Tag Archives: Air Quality Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

Stephen Golub: The Price Benicia Pays: Valero, Public Health and Safety, and Moving Forward

Problematic histories of hazardous violations, accidents and incidents, and possible contributions to cancer and other negative health impacts.

 Stephen Golub, A Promised Land – America as a Developing Country

By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. May 29, 2025 [An earlier version of this appeared in his “Benicia and Beyond” column in the Benicia Herald on 5/25/25.]

Executive Summary

As Benicia, the Valero Energy Corporation and California officials consider the future of the Texas-based firm’s Benicia refinery, this paper examines Valero’s and the petrochemical industry’s problematic histories of hazardous violations, accidents and incidents, most notably their possible contributions to cancer and other negative health impacts. It aims  to inform Benicia’s and California’s planning and policies, regardless of whether Valero closes the facility next year (its stated intention) or seeks to retain it indefinitely.

The data documenting such hazards includes:

Research from across the country and world indicates elevated disease rates in refinery communities. For instance, a wide-ranging study published in 2020, covering numerous Texas refineries, determined that “proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer diagnosis across all cancer types examined [bladder, breast, colon, lung, lymphoma, and prostate]. People living within 10 miles of an active refinery were more likely to have advanced disease or metastatic disease.”

Benicia’s cancer rates are much higher than those of the state and county, and include a breast cancer rate nearly double that of California. More specifically, the city’s breast cancer rate is 93.7 percent higher than California’s and 35.9 percent higher than Solano County’s. For prostate cancer, Benicia’s incidence is respectively 70.3 percent and 32.8 percent higher than those of the state and county. For lung cancer, it is 43.3 percent higher than California and 19.4 percent higher than Solano.

The Benicia refinery’s specific violations that spanned at least 16 years, spurring an $82 million Bay Area Air District fine, reflect a broader pattern of emissions violations, accidents and incidents in recent years. Regarding those specific violations: According to the Air District, from at least 2003 to 2019 the Benicia refinery committed “egregious emissions violations,” pouring into the city’s air “harmful organic compounds” containing “benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene…which cause cancer, reproductive harm and other toxic health effects.” What’s more, “refinery management had known since at least 2003 that emissions from the hydrogen system contained these harmful and toxic air contaminants but did not report them or take any steps to prevent them.”

Valero’s environmental violations and health-and-safety dangers are by no means confined to Benicia. They include numerous incidents, accidents and reports of excessive emissions elsewhere in recent years. They merit attention because they may indicate that such problems are endemic to the firm’s or industry’s operations, or flow from inadequate prioritization of safety/health/environmental hazards, or both. Even the arguably oil industry-friendly Texas Attorney General sued Valero in 2019 for refinery violations there, in effect citing it as an egregious repeat offender.

In reviewing the information shared here, it is important to emphasize that the Benicia refinery’s fine employees are not responsible for the corporation’s track record.

Particularly in view of public health considerations, the city and state should:

      1. seek the facility’s closure within at most one-to-three years, rather than at some indefinite date;
      2. especially given the maintenance and financial challenges for a refinery in its final years, ensure that the refinery adheres to enhanced health-and-safety standards for however long it remains open (including if another petrochemical firm purchases it) and that Valero and any successor owner guarantee a complete and rigorous remediation of the property; and
      3. encourage the Air District to allow Benicia to use funds from the Valero fine to ease the city’s transition away from the refinery and toward cleaner air and a healthier Benicia and Bay Area.
I. Introduction

As Benicia, the Valero Energy Corporation and California consider the future of the Texas-based company’s Benicia refinery, this paper seeks to illuminate two topics that have received inadequate attention in discussion of the facility’s fate: the apparently severe hazards it imposes on the city’s health and safety and the brighter post-Valero future its planned closure could bring. It aims to spark greater scrutiny of these crucial matters.

The paper similarly aims to inform Benicians’ deliberations, the work of the four recently launched Benicia City Council task forces charting a course for life after Valero, and the actions of other officials in their current or future discussions with the corporation.

Relying mainly on online resources, in many regards this document only scratches the surface of Valero’s and the petrochemical industry’s problematic histories of hazardous violations, accidents and incidents, as well as their possible contributions to cancer and other negative health impacts.

The backdrop here is Valero’s April announcement of its plans to cease operations at its Benicia refinery within a year. This has sparked considerable and understandable concern about ramifications for the state and the impact on Benicia’s budget, businesses and jobs. As the corporation negotiates its potential future with California government officials, and notwithstanding its announcement about exploring redevelopment opportunities for the property, whether it will actually close the facility so soon remains in doubt. But Valero is leaving Benicia, sooner or later.

It is accordingly important to consider the inadequately discussed public health dimension and the departure’s potential benefits, which were largely lost in the storm of initial dismay over the departure. Those benefits include enhanced health and safety, the subject of this paper. But they could also feature residential, commercial and industrial development; resulting tax revenues, construction jobs, other employment and a more diversified local economy; blossoming tourism; and rising real estate values no longer burdened by some potential residents’ concerns about moving to a supposed “refinery town”.

The bottom line is that while Valero has its own decisions to make, so does Benicia. For the sake of the health and safety of the community’s children, seniors and everyone in-between, the  city and state should seek the facility’s closure within at most one-to-three years rather than further down the line.

In reviewing the information shared here, it is important to emphasize respect for the Benicians and other fine people employed by the refinery, recognize that they are not responsible for the corporation’s track record, and fervently hope that they land on their professional and financial feet whenever the facility shuts down.

II. Refinery Communities’ Elevated Cancer and Illness Rates

A plethora of studies from across the country and world indicate elevated disease rates in refinery communities. While this essay summarizes several, bear in mind that certain of the studies cited here themselves draw on numerous papers, many of them peer reviewed. Thus, this section reflects the findings of dozens of papers concerning many refineries.

For instance, a wide-ranging study published in 2020 and covering numerous Texas refineries determined that “proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer diagnosis across all cancer types examined [bladder, breast, colon, lung, lymphoma, and prostate]. People living within 10 miles of an active refinery were more likely to have advanced disease or metastatic disease.”

A 2020 review of 16 studies concerning various locations found, “Residents from fenceline communities, less than 5 km [about three miles] from a petrochemical facility (refinery or manufacturer of commercial chemicals), had a 30% higher risk of developing Leukaemia than residents from communities with no petrochemical activity.”

The results of a 2009 South Africa study of a community located near a refinery  “support the hypothesis of an increased prevalence of asthma symptoms among children in the area as a result of refinery emissions…”

In a related vein, a 1997-2003 study of persons 29 or younger in Taiwan found that “residential petrochemical exposure [based on distance from petrochemical plants, duration of stay near them and other variables] was a significant risk factor for leukemia” for those 20-29 (though not for younger persons).

Nor is the damage confined to long-term exposure. In Texas, findings from research published in 2016 on the “health effects of benzene exposure among children from a flaring incident at the British Petroleum (BP) refinery in Texas City, Texas…suggest that children exposed to benzene are at a higher risk of developing both hepatic [liver-related] and bone marrow-related disorders.”

Closer to home, a review of emergency room visits in the wake of the 2012 Richmond Chevron fire found that they skyrocketed to roughly ten times their normal levels. “It took 4 weeks for censuses to return to normal. The most common diagnosis groups that spiked were nervous/sensory, respiratory, circulatory, and injury.”

III. Elevated Cancer Rates for Benicia

While Benicia has not been the focus of the kind the rigorous research conducted elsewhere – and while recent medical statistics for the city appear hard to come by – the city’s cancer rates are worrisome.

Drawing on 2010-12 California Cancer Registry data, a 2018 Solano County report highlighting “Health Outcomes Data for Benicia” indicates a Benicia breast cancer rate nearly double that of California. The Benicia rates are substantially higher than Solano Country and California regarding lung and prostate cancer as well. (The data is broken down by zip code, with 94510 essentially constituting Benicia.)

More specifically, the city’s breast cancer rate is 93.7 percent higher than California’s and 35.9 percent higher than Solano County’s. For prostate cancer, Benicia’s incidence is respectively 70.3 percent and 32.8 percent higher than those of the state and county. For lung cancer, it is 43.3 percent higher than California and 19.4 percent higher than Solano.

“Solano County Lung Cancer Rate by Zip Code,” a 2012 chart prepared by the Solano County Public Health Epidemiology Unit, reports similar comparative data. It significantly also indicates that Benicia’s “emergency department discharge rate for lung cancer” ranks among the highest in the county, which in turn is 2.5 times that of California, and that its cancer hospitalization rate is higher than the county’s and the state’s as well.

The higher cancer rates especially stand out because the Health Outcomes report also indicates that in many regards Benicia is healthier than other parts of the county. Considered in combination with the city’s relative affluence, one might accordingly expect lower Benicia cancer rates compared to the county – thus raising the refinery as a possible reason for the higher rates.

None of the above proves that Benicia’s higher cancer levels are due to the Valero refinery’s emissions; correlation of course does not equal causation. But the elevated incidence of cancer in Benicia compared to the rest of Solano County and to California seems unlikely to be a random development. Coupled with two phenomena discussed elsewhere in this paper – that the Benicia refinery’s environmental violations feature spewing high levels of carcinogens into the air and that  proximity to refineries in general is linked to higher cancer rates – the Benicia-specific data provides cause for considerable concern.

IV. The Benicia Refinery’s Numerous Violations, Accidents and Incidents

According to the Bay Area Air District, from at least 2003 to 2019 the Benicia refinery committed “egregious emissions violations,” pouring into the city’s air “harmful organic compounds” containing “benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene…which cause cancer, reproductive harm and other toxic health effects.” More specifically, “refinery management had known since at least 2003 that emissions from the hydrogen system contained these harmful and toxic air contaminants but did not report them or take any steps to prevent them.” The emissions averaged “more than 2.7 tons for each day on which a violation occurred, over 360 times the legal limit.”

Yet, as significant as that finding and the Air District’s resulting $82 million fine seem, they represent just some of the Benicia refinery’s numerous hazardous violations, accidents and incidents in recent years. Earlier this month, for instance, many Benicians witnessed the clouds of smoke spewing from a refinery furnace fire, for which the facility has already been issued Air District notices of violation.

Last October, the environmental nonprofit Baykeeper’s lawsuit against Valero and nearby Amports yielded a $2.38 million settlement over their air and water pollution from the production of petcoke, an industrial byproduct. As reported by CBS News Bay Area (KPIX), “Petcoke dust contains fine particulate matter that, in the air, can cause serious health impacts like asthma and heart disease. The heavy metals in petcoke can also be harmful in the water to fish and birds.”

In February 2024, a hydrogen sulfide release at the refinery – categorized as a “Level 3” incident due to potential harm to human health – resulted  in the spread of fumes smelling like rotten eggs over much of the City. The incident sparked “concerns about the refinery’s promptness and openness in notifying the City and its residents of hazardous events” and questions about the root causes of the problem.

In August 2023, the Air District “said that Valero had failed to install required pollution control equipment on eight pressure relief devices,  safety devices that prevent extreme over pressurization that could cause a catastrophic equipment failure. The violations led to 165 tons of illegal emissions…”

In February 2023, Valero agreed to pay a $1.2 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “…fine over violations of chemical safety regulations…After chemical incidents at the Benicia Refinery in 2017 and 2019, a 2019 EPA inspection at the facility identified several areas of noncompliance, including that Valero failed to immediately report releases of hazardous substances and update certain process safety information.”

The violations, accidents and incidents summarized here cover just some of what has occurred over the past several years. A full list of other hazardous Benicia refinery problems would include many more violations.

This brief discussion would not be complete without mention of Valero’s unsuccessful 2012-16 fight to bring “crude by rail” to Benicia. More specifically, the plan involved the transport to Benicia, on two 50-car trains, up to 70,000 barrels of crude oil per day  from Canada and North Dakota. The potentially deadly danger of this approach was demonstrated by the 2013 Lac-Mégantic disaster, named for the Quebec town where an oil train’s derailment, fire and explosion took 47 lives and decimated the downtown area. From 2013 to 2020, there were at least 21 such derailments in North America, many resulting in massive spills and fires lasting for hours or even days.

V. Valero Refineries’ Violations and Dangers Beyond Benicia

Valero’s environmental violations and health-and-safety dangers are by no means confined to Benicia. They include numerous incidents, accidents and reports of excessive emissions in recent years. They merit attention because they may indicate that such problems are endemic to the firm’s or industry’s operations, or flow from inadequate prioritization of safety/health/environmental hazards, or both.

Valero’s Texas  track record leads the way in demonstrating such problems and hazards. Even the staunchly conservative and arguably oil industry-friendly Texas Attorney General sued the Texas-based corporation in 2019, in effect citing it as an egregious repeat offender that released nearly a million pounds of pollutants into the air during a 2017 fire and committed at least 38 unauthorized, permit-exceeding toxic emissions since 2014. His suit further asserted that, despite earlier federal EPA and state enforcement actions, “defendants’ poor operational, maintenance, and design practices continue to cause emissions events and unauthorized emissions of air contaminants from the Refinery into the environment.”

The AG’s office and state regulators  also sought more than $1 million in damages for a 2016 “backflow incident at the Valero Corpus Christi Asphalt Plant” that resulted in “residents endur[ing] three days without tap water, forcing many to rely on bottled water for drinking, showering and cooking.”

What’s more, a leading Texas environmentalist has contrasted one of Valero’s facilities there unfavorably with other refineries in the state, asserting that “Valero’s Port Arthur Refinery has a poor compliance record even when compared to other Texas oil refineries, spewing out millions of pounds of dangerous pollution into surrounding neighborhoods…”

Five workers recently sued the company for injuries suffered, including third-degree burns involving extended hospitalization, at its Three Rivers, Texas, refinery due to a January 2025 fire and explosion. Over the years, several others have died in explosions and accidents at its Texas facilities.

Valero’s hazards and damage are not confined to Texas (or Benica). Due to an emergency valve malfunction, a 2020 explosion and fire at the company’s Meraux, Louisiana, refinery seriously injured one worker and caused over $5 million in damage.  Tennessee regulators found sixteen “serious, alleged” violations linked to a Memphis refinery’s 2012 explosion that killed one worker and injured two others.

During a February 2025 storm, that same facility experienced massive flames due to flaring as, according to one news report, “ Fire and oil spewed from the stacks requiring environmental clean up on the ground and in the creek nearby.” In addition, “thousands of pounds of a toxic gas were released in the incident,” including “very toxic” sulfur dioxide at levels “twice the amount that triggers mandatory reporting to government regulators.”

More broadly, an EPA review of a dozen Valero facilities across the country found toxic emissions violations and related actions stretching from at least 2012 to 2018. The investigation resulted in a 2020 settlement involving millions of dollars of fines and mitigation measures.

A compilation of air pollution monitoring data drawn from U.S. refineries’ fence lines – aptly summarized by its title, “Nearly Half of U.S. Refineries Releasing Benzene at Levels That Could Pose a Long-Term Health Threat” – included numerous Valero facilities on the list. An associated chart ranked two Valero refineries fifth and sixth nationally in terms of the percentage by which they each exceed the relevant “threat level.”

It should be noted that neither the EPA review nor the air monitoring data compilation identified Valero’s Benicia refinery as problematic. However, it is unclear whether the Benicia facility was even included in the review. Furthermore, the facility’s approach to air monitoring has been the subject of considerable contention.

VI. Potentially Deadly Accidents

The risk of life-threatening accidents merits a bit more mention, since Benicia is by no means immune to such phenomena. This paper has already cited several instances of deadly and injurious refinery accidents, as well as the massive (non-fatal) 2012 Chevron Richmond fire and the 2013 Lac-Mégantic disaster, where a train bearing cargo akin to that of Valero’s failed crude-by-rail plan exploded and took 47 lives.

Instances of catastrophic (fortunately non-fatal) refinery events also include the three-day, February 2025 Martinez Refinery Company fire, which spewed into the air carcinogenic chemicals that can also cause heart and lung disease. Another notorious accident was a huge 2019 Philadelphia refinery fire, sparked by the failure of a pipe’s simple elbow joint. Its multiple explosions hurled several multi-ton pieces of equipment thousands of feet away.

VII. Moving Forward

As Benicia takes its first steps to plan for life after Valero, the City Council, state officials and Benicians should heed the potential public health benefits of the corporation’s departure and the price the city pays in the meantime. More specifically, city, state and other officials should pursue the following paths:

      1. They should recognize that public health considerations weigh heavily against any indefinite extension of the Benicia facility’s operation. The city and state should accordingly seek the facility’s closure within at most one-to-three years, rather than at some indefinite date.
      2. Especially (but not only) if an expedited closure does not take place, the city, state, Air District and other governmental entities should inform Valero and any potential petrochemical buyer/operator of the refinery that they will be subject to enhanced scrutiny and accountability that ensure adherence to strictest health-and-safety standards. This priority becomes all the more pressing as financial pressures could conceivably weigh against maximum maintenance in a facility slated to eventually cease operations. The city and state should also press Valero and any successor owner to guarantee a complete and rigorous remediation of the property
      3. The Bay Area Air District policy for the use of its $82 million Valero fine (and for other air pollution penalties) is to employ such funds to “to improve community health and air quality.” It should accordingly permit Benicia to use funds from the fine to ease the city’s transition away from the refinery and toward cleaner air and a healthier Benicia and Bay Area. City and state officials should play a part in advancing this flexible approach, which should also apply to other refinery-hosting Bay Area communities in transition.

[Notes: 1. This paper benefits from valuable advice from and research by Richard Fleming, M.D., a Benicia resident, and from the much-appreciated assistance of Benicia Independent Editor Roger Straw. However, any possible inadvertent inaccuracies are the sole responsibility of the author. 2. Stephen Golub is a Benicia resident and Harvard Law School graduate who formerly was a management analyst for the New York City Council President and, for the bulk of his career, served as a policy analyst, consultant and researcher for funding agencies, policy institutes and nonprofits engaged with international development – particularly regarding the rule of law, democracy, anti-corruption efforts and policy analysis, including their overlap with public health and environmental concerns. He taught law-and-development and related courses at Berkeley Law and the Central European University Public Policy School for a number of years. The institutions with which he has worked include the U.S., U.K. and Danish development agencies; the Asian Development and World Banks; several UN programs and offices, including that of the Secretary-General; the Asia, Ford and Open Society Foundations; and, currently, the Indian broadcasters WION and CNN-India.]


Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

CHECK OUT STEPHEN GOLUB’S BLOG, A PROMISED LAND

…and… here’s more Golub on the Benicia Independent

Stephen Golub: Life After Valero

A “Bridge to the Future Fund” for Benicia

 Stephen Golub, A Promised Land – America as a Developing Country

By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author, “Benicia and Beyond” column in the Benicia Herald, May 11, 2025

The May 5 fire at Valero’s Benicia refinery was yet another reminder of the price Benicia has paid for a facility that, despite the fine work of its personnel, can loom like an accident (or explosion) waiting to happen. The refinery’s presence has often seemed like a trade-off between health and safety on the one hand and employment and economic conditions on the other. Many  of us have  deep concerns (which I share) about what its planned closure will mean for Valero workers and local businesses.

Many of us have also told ourselves that we’re stuck between a financial rock and a health-and-safety hard place: If Valero somehow stays, we face the ongoing threat of toxic emissions, fires and even huge blasts at a facility that processes roughly 20,000 tons of flammable fuel per day and that may reduce costly investments in upkeep as its presence sooner or later comes to an end. If Valero goes, we lose perhaps $10 million of Valero-generated revenue from our annual $60 million budget.

But we’re not stuck. We’re not powerless. Right now, the Bay Area Air District (BAAD)  is starting to consider how to spend the $56 million Benicia-specific portion of the $82 million fine it negotiated with Valero because, as former Benicia Vice Mayor Dirk Fulton astutely puts it, “For at least 16 years, the Valero refinery secretly polluted us with cancer-causing toxins such as benzene, toluene, and xylene—all known to cause cancer, reproductive harm and other negative health effects.” We can help influence the Air District’s decision if we act fast – as I explain at the end of this essay.

Here’s one possibility that helps Benicia build a bridge to a clean, prosperous future: Negotiate with BAAD (what an acronym!) to establish a fund that allows the City to allocate the fine  to help close the looming $10 million annual budget gap over the next eight years. Unless we can address that gap properly, it could devastate City police, fire or other services. (Note: The fine isn’t simply handed over to Benicia; the decision on how to spend it rests with the Air District.) This Bridge to the Future Fund – or Transition Fund, Sustainability Fund, Clean Air Fund, or whatever we might call it – could narrow or close the gap.

Presumably, in order to be consistent with the Air District’s mission, the Fund would focus on those parts of the City budget that fall under the rubrics of clean air or  public health – or perhaps even sustainability or related priorities.

Here’s how the admittedly crude and very preliminary math for the Fund would work out in what, at this point, is but a rudimentary sketch rather than an actual  plan:

In Year One, Benicia begins to prepare for Life After Valero but doesn’t yet draw extensively on the Fund, as revenues should remain relatively steady. In Years Two through Eight, it devotes $8 million annually toward closing the budget gap (totaling $56 million over that seven-year period), while either cutting $2 million per year or raising part of that through new fees or taxes. Obviously, the figures and time period could be adjusted due to various circumstances.

During those eight years, the City would move toward replacing the Valero revenue gap with new sources of income. The oil giant itself could conceivably help in this regard, via its current arrangement with the Signature Development Group, a major Bay Area real estate firm, to explore alternative uses of the land. Those uses could include residential, commercial and industrial developments. (Bear in mind here that portions of Valero’s 900 acres of land could host residential development without extensive clean-up, in that much of that land is open space beyond where the refinery operates.)

Now, there’s the possibility that contracting with the developer is just a temporary tactic Valero is using to negotiate with California to extract concessions favorable to keeping the refinery open. But we can’t operate on that assumption.

A few questions flow from the Bridge to the Future Fund idea:

First, is there even $8 million in the annual City budget that could be devoted to regular expenditures relevant to the Air District’s clean air and public health priorities? I’d guess the answer is yes. Recreational expenses, for starters. In addition, the  Air District’s recent public survey asking how to spend fines (not just Valero’s) – unfortunately, the survey was underpublicized and is now closed to comment – contemplated fire services as one potential use. So, there may well be considerable flexibility in using the Fund as a source for 13 percent ($8 million) of our $60 million annual budget.

Next, would the Air District even go for this? Well, why not? I understand that it is sounding flexible. And whatever policies it currently has in place – and remember, BAAD is in the process of defining or refining them – could be interpreted or revised to allow the Fund as a recipient of the $56 million fine. Benicia Mayor Steve Young sits on the BAAD board. And while he’s just one voice among many in that large body, it could well be that other Bay Area officials belonging to the Board would favor a flexible policy for the use of other fines benefiting their own localities.

What if Valero decides to stay? Even if that’s the case, we can’t remain dependent on the calculations, whims and winds emanating from its San Antonio headquarters. It could still close the facility whenever it wants. For example, if the country and world sink into a recession this year, as many economists predict, that itself could lead Valero to leave.

Finally, do we want Valero to stay? That’s a much larger discussion. But, briefly for now: Bear in mind that Benicia must  prepare for Valero to depart because it’s inevitable, whether next year or whether five or ten years down the line. And if we establish the Fund, it will not only sustain crucial City services; it will prevent the layoffs of numerous City employees who contribute to our town through their hard work and spending here.

Furthermore, if Valero goes, and Benicia employs the Fund to maintain the services that make this such a wonderful place to live, real estate values could climb: Many folks who would never consider moving here because of the refinery could well reconsider this as an excellent option. Tourism could also flourish as we transition to a post-Valero economy.

More broadly, we must start to build a more diversified economy now, rather than simply wish for Valero to remain here. For a thoughtful deeper dive on how Benicia can manage the financial transition, check out Dirk Fulton’s Benicia Independent piece that I previously mentioned.

The fire has affected my thinking about whether we want Valero to stay. Apparently, it occurred in a furnace related to a Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit, which has had repeated problems over the years. (Very useful information on the fire and the unit can also be found here, at The Benicia Independent.) When I contemplate the words “fire” and “repeated problems” together, I don’t feel  confident about our community’s health and safety – especially in view of the refinery’s myriad issues.

Moreover, this incident had a number of worrisome ramifications: It put “elevated levels of pollutants, including fine particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide, and alkanes” into our air, according to news outlets; prompted a shelter-in-place announcement by the City; resulted in social media reports of negative health effects as well as numerous complaints of delays in folks finding out about the danger; and triggered several BAAD violation notices to Valero.

In any event, the point here is that we’re not powerless. We have a possible way of reducing or eliminating cuts to vital services even as we emerge from Valero’s lucrative but hazardous shadow. Ironically, the very facility that has put our health and safety at risk has also provided a potential bridge to a brighter future, via the $56 million fine.

I’m not saying that a Bridge to the Future Fund is necessarily the best or only way of spending that money. Maybe portions of the Valero fine could be used to help affected employees, businesses and nonprofits, for instance. Moreover, there are many other, worthwhile ideas afloat to help the City address the budget gap. There will be community-wide discussions about utilizing the fine and closing the gap in coming months.

In the meantime, you can still weigh in to urge BAAD to allow Benicia flexible use of the Valero fine funds by contacting the Air Districts’ Community Investments Office at communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov – preferably as soon as possible. And you can offer your thoughts on the proposed Fund or other uses of the Valero fine by contacting Mayor Young and the other City Council members via their emails at the City website.

Again, the notion of a Fund is only a sketch, not yet a plan. But we should  consider it as we contemplate the inevitability, the potential and the promise of Life After Valero.


Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

CHECK OUT STEPHEN GOLUB’S BLOG, A PROMISED LAND

…and… here’s more Golub on the Benicia Independent

BIG CHANCE TO WEIGH IN BY MAY 10 ON HOW $56 MILLION IN VALERO FINES CAN BENEFIT BENICIA

Steve Golub: There is a MAY 10 DEADLINE to weigh in, via a Bay Area Air District (BAAD) survey, on guidelines that will determine how Benicia and other communities could benefit from fines imposed on/negotiated with air quality violators in the region.
Smoke from the Valero Benicia refinery during a 2017 incident. | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
By Stephen Golub, email of May 7, 2025

Hi folks,

Forgive the shouting conveyed by the all-caps subject line, but there is a MAY 10 DEADLINE to weigh in, via a Bay Area Air District (BAAD) survey, on guidelines that will determine how Benicia and other communities could benefit from fines imposed on/negotiated with air quality violators in the region. Benicia has by far the most to gain from this, by virtue of the $82 million fine (which I’m informed translates into $56 million that can actually be used here) paid by Valero for its 15 years of illegal, undisclosed toxic emissions. 
Here’s the link to the survey:
I found the survey useful in some regards and too narrow in others. Most of all, I feel that the BAAD Community Investments Office (which controls the monies – it does not automatically hand them over to Benicia or other localities) should allow maximum flexibility for affected communities to benefit from use of the relevant funds. 
 
For Benicia, that could include the possibility of what I’d call a Bridge to the Future Fund that would allow the City to utilize all or part of the $56 million fine to compensate for the revenue reductions resulting from Valero’s closure, as long as the spending went to current or potential services or projects relevant to air quality, public health, community resilience or just transitions to more environmentally friendly policies and industries. That Fund would ease the severe budget crunch we face by supporting spending that, broadly interpreted, could fall within those categories.
 
The survey may already provide some wiggle room for such flexibility. For instance, one option includes support for firefighting services. But we can weigh in to try to maximize options.
 
Whether you agree with this perspective or not, I hope you’ll consider filling out the survey, otherwise contacting the CIO (email below) and/or favoring a very flexible approach to utilizing the funds.
A bit more background from the BAAD (what an acronym!) site: 
Community Investments Survey

This anonymous survey is designed to gather input from the Bay Area community on how funds from enforcement actions should be allocated. The Air District collects penalties from industry and businesses that violate its regulations. These funds will be managed by the newly established Community Investments Office, which will create the strategy to distribute over $124 million in local and regional funds. Your feedback will help shape the Community Investments Office’s strategy to ensure that investments address local and regional priorities and promote environmental justice. Your responses are confidential and will directly influence the use of funds. The survey will take approximately 5 minutes to complete.
 
Here’s  a link for more extensive background:
And here’s the email for the Community Investments Office, if you want to weigh in beyond or instead of the survey: communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov
 
Cheers,
Steve Golub

Air District finally planning to share millions of dollars with Benicia in Valero air quality fines

On April 8 the Air District invited us to help decide how those millions of dollars will be spent!
Smoke from the Valero Benicia refinery during a 2017 incident. | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

For years, Benicians have been calling for the Bay Area Air District to direct some of the millions in violation money collected from refineries to the communities where the refineries are located – the communities that suffer from the harm caused by the violations.

Finally, this year, the Air District is getting serious about sharing those funds. And here in Benicia, the dollars are huge!

Last October, the Air District (and CARB) fined Valero Refining Co. $82 million for Benicia air quality violations! In an email yesterday, Benicia Mayor Steve Young sent out an alert with the subject line, “Help decide how to spend $64 million from the Valero settlement in Benicia.”

Young was referring to an invitation issued by the Air District to fill out a survey and attend an ONLINE WORKSHOP TODAY AT 5PM. Here is the content of the invitation as it appears in the Benicia City Manager’s latest newsletter:

Help Shape How Millions in Community Funds Are Spent – Take the Survey or Join the Workshop!

The Bay Area Air District has established a new Community Investments Office to help direct funding from enforcement actions into projects that benefit communities most impacted by air pollution across the Bay Area. Your voice is critical in shaping how these funds will be distributed.

We’re reaching out to ask for your input in two ways:

    • Take a brief survey to share your thoughts on community priorities, funding needs, and more: Take the Survey
    • Join us for a virtual community workshop on Tuesday, April 8, 2025, from 5:00– 6:00 PM to learn more and walk through the survey together.
Workshop Details
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025
Time: 5:00-6:00 PM
Join via Zoom

More information is available at the new: Community Investments Office web page

If you have questions, feel free to reach out to communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov.

Thank you for helping shape a cleaner, healthier future for our communities


The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is the regional agency responsible for protecting air quality in the nine-county Bay Area. Connect with the Air District via X/Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.