported twice since 2001 — in the second and third quarters of 2022. View the chart of per gallon West Coast profits since 2001.

None of the four California oil refiners who reported windfall profits in the second quarter of 2022 had previously made more than 50 cents per gallon annually in all their years doing business in California. Chevron’s profits only exceeded 50 cents per gallon three times in the last twenty years.

Three other California refiners—PBF Energy, Phillips 66 and Marathon Oil—will be reporting third quarter profits in the coming two weeks. Chevron, which serves one third of the California market, only reports margins annually.

Valero’s haul of 60 cents per gallon off its California refineries is more than it has made at any other point in the last 20 years except for last quarter. Cents per gallon are calculated by dividing the gross refining margins on a barrel of crude by 42—the number of gallons in a barrel. Gross refining margins reflect the difference between the cost of crude oil bought and the price of petroleum products produced and sold by the refiner.

Oil refiners’ reports to investors only reveal Western regional margins, not California specific profits, which are generally higher.   Two of the five oil refiners, Valero and PBF, have their Western refineries in California only.

In the third quarter, Valero’s California refineries more than doubled margins per barrel to $25.36 from $11.29 in the same quarter last year. For the nine months, West Coast margins were $25.89 over $9.81 year before.  The margins were the highest reported among Valero’s four regions of operation, including the U.S. Gulf Coast, North Atlantic and U.S. Mid Continent.

A new law, SB 1322 (Allen), backed by Consumer Watchdog, will require oil refiners to post their profits per gallon from refining monthly beginning in January.  This will give California the basis to monitor for price gouging in real time and, if a price gouging rebate is enacted, to give the excess profits back to drivers.

On Valero’s earnings call with investors today, its Chief Executive Officer Joe Gorder noted that refining margins “remain supported” by strong product demand and low product inventory. Despite high output, Gorder said that global supplies remained “constrained” due to refineries being taken offline, “unfavorable economics,” and switching refineries away to producing low carbon fuels.

KQED: In Benicia’s City Council Race, the Valero Refinery is on People’s Minds

Now, Benicia doesn’t get a ton of media attention…

Smokestacks and machinery are visible at Valero’s Benicia Refinery, in February 2022. The Bay area plant processes crude oil. (Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)

KQED News, by Alan Montecillo and Maria Esquinca, Oct 19, 2022

The politics of fossil fuels in Benicia’s City Council race

Benicia is home to an oil refinery operated by Valero, which employs hundreds of people and contributes tax revenue totaling an estimated 20% of the city’s general budget.

The company has also played a very active role in local elections. Valero’s political action committee spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2018 and 2020.

Now, with this year’s city council race underway — and residents frustrated over recent controversies at the refinery — Valero’s role in Benicia looms large once again.

GuestScott Morris, reporter for the Vallejo Sun

 

Valero Refinery looms over Benicia City Council candidates forum

The five candidates seethed over revelations of undisclosed emissions and fretted about the oil giant’s influence in the city’s politics.

Benicia City Council candidates Christina Strawbridge, Lionel Largaespada, William Innes, Terry Scott and Kari Birdseye appeared at a candidates forum at the Benicia Senior Center on Wednesday. Photo: Scott Morris.

The Vallejo Sun, by Scott Morris, October 14, 2022

BENICIA – Like its place in the center of Benicia overlooking its downtown, the Valero Benicia Refinery cast a shadow over a forum for Benicia City Council candidates Wednesday night, where the five candidates seethed over revelations of undisclosed emissions and fretted about the oil giant’s influence in the city’s politics.

The candidates took on other issues as well, in particular disagreeing on a proposed sales tax increase and whether to welcome more cannabis retailers to the city.

The prepared questions from the League of Women Voters of Solano County – which hosted the forum – did not address the refinery’s emissions or influence, but it dominated the questions solicited from the audience. A packed audience at the Benicia Senior Center listened intently to the candidates’ responses for nearly two hours.

Valero’s influence has been felt heavily in the last two election cycles in Benicia. In 2018, a Political Action Committee receiving funding from the company spent heavily on ads attacking planning commissioner Kari Birdseye, who had helped block a Valero proposal to ship crude oil by rail.

Birdseye ultimately lost her first council bid to incumbent Christina Strawbridge and Lionel Largaespada, who are both now running for reelection. Strawbridge then ran for mayor two years later, and once again Valero attacked her opponent, then-Councilmember Steve Young. Young ultimately prevailed in that race, 53%-31%.

This year, Valero has dumped $230,000 into its PAC but had not reported any expenditures for November’s election as of early October, leading to anxiety for some candidates over how and when Valero will spend that money. The candidates’ campaigns have a $34,000 cap on spending, but the PAC does not have that restriction.

Retired executive Terry Scott, who is running for the council a second time after narrowly losing in 2020, credited Young with keeping Valero at bay in this year’s election, saying that if Valero tried to buy Benicia’s elections “that the people in this community are going to rise up, they are no longer going to take this becoming a refinery town.”

But despite the lack of Valero spending so far, Strawbridge said that the current campaign is “as bad as 2020.”

“There has been attack after attack,” Strawbridge said, pointing to posts on social media and saying that she has made two ethics complaints about other candidates to the city. “So I just feel like there’s a lot of desire to say we are running clean campaigns. And I’m afraid we aren’t.”

Another change in the dynamic with Valero was revelations earlier this year that Valero had been spewing thousands of tons of excess pollution from a hydrogen vent for decades. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District first became aware of the issue in 2019, but did not alert the city government or residents until this year, when it sought an abatement order against Valero to correct the violations. Penalties for Valero have yet to be determined.

Largaespada pointed out that determining punishment for Valero is not in the city’s jurisdiction, though it will provide input. “Valero like any business and every business in the community is expected to follow laws, whether they come at a local level, the county or the state,” he said. “With respect to punishment of sorts, that is the jurisdiction of the air board.”

Strawbridge said that Valero had “betrayed” the city, but also chided regulators for not alerting the city to the toxic release.

“It’s not only Valero but the Air District,” she said. “They did not report what they have found as far as the emissions, we still don’t know what the impact that’s going to have on our health and we need more information on that.”

Birdseye and Scott both stressed the need for more monitoring, both in the community and in people’s homes, and said that they want financial penalties from Valero to go to the city to help pay for the cost of such monitoring.

“The fine that they are going to impose which hopefully will run into the millions of dollars to tens of millions of dollars, should come back to our community that should then be used for funding that can be used by every single person in this room to get air filtration systems and monitoring systems in your house,” Scott said.

Birdseye said that the community air monitoring currently in place was limited in terms of the emissions that Valero was found to have been releasing, so the city needed to find a way to have more robust air monitoring. “Right now, we rely on citizens’ Purple Air monitoring stations at our school sites and throughout our community,” she said. “And they pick up just the particulate matter, not the toxic gases, not the toxic compounds that are in our air.”

William “Billy” Innes, a retired educator who joined the race late, had a brief answer for how he would address Valero’s emissions that drew a rebuke from the forum moderator for addressing the other candidates. “Am I planning on doing anything about this? Oh, heck yes, I am. I’m planning on voting for Kari Birdseye and Terry Scott,” he said.

The candidates disagreed most sharply on Measure R, a proposed three-quarter-cent sales tax increase that will also be on the ballot in November, with their responses varying from enthusiastic endorsement to staunch opposition. The measure’s language says the estimated $5 million in annual proceeds would go to road repair, though the tax is a general tax and could be spent on any purpose.

Largaespada said that there are “5 million reasons to vote against Measure R” and argued that between a  statewide gas tax, franchise fees for trash collection and expected revenue growth in the city, it could already allocate $5 million toward roads. “It’s in the budget right now,” he said. “I’m a reasonable person. If staff had said we’re out of money, then yes on R.”

But Largaespada’s current counterpart on the council, Strawbridge, said that Measure R was necessary to maintain Benicia’s streets. “We must pass Measure R,” she said. “Our roads are pathetic and dangerous. It’s going to be less than a penny on the dollar. This is a small investment for maintaining your property values and keeping kids on bikes safe.”

Birdseye agreed with Strawbridge. “If we want better roads, not only for our home values, but for our businesses, for our industrial parks where trucks are banging around and getting broken axles. If we want safe roads, this is the way to do it right now,” she said.

Scott was more measured in his support. “While no one likes new taxes, I support Measure R,” he said. “It is the only way we will be able to finally address the steep cost of road repair maintenance and specific infrastructure.”

Innes bristled at the argument that Measure R would protect homeowners’ property values, pointing out that the tax would have a disproportionate impact on the city’s poorest residents. “The argument I hear on behalf of Measure R is that it will help maintain property values for homeowners,” he said. “I understand that. But is it right to have those who make the least amount of money, minimum wage, have to sustain homeowners’ property rights?”

The candidates also differed on whether to allow new cannabis dispensaries in the city. The only dispensary in the city, STIIIZY, opened a year ago and Young recently said in a Facebook post that it has become the second largest tax producer in the city. But in 2020, a ballot measure found that a majority of Benicia voters did not want more cannabis dispensaries by a vote of 47-53%.

Strawbridge and Largaespada were apprehensive about allowing more dispensaries. Strawbridge said that the city needed more time to understand the impacts of the current dispensary. “We’re hearing a lot of numbers being passed out,” she said. “So far the council has not gotten nor received any information about what the retail cannabis is developing as far as financial support. So I have concerns, because we have been told through our finance director that it’s lower than what they expected.”

Scott said that he would also like to see more information, but touted the tax benefits and said that the current dispensary has not caused any law enforcement issues. Birdseye said that industrial cannabis production has been going well in the city and she would support more retail. Innes said that he thought cannabis businesses were safer to have downtown than bars.