All posts by Roger Straw

Editor, owner, publisher of The Benicia Independent
Bay Area Refineries, Benicia City Council, Big Oil, Climate Change, Economic diversification, Environmental crisis, Oil Industry, Valero Benicia Refinery

End of big oil and its revenue impact on Benicia

Benicia is a “mini-petrostate” — What’s Next?

(Chris Riley/Times-Herald)
The city of Benicia was given a shelter in place alert and areas south of the Valero Refinery were evacuated after a power outage caused a flare up sending plumes of black smoke across Interstate 680.
By Grant Cooke, Benicia Resident and President Ag Tech Blends, September 24, 2020
Grant Cooke

I recently warned that Benicia faces a self-induced calamity. If the town doesn’t come to grips with the reality that it’s game over for the oil industry and that the tax revenue from Valero will end, the town’s future will be grim.

I suggested that by mid-century most, of it not, all Bay Area refineries—Valero included—would be shut. It may be sooner, as recently, Governor Gavin Newsom announced an executive order that would phase out gasoline-powered cars and pickups by 2035.

Most likely the big oil companies will do their best to delay this, but the direction is clear, California is turning away from fossil-powered vehicular transportation. Electric and hydrogen powered vehicles will be the norm sooner, instead of later.

The impact on Benicia and the other towns—Martinez, Rodeo, Richmond—will be significant. Unless those towns plan ahead—a troublesome chore for municipal governments—services will be drastically cut.

Secondly, if the refineries lock the gates and walk away, the cities will be stuck with the bill for cleaning up the hazardous waste that has accumulated for decades on the refinery property.

A couple of other points to consider. The first is the horrendous conflagrations that are besetting our state. Anyone who lives in California and doesn’t accept that climate change is real and life-threatening needs to talk to some of the state’s farmers who live that reality daily. Farmers know the weather and they know the ravages they are facing as the climate changes.

Climate change is not complex. It is caused by excess greenhouse gases caused by excess fossil fuel use. School kids can explain it.

The second is further from Benicia, but relevant. Over the last few weeks, a peace accord has been struck between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Now Bahrain has joined and eventually Saudi Arabia and Iraq will also.

This is something I never dreamed I would see—peace in the Middle East. After all the trillions of dollars spent, the tragic deaths and wounded US soldiers, the horrific dismemberments by ISIS, and the millions of civilians who lost their homes, villages or lives; the wars are ending.

The stated reason for the accord is that the moderate nations are sick and tired of the Sunni and Shia extremists and decided that working with Israel with its military might and US backing is the lesser of two evils. These guys are ever pragmatists.

On the other hand, the unstated, but probably more significant reason, is the moderate nations, particularly UAE and Bahrain, have leaders who understand that they have to move away from oil-dependent economies. With a growing population of well-educated, underemployed and potentially restless citizens, change has to happen. The Middle East needs economic diversification with renewable energy, science, modern Western technology, risk capital and innovative thinkers, or the moderate nations are doomed.

This too is Benicia’s dilemma. Basically, the city is a mini petrostate with 45 percent of its tax revenue coming from Valero or related businesses. The city’s problem of dependency on oil tax revenue is the same as the Middle East nations, or Louisiana, or any other municipality that fails to plan for a non-carbon world. At least UAE and Bahrain have come to that realization.

If UAE and Bahrain can think this through, maybe Benicia can. The first step is to resist Valero’s and the union’s PAC to take over the city government in the November election. If the town’s oil interests and supporters control the city, planning for a diversified tax base won’t happen.

Vote for Steve Young and anyone else who is willing to refuse campaign contributions from Valero and the union PAC. That’s a simple step.

The next steps are going to be harder. The first is to bring the problem out in open. Ask Valero for their plans as the oil refinery winds down. What will be the decline in tax revenue? How much have they put aside for environmental cleanup? How many of their folks live in Benicia and what will be the job losses?

Supposedly, Valero says that it will be the “last man standing” or the final oil refinery left in the Bay Area. I doubt it. My bet is that Chevron in Richmond will hold out the longest because their corporate headquarters are in the Bay Area. Valero is a Texas company, which probably means they will be one of the first to shut.

The second step is that Benicia has to do what Bahrain is doing, namely diversify the tax revenue by moving from a fossil fuel to a knowledge-based economy. The world is full of examples of cities—Bristol, Vancouver, Melbourne, Singapore, come to mind—that have remade their economies.

There are several examples in the Bay Area—San Francisco, Walnut Creek, Livermore and Pleasanton.

The third step is probably the hardest still. The move to a robust knowledge-based economy with science, technology and innovation to produce wealth should be sub-regional—along the Straits. Benicia is going to have to cooperate with Vallejo.

Wealth is being generated all along 680 and both cities have to adapt quickly, or they will be left behind as Fairfield and Vacaville prosper by growing their knowledge and service-based economies.

Unfortunately, Benicia and Vallejo have flaws and neither has the ability to generate significant change. They do, however, have exceptional geography with beautiful waterfronts and spectacular views. They have more potential than other underdeveloped Bay Area cities, except maybe Richmond.

But neither can develop a robust new economy by themselves. They don’t have the resources or the willingness to overcome the differences that serious change requires.

There are no easy answers for remaking a city’s economy. It takes vision, hard work and a united citizenry with common goals and a willingness to change. Cities are like alcoholics; they usually don’t change their behavior until they reach rock bottom, or their livers give out.

The cities I mentioned that were able to remake their economies had remarkable good luck when a new company suddenly boomed—like Pleasanton with People Soft—or a brilliant and powerful leader like Willie Brown in San Francisco, who could wrench the existing power structure into action.

It is particularly hard for a small town like Benicia that has prospered along with a single industry and has a city council with decent folks but split agendas. Heaven knows there are small company towns—like Benicia—throughout the Rust Belt that are dead or dying because they waited until the gates were locked and the pink slips issued. Look what happened to Detroit.

The Bay Area is maybe the world’s center for science, technology, innovation and risk capital. It is an unparalleled combination that is being copied in China and on a smaller scale in Boston and Copenhagen. The mixture creates wealth like mountain snow creates mighty rivers. Despite the trillion-dollar successes of Apple, Google, Facebook and Sales Force, this era of magnificent knowledge-based companies is just starting. There are untold new wonders to be developed and decades to run.

It would be a pity if Benicia fails to participate.

####

Grant Cooke is a Benicia resident and co-author of two books:
By Woodrow Clark II and Grant Cooke, published by Elsevier and available at Amazon:
Grant Cooke
President, AgTech Blends
https://agtechblends.com
California, Coronavirus, Covid 19, Vaccine

California plans to independently vet COVID-19 vaccine data

State will assemble a “review board” of leading scientists

FILE – In this July 27, 2020, file photo, Nurse Kathe Olmstead, right, gives volunteer Melissa Harting, of Harpersville, N.Y., an injection as a study of a possible COVID-19 vaccine, developed by the National Institutes of Health and Moderna Inc., gets underway in Binghamton, N.Y. A letter from federal health officials instructing states to be ready to begin distributing a vaccine by Nov. 1 — two days before the election — has met, not with exhilaration, but with suspicion among public health experts and others. (AP Photo/Hans Pennink, File)
Vallejo Times-Herald, By Lisa Krieger, September 26, 2020

California will conduct its own independent review of potential COVID-19 vaccines, signaling its distrust of the Trump administration’s accelerated “Operation Warp Speed” initiative.

To vet a vaccine before distribution to state residents, California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly said Friday that the state will assemble a “review board” of leading scientists at academic institutions to assess the safety and effectiveness of any vaccine candidate.

“We think it is an appropriate approach to take, especially because things are moving so quickly,” Ghaly said. “We want to make sure — despite the urge and interest in having a useful vaccine — that we do it with the utmost safety of Californians in mind.”

The announcement came at a press conference in which Ghaly also expressed concern that California’s coronavirus numbers are beginning to move in the wrong direction after weeks of declines. Based on current trends, he projected an 89% increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations over the next month. That would still be far below hospital capacity and the worst rates in other states.

On the vaccine testing issue, several other states, including New York, have signaled that they’ll also take the unusual step that Ghaly outlined.

“Frankly, I’m not going to trust the federal government’s opinion, and I wouldn’t recommend to New Yorkers, based on the federal government’s opinion,”  New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced at a Thursday news briefing, according to the New York Times.

President Trump has insisted a vaccine will be ready as early as next month, an assertion that other federal authorities say is unlikely.

California is already building a rollout plan for distribution of the vaccine, including whom to prioritize in the process, said Ghaly.

Led by the state’s Department of Public Health, members of a new Vaccine Task Force include other state agencies, as well as academic experts, community groups and individuals.

Once the state confirms the safety of the vaccine, this task force will advise distribution “in an equitable and smart way, to serve all the needs of Californians,” said Ghaly. “That absolutely is our plan.”

Conflicting information about the timing of the vaccine and whether it will be safe and adequately tested has created growing concern that people are hesitant to take it, despite its importance in stopping the pandemic.

The share of Americans who say they would get vaccinated for the coronavirus has declined sharply since earlier this year, according to a survey conducted this month by the Pew Research Center. About half of U.S. adults (51%) now say they would definitely or probably get a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 if it were available today, down from 72% in May.

Only about 21% said they would definitely get a coronavirus vaccine, half as many as in May.

While it is the federal government’s role to approve a vaccine, states have authority for actual distribution — and could, in theory, reject a vaccine they think is unsafe.

“Each state, indeed, has that sort of responsibility,” said Vanderbilt University’s Dr. William Schaffner, an internist and infectious disease specialist who formerly worked for the U.S. Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at a Sept. 24 National Press Foundation program. “Some may be more ready to independently evaluate the data than others.”

An FDA committee — called the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee comprising 15 authorities selected by the FDA commissioner — reviews the safety and effectiveness data at a public meeting. The FDA commissioner usually follows the committee’s recommendation, but not always.

Typically, states follow the decision of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, an independent committee that assesses data on FDA-approved vaccines and makes recommendations to the CDC.

But there is growing worry that the federal regulators may feel pressure from the White House to activate “Emergency Use Authorization” of an unlicensed vaccine, which would not require completion of a full “Phase 3” trial, during which efficacy is tested in thousands of people.

Two other COVID-19 products — hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma — received emergency use authorization, and have been touted by President Trump, despite little or no evidence of effectiveness.

This week, the FDA said it would enact new guidelines to toughen the process for approving a coronavirus vaccine. But President Trump said on Wednesday that the White House “may or may not” approve the plan, saying it “sounds like a political move.”

Saying they were “alarmed by political interference in science amid the pandemic,” the presidents of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine issued a statement on Thursday warning that “our nation is at a critical time in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic with important decisions ahead of us, especially concerning the efficacy and safety of vaccines.”

According to the Capitol Hill-based Roll Call, seven jurisdictions have indicated they would analyze the data independently: California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Michigan, New York, Oregon and West Virginia. Another two — Montana and Wyoming — said they’d only administer a vaccine that completed clinical trials and an outside committee’s review.

“States are nervous. We’re talking about this now,” Marcus Plescia of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials told Roll Call. “I think that a lot of public health officials in the states are concerned, given the rhetoric from the administration indicating they want a vaccine as quickly as possible.

But a state-by-state approach — for instance, if one state allows a vaccine, but another state does not — could complicate the pandemic response, which already varies greatly among states, said one expert.

While trust and confidence in the federal agencies has been shaken recently, “that is not the way to get control of this virus,” said Dr. Howard Koh, professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in a Sept. 16 media briefing. “Whenever a vaccine approval occurs, that needs to be accepted by the country, across the country, with implementation as a country.”

As to California’s numbers, Ghaly said Friday that the state is seeing upticks in case rates and hospitalization rates in some counties. They are small now but enough that the state is forecasting that 4,864 people will be hospitalized with COVID-19 by Oct. 25, an increase of roughly 89% from Wednesday, when there were 2,578 patients.

California, Coronavirus, Covid 19, Hospitalizations

Coronavirus: California could see 89% increase in hospitalizations next month, health official warns

Dr. Mark Ghaly flagged “early signs” that state’s progress has shifted slightly: hospitalizations could rise from 2,578 patients now to 4,864 by late October

Dr. Mark Ghaly, Secretary of California’s Health and Human Services Department, addressed the state’s COVID-19 response in a Zoom broadcast Tuesday. (YouTube. July 21, 2020)

Vallejo Times-Herald, By Fiona Kelliher, September 25, 2020

California could see an 89% increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations by the next month if coronavirus infections continue apace, a top state health official warned Friday.

Short-term forecasts indicate that hospitalizations could skyrocket from the 2,578 patients now hospitalized to 4,864 by this time in October, said California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly during a Friday press briefing — a signal that Californians should stay vigilant as more parts of the economy open up.

“As we see these trend lines, which have been coming down and flattening, look like they’re coming up … we want to sound that bell for all of you,” Ghaly said. “We want to see us respond as a state to those slight increases.”

Although Ghaly praised the state’s “significant progress” in infection and hospitalization rates since mid-July — when a peak 7,170 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized — he flagged early signs that the state’s progress has begun to shift. Starting in mid-September, Ghaly said, infection rates have risen slightly across the state, while coronavirus-related emergency room visits have also climbed.

Although overall lower case rates have allowed many counties to reopen businesses within Gov. Gavin Newsom’s reopening system, the virus’ reproduction number has surpassed 1.0 in some regions, Ghaly said. Twenty-five of California’s 58 counties remain in the red or “widespread” tier, with another 19, including most of the Bay Area, in the purple or “substantial” tier, allowing for movie theaters and restaurants to welcome customers indoors at limited capacity.

Keeping case rates low means that the virus’ reproductive value has less of a dramatic effect on potential hospitalizations, Ghaly said — especially with the double whammy of flu season looming. But with more cases overall, “you can see how quickly case rates go up and how quickly that creates additional pressure on our hospitals,” he added.

Statewide, however, there was little change in the seven-day average of new infections and fatalities reported as of Friday. Both figures remained lower than where they were two weeks ago and significantly below their respective peaks. The 3,274 new cases and 85 deaths reported by county health departments Thursday kept each seven-day average about even — just over 3,500 cases and just below 84 deaths per day over the past week, according to data compiled by this news organization.

Ghaly’s hospitalization projection, meanwhile, would put the state on par with its Aug. 19 hospitalizations, when 4,890 people were hospitalized with COVID-19 — more than 2,000 people fewer than the state’s peak a month earlier.

“As Californians we’ve done a good job to avoid those situations, and we want to keep our guard up,” Ghaly said.

Evan Webeck contributed to this report.
Coronavirus, Covid 19, Solano County CA

Solano COVID report on Fri. Sept 25: 31 new cases, 5 new hospitalizations, no new deaths

[For a complete archive of day by day data, see my Excel ARCHIVE – R.S.] [Please note that some of the numbers of new deaths and hospitalizations this past week may not actually be new.  The Fairfield Daily Reporter, quoting Dr. Matyas, is reported that some of the deaths reported Wednesday were updating discrepancies in reporting from last summer.  Dr. Matyas confirmed in an email to me on Thursday that some of the spike in hospitalizations are also adjustments rather than new hospitalizations.  No information as yet as to how many are new and how many are old.  Regardless, these illnesses and deaths are still serious, sad and disturbing…  – R.S.]

Friday, September 25: 31 new cases overnight, 5 hospitalizations, no deaths.  Since the outbreak began: 6,309 cases, 389 hospitalized, 63 deaths.Compare previous report, Thursday, Sept 24:Summary

  • Solano County reported 31 new cases today, total of 6,309 cases since the outbreak started.  Over the last 7 days, Solano reported 224 new cases, average of 32 per day.
  • Deaths – RECENT SPIKE: 3 new deaths reported yesterday, 3 the day before, and another 2 the day before that, total of 63 Solano deaths.  Thankfully, no new deaths reported today.
  • Active cases – Solano reported 7 fewer ACTIVE cases today, total of 269.  Note that only 21 of these 269 people are hospitalized, so there are a lot of infected folks out among us, hopefully quarantined.  Is the County equipped to contact trace so many infected persons?  Who knows?  To my knowledge, Solano County has offered no reports on contact tracing.
  • Hospitalizations – the number of currently hospitalized persons remained at 21 today.  However, the total number hospitalized since the outbreak started increased by 5 today, total of 389, an increase of 73 in just the last week. (see age group hospitalization stats below).
  • ICU Beds –The County reported 50% of ICU beds available, same as yesterday and down from 56% a  week ago Monday.  (After 7 weeks, still no information about availability of ventilators.)
  • Testing – The County reports today that 591 residents were tested today, new total of 86,789.  Solano has a long way to go: only 19.4% of Solano County’s 447,643 residents (2019) have been tested.

Positive Test Rate

Solano County reported today that our 7-day average test rate remained steady today at 3.9%.  Our supposedly smooth 7-day moving average has jumped all over the place recently (see note about delayed adjustments below).  For the record, just two weeks ago we saw Solano rates above 7% for the first time since we peaked at 9.3% on July 22.  Week before last we bottomed out at 2.7%.  The County’s line graph for positive test rate looks like a flat line and tells us absolutely nothing, not worth posting here.  Health officials and news reports focus on percent positive test rates as one of the best metrics for measuring the spread of the virus.  The much more stable California’s relatively stable 7-day test rate remained at it’s lowest point, 2.8% for the 5th consecutive day today.  (Note that Solano County displays past weeks and months in a 7-day test positivity line graph which also shows daily results.  However, the chart does not display an accurate number of cases for the most recent days, as there is a lag time in receiving test results.  The 7-day curve also lags behind current unknown results.) 

By Age Group

  • Youth 17 and under – 5 new cases today, total of 701 cases, representing 11.1% of the 6,309 total cases.  No new hospitalizations among this age group today, a total of 6 hospitalizations since the outbreak began.  Thankfully, no deaths.  In recent weeks it seems too many youth are ignoring public health orders.  Cases among Solano youth rose steadily over the summer, from 5.6% of total cases on June 8 to 11% on August 31 and has remained around 11% since then.  Youth are 22% of Solano’s general population, so this 11% may seem low.  The significance is this: 1) youth numbers have increased steadily and at a faster rate than the other age groups, and 2) youth are SERIOUSLY NOT IMMUNE (!) – in fact 6 youth have now been hospitalized.
  • Persons 18-49 years of age – 20 new cases today, total of 3,783 cases. This age group is 41% of the population in Solano, but represents 60% of the total cases, by far the highest percentage of all age groups.  The County reported 2 new hospitalizations in this age group today, total of 129 hospitalized since the outbreak began.  No new deaths in this young age group today, total of 5 deaths.  Some in this group are surely ignoring public health orders, and many are providing essential services among us.  I expect his group is a major factor in the spread of the virus.
  • Persons 50-64 years of age – 3 new cases today, total of 1,197 cases.  This age group represents 19% of the 6,309 total cases.
    No new hospitalizations today, total of 104 hospitalized since the outbreak began.  No new deaths in this age group today, a total of 13 deaths.
  • Persons 65 years or older – Today the County reported 3 new cases, total of 627, 3 new hospitalizations, total of 150.  Thankfully, no new deaths, total of 45 of our elders who died of COVID.  Much of the recent spike in this age group may be related to an outbreak at the Parkrose Gardens Alzheimer’s and Dementia care facility in Fairfield, where 31 patients and 8 staff were reported on September 15 to have tested positive.  This age group’s 627 cases represent 9.9% of the 6,309 total cases.  In this older age group, 23.9% of cases required hospitalization at one time.  This group accounts for 45 of the 63 deaths, or 71%.

City Data

  • Benicia remained steady today, total of 165 cases since the outbreak began.
  • Dixon remained steady today, total of 413 cases.
  • Fairfield added 5 new cases today, total of 2,056 cases.
  • Rio Vista remained steady today, total of 48 cases.
  • Suisun City added 3 new cases today, total of 461 cases.
  • Vacaville added 4 new cases today, total of 1,056 cases.
  • Vallejo added 19 new cases today, total of 2,090 cases.
  • Unincorporated areas remained steady today, total of 20 cases.

Race / Ethnicity

The County report on race / ethnicity includes case numbers, hospitalizations, deaths and Solano population statistics.  This information is discouragingly similar to national reports that indicate significantly worse outcomes among black and brown Americans.  Note that all of this data surely undercounts Latinx Americans, as there is a large group of “Multirace / Others” which likely is composed mostly of Latinex members of our communities.

  • Asian Americans are 14% of Solano’s population, and account for 9% of cases, 11% of hospitalizations, and 19% of deaths.
  • Black Americans are 14% of Solano’s population, and account for 11% of cases, but 18% of hospitalizations, and 24% of deaths.
  • Latinx Americans are 26% of Solano’s population, but account for 31% of cases, 30% of hospitalizations, and 21% of deaths.
  • White Americans are 39% of the population in Solano County, but only account for 21% of cases, 26% of hospitalizations and 25% of deaths.

More…

The County’s new and improved Coronavirus Dashboard is full of much more information, too extensive to cover here on a daily basis.  The Benicia Independent will continue to summarize daily and highlight a report or two.  Check out the Dashboard at https://doitgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=055f81e9fe154da5860257e3f2489d67.