Tag Archives: Benicia CA

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

Marilyn Bardet: Will Valero decide to fix the furnace – or permanently idle the facility now?

Email letter, by Marilyn Bardet, May 9, 2025

Marilyn Bardet, Benicia

Today, May 9, I read in the Mercury News the article headlined, “Is Gavin Newsom changing his tune with the oil industry?”  It happens that yesterday I’d been discussing this possibility with Matthew Green (at KQED News). In his April 26th article, Matthew had conjured that Valero could be throwing a Hail Mary for regulatory relief, for at least indeterminate years’ survival of its Benicia refinery.

I’d followed up with his football  analogy imagining who Valero’s wide receiver would be. Based on what I’d been hearing about possible legislative changes to authority governing refineries and other heavy industrial polluters, it wasn’t difficult to think Valero and its lobbyists with the Western States Petroleum Associates would be targeting the Governor, whose political career hangs on the state’s economy.

Newsom would be defended by CARB (Cal-EPA’s California Air Resources Board). In such scenarios in play, Valero’s long shot could end up “incomplete” or be intercepted; or somebody at scrimmage gets “off sides” yardage penalty. Whatever’s the case, right now the state’s plays aren’t over and neither are Valero’s. The only certainty, the game being played is a nail-biter for Benicians. But wait a minute.

The fire that happened Monday ignited at a furnace, as stated in the Air District’s Notice of Violations released this week. That particular furnace happens to heat the oil feed  to 1000 degrees F, before it enters the distillation tower, the “FCCU”— the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit or “cat cracker” which is the primary processing unit distilling gasoline, kerosene (jet fuel), diesel and other products, which then go on to be further refined throughout the facility. Without the furnace and FCCU there is no oil refining. Was the FCCU tower damaged in the fire?

It was uncanny that the fire was occurring just as our mayor was being interviewed on KQED’s Forum, when he was discussing the vexing financial problem for the City of Valero’s announcement. Certainly, in that very moment, the fire was adding complexity to Valero’s decision-making which they’d left hanging, purportedly til next year, April 2026. But, given that “idling” is one of three proposed options announced to the CA Energy Comm (CEC), I assume that the refinery is at least temporarily forced into idling as a result of the fire.

Will Valero decide to make significant capital investment now to fix the furnace and, if damaged, the FCCU, in order to keep operating for another year? I sure don’t think the City should have to wait weeks and weeks for a “root cause analysis” investigation to be completed to hear Valero’s decision. If their decision is to restore operations and do a temporary fix, OR permanently idle the facility now, this decision has immediate ramifications for the City and community, and certainly for Valero employees, operators, contract workers.

Putting optimum idealizations aside, under current circumstances, we here in Benicia are hardly experiencing the beginnings a “just transition”  We’re going to endure an ABRUPT transition.

In the meantime, we have to stay vigilant and resolutely care about safety and health risks posed by a very vulnerable facility in its apparent final phases of operational existence.

We must look ahead: closure and cleanup, and the huge prices they exact, are near-term issues now that finally demand public attention.

Marilyn Bardet
Good Neighbor Steering Committee
BCAMP Board Member
BISHO Working Group
Valero Community Advisory Panel

Dirk Fulton: A Great Day for Benicia, Part Two

VALERO FIRE: A CALL TO ACTION FOR PERMANENT CLOSURE OF THE REFINERY

By Dirk Fulton, May 8, 2025
[and appearing in the Benicia Herald on May 11, 2025]

Dirk Fulton, Benicia

Last Monday’s Valero Refinery fire and shelter-in-place order provided Benicia residents-including Robert Semple Elementary School students and teachers- with a real time reminder that the refinery should be shut down for good while the opportunity exists.

The fire allowed us to visualize the risks we face. Beyond this, there are known risks we cannot visualize: 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. After discovery, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) imposed a record-setting $82 million dollar fine against the refinery. The settlement highlighted Benicia as an “air dump” for the State of California, further tarnishing the city’s image.

The fire and secret toxic emissions are stark reminders that it would be a grievous mistake to replace Valero with another operator. When Shell Oil Martinez recently ceased operations, the refinery was taken over by another company. Since then, shelter-in-place orders have become a regular occurrence. We can avoid such a result by pursuing a modern vision for Benicia without a refinery. By doing so, we can enjoy toxic-free air, nurture healthy children and realize higher home values as the “refinery town” stigma is eliminated.

We cannot surrender to published scare tactics that closure will cause a “financial doomsday”. This is wrong. We are no longer a small 1960s town of 5,000 dependent on the Benicia Arsenal for jobs, nor are we Vallejo of the 1990s dependent on the Mare Island Naval Shipyard for economic survival. The present Benicia economy is diversified and does not rely solely on a single military installation or oil company for its prosperity. We are a commuter-oriented residential community where our 13,100 working residents commute from Benicia or work from home. Less than one percent (1%) of our city’s residents work at the refinery and fewer than 100 of Valero workers live in town. Accordingly, the predicted job loss following closure, although unfortunate, is not material to our local economy.

Proponents of the refinery, including some city officials, falsely state that the city will immediately lose $12 million in revenue if the refinery closes. This is wrong. Taxes and fees do NOT immediately vanish when a business closes, or a home becomes vacant. Real properties maintain inherent value. Valero’s property taxes should largely stay the same, as its 900 acres, infrastructure and improvements continue to hold value. Additionally, Valero has already benefited from significant Prop. 8 property tax reductions after extensive litigation with the County Assessor.  Further, any projected property tax loss should be offset by higher property taxes as post-closure, higher value homes turn over and new homes are built.

Additionally, without a refinery, there are many revenue streams available to Benicia:

    1. New Development Fees. On the 900-acre refinery site, new housing construction along the East 2d Street corridor and clean energy projects sited in the refinery footprint will result in millions of dollars in new development fees.
    2. Water Revenue. Valero pays the city a nominal rate of $2 million for 50% of the city’s total water supply compared to the almost $7 million that residents pay for the remaining 50% of our water supply. Accordingly, this newly available water resource once treated has a multimillion-dollar value when offered on the free market to other municipalities.
    3. UTT. The Utility User Tax (UUT) generates ongoing revenue. Since 1989, Benicia residents have paid UUT at a rate of 4%. Valero has never paid its fair share of UTT as its predecessor Exxon sued the city to receive a special rate of approximately 1%. Valero remains under a reduced rate UUT agreement negotiated in 2018. Upon closure, the refiner should be forced to buy-out of its 2018 agreement or pay fees to rectify its 35 years of underpayment, which could result in millions of dollars to the city.
    4. Increased Sales & TOT (Hotel) Taxes. Following refinery closure, Benicia will be more attractive to tourists, thereby increasing visits and business at shops, restaurants and hotels allowing the city to capture increased sales and TOT (hotel) tax.
    5. Port Tax. Port tax is a potential source of revenue for port communities. The Port of Benicia handles approximately 260,000 imported vehicles annually accounting for about 20% of California’s seaborne vehicle imports. A $50 port use fee imposed on each vehicle entering the port could raise $13,000,000.00 annually for the city. Such fee could be passed on to consumers as an inclusion in the “vehicle prep” fees common on all new car invoices.
    6. BAAQMD Funds. The BAAQMD’s Settlement Agreement with Valero provides $56 million to the city as pollution mitigation fees. The funds may be viewed as a safety net to bolster the city during the transition away from the refinery. The funds can be used to support various city projects, including refinery closure costs, oversight of environmental cleanup, assistance to schools, development of parks and open space, and the like.

In sum, to ensure clean air, healthy kids, and safe homes with rapidly appreciating values, we should heed the call to action presented by the Valero fire, envision a new modern-era Benicia without a refinery and resist scare tactics that promote its continued operation. As set forth above, the city can financially endure the transition in a just way.

Change admittedly can be challenging for all of us: I do miss Mabels, the art glass studios, Tia Theresa, the Brewery and Sam’s Harbor restaurant, but I will not miss refinery fires, secret toxic air emissions or shelter-in-place orders.

Dirk Fulton, Lifelong Benicia resident
Former Solano County Planning Commissioner, Benicia Vice-
…..Mayor, City Councilman & School Board President
Visit: www.Greatdayforbenicia.com


Read Dirk Fulton’s series, A Great Day for Benicia


KQED’s extensive recent coverage of Valero’s Benicia refinery

Benicia’s Industrial Safety Ordinance April 1; Valero announces impending closure April 16;  Huge refinery fire on May 5

Valero Benicia 2023-09-21, Martin do Nascimento/KQED

Valero Refinery Fire in Benicia Is Under Control After Warnings to Stay Indoors
May 5 – The fire comes just weeks after Valero executives announced they were considering closing the sprawling refinery by next April. (Including quotes by Larnie Fox and Pat Toth-Smith of Benicia.)

Benicia Contends With Valero Refinery Closure
We talk about the possible closure of the Benicia Valero refinery and what it means for our region. (Guests include Benicia Mayor Steve Young)

Potential Valero Refinery Closure Leaves Benicia, State Officials Scrambling for Alternatives
The potential closure of the massive Benicia oil refinery by next April would have a major impact on the city’s economy and the state’s oil supply. (Including comments of Benicia Mayor Steve Young and Benicia attorney-activist Terry Mollica.) 

‘Shocking News’: Valero Announces Plans to End Operations at Benicia Refinery
Apr 21 – Last week, the oil giant Valero announced that it will “idle, restructure, or cease operations” at its Benicia refinery that employs more than 400 workers. (Including comments of Benicia City Councilmember Kari Birdseye.)

Oil Giant Valero Looks to Shutter Troubled Bay Area Refinery. It’s ‘a Big Surprise’
Months after Valero was hit with a record $82 million fine by air regulators, the company said it would ‘idle, restructure, or cease operations’ in Benicia by the end of April 2026. (Quotes by Benicia Mayor Steve Young and Benicia City Councilmember Kari Birdseye.)

Benicia Moves Toward Tougher Oversight of Valero Refinery
Benicia City Council gives preliminary approval to an ordinance that could create a citizen’s oversight panel and allow the city to issue fines for safety and air-quality violations. (Quotes by Benicia attorney-activist Terry Mollica, Benicia City Councilmember Kari Birdseye and several other Benicians.)

See also on KQED: