Tag Archives: Stephen Golub

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

 

Benician Stephen Golub: Pardon Me

Stranger Than Fiction

[sta_anchor id=”top” /]A Promised Land, by Stephen Golub, December 6, 2025

The story could inspire a big-budget Hollywood political thriller. A cocaine kingpin – the corrupt president of a foreign country, no less – is convicted and jailed in the United States. But behind the scenes, right-wing tech billionaires persuade an equally corrupt American president to pardon the foreigner. In a violent side-story, the US president proudly orders illegal, lethal military attacks that kill scores of impoverished Venezuelan fishing villagers (some of whom may be small-scale traffickers) whose coke isn’t even destined for our shores and whose possible crimes pale in comparison with the kingpin’s.

In the hypothetical Hollywood version of this story, the truth comes out, the former president goes back to prison and his American counterpart resigns in shame.

In 2025, however, there is no shame and reality is stranger than fiction. Donald Trump publicly boasted of his planed pardon for former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández before then granting it. Lost in the swirl of Trump’s other transgressions, the story disappeared from the headlines soon after first surfacing.

The element of the hypothetical Hollywood version that hasn’t yet been proven in real life is the tech billionaires’ involvement. But, as reported in Mother Jones magazine,  their backing for both Trump and VP JD Vance on the one hand and their proposed, Hernandez-backed state-within-a-state in Honduras on the other surely looks suspicious.

Even though in normal times such a story would be the stuff of massive scandal, it’s now business as usual when it comes to Trump’s pardons (not to mention so much else). And given that we’re now almost a decade into Trump’s reign of political terror, we must ask what’s normal anymore.

But Wait! There’s Much More…

As horrid as it is, the Hernandez story is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Trump’s abuse of the presidential pardon power. It’s true that certain of his predecessors have also milked that constitutionally granted capacity for personal or political benefit. Bill Clinton’s 2001 pardon of disgraced financier Marc Rich, apparently in return for donations to the Clinton Library and the Democratic Party, is a case in point. But neither Clinton nor anyone else comes close to the breadth and depth of what Trump has done.

Trump established his exploitation of pardons at the very start of his presidency. As summarized by an excellent post by attorney Kim Wehle at The Unpopulist site, “One of his first acts on returning to office was to issue pardons to hundreds of rioters from the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, including those who had viciously assaulted police officers.”  As Wehle further explains:

“It should be no surprise that some of these rioters, having been pardoned for one act of political violence, keep on plotting new acts of political violence. In February, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was arrested at the Capitol (again) for assaulting a protester. In July, Edward Kelley, who was “the fourth person to unlawfully enter the Capitol building at the forefront of the mob” and attack an officer, was convicted for a new plot to assassinate “36 individual federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel” whom he blamed for his arrest on the Capitol riot charges. Christopher Moynihan was arrested in October for planning to assassinate House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.”

In an equally valuable post at the same site, author Robert Tracinski summarizes  some of Trump’s many egregious 2025 pardons:

“…from a corrupt sheriff convicted in a “cash for badges” scheme, to disgraced former Congressman George Santos, who may have diverted election funds to support his lavish lifestyle but “was 100% for Trump,” to the healthcare fraud conviction of the husband of Republican Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger, a Trump ally…

“Trump pardoned an executive convicted of tax fraud after the executive’s mother gave $1 million at a Trump fundraiser. The judge who sentenced him said: “there is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card for the rich.” Under Trump, there is…

“In October, he pardoned cryptocurrency fraudster Changpeng Zhao after Zhao’s company, Binance, made a deal to boost World Liberty Financial, the Trump family crypto venture.”

Legitimizing the Rule of Lawlessness

Ironically, however, the most significant pardon we’ve seen recently has not been issued by Trump, but in effect  for Trump, by the Supreme Court. Though not literally a pardon, Wehle addresses the Court’s action quite well:

“Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s unconscionable [2024] decision in Trump v. United States, the so-called immunity ruling that essentially sanctioned American presidents using official power to commit crimes without any penalty, the legal perversions coming out of the White House have been legion. So far, Donald Trump’s actions, along with the Supreme Court’s endorsement of them, have effectively kneecapped the FirstFourth, and Fifth Amendments, the AppointmentsSpending, and Emoluments Clauses, the 14th Amendment’s ban on holding office after having engaged in insurrection, Article I’s vesting of legislative power in Congress, and Congress’s power to lay and collect tariffs. Trump is acting this way because he no longer has any incentive not to.

“In that immunity ruling, a 6-3 majority held that the exercise of “core” powers under Article II of the Constitution is absolutely immune from legal oversight, even if used criminally, and that lesser “official actions” are presumptively immune unless prosecutors can show that criminally confining a presidential act would pose no “dangers on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

In other words, this was Trump’s own get-out-of-jail-free card, including for corruptly influenced pardons since they’re within the presidency’s “core” powers.

We’re accustomed to thinking that no one is above the law, at least in principle and hopefully in fact. The Supreme Court decided the opposite.

Of course, the immediate and history-shattering  benefit of the Court’s egregious ruling wasn’t for President Trump in 2025 but for Indicted Trump in 2024: the decision so delayed and constrained Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election that Smith dropped the charges after Trump’s 2024 electoral victory.

A Larger Problem

An even larger problem we face, however, isn’t Trump’s legal transgressions but the fact that they apparently don’t dent his political and moral standing for large parts of the public. Yes, his approval numbers are dropping to about 40 percent  or less in most surveys. And yes, the prospects of his suffering more political reversals are rising. This is evinced by everything from far-right-wing Majorie Taylor Greene’s declarations of independence to the Democrats’ increasing prospects for retaking the House of Representatives next year to  the possibility of yet more sordid Jeffery Epstein revelations soiling Trump’s brand even among supporters.

But whatever happened to someone simply paying a penalty for  cheating and lying, not least by blatantly exploiting a presidential power to pardon political and financial allies? Like so many of Trump’s disruptions, this is all going on in plain sight and is in effect pardoned, so to speak, by much of the public.

And while we certainly can understand folks prioritizing the damages he’s doing to our pocketbooks in assessing him, it doesn’t seem like his consistently egregious self-dealing makes much  of a difference in his standing. It’s just another day at the Oval Office.

So, with great respect for everyone who’s fighting for democracy, national security and the rule of law, or who dread the crisis even as they simply try to get by during these tough times, certain words may sum up how history will judge many other Americans who condone or endorse what Trump is doing:

Really regrettable.

Perhaps understandable.

Or, just maybe, unpardonable.


Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

[sta_anchor id=”below” /]Stephen Golub writes about democracy and politics, both in America and abroad, at A Promised Land: America as a Developing Country.

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

Back to top

Stephen Golub: Wed. Nov 25 deadline to comment on $millions for Benicia

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub

November 25 is the deadline to submit to the Bay Area Air District comments on its Draft Guidelines that will govern use of $60 million in Valero fines for the benefit of Benicia and surrounding communities.  (Valero was penalized because of its refinery’s over 15 years of undisclosed, massive toxic emissions.)

More specifically, now’s the time to back Mayor Steve Young’s proposal to the Air District: $25 million over five years from that $60 million should go for budget support to help Benicia through the imminent loss of Valero revenues (at about $10 million per year, so totaling $50 million over five years), now that it’s closing the refinery.

Or, if you prefer, you may simply argue for a flexible approach, suggest that more than $25 million is necessary or of course otherwise comment in any way you wish on the Draft Guidelines by the November 25 deadline.

You may submit comments to the Air District by emailing the following: communityinvestments@baaqmd.govmhiratzka@baaqmd.gov and vjohnson@baaqmd.gov. Please request that the comments be forwarded to the Air District Board of Directors (and retain your emails because they could come in handy down the line).

If unclear on what you’d put in the subject line, you could write something like:

Comments on the Draft Guidelines for the Local Community Benefits Fund: in favor of a flexible approach.

For additional background and information, including the link to the Draft Guidelines themselves, you may go to the Benicia Independent, at https://beniciaindependent.com/, and scroll down at left to Steve Golub’s detailed November 11 post. Particularly in a subheading titled “Arguments for a flexible approach,” he makes a case for flexibility in this Air District grantmaking.

If you wish, you could cc or bcc Mayor Young , Vice Mayor Scott, City Manager Giuliani (syoung@ci.benicia.ca.us, Terry Scott tscott@ci.benicia.ca.us, Mario Giuliani MGiuliani@ci.benicia.ca.us) and/or other City Council members.[sta_anchor id=”below” /]


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

 

Back to top

Stephen Golub: Up to $60 million for Benicia at Stake

Super Important public meeting Wed. 11/12 at Benicia City Hall or in San Francisco or online. Please attend!

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

By Stephen Golub, Benicia, Nov 11, 2025 [First published in the Benicia Herald on 11/09/25.]

An upcoming November 12 Bay Area Air District meeting is vitally important for Benicia … and the City has made participation easy.

At 1 pm that day, the Bay Area Air District Community Equity, Health, and Justice Committee will meet  to consider and recommend whether the Air District should adopt guidelines and a call for projects that, if not revised from their current draft forms, could severely hamper or even block the city’s access to up to $60 million in funds that could alleviate our imminent, post-Valero budget crunch. (As you may recall, that sum is part of the $82 million fine/settlement that Valero paid the Air District a year ago in the wake of its Benicia refinery’s over 15 years of undisclosed toxic emissions hundreds of times the legal limits.)

As I understand it, on November 12 the  Committee will consider (among other items on its agenda that day) draft guidelines for the use of these funds and a proposal to adopt a flexible approach that could permit Benicia access to a good chunk of that $60 million, to support our cash-strapped city budget for several years. The Committee’s important, influential  recommendations will be considered for approval by the full Air District Board at a January meeting.

Benicians have several ways to back a flexible approach in general and any Benicia-specific proposal in particular:

  1. Though the Committee meeting is in San Francisco, you can go to the Benicia City Hall Commission Room (not the Council Chambers) on Nov. 12 to observe and (if you wish) offer comments by Zoom. The City Hall address is 250 East L Street. As noted, the meeting starts at 1 pm. We will each have up to two minutes to comment.
    The camera in the Commission Room will be set up in a wide-angle such that it should show the Committee how many people are in attendance. So, even if you don’t plan to comment, it would be a great show of support.
  2. You can Zoom in from your home or office to observe the meeting and offer comments, at bayareametro.zoom.us/j/81106820134
    You can also access the Zoom by: a) first going to baaqmd.gov/bodagendas; b) scrolling down to the 11/12/2025 Community Equity Health and Justice Committee slot; c) clicking on the Agenda; and d) clicking on the Zoom link (same as the lengthy, multi-number one I just provided) on the first page of the agenda.
  3. In addition to Zooming (but please, if possible, not instead of it), you can email comments to the Air District Community Investments Office (CIO), which will administer these funds, at communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov. The deadline for submission is November 25.
  4. In addition to the CIO, you can also try emailing or ccing  the Air District Board members (including those belonging to the Community Equity, Health, and Justice Committee) via two Air District staff officials (Marcy Hiratzka and  Vanessa Johnson) at mhiratzka@baaqmd.gov and vjohnson@baaqmd.gov, requesting that the comments be shared with the Board (though hopefully and presumably the CIO is doing so).
  5. For those interested in attending in person, the meeting will take place at the Air District Headquarters, 375 Beale Street in San Francisco.

I’d suggest bearing in mind the following if commenting by email or Zoom:

  1. Above all, please be respectful and diplomatic for any number of reasons. First and foremost, the Air District Board and staff, including the CIO, are dedicated public servants working hard for cleaner air and public health in the Bay Area. In addition, Benicia needs the Air District’s help and cooperation not just in making grants from the $60 million but in years to come, as the extensive clean-up of the Valero property takes place and regarding other issues that could well crop up.
  2. In writing to the CIO and the Board, please reference the Draft Guidelines for the Local Community Benefits Fund (LCBF), as these guidelines will govern the use of the $60 million Valero fine money for which a flexible, budget-supporting approach is sought.
  3. For further information, including the draft guidelines, you can go to the CIO’s site, baaqmd.gov/en/community-health/community-investments-office. Once there, scroll down to the Meetings and Events section to access the Draft LCBF Guidelines (though the term used in the link is Investment rather than Benefits), a “Draft Call for Projects: Benicia and Surrounding Communities” and other information – including  a “Watch Archives” link to the October 29 CIO webinar at which Mayor Steve Young and Council Member Terry Scott articulated strong arguments for a flexible approach. (Yours Truly offered my two cents’ worth as well.)
  4. FYI, Benicia is by no means guaranteed the $60 million. As a matter of procedure, the money is not simply handed over to us; like other potential recipients of the LCBF and other Air District grants, we must apply for it. Also, quite understandably, the Guidelines  provide that surrounding communities arguably affected by Valero’s transgressions can also apply for LCBF funds. Nor is anyone contending that the entire $60 million simply go for Benicia budget support. Some can, should and will be set aside for specific projects in Benicia  and in those surrounding communities, above and beyond budget support.
  5. At the same time, Benicia has been the main community bearing the brunt of these particular Valero-generated problems, while lacking the resources of larger communities to address such issues. With the subtraction of roughly $10 million in annual revenue previously provided by Valero, we’re the  only Air District  city facing such a crushing loss of economic resilience, which is bad in and of itself but also has potentially dire implications for air quality, public health and a proper transition to a post-Valero economy. Perhaps at least partly due to Valero’s violations, our cancer rates are well above state and Solano County levels; they’re nearly twice as high as California for breast cancer.
  6. I plan to argue for $45-50 million over five years for Benicia budget support, so $9-10 million per year to help out our annual $60 million in general budgetary expenditures. But clearly opinions can vary on whether this is an appropriate sum and how much it should be (as well as on everything else!).

In the end, then: Please show up if you can at City Hall or via your own Zoom link on November 12 at 1 pm. I know it’s a bad time for many, but those of us who can attend can help make a big difference, including simply by showing support even if you don’t want to comment.

Regardless, sending comments to the Air District email addresses I’ve provided can also prove useful.

Let’s do what we can to help secure Beautiful Benicia’s financial future.

EDITOR – IMPORTANT: Below is a very helpful post previously published by Steve Golub…

Arguments for a flexible approach:

To Help Prevent a Benicia Budgetary Crisis, Please Circle Nov. 12 on Your Calendar

Benicia’s financial future could well  be determined over the course of the next month. On November 12, the Bay Area Air District Community Equity Health and Justice Committee will meet to consider and recommend whether the Air District should adopt guidelines and a call for projects that, if not revised from their current draft forms, could severely hamper or even block the city’s access to up to $60 million in funds that could alleviate our imminent, post-Valero budget crunch. The Air District Board of Directors could act on that recommendation as soon as its December 3 meeting.

As you may know, Benicia faces a loss of roughly $10 million in Valero-related annual revenue starting next year. At the same time, the Air District’s $82 million fine/settlement with Valero for its over 15 years of undisclosed toxic emissions (hundreds of times the legal limits) – from which $60 million is available to Benicia and surrounding communities – represents a chance to address our budget crunch. It would seem that the fine for the Valero-sparked environmental and public health harms could help cover the hit that Benicia’s budget is taking due to Valero’s departure.

Ah, if only it if were so simple. At an October 29 webinar convened by the Air District’s Community Investments Office (LCBF), the CIO’s friendly, newly hired representative welcomed questions about the mechanism for awarding grants under the new Local Community Benefits Fund (LCBF). But her well-intentioned answers reflected a possible  reluctance to provide budget support for our transition to a post-Valero economy. I hope I prove incorrect in that assessment.

The irony here is that, despite her apparent perspective, many Benicia budget categories and expenditures should seem to qualify under the four LCBF priorities provided at the CIO website: “Funding will support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.”

If the CIO were open to it, such budget support could accordingly cover a variety of current expenditures as well as several new ones under the rubric of one or more of those four priorities.

For instance, many Fire Department services, under public health; air monitoring, under air pollution control and public health; economic development, tourism promotion, permitting, attracting green business to the industrial park and other business-oriented services, under economic resilience and just transition; electric vehicles for police and other services, under public health and just transition; solar power for street lighting and other services, under public health and just transition; water treatment improvements, under public health and just transition; port enhancements, under all four priorities; relief for Benicia residents who are Valero employees, under just transition and economic resilience; aid for our most vulnerable populations as federal cutbacks threaten their well-being, under public health, economic resilience and just transition; and support for our many wonderful community groups cut off from Valero grants, under those same three categories.

I’m sure many readers could name and categorize many other appropriate services and expenditures as meeting the CIO’s basic criteria. I hope and expect that Benicia city staff are doing the same, in preparation for efforts to persuade the Air District to take a flexible approach to LCBF grant-making.

In contrast, at least at the moment it seems that the CIO may take a very restrictive approach that anticipates arrays of relatively small projects rather than the considerable budget support that Benicia needs.

Now, please don’t get me wrong here: The CIO and Air District as a whole are staffed by many dedicated, competent, well-intentioned individuals. In recent years, the Air District has brought on vigorous, well-qualified leadership. We’re dealing with different visions, rather than any ill intent.

Be that as it may, the flexible approach is necessary for Benicia and for many other Bay Area communities that stand to benefit from the LCBF. As Mayor Steve Young, Council Member Terry Scott and others (including me) pointed out in their comments during the October 27 webinar:

  1. Mayor Young in particular emphasized that the highly restrictive approach anticipated by the LCBF draft guidelines and call for projects does not work for Benicia (and I’d argue, for most or all Bay Area cities and nonprofits) in view of our budgetary needs and staffing realities.
    Those CIO documents impose very burdensome requirements involving application preparation, grant administration, results measurement and other matters – possibly the most burdensome I’ve seen in my many years of working with grant-making organizations. These might be manageable for large cities like San Francisco (though I’d even doubt that) but would swamp Benicia at the very point where the lack of more general budget support would force staff cutbacks.
  2. As Council Member Scott pointed out, the restrictive LCBF documents ignore the key regards in which Benicia has been disproportionately affected by the history of air pollution violations, threatening incidents and potentially catastrophic consequences associated with the Valero refinery. (Though, as always, I’d emphasize that the responsibility rests with the corporation’s San Antonio headquarters rather than with our good neighbors and other workers at the facility.)

More specifically, we’ve been the main community bearing the brunt of these particular Valero-generated problems, while lacking the resources of larger communities to address them. With the subtraction of $10 million in annual revenue, we’re the  only Air District  city facing such a crushing loss of economic resilience. Though not at all the fault of the Air District’s current, vigorous leadership and personnel, we experienced over 15 years of egregious, undisclosed Valero violations that the District did not detect, plus remained in the dark for over another three years after the District learned of them. Our cancer rates are well above state and Solano County levels; they’re nearly twice as high as California for breast cancer.

So, what can we do?

  1. Personally, here and in other forums, I aim to push for $50 million in LCBF budget support, spread over seven transitional years, to help Benicia weather its financial storm.
  2. Please circle November 12 to weigh in at that crucial Air District Community Equity Health and Justice Committee. It’s planned 1-5 pm schedule isn’t ideal for many of us. But as information becomes available on Zoom links and whether there are particular times best to participate, the city should be posting them. I will try as well.
  3. For those interested in attending in person, the event takes place at the Air District Headquarters, 375 Beale Street in San Francisco. Again, I don’t yet have information on whether and how participation in person will be possible, but will try to share that down the line.
  4. You can email comments, concerns and questions about the LCBF draft guidelines to the Community Investments Office at communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov. If you do email the CIO, I’d strongly suggest that you retain the note, as you may want to draw on it in contacting other Air District officials in coming weeks. I’ll try to provide relevant email addresses should that prove advisable.
  5. You can also consult the CIO’s site, at baaqmd.gov/en/community-health/community-investments-office, for further information. Among other things, in view of a few recent glitches this would be the best place for any updated contact information should that email address change. And if you scroll down the site, you’ll find a link to subscribe for CIO updates.

Hope to see  or hear you, whether in person or online, on November 12!


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