Tag Archives: Valero Energy Corporation

ALERT – SHORT NOTICE! Important Benicia events Mon. & Tues. May 19 & 20

Benicia’s abuzz with important upcoming events

 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 18, 2025

Benicia is always buzzing with various political, social, cultural, artistic, athletic and other activities. Here are a few I’d like to highlight, starting with two very important events that could prove pivotal in paving the path for our community’s future:

On Monday, May 19 at 6 pm at City Hall (250 East L Street), the City’s Sustainability Commission will hear and discuss a vitally important presentation on the process by which the Bay Area Air District’s newly established Community Investments Office will decide how the Air District’s fine/settlement with Valero will be spent. As you may recall, the penalty was imposed due to the Valero refinery’s 15+ years of undisclosed toxic emissions, hundreds of times the legal limits, into our air. The public is welcome to attend and comment, whether in person or by Zoom. I believe that CIO representatives may also be present. (See agenda and how to participate here.)

This event is significant because it will help shape how at least $56 million from that $82 million fine will benefit Benicia at a time when it is in potentially dire financial straits due to Valero’s announced plan to close that facility. (Benicia will not get a blank check for those funds; the Air District will make the ultimate decisions on making grants that draw on the funds, though we can have substantial input.) I’m somewhat skeptical over whether that closure will come to pass – at least by the April 2026 date Valero announced – as it seems that the Texas oil giant may be negotiating with California over keeping it open. But regardless of what unfolds in that regard, we can help influence how this huge chunk of change is spent.

I’ve argued that the fine should be substantially devoted to a Benicia Bridge to the Future Fund, which will ease a financial transition away from Valero, especially since the facility will close sooner or later – quite possibly sooner, even if not in one year. More broadly, my experience with grant-making convinces me that the more flexible the grants are, the better for the beneficiary – in this case, Benicia. I hope you can participate in order to weigh in to favor such flexibility or otherwise make your opinions known.

In a closely related vein, on Tuesday, May 20 at 6 pm, also at City Hall, the City Council will discuss and welcome public comment (again, in person or by Zoom) on its new plan to convene four ad hoc task forces, led by Council members, to start planning for Benicia’s post-Valero path. This meeting marks another pivotal point for Benicia’s future. Offering our thoughts and questions at this early stage of the process can be crucial for how it unfolds. (Here’s more about this on the BenIndy.)

Again, regardless of whether the refinery closes as soon as Valero has stated, it’s imperative that we move ahead with such planning. In fact, our post-Valero world presents not just challenges to Benicia; it can also offer numerous substantial benefits. These include public health benefits from ceasing the spewing of carcinogenic emissions into our air, and potentially reducing the relatively high asthma and cancer rates our community experiences – though I should caution that whether Valero actually spurs such illnesses has not been determined.

The benefits also could include expanded tourism, the hosting of cleaner technologies and businesses, higher real estate values as we’ll no longer be seen as a “refinery town” by potential residents, and not least the construction of new housing on the large portions of Valero’s property that are open space rather than housing the refinery. Some such potential plots are less than a mile from downtown. (It’s noteworthy that the company has contracted with a major Bay Area developer to explore this kind of option.) Residential development could help house Benicians and buttress our tax base.
The City Council’s meeting is the first step in the crucially important process it launches for planning for life after Valero.

Ok. Enough with the heavy political stuff. While I can’t cover nearly all of the more cultural upcoming activities – the other pages of the Herald are great for that – here are a few well worth noting:

On Monday, June 2 at 6 pm (with doors opening at 5:30 pm), at the Benicia Clock Tower (1189 Washington Street), there will be the first Jazz O’Clock at the Clock Tower. The evening will feature the excellent Bruce Forman Trio, with the Benicia High School Jazz Band as the opening act. Kudos to the Benicia Performing Arts Foundation and the City’s Community Services Department for collaborating to make this happen.

Though my musical tastes run more toward Bruce Springsteen and Tim McGraw than more sophisticated options, I fully appreciate the rich, diverse Benicia music scene, as personified by these two groups. Even above and beyond the music itself, the event should be lots of fun. I understand that seating will be set up to make the performance a more intimate affair than the cavernous Clock Tower venue might otherwise entail. Plus, it’s bring your own food and drink (including alcoholic).

Google Jazz O’Clock at the Benicia Clock Tower to find online ticket purchase options. The price will be $20 in advance (with kids under 18 free, though you need to obtain a ticket for them), and $25 at the door.

On Saturday, June 7 at 2 pm, also at the Clock Tower, the Golden Gate Symphony and Chorus, which includes some great Benicia residents, will perform highlights from famous operas like La Traviata, Carmen, and Die Zauberflöt. Benicia’s own Alodiah Lunar, a mezzo soprano, is one of the Chorus’s several superb soloists. (The group also will appear on Sunday, June 8 at 2 pm at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco.)

But wait, there’s more! If you’re interested in joining here in Benicia, here’s some useful information courtesy of a friend: “The Benicia Chorus welcomes singers of all experience levels in a supportive environment. You don’t need to be an experienced singer to join. Newcomers learn alongside more experienced singers. Rehearsals take place on Tuesday evenings from 7:00 to 9:00 PM at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, led by Chorus Director Bruce Rockwell.” You can find more information about the group at the Golden Gate Symphony and Chorus site.

Tickets for the concert are available at a different site, at $50 per head, with senior and under-21 discounts. Please google Golden Gate Symphony and Chorus, City Box Office, in order to purchase them. They’ll also be available at the door.

On Saturday, June 7, from 1-6 pm, Arts Benicia will host a public reception for its Art of a Community show at 1 Commandant’s Lane (its lovely showplace/former Arsenal Commandant’s mansion). Open to the public, anyone can attend. The event will also feature some fine music, as well as wine, beer and sparkling water at a reasonable price.

The show itself will run Thursdays through Sundays at 1-5 pm, from May 31 through July 20. It’s extra special because it features art by our talented friends and neighbors – meaning mainly Benicia residents.

(Note: I may be a bit biased by the fact that some of the participating artists are friends, and one is someone I’m quite close to. But having attended several such receptions and shows, I can attest to the fact that they’re very worthwhile and enjoyable, and the location is a beautiful venue.)

For more information on Arts Benicia in general and particularly on becoming a member of this important part of the community, please go to its site.


Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

CHECK OUT STEPHEN GOLUB’S BLOG, A PROMISED LAND

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

Stephen Golub: Life After Valero

A “Bridge to the Future Fund” for Benicia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

CHECK OUT STEPHEN GOLUB’S BLOG, A PROMISED LAND

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

Stephen Golub: What’s Behind Valero’s “Current Intent” to Close the Benicia Refinery?

Eight factors that may be influencing Valero to shut down the Benicia Refinery

 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, April 27, 2025

Before addressing the heart of this article, I want to flag a couple of important matters…

First, my sympathies for our many Catholic neighbors and friends in Benicia affected by the passing of Pope Francis. I’ll confess to not being a religious person. But that didn’t stop Pope Francis from touching my life and billions of others (Catholic or not) in terms of the inspiration and compassion he displayed.

Second, even as we consider the ramifications of the focus of this column – the transition Valero is undertaking – I want to emphasize my hope that Benicia can and will help those most immediately affected: the workers who stand to lose their jobs and the businesses that stand to lose substantial income. I realize that there are restrictions on how the Air District can spend the tens of millions of dollars in fines it negotiated with Valero by virtue of its over 15 years of undisclosed poisoning of our air. I hope those restrictions can be interpreted or simply changed to allow some help for those suffering most from Valero’s decision.

Which brings me to the column’s focus: What is behind Valero’s April 16 notification to the California Energy Commission (CEC) of “of its current intent to idle, restructure, or cease refining operations” and its executive vice president’s April 24 follow-up statement that “Our current intent is to close the refinery”? I obviously am not sitting 1,700 miles away in the corporation’s San Antonio headquarters, where the decision was made. But based on a number of in-person and online discussions, I’ll offer some somewhat informed speculation.

To start with, let’s cut to the chase: When a company decides to fire folks, it’s the company’s decision and responsibility, no one else’s.

Let’s also bear in mind that we don’t know for sure what Valero’s going to do, in view of its framing everything in terms of “current intent.” Intents can change.

Finally, let’s hope and expect that Valero will very soon confirm that it intends to fully clean up the refinery of pollutants, toxic wastes, etc. that it may have deposited (whether intentionally or unintentionally, legally or illegally) in the facility, on the grounds and in surrounding waters and other areas. Cleaning up one’s mess is what we expect even of little children. It’s certainly a requirement for a major corporation.

Perhaps its April 16 statement that it has “expected asset retirement obligations of $337 million as of March 31, 2025” is an indication of that clean-up intent; perhaps not. Regardless, we need that clean-up commitment quickly, in clear, non-technical language.

So, what contributed to this decision, or at least to the “current intent”? Again, I certainly don’t know for certain. But I know more than I did a week ago. Because this is so important to Benicia, I delve into this matter a bit more deeply than I did in last week’s column. So, based on both personal and online discussions, it seems that some combination of these international, national, state and market factors may well have been at play:

A negotiating tactic. Returning to the “current intent” consideration, it’s very possible that the threat of closing the refinery, coupled with the rising fuel prices that the decreased fuel supply could cause for Californians, is a ploy to force the state to relax certain regulations. If so, it may be working. A few days ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom instructed the CEC to “redouble” efforts to ensure that California refineries “continue to see the value in serving the California market…”

California regulations. Newsom’s letter seems directed at a core concern of Valero and other refinery operators: that they see California regulations as being too burdensome. While I can understand their concern from a business perspective, I also like the fact that those regulations contribute to cleaner air, healthier kids, less dangerous operations, price-gouging prevention and other benefits. For instance, a recently adopted California law requires California refineries to maintain minimum levels of fuel inventories, which in turn helps prevent surge pricing.

The cost of upgrading the refinery’s operations. As Benicia well knows, there have been frequent operational, safety, health and emissions issues at the refinery. As explained in a recent KQED interview with a UC Berkeley energy economist, “the Benicia refinery’s many production and emissions problems would likely require significant, costly upgrades to address,” so Valero probably decided that it was not worth investing in those upgrades.

Improved profits. That UC Berkeley economist has also indicated that, by reducing supply, shutting down the Benicia facility could increase profits for Valero’s Southern California refinery.

A declining market. Even as the refinery’s possible closure disrupts the California fuel market in some powerful and potentially painful short-term ways, the writing is on the wall for decreased reliance on fossil fuels – particularly in California but also beyond it as electric vehicle sales increase and international trends come into play. Valero understandably needs to plan in terms of decades instead of just years. The declining market could contribute to its reluctance to make upgrades at the refinery.

Tariffs. Though planned tariffs on various imports are such a bouncing ball that it’s tough to keep track of where they stand, the 10 percent that the Trump Administration has threatened to impose on Canadian oil imports (more than a quarter of U.S. refinery demand) could lower Valero’s and other firms’ profit margins. This could influence a cost-benefit analysis of whether operating the refinery makes economic sense. Similar tariff calculations could apply to equipment and other imports important to refinery operations.

A failed sale of the refinery. There is much speculation, some apparently informed by Valero personnel, that the corporation saw a sale of the refinery fall through last year. This could explain relatively recent personnel changes the corporation made at the facility, in anticipation of the planned purchase. In the wake of the failed sale, Valero might have decided that for various reasons outlined here it did not want to continue operating the refinery – or, again, that threatening to close it could push changes in California policies. Or perhaps it even felt that publicly announcing its plans could trigger new investors’ interest in purchasing the operation.

A problematic property. Some of the many factors I’ve sketched here could add up to the refinery being difficult to maintain or sell. Prospective buyers might have seen too many problems to make the purchase of the property financially viable. Continued operations could force the facility to make a fateful choice: on the one hand, conduct expensive upgrades in light of necessary health, safety, environmental and operational requirements; on the other, additional scrutiny of the ways it might dangerously fall short without such upgrades.

Once again, I’m speculating here rather than offering expert opinion. But in understanding how Benicia moves forward, it’s important to consider how we got here.

One thing is clear: Whatever the precise mix of causes, this decision was many months if not years in the making. It springs from major state, national, international and financial trends and factors reaching way beyond anything Benicia’s government has or hasn’t done.

Without holding out excessive hope for our neighbors and friends whose livelihoods are put at risk by the San Antonio headquarters’ decision, one other thing that seems clear is that it is not yet absolutely clear what Valero will do.

In any event, I hope that this list of potentially contributing causes helps a bit as we grapple with our current challenges and start to consider our community’s future.


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

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.”