AS THE CITY & STATE WORK TO KEEP VALERO OPEN, A LOCAL REFINERY “POLLUTERS PAY” EXCISE TAX IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT US
By Dirk Fulton, August 17, 2025
URGENT: STATE ACTION & LEGISLATIVE HEARING THIS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20
We know Governor Newsom, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the legislature are seeking to keep the Valero Benicia refinery open. Our city leaders have been complicit with the State in this effort. In fact, the CEC is acting as a broker to find a replacement operator and the Governor is sponsoring legislation to cut refinery regulations as an enticement to attract a successor.
A hearing is set for 1:30 PM this Wednesday (8/20) before a Joint State Assembly Committee in Sacramento to consider the legislation, known as the ‘Petroleum Market Stabilization” bill. Benicia residents are encouraged to attend the hearing and express their opposition. A sign-up form is here. Further info and talking points will be provided once you’ve signed up. And please reach out to action@sunflower-alliance.org if you can give a ride on Wednesday or want to join some others on the train.
OUR HIGH CANCER RATES REQUIRE CITY ACTION
Benicia residents Dr. Richard Fleming and columnist Steve Golub have separately published articles documenting that Benicia’s rates of cancer are much higher than Solano County and the State of California. The rates are astonishing:
Our breast cancer rate is 94% higher than the California rate.
Our prostate cancer rate is 70% higher than the State’s.
Our rate of lung cancer is 44% higher than the State rate.
Valero’s emissions routinely exceed Air Board limits and over a 16-year period ending last November, the emissions exceeded Air Board limits by 360%, often constituting 2.7 metric tons of hazardous pollution daily. Extensive medical studies have found a well-documented connection between residents living in refinery communities and higher cancer rates.
A “POLLUTERS PAY” EXCISE TAX CAN BE USED TO PROTECT US
Unless citizens’ efforts in opposition to the Governor’s bill are successful on Wednesday, it appears likely that the State will cause the Valero refinery to remain open indefinitely, perhaps through a new operator.
The Benicia City Council, accordingly, should immediately take action to place a refinery $1-per-barrel excise tax (“Polluters Pay Tax”) on the ballot. Only a simple majority vote is needed for passage. The tax would apply to all feedstock refined at Valero’s two refineries, including product refined elsewhere and placed in storage tanks at the refinery, and would generate $50-$70 million per year for a 50-year period. The tax proceeds can support pollution-fighting services like real-time extensive air monitoring, air filters for schools, advanced health and safety monitoring for neighborhoods, and environmental oversight and cleanup. Importantly, the tax can be crafted as an excise tax—targeted specifically at local refining, not a broad manufacturing or consumer tax.
In mid-2024, the Richmond City Council unanimously approved placing a refinery excise tax ballot measure on the ballot targeted at the Chevron refinery. Chevron opposed the proposal which led to a settlement on June 18,2024 as follows: Chevron agreed to pay the city of Richmond $550 million structured as $50 million annually the first five years, and $60 million for the next five years in exchange for the city removing the tax proposal from the ballot.
Our Benicia City Council has a duty to protect us from refinery pollution and should move forward expeditiously to place a similar $1-per-barrel excise tax on the ballot. Should the City Council once again fail to act, residents can circulate Initiative petitions, gather signatures and cause the tax to be placed on the ballot in June 2026. Hopefully, our city leaders will do the right thing and the Initiative process will not be necessary.
Dirk Fulton, Lifelong Resident & former Solano County Planning Commissioner, Vice Mayor, City Councilman & School Board President
For More Information visit: www.greatdayforbenicia.com
Benicia High School grads Joanna Toledano (left) and Roxanne Bernahe Nunez are on a mission to help the underserved survive and thrive.
By Sheri Leigh, first published in the Benicia Herald on July 27, 2024
There are many unsung heroes who are quietly hidden away in our small City of Benicia. Today, I want to recognize and honor two of those heroes who are just getting started – Joanna Toledano, age 17 and Roxane Bernahe Nunez, age 18. These close friends and recent BHS graduates are already on a mission to help the underserved survive and thrive.
Joanna is an only child, born to Mexican-American immigrants from the State of Morelos. She grew up in Benicia and attended the public school system all the way from elementary school through high school. She enjoys hanging out with her friends, dancing, and science. She graduated with honors and in the top 10% of her class. She plans on attending Diablo Valley Community College for the next two years and then transferring to St. Mary’s College in Moraga to begin her preparations to become a Nurse Practitioner.
Roxane, also an only child, lives with her mother and grandmother, both of whom immigrated here from Torreón, Mexico. Like Joanna, Roxane went through the Benicia school system and graduated with honors, receiving The Golden State Merit Diploma Seal for outstanding grades. She spends a lot of time with her family and friends and works at a local restaurant. Roxane is looking forward to attending the pre-nursing program (Allied Health) at Diablo Valley Community College and finishing up her Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree at UCLA or Sacramento State. Eventually, she would like to volunteer in foreign countries where she can help provide necessary medical care to those who don’t have access. Roxane was inspired by her mother who wanted to be a labor and delivery nurse, but didn’t have the proper guidance to help her navigate the complicated process to get to college and was unable to afford it without financial aid.
Roxane and Joanna are the first ones in their family to graduate from high school and will be the first to attend college.
Both young women are exemplary, but what makes them stand out is their dedication to their community and the unparalleled service work they performed. Roxane and Joanna spent a great deal of their senior year researching how to access local free and low-cost services for food, housing, legal and medical care and providing this information to people in need. And they did this on their own. It was not a requirement, nor an assignment. They saw a need, and together they decided to do something about it. For this, the girls were the first recipients in Benicia to receive the prestigious California State Seal of Civic Engagement award. And their work on this project inspired Roxane and Joanna to remain committed to helping those who most need it.
Also behind their motivation to help the disparaged is their personal experience. As American girls born to Mexican parents, Roxane and Joanna both feel they are part of two distinct cultures, yet don’t completely fit into either. Both girls were born in the United States, and neither one has ever been to Mexico, so in many ways they feel 100% American. They are also very proud of their Mexican heritage and very much relate to being Chicanas. For example, because of their love for the Spanish language both girls sought and earned the California State Seal of Biliteracy for their high level of proficiency in Spanish, as well as English.
Living in a Mexican family comes with cultural expectations that are different from most American households. For example, the family is the center of Mexican culture, and they are expected to participate in more household chores and spend more time with their family than their white friends. However, because they are part of a minority, they often feel less recognized for their achievements than white students. Joanna expressed her dismay when she saw other dancers in her troupe being selected for primary roles while she was overlooked, not because of their superior dance skills, but because of the white European-American beauty standards of our society. And sadly, both young women have been and still are regular witnesses to or are recipients of random discriminatory and racist remarks and behaviors. Joanna even overheard one outspoken woman say to her father, “You shouldn’t be making that kind of money,” as though someone like him doesn’t deserve to earn a good living.
And with the increased activities of immigration under the directive of the federal administration, some of their friends and family members have become fearful and reclusive, even when their immigration status is solid. Both Roxane and Joanna know people who are not attending social events or classes, or going to work or even to the doctor because they are afraid of being arrested and deported.
Joanna and Roxane want to dedicate their lives to helping those who feel isolated, can’t afford necessary things, and are unable to live a free and productive life. They want to continue their efforts to help connect available services to the people who need them. Their intended career paths are leading them to a life of service by bringing basic health needs to an underserved population.
When asked what advice they would give to other young people, Joanna and Roxane had similar responses. They advised young people to live in the moment and be grateful for the good times. In their experience, nothing is permanent – not even your sense of well-being or safety. And their biggest piece of advice is to never let the fear stop you.
These Benicia girls are both fearless and unstoppable!
Guy Mazorati interview with Severin Borenstein and Alex Nieves
A view of oil-well in action during sunset at Elk Hills Oil Field as gas prices on the rise in California, United States on April 14, 2024. (Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images)
California has long gone head-to-head with big oil, leading many of the efforts to curb climate damage caused at the hands of the fossil fuel industry – including spearheading lawsuits against oil companies and pushing fracking bans. But faced with the closure of two state refineries, and rising gas prices, Governor Gavin Newsom has made some major concessions on oil to not only keep the refineries open, but to draft a bill for more drilling in Kern county. We’ll talk about California’s changing relationship with the oil industry, the state’s efforts to phase out fossil fuels, and what’s going to happen to gas prices in the meantime.
Guests:
Severin Borenstein, faculty director, The Energy Institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business; member, Board of Governors of the California Independent System Operator
Alex Nieves, California transportation reporter, POLITICO
Tim Grayson, California State Senator for District 9 [in a later broadcast]
This partial transcript was computer-generated. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.
Guy Marzorati: This is Forum. I’m Guy Marzorati, in for Alexis Madrigal.
During Gavin Newsom’s time as governor of California, he’s had one constant foe — one year-in, year-out rival with whom he seems to relish every single fight — California’s oil and gas industry. But that all might be changing, as oil refineries announce closure plans in Los Angeles and here in Benicia, making California’s complex energy transition even more complicated for the governor and fellow Democrats in the state Capitol.
That’s what we’re going to be talking about this hour with Alex Nieves, California transportation reporter at Politico. Good morning, Alex.
Alex Nieves: Good morning. Thanks for having me.
Guy Marzorati: Great to have you with us. And Severin Borenstein, director of the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. Good morning, Severin.
Severin Borenstein: Good morning.
Guy Marzorati: Thanks so much for joining us. And later, we’ll talk with Tim Grayson, California state senator representing parts of Contra Costa County, including the refinery community in Martinez.
Alex, I want to start with you. We’ve seen Newsom go to the mat against the oil and gas industry for years. What’s going on now?
Alex Nieves: Yeah. As you mentioned, over the last four years, Governor Newsom has really gone much further than his predecessor, Jerry Brown — who focused on getting folks to transition to EVs and cleaner technologies but didn’t really target the supply side of the equation.
Governor Newsom, on the other hand, has made some strong efforts to target industry priorities. I think of the ban on fracking as one example. We’ve also seen, in a couple of special sessions, lawmakers pass legislation around a price cap and maintaining minimum storage at refineries to prevent shortages when refineries go offline.
Those are all things refiners say will backfire and cause refineries to close, leave the state, or change their business strategies. Those are threats we’ve seen for years, and they haven’t always materialized.
But there’s a big change this time around.
Phillips 66 last October announced it would be closing its facility in Wilmington in the Los Angeles area. Valero announced the pending closure of its Benicia facility in April — and that’s caused a real threat of a decline in refining capacity.
Whenever you lose capacity, you constrain supply. That means an increase in prices — and no lawmaker wants to be in power when gas prices go up.
So recently, we’ve seen the governor change course. The California Energy Commission has issued a slate of recommendations aimed at keeping these refineries open, and Newsom’s office is floating a draft bill that would do a number of things — most notably, streamline permitting for oil-rich Kern County.
Guy Marzorati: Do you have the sense that Newsom was caught off guard by the refinery closure announcements?
Alex Nieves: I do — maybe less so for Wilmington, which is one of the older facilities in the state and had signs this could happen. But Benicia is a facility that I’ve heard from sources wasn’t really on the table for immediate closure.
You could see it in the state’s messaging after the Wilmington closure was announced. Ty Milder, the governor’s oil czar, kind of pushed it aside and said the state could survive — it wasn’t an immediate concern.
Immediately after the Benicia refinery announcement, I think the state went into panic mode.
Guy Marzorati: And how much of this is about the result of last year’s election too? Because we saw Democrats come back to Sacramento this January with, like, a vow renewal on the cost of living — it was going to be a top priority. How do you see that playing into this conversation?
Alex Nieves: Yeah, and it’s not just in California. Nationally, we’re seeing the Democratic Party on a course correction — a focus on cost of living and affordability.
Notably, at the beginning of this session, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas announced that anything that doesn’t fall within this affordability frame is something the state shouldn’t consider. And I, as a climate reporter, took that to include climate action.
Take a step back a couple of years — the governor and Attorney General Rob Bonta were spearheading a lawsuit to hold companies liable for climate-change-related damages. And as recently as last October, we were writing stories about how the oil industry’s influence was waning in the state.
That’s completely changed. And I do think it’s because Democrats are looking toward 2026 and trying not to seem tone-deaf. Every gubernatorial candidate we’ve seen so far has committed to keeping refineries open.
So yes — I think it’s a reflection that the Democratic Party feels like they may have missed where voters were in November.
Guy Marzorati: Severin Borenstein, do you see this as a major policy pivot by the Newsom administration?
Severin Borenstein: Oh yeah. It’s definitely a pivot.
The direction over the last few years has been to go after the refineries as a major source of high gasoline prices. And that was never really accurate.
If you look at how much money refineries are making — separate that from the profits made downstream in distribution, marketing, and retailing — the big differential, what I call the “mystery gasoline surcharge,” this extra amount Californians pay beyond the higher taxes and fees, is not at the refineries.
If you look at the spot price — the wholesale price of gasoline in California — it’s really not out of line with the rest of the country once you account for the cost of making our cleaner-burning gasoline.
We do have a real gasoline price problem, beyond the higher taxes and environmental fees, and that’s happening downstream.
So I think it’s unfortunate that a lot of people in Sacramento were saying the problem is these refineries are making too much money. The closure of these refineries now suggests that was clearly wrong — that, in fact, they don’t think they can make enough money.
Both of the refineries that are closing faced real environmental costs. They likely did the calculation: is it worth making the huge capital investments necessary to stay in business? Are we going to make enough money over the long run to pay for that?
All of this is happening in the context of California’s major push to reduce gasoline consumption — which has finally started to take hold.
The increase in EVs and higher-mileage hybrid vehicles has been reducing California’s gasoline demand. And as it drops, these refineries are rethinking whether it makes sense to invest.
Benicia was a particular point of pressure because they were under penalties for recent pollution emissions. They were also facing increased scrutiny, and the city was forming a new committee to oversee the refinery and enforce environmental restrictions.
Guy Marzorati: Right. There was local pressure as well. But Newsom has said, look, refineries across the globe are struggling. Is that true?
Severin Borenstein: Yeah. I think a lot of refineries, particularly the older ones, are not making a lot of money.
Going back to the 1970s, refining was not considered a great business. The big, vertically integrated companies made money extracting oil — they sort of broke even or worse on the refining side.
That changed in the ’90s when demand for gasoline took off, and for a while, refineries were making good money — even the less efficient ones.
But as demand has plateaued — and in California, started to decline — they haven’t been able to keep up those profits. So now we’re seeing pressure on them and some decisions to close.
And that’s going to happen. If California reduces gasoline consumption, these refineries will start to close. We need to plan for that — manage the closures, ensure a smooth supply of gasoline, even as we gradually lose refineries.
Guy Marzorati: Yeah. Alex, what are you hearing in the legislature about that planning? Are those plans being made? How is this transition unfolding?
Alex Nieves: We’ve heard the discussion for years, but I think what this episode has shown is that the state just hasn’t put in the time and effort to develop a fully fleshed-out transition plan.
The governor framed his pivot not as a departure from the state’s climate policies but as a recalibration — a slowdown so we can actually put plans in place.
How do you protect workers — including unions that largely support Democrats — as you close these facilities? How do you help a city like Benicia, built around this industry, or a place like Richmond with the Chevron refinery, avoid collapse if a refinery picks up and leaves?
I’ve heard ideas floated — maybe requiring a four-year instead of one-year warning for closures, or requiring some relationship between refiners and the state to create a worker transition plan. But those are things we just haven’t seen yet.
In the immediate term, the state seems to be aiming for policies that keep supply up — increase in-state crude, increase imports. But the actual planning behind a transition? I think that’s the next step — and we’re still quite a ways from a solidified plan.
Guy Marzorati: Yeah. And we’ve got about thirty seconds before the break — but it’s also, you know, Newsom is still trying to hold this mantle of climate leadership, right? He’s still battling with the federal administration while all this is happening in California.
Alex Nieves: Yeah, absolutely. We’ve seen the state file dozens of lawsuits — many of them in the climate, energy, and environmental space.
I think it’s fair to say that California is still a leader in some ways on the federal landscape. But I know that within the state, environmental groups are quite livid. They really see this as a departure from the past.
Guy Marzorati: Yeah. That’s Alex Nieves, California transportation reporter at Politico.
We’re talking about whether California is reconsidering its stance on oil production as two refineries are slated to close. And we want to hear from you.
What would you like to see as these refineries make plans for their future?
Do gas prices affect how you think about the state’s oil production?
Give us a call at 866-733-6786. Or get in touch with us on social @kqedforum or by email: forum@kqed.org.
We know Governor Newsom, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the legislature are seeking to keep the Valero Benicia refinery open. Our city leaders have been complicit with the State in this effort. In fact, the CEC is acting as a broker to find a replacement operator and the Governor is sponsoring legislation to cut refinery regulations as an enticement to attract a successor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.