Tag Archives: KQED

KQED: California’s Fuel Fears Threaten Benicia’s ‘Just Transition’ to Green Economy

The waterfront in Benicia on April 24, 2026. State leaders negotiated an agreement with Valero this year to use its idled Benicia facility to store and transport imported fuel, which brings little economic activity while freezing redevelopment plans. (Martin do Nascimento/KQED)

KQED NEWS, BY Julie Small, Apr 30, 2026

In the city of Benicia on the bank of the Carquinez Strait, the view has fundamentally changed: smoke, steam, and black soot no longer spiral from the stacks of the Valero refinery, which stopped refining crude oil in April. So why are residents holding their breath?

With the shuttering of the refinery, Benicia became the latest test case for California’s promise of a “just transition” from fossil fuels to renewable energy that protects workers’wages and livelihoods, invests in economically disadvantaged communities and reduces pollution impacts on the most vulnerable communities. Many Benicians are optimistic they have the assets and the know-how to succeed. But in a politically charged environment where gasoline prices are spiraling higher, California’s shifting interests threaten to delay any rebirth of the city.

State leaders negotiated an agreement with Valero this year to use its idled Benicia facility to store and transport imported fuel, which brings little economic activity while freezing redevelopment plans.

For more than half a century, Benicia’s economy and identity have depended on oil production. Valero’s 400-plus employees, a quarter of whom lived in town, spent some of their paychecks at First Street’s bars and restaurants, which also served hundreds more workers contracted for maintenance each year. Local businesses provided equipment, parts and services to Valero and must find a new market — or pivot to make a new product. Benicia businesses expect the ripple effects of the refinery closure to devastate livelihoods.

The closure was expected. California established its goal to completely phase out fossil fuels to combat global warming more than a decade ago. But Benicia is losing its largest taxpayer much sooner than the city can afford.

Valero’s refinery shutdown will cost Benicia an estimated $10.8 million annually in tax revenues, about 13% of the city’s general fund budget. The city manager reassured residents at a packed February town hall that they could still count on city services funded by $3 million in cash reserves. The city planned to sell water that Valero used, half the city’s supply, to other businesses, and applied for millions of dollars worth of community grants from the Bay Area Air District to sustain staff.

The Martinez Refining Company is seen across the Carquinez Strait from Benicia, on April 13, 2026, as regional refining operations face uncertainty amid California’s transition away from fossil fuels. (Gustavo Hernandez/KQED)

In the long term, Benecia’s leaders are banking on redevelopment of Valero’s 900 acres to bring new tax revenue and vitalize the local economy.

Nearly 500 of those acres were a buffer to mitigate risks of explosions, fires, emissions and other pollution. The land could be developed sooner than the land under the refinery itself, which state regulators expect could take ten years to clean up.

“I wanna see dismantling and movement into our future,” said Kari Birdseye, a Benicia city council member, “I’m not sure that’s the vision that the state has right now because of the precarious nature of our petroleum situation.”

California state leaders have primarily focused on stabilizing fuel supply and keeping gas prices from spiraling out of control.

On April 16, 2025, Valero announced it planned to idle, restructure, or cease refining operations in Benicia. This came six months after Phillips 66 declared its plans to stop refining in Wilmington, Los Angeles, by the year’s end.

At the time, these facilities comprised nearly 20% of California’s refining capacity. The closures threatened to push oil prices higher — a political and economic disaster in a state where gasoline historically costs $0.90 more per gallon than the national average, according to the U.S. Energy and Information Administration.

Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to Valero’s announcement with a letter dated April 21 to the California Energy Commission, directing the state agency responsible for sustaining fuel supply to “redouble its efforts” with “high-level immediate engagement, to help ensure that Californians continue to have access to a safe, affordable, and reliable supply of transportation fuels.”

A month later, Siva Gunda, vice chair of the energy commission, recommended easing regulations to increase fuel imports and local production. Many of the suggestions were enacted with the passage of SB 237 in September.

Environmentalists criticized the legislative changes as an oil industry wish list. They waived California’s requirement to switch to a lower emission fuel in summer months, exempted some oil and gas well permits from final environmental review, and paused penalties on excessive oil profits that lawmakers created to prevent price gouging.

None of the changes persuaded Valero to keep refining in Benicia. However, in January, the company agreed to import gasoline to meet its obligations to the state.

The Valero refinery in Benicia on Sept. 21, 2023. (Martin do Nascimento/KQED)

Benicia officials said they have not been in negotiations between the state and Valero. But Lauren Bird, the facilities general manager, told the Citizens’ Advisory Panel on April 17 that the refinery will import, store and transport gas and diesel for about two years, though it will no longer import jet fuel.

Using Valero’s facility for imports provides little economic benefit to Benicia and delays redevelopment of 900 acres of prime real estate.

“It basically eliminates our ability to have any new development on the property,” said Christina Gilpin-Hayes, a resident who serves on with the city’s planning commission. “Nobody’s gonna want it. Even the land that’s the buffer acres, nobody’s gonna want to develop there if [Valero] is still using it.”

An energy commission spokesperson could not discuss the talks due to industry confidentiality rules, but said in an email that the agency is working with Benicia and stakeholders on alternatives for the facility.

A mural depicting historic downtown Benicia is seen along First Street on April 28, 2026, in Benicia. (Gustavo Hernandez/KQED)

Some residents have called it a back-door deal and said they worry imported gasoline is a fire safety risk.

“What is the state gonna do for us given that they’re imposing this?” said Marilyn Bardet, a member of the community advisory panel, at the February town hall.

Gunda declined KQED’s request for an interview. But said at a state Senate committee hearing on Feb. 18 that much of the energy commission’s work in the last year was aimed at keeping gasoline costs from rising above $5 a gallon, which worked until the U.S. war with Iran pushed up prices globally.

Gunda urged lawmakers to turn to mitigating the economic impacts of refinery closures.

“These unplanned, disruptive closures could have incredible impacts on the workers and the communities,” Gunda said. “It’s really important … to make sure we have the policies in place to support the transition in a way that we protect Californians.”

“ I’d like to think that some of these strategies are forthcoming,” said Josh Sonnenfeld, a senior researcher at UC Berkeley Labor Center. “Given this is the sixth refinery closure or conversion [in six years], I think we need to pick up our pace here.”

Sonnenfeld previously worked for the Blue Green Alliance, which helped Contra Costa County mitigate the 2020 conversion of the Marathon Refinery to renewable diesel. That change cost 700 refinery workers well-paid union jobs. In response, state lawmakers established the Displaced Oil and Gas Workers Fund to help pay for training and job searches.

The Workforce Development Board of Solano County received $3 million from the fund last year to help laid-off Valero workers, and is offering up to $25,000 in grants to small businesses affected by the closure. Advocates have lobbied to extend and expand the fund, as its authorization sunsets in 2027.

Sonnefeld thinks California leaders should look to other states as examples. For instance, New York created a tax stabilization fund for refinery towns and cities to make up for the sudden loss of refinery dollars, while Michigan and Minnesota each established a community transition office.

“We haven’t set up that infrastructure yet in California around whose job is it to make sure that workers and communities are successfully transitioning,” Sonnenfeld said. “In California, we don’t want to acknowledge that they’re actually folks that are being hurt by the energy transition.”

A visitor walks along First Street near the waterfront on April 28, 2026, in Benicia. (Gustavo Hernandez/KQED)

Sonnenfeld said regional governments have shouldered more of the responsibility for mitigating the impact of refinery closures.

The Bay Area Air District launched a first-of-a-kind program this year where regulatory fines against polluters will be passed on to affected communities in the form of grants.

The air regulator issued $82 million in fines against Valero in 2024 for over a decade of excess emissions at the Benicia refinery, which will provide some $60 million in funding.

Benicia plans to seek up to $43 million of the grants, which are also open to local businesses. Applications are due in May, and the awards are expected to be announced in September. That’s the same month that Signature Development, the company Valero hired to manage the sale of refinery land, is expected to present plans to repurpose the property to the city council for approval.

The waterfront in Benicia on April 24, 2026. (Martin do Nascimento/KQED)

Until then, Benicia is on a white-knuckle transition trying to jumpstart a new, green economy without knowing when Valero will leave, or how long it will take to decontaminate and repurpose the refinery site.

The state legislature is considering a bill to help California’s eight remaining refinery towns plan better. SB 1259 would require refineries to plan for decommissioning and estimate the costs and timeline for cleaning up after a closure.

Birdseye said the legislation wouldn’t benefit Benicia.

“We’re in a very precarious moment,” Birdseye said. “ But I’m filled with hope because of what we have here.”

Kari Birdseye, a Benicia City Council member, stands overlooking Benicia’s marine oil terminal near the site of the Benicia Clocktower, on April 13, 2026, in Benicia, as the city prepares for the closure of the Valero refinery and the loss of roughly 10 percent of its annual tax revenue. (Gustavo Hernandez/KQED)

Birdseye said businesses have inquired about moving to Benicia for its central location between two interstate highways, with a rail line and port.

From the city’s old clock tower, Birdseye gestured to a berth below, where Valero had exported petroleum coke, a black dust that’s a refining byproduct and a health hazard. She said a federal agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, has identified the port as a possible supply chain and manufacturing site for the nascent offshore wind industry in California.

“We can put these large pieces of equipment on ships that go out the Golden Gate and either go down to the Port of Long Beach, Morro Bay or up to Humboldt, where they can be assembled into wind turbines,” Birdseye said. “That’s the perfect scenario for a just transition away from fossil fuels.”

On a recent afternoon at Benicia’s waterfront, resident Stephen Golub said one thing lost in the economic discussions about Valero’s departure is the gains in environmental and public health.

Stephen Golub, a Benicia resident, poses for a portrait along the waterfront on April 28, 2026, in Benicia. (Gustavo Hernandez/KQED)

“They were polluting our air again and again, sometimes secretly, sometimes more openly,” Golub said. “They were poisoning our politics by pouring massive funds into political campaigns.”

Golub said without a refinery, it’s easier to enjoy all that Benicia has to offer, including 28 public parks, stable political leadership, a vibrant art scene, good schools and safe streets.

“Down the line, maybe 10 or 20 years, people will talk about this thriving community with all it has to offer, and they’ll say, ‘Hey, did you know that there was once a refinery here?’” Golub said.“I really think that’s what’s in the city’s future.”


More 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

KQED: Benicia’s Valero Refinery may NOT close – “Hail Mary” possible?

Potential Valero Refinery Closure Leaves Benicia, State Officials Scrambling for Alternatives

KQED News,  By Matthew Green, April 26, 2025

The Valero refinery in Benicia on Sept. 21, 2023. The potential closure of the massive Benicia oil refinery by next April would have a huge impact on both the city’s economy and the state’s oil supply. (Martin do Nascimento/KQED)

A week after Valero announced plans to “idle, restructure or cease” operations at its massive Benicia oil refinery by next April, company executives said that while the plant’s closure was more than likely, it was not yet a foregone conclusion.

In an earnings call Thursday, Valero executives left open the possibility of a Hail Mary, saying they had plans to meet with state and local officials to discuss potential options.

“I do think there’s a genuine interest in California to avoid the closure,” Richard Walsh, Valero’s executive vice president, said during the call. But he quickly added, “Our current intent right now is to close the refinery.”

A week after Valero announced plans to “idle, restructure or cease” operations at its massive Benicia oil refinery by next April, company executives said that while the plant’s closure was more than likely, it was not yet a foregone conclusion.

In an earnings call Thursday, Valero executives left open the possibility of a Hail Mary, saying they had plans to meet with state and local officials to discuss potential options.

“I do think there’s a genuine interest in California to avoid the closure,” Richard Walsh, Valero’s executive vice president, said during the call. But he quickly added, “Our current intent right now is to close the refinery.”

Valero CEO Lane Riggs cited California’s tough “regulatory and enforcement environment” as the main driver behind the company’s intent to cease operations at the sprawling North Bay facility. The sixth-largest refinery in the state, it currently produces up to 145,000 barrels of crude oil a day, accounting for about 9% of the state’s production.

“California has been pursuing policies to move away from fossil fuels for really the past 20 years,” Riggs said, calling the state’s regulations “the most stringent and difficult of anywhere else in North America.”

Benicia Mayor Steve Young doesn’t disagree with the assessment, but said he wishes the company had provided more lead time.

“We need to get moving on this quickly because 12 months is not a long time given the severity of the economic impact,” said Young, noting that nearly 20% of Benicia’s $60 million budget comes from the refinery. “I think that’s part of my frustration, is how little time we have to try to plan for some kind of an alternative.”

Shutting down the facility, he added, would also be a major blow to the hundreds of residents who work there, not to mention the scores of restaurants, hotels and other businesses that provide services to those workers in this city of some 27,000 residents.

The Valero refinery is also the exclusive supplier of jet fuel to nearby Travis Air Force Base, which it delivers through a direct pipeline.

“If that is stopped, what does that mean to the base?” Young said. “Travis uses an amazing amount of fuel to fly all their planes, much more than can be easily replaced, and certainly not replaced within a year. So I think that this becomes a matter of real concern to the Defense Department and it’s potentially a national security issue.”

Valero dropped its bombshell April 16 announcement roughly six months after regional and state air regulators fined the company a record $82 million for secretly exceeding toxic emissions standards for at least 15 years. And last month, city leaders voted unanimously to impose moderate new safety regulations on the facility.

Map showing location of Valero's Benicia refinery
Map by Matthew Green/KQED

“I suspect that compared to other refinery operators, they’re a pretty good business operator. But they’ve also had a pretty bad track record on public safety,” said Terry Mollica, who leads a group of residents that pushed for the city’s new safety rules to increase oversight of the refinery.

But Mollica said that he doesn’t think anybody in his group is particularly excited about the possibility of the facility closing altogether.

“There would be long-term and short-term impacts on the community,” he said. “People would lose their jobs. None of us want to see that happen particularly.”

Valero has owned and operated the Benicia refinery since 2000. The refinery was originally built in 1968 for Humble Oil, later called Exxon, and began operations the following year.

Its possible closure comes amid a growing exodus of traditional oil refiners in California. Phillips 66’s refinery in Rodeo and Marathon’s facility in Martinez both recently converted operations to biofuel production. Phillips 66 also plans to close its Los Angeles-area refinery — the seventh largest in the state — later this year.

And Valero executives, in this week’s earnings call, hinted that they may also soon consider “strategic alternatives” for the company’s only other California refinery, located near Los Angeles, which accounts for more than 5% of the state’s crude oil supply.

“California is phasing out its gasoline consumption and refiners see that coming,” said Severin Borenstein, a UC Berkeley energy economist. “We should be seriously concerned about how all that gasoline supply is going to get replaced.”

California has dramatically reduced its reliance on fossil fuels in recent decades, but most residents still drive gas-powered cars and will continue to do so for years to come, Borenstein said, even though the state already has some of the highest gas prices in the nation.

Gov. Gavin Newsom underscored that sense of urgency this week in a letter (PDF) to California Energy Commission Vice Chair Siva Gunda. He urged the commission to “redouble” its efforts to ensure refiners “continue to see the value in serving the California market, even as demand for fossil fuels continues its gradual decline over the coming decades.”

“I am directing you … to reinforce the State’s openness to a collaborative relationship and our firm belief that Californians can be protected from price spikes and refiners can profitably operate in California — a market where demand for gasoline will still exist for years to come,” Newsom wrote.

A customer prepares to pump gas into his truck at a Valero gas station on July 22, 2013 in Mill Valley. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Almost immediately after Valero’s announcement, Newsom was lambasted by state Assembly Republicans, who said the potential closure was among the growing number of “real-world consequences” of [his] war on California energy producers that was “becoming clearer by the day.”

In his letter, Newsom defended two different laws he signed in the last two years that give the state more oversight of the oil industry and regulate backup supply when refineries go offline in order to prevent market irregularities. He also asked state energy and environmental officials to produce a report by July 1 on “any changes in the State’s approach that are needed to ensure adequate supply during this transition.”

“The California Energy Commission continues to be committed to working with stakeholders to explore options to ensure an affordable, reliable, and safe transportation fuel supply,” Sandy Louey, a spokesperson for the commission, said in an email in response to Newsom’s letter.

Young, whose city has long felt the health impacts of the refinery’s toxic releases, said he understands the motivation behind California’s ambitious regulations.

“I think certainly [California’s] done them for lots of good environmental reasons, and that obviously climate change is a real thing and burning fossil fuels is a direct contributor to it,” he said. “Did they go too far? I don’t want to say that. But it certainly has created an environment where oil companies feel that either they’ve been unfairly targeted or they are just seeing this as perhaps a way to negotiate some rollbacks of some of those things.”

Young acknowledged that the refinery’s closure would yield some “net benefit” to the health and safety of his community.

“And so from an environmental point of view, sure, it’s certainly possible to look at it as a silver lining,” he said. “But overall, given how quick this is unfolding, I’m certainly not celebrating it by any means.”

KQED NEWS: Benicia Moves Toward Tougher Oversight of Valero Refinery

BISHO Working Group report on the March 4th City Council Meeting

By Julie Small, KQED News, Mar 6, 2025

The Benicia City Council plans to vote on a controversial industrial safety ordinance next month despite fierce opposition from oil giant Valero and other industrial businesses that operate in the city.

Oil executives, employees and residents packed a City Council meeting Tuesday to weigh in on the proposal, which would create a citizens’ oversight commission, boost community air quality monitoring and empower city officials to issue fines for safety and air quality violations.

The new law would replace an existing agreement with Benicia. Valero has threatened to sue the city if it moves ahead with the ordinance.

“It’s a governmental overreach, significant governmental overreach — even in California!” Lauren Bird, general manager and vice president of the Benicia refinery, told the council. He touted the facility’s track record of responding to and containing plant malfunctions.

“ We work hard every day to maintain a safe operation,” Bird said. “Are we perfect? Absolutely not. But we work round the clock, 24/7, 365 days, multiple times a shift, multiple people, dedicated people who work hard, who are well trained, who are capable.”

Dozens of refinery employees and company supporters praised Valero for financial contributions to the community and warned against alienating the town’s largest taxpayer.

“ If you keep poking that golden goose, one day it’s going to fly away,” said Mark Hughes, a former council member. “And that’s not a threat, that’s not any inside information I have about Valero. It’s just the likely outcome of a company that constantly feels that it’s being pushed away.”

But Anthony Burnasconi said residents like him are paying too high a price for Valero’s community investments.

“Valero can build baseball fields and donate to the schools, and that is good,” Burnasconi said. “But Valero is also a multibillion-dollar corporation that can spill poison into our air.”

Last year, the regional air district fined the company $82 million for failing to report excess toxic emissions at the Benicia refinery. Those releases occurred between 2003 and 2019 and were not disclosed to the public until 2022.

“More important than the amount of money involved was the number of years that the problems had been ignored,” said ordinance proponent Terry Mollica, speaking after Tuesday’s vote. “Sixteen years of just sweeping the problem under the rug. That’s what people want the ISO to address.”

“Benicia showed up tonight,” said Councilmember Kari Birdseye, who, along with Councilmember Terry Scott and Benicia Fire Chief Josh Chadwick, refined the industrial safety ordinance over 14 months and held dozens of meetings with stakeholders.

“Whether they were for or against it, all of the testimony was very impactful and meaningful to our final decision, and I am over the moon with the 5–0 vote,” Birdseye said. “It showed that our council takes the health and safety of Benicia very seriously.” 

Supporters of the ordinance held sunflowers while the dozens who came to speak against the ordinance sported Valero’s dark blue uniforms and T-shirts. Parents on both sides brought their children.

Resident Julian Christi put it simply, saying, “I just want to keep my family safe.”

His daughter Charlotte also addressed the council.

“I am 10 years old, and I’ve lived in Benicia all my life — it’s all I know,” she said. “I go to Joe Henderson Elementary, and I would like to say that I am also in favor of the ISO.”