Tag Archives: Benicia CA

Benicia CA, California Energy Commission, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Just transition, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

Benicia’s Marilyn Bardet: ‘The state has its tail between its legs, wagging, suckered into deal-making with an oil giant.’

The Benicia Independent, by Marilyn Bardet, September 12, 2025

VALERO BENICIA REFINERY TO CLOSE? – BACK ROOM PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS

On April 15th, Valero Energy Corp stunned our city making their “surprise” well-orchestrated announcement to the California Energy Commission [CEC] saying they intended to”idle, restructure or cease operations” at their Benicia refinery by next April. Evidently, the state was caught off guard, ill prepared for a second refinery closure, just after Phillips 66’s Wilmington refinery had announced last year that they’d be closing this year, (in fact, that closure is in progress).

Marilyn Bardet

So, I speculate in the dark, wondering about the state’s backroom private negotiations with the largest refiner in the USA whose profits please its investors. It’s well documented that Big Oil despises California’s extensive environmental regulations that they say impede doing business in this state. Valero tried to blame a restrictive regulatory environment including the City’s adoption of our Industrial Safety Ordinance for its reasons to opt out of refining in Benicia.

JUST A BARGAINING THREAT

But wait. Think about Valero’s position in negotiations. The law requiring refineries to report to the California Energy Commission [CEC] a year in advance of any proposed major change like closure gave Valero in particular a real advantage—a year after P66’s refinery closure that by itself wouldn’t strain the state’s gasoline supply. But if they were to threaten to end production in Benicia?

Surely Valero Corp knew the stats: stopping production at Benicia would cause a significant, though not bottomless, tanking of the state’s gasoline supply, such that consumers’ demand, while trending downward, could not be met without threatening the state’s economy: skyrocketing prices at the gas pumps, long lines for gas, empty stations—just what the all-powerful oil lobby, WSPA (“Whispa”– Western States Petroleum Association) wants us to understand.

Getting into negotiating position, Valero could demand capitulations on regulatory policy, and finesse a financial windfall to stay in business in California— with long-range implications for other oil giants’ maneuverings.

NEWSOM AND THE CEC FALLING FOR IT

After all, Valero Corp knew the governor would be very worried for his own political future as well as the state’s. He would have only four months to come up with tangible results before the end of the 2025 legislative session, which ends today, Sept 12. Newsom had quickly done his own gasoline-supply gap-math homework, and asked the CEC to advise about how to stabilize the state’s “petroleum market economy”. The CEC scrambled together an insider group of stakeholders, including environmental orgs, Benicia’s city manager, and industry reps, to put together recommendations to achieve “balance between available supply and current demand”. As it evidently turned out, the recommendations made public pivoted around the concessions that could be made to Valero to entice them to stay in business in Benicia.

In my view, Valero holds all the cards, keeping its 3 options open with no official mention of “closure”. So far, there’s no final resolution to adopt a budget that would have to incorporate the extraordinary expense of the Valero/state deal—what California tax dollars in the tens of millions will be paying so that prices at the pump will be stabilized.

IT’S ALL ABOUT A ‘JUST TRANSITION’

Think how Big Oil thinks: Valero knew their plays from the get-go: they knew the state has yet to pass “just transition” legislation; AND, the state has made clear it can’t (politically) afford to have any gap in the gas supply chain. . .

Whoever does the negotiating for the state, their hands are tied: the state had yet to adopt any clear, fair plans, policy guidance and requirements for closing refineries, for example, for ensuring thorough cleanups with full costs to be borne by the industry as Responsible Party. Right now, there are no such protections in place as called for by major environmental orgs who have worked hard to get the state to listen. The state has its tail between its legs, wagging, suckered into deal-making with an oil giant.

What does “just transitioning” mean to the Governor? What it should mean—and does mean to us—is adoption of concrete regulatory policy for moving away from fossil fuel extraction and production within the state; for health and safety protections for fenceline communities; for maintaining CEQA—the California Environmental Quality Act, the only defense of citizens’ right, within their jurisdictions, to be informed and comment on large-scale development proposals; compensating cities for fiscal and physical impacts of a refinery closure; for worker retraining within the energy sector; for the ultimate goal, namely, protecting the climate from catastrophic runaway global warming.

Big Oil very easily gambles, playing their extortionist game. Very Big Bucks will be siphoned out of state coffers to pay Valero what it considers its due as the poor victim of state regs, now under threat of evisceration by backroom deal concessions.

[See ‘California in Talks to Pay Hundreds of Millions to Valero to Stave Off Refinery Shutdown‘]

This is very ugly backroom politics indeed. What will be the time limit set for Valero’s “phase out” to closure—three years? Or…. ten? Or, will the state find another operator? And what kind of deal would that call for?

CITIZENS UNHEARD IN THE HEARING

This is what some of us from Benicia needed to hear about at the Aug 20th Assembly Oversight Committee hearing on “Transportation Fuels Transition Plan”. We needed to learn details of the state’s aim to keep the Benicia refinery operating and to voice our concerns for our own city and about state’s strategies to ensure a sufficient gas supply. There were 3-1/2 hours of presentations, mainly by the CEC, with Q&A. Benicia Mayor Young spoke for 10 minutes, speaking about the City’s estimated $8-$12 million loss of revenue should the refinery close, thus indicating his primary fear. Why was there no recommendation by the CEC to incentivize “demand destruction”— transport electrification? etc etc.

It was 5:15 p.m. by the time the public got to speak; there were only a handful of Assembly members or CEC staff left in the room. Over 40 people had lined up to testify, each given 1 minute to speak. Some had come up from Kern County to oppose more drilling near their neighborhoods. The day’s performance seemed like window dressing, all for show, with most of the assembled minds having been already made up, not apparently caring much about the fallout of negotiations for fenceline communities’ future health and safety, or how the state will ever meet its lofty climate goals.

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

See also:
Benicia CA, CA Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Energy Commission, California legislature, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

California in Talks to Pay Hundreds of Millions to Valero to Stave Off Refinery Shutdown

Legislators discuss giving Valero millions to stay in Benicia

Bloomberg, September 9, 2025

California legislators are considering giving Valero Energy Corp. hundreds of millions of dollars to cover refinery maintenance costs in a bid to prevent the closure of a San Francisco-area fuel plant.

Under such a deal, the state would pay Valero to continue operating its Benicia refinery, according to people familiar with the negotiations who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. The plant is slated to close by April, the latest in a string of recent California fuel-plant shutdowns.

Between $80 million and $200 million of state funds would likely be earmarked for routine maintenance work, although the terms of the arrangement could be subject to change, the people said. Maintenance is one of the biggest operating costs for refiners and the expense of major overhauls typically performed every four or five years can be a catalyst for closure. Discussions with lawmakers over keeping the Valero facility open were held as recently as this past weekend. Absent a deadline extension, legislators have until late Tuesday to submit bills for consideration.

Valero shares briefly dropped on news of the talks but have since recovered and were up 2.8% to $161.77 at 1:10 p.m. in New York, making it the day’s best-performing oil stock in the S&P 500.

Valero didn’t respond to requests for comment. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office declined to comment while representatives for state senate and assembly leaders didn’t respond to inquiries.

Newsom has in recent months taken a new tack with refiners and encouraged regulators to work with the industry to maintain fuel supplies in a state that often has the nation’s highest gasoline prices. The California Energy Commission has since walked back plans to impose a profit cap on refiners, a key factor in spurring recent plant closures.

Antioch CA, Benicia CA, CACTI, Co2 waste, Collinsville CA, Martinez CA, Montezuma LLC, Richmond CA

VIDEO! Call to Action by Benicia’s Kathy Kerridge and other Solano speakers

STOP the Montezuma Carbon Hub – NO CO2 PIPELINES IN THE BAY!


Video by Constance Beutel, Sep 9, 2025

Communities Against Carbon Transport and Injection – CACTI

On September 9, 2025, CACTI was launched. Montezuma LLC is proposing to inject carbon dioxide waste underground near the Montezuma Wetlands in Solano County. Known as the Montezuma Carbon Hub, the project would involve capturing CO2 from Bay Area refineries and power plants, transporting it via underwater pipeline or boat, and injecting it near a site of sensitive ecological restoration.

The pipeline network and injection site would be developed near Bay Area communities like Martinez, Benicia, Antioch, Richmond, and Collinsville. Carbon waste dumping projects like this one threaten the health and safety of local residents, especially because CO2 pipelines are dangerous and underregulated. Pipeline leaks can cause suffocation or even death to people and wildlife.

Video chapters:

LEARN MORE… about the proposed carbon dioxide waste dump near Solano County’s Montezuma Wetlands at cacticoalition.org.

Benicia, Benicia parks, Stephen Golub

Stephen Golub: Psssst! Here’s a Great Way to Increase Your Property Value in Benicia: Vote for Parks

By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. September 7, 2025. [First published in the Benicia Herald on 9/7/25.]

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

Each year my wife and I pay thousands of dollars in property taxes that support Benicia schools, even though we’ve never had kids or grandkids attend them. People pay such taxes without reaping direct benefits partly because it’s required, but also because it’s part of being a good citizen: It’s what people do in and for a community.

But hey, I’m by no means presenting myself as a paragon of virtue here. Paying such taxes is very much in my self-interest.

How’s that? Great schools are part of what keeps Benicia such a great place to live, which in turn fuels our property values that rise over time.

Similarly, I don’t drive around town much – maybe a few times per week – but good roads benefit my investment in my home. So yeah, it’s in my self-interest to pay for schools and roads even as I, like many of you, don’t directly benefit much or at all from them. We willingly (though perhaps not gladly) pay such levies because we each benefit.

The same goes for parks. And for the proposed Citywide Parks, Landscape, and Lighting Assessment District (PLLAD). Property owners can vote for or against the measure by October 14 via mail-in ballot (which must be received by the City, and not simply postmarked, by that date), by submitting it at the City Council meeting that day or by returning it to the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall by then.

(FYI: The City is convening a community meeting this Tuesday, September 9, from 6 to 8 pm, at the Fitzgerald Field Grandstand, 249 East H Street, at which City staff will share information, welcome feedback and answer questions about the PLLAD. You can also find additional details at a City site: BelieveInBenicia.org.)

I hardly use Benicia’s parks. But I do recall that years ago when my wife and I were checking Benicia out as a place to move to, we visited the Community Park, passed by several other parks and were impressed by now nice they all were.

Now, what if the Community Park’s ballfields were completely run-down? What if the others were weed-filled lots? What if broken lighting makes the facilities less usable or safe for early evening use? What if our trails are heavily littered or less accessible? I don’t know if we would have made this wonderful town our own or if future prospective residents would do the same. Maybe some young families who are potential Benicians would move elsewhere after seeing a disrepaired state of affairs here.

I do know that other attractive Bay Area cities – our neighbors in some respects, competitors for residents and businesses in others – appreciate and invest in the appeal of pleasant parks, trails, lighting and the like.

Parks are similarly part of what makes Benicia such a pleasant locale in which to live and a home here such a sound investment – even for those of us who don’t live near a park or use them much. They’re a face of this fantastic place. Together with our  waterfront setting and First Street, they’re the first things many visitors see as they stroll or drive through town.

I realize and respect that some Benicians have trouble with specific aspects of the PLLAD. I might even agree with one or two such criticisms.

But let’s not lose the forest for the trees in deciding whether we’re going to maintain and improve our parks and related facilities, including gradually dealing with $55 million of deferred maintenance and repairing our 19 (out of 21) playgrounds that are over 20 years old. The value of private property flows partly from the appeal of an area’s public places.

The benefits are not just financial. Good parks are good for public health in all sorts of ways. In line with “broken windows” data  on crime (which indicates that crime can rise in communities that appear broken-down) and research indicating that well-maintained parks and lighting deter unsavory conduct, they contribute to public safety.

And of course, while public health and public safety are highly desirable in and of themselves, they in turn contribute to property values.

Furthermore, while some out-of-towners may simply come and go in using these facilities – a benefit we shouldn’t begrudge them – others aid Benicia businesses and employment by coupling park and beach use here with visits to our supermarkets, restaurants, shops or galleries.

I’d add that we’ve recently been down a similar road and unfortunately decided to forego financial benefits. Last year, before Valero announced its plans to shutter the refinery, Benicians voted to reject a property transfer tax. If that measure had passed, the eventual sale of the refinery could have netted Benicia $10 million or more. Now we’ll net nada.

Some may say that the parks will be fine even without the proposed PLLAD. But  the closure of the Valero refinery sooner or later will put a big burden on the City budget. Cuts will have to come somewhere. Without the PLLAD, parks will seriously suffer if we want to try to maintain police and fire protection – or do folks wish to cut those services instead?

Even if the refinery closes later rather than sooner, Benicia’s still dealing with resource challenges that undercut our capacity to maintain the parks, trails and related facilities.

Some understandably object to yet another fee for city services. I know that the maximum assessment of $208 per parcel is nothing to sneeze at. But that 57 cents per day (and far less for many property owners) is still a small price to pay for many thousands of dollars in annually increasing property value. It’s an investment in our own homes and businesses.

If you could spend a relatively tiny bit more to ensure that your home’s worth rises rather than falls, that you profit by thousands or tens of thousands of dollars more when you eventually sell it, that your kids inherit a better property down the line or that you can rent it out for more, you might decide it makes sense to shell out those 10 or 25 or 57 cents per day for your home.

Well, Benicia is our home. The parks are our living room and front yard.

Finally, let’s face it: We know of other Bay Area communities where public service breakdowns have damaged property values, as well as public safety and health. It can happen all too easily if things start to slip. We can’t let the same fate befall Benicia.

So let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Please  vote for the PLLAD not just because it benefits this lovely community we call home, but because – even if we don’t use the parks or we dislike elements of the proposal – it’s good for each of us and our pocketbooks.

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