Category Archives: Bay Area Air District

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

Benicia, Rodeo environmental groups push for stricter emissions monitoring at Bay Area refineries

Environmentalists are questioning the accuracy of data reported by the refineries as the Bay Area Air District prepares to revise its regulations.

The Vallejo Sun, by Gretchen Smail, Oct 23, 2025

The Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo. Environmental groups say they’ve found anomalies in the refinery’s data reporting. Photo via Contra Costa County.

BENICIA – Local air monitoring groups are questioning emissions data at local Bay Area refineries and asking the Bay Area Air District to more strictly regulate refineries by revising their rules around how they track and report emissions.

The Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program and the Phillips 66 Fenceline Working Group, which monitors emissions around the Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo, presented their arguments to the air district during a meeting Tuesday attended by several environmental nonprofits, scientists, and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials.

“Having accurate air monitoring is really important to us,” Maureen Brennan, a member of the Phillips 66 Fenceline Working Group, said at the meeting. “There are risks living near a refinery. We’re living next to a very explosive and fire-driven industry, and we live with daily uncertainty. Is it a big leak today, or just a small, daily oozing of gases? We need to know.”

The groups brought up a number of concerns, including how the refineries are measuring the chemicals and how spikes in emissions are flagged. They noted that community members approached them because they said they don’t trust that the numbers that the refineries are reporting are always accurate.

In Benicia, there’s been good reason to question the accuracy of the refinery’s reporting. Valero was fined $82 million last year for not reporting two decades of excess emissions from their Benicia refinery to the air district.

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill last year that would’ve strengthened monitoring at the state level. But the Bay Area air district is set to revisit their rules around this issue, and the environmental groups said they hope to have a seat at the table to draft stricter regulations.

Measuring toxic emissions at refinery fencelines

An air monitoring station set up by the Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program
An air monitoring station set up by the Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program in 2022. Photo by Scott Morris.

The  environmental groups argued that refineries should be required to improve fenceline monitoring and reporting. Fenceline monitoring is when oil companies measure the chemicals in the air around the boundary of refineries to see if gases are leaking out into nearby areas called “fenceline communities.”

Reporting requirements vary by districts, but the groups argue that this data should be publicly available as soon as it’s captured.

Companies like Chevron and Phillips have been operating refineries in California since the late 1800s, and fenceline communities — which often skew Black and Latino — have long complained about the smells and health effects of living around those sites.

Before fenceline monitoring, communities were often left in the dark about what they were breathing, as agencies didn’t look into leaks until after residents complained of odors or flaring, when most of the chemicals had already dissipated.

Community activism around this issue has spanned decades. In August 1994, gases leaked for 16 days from the Rodeo refinery. Nearby Crockett residents experienced sore throats, nausea, and headaches. No alert was sent out, and the leaking unit was only shut down when a nearby plant complained their workers were getting sick.

The incident caused an uproar, and led to Crockett and Rodeo residents demanding that the company’s land use permit not be renewed unless it installed an air monitoring system at the refinery’s border.

Despite years of community engagement, the EPA didn’t pass a federal rule for fenceline monitoring until 2015, and it only required oil companies to measure one chemical, benzene.

California strengthened these requirements in 2017 and required refineries to install more comprehensive monitoring systems by 2020. But  regional air districts had to decide what chemicals to monitor, what thresholds to set, and if community notifications were needed.

In the Bay Area, talks to improve these systems happened earlier, due to a 2012 fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, which resulted in a five-hour shelter-in-place order and thousands of residents seeking medical treatment.

A fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond in 2012.
A fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond in 2012. Photo via U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

That led to the air district passing Rule 12-15 in 2016, which required the five refineries in the area to monitor for five hazardous chemicals — benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, and hydrogen sulfide — at the fenceline.

Residents can find all the refinery monitoring pages on the air district’s website.

Eric Stevenson, an advisor for the Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program and the former director of meteorology and measurement at the Bay Area air district, helped write Rule 12-15.

He said they wanted to institute the rule because air monitoring sites used to be stationed far away from refineries in order to track the overall air quality. But that meant that it wasn’t always obvious how bad the air quality was within the fenceline communities.

“The intent of Rule 12-15, specifically to fenceline monitoring, was to give the community an idea of what was crossing the refineries’ fence line and to hopefully have the refineries mitigate those emissions quickly and effectively,” Stevenson said. “The reason that that matters is that the residents living near these refineries were deeply concerned about their health impacts, and they wanted transparency.”

Limitations of fenceline monitoring technology

Stevenson explained that Rule 12-15 requires that refineries use open-path technology for monitoring. These systems work by shooting a long, straight beam of light along each side of the perimeter. If a gas crosses that lightpath, the refinery can determine what the chemical is and how much of it crosses the fenceline.

He added that different systems measure different chemicals, so it’s important for the fencelines to have a variety of them installed. “It’s all based on the type of light that’s emitted,” Stevenson said. Ultraviolet light detects chemicals like benzene and toluene, while infrared light looks at chemical families called alkanes, which includes gases like propane and hexane.

If these systems are well-maintained, Stevenson said they work well to detect chemicals. “But if you don’t operate the systems well, and if you don’t take the appropriate actions to ensure that the data is of high quality, then the value of those systems is degraded,” said Stevenson.

The air monitoring groups said during Tuesday’s meeting  that they’re concerned this is the case at several of the refineries.

They highlighted an issue with ozone detection at the Phillips 66 Rodeo refinery.

“Ozone is always present in the air, and it increases in the afternoon because it reacts to sunlight,” said Kathy Kerridge of the Benicia Community Air Monitoring Program.

Kerridge told the Vallejo Sun that the Benicia group moved one of their own air monitors into the backyard of someone who lived near the refinery in order to test for the chemical.

“Ours and the air district’s always showed the increase in ozone in the afternoon, and Phillips 66’s just shows it’s not being detected,” Kerridge said.

Jochen Stutz, a professor at UCLA’s Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, works with the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Southern California on their own fenceline monitoring programs. He noted that a refinery in LA is also using UV light to measure ozone, but unlike the Bay Area, their data is consistent with the air district’s.

“This is part of the reason why the residents are very concerned about these systems,” Stutz said. “You should be able to measure ozone with these things, and if you can’t, then can you measure anything else?”

Stevenson also talked about an issue with data collection. The groups noticed that some of the refineries weren’t showing as many alkanes as they expected. So they brought the raw data to an outside expert, and found what’s called “background creep.” The alkanes are measured by comparing results to a “clean air” file, which isn’t supposed to have any traces of those gases in it. But they found the clean air files did have the gases, which threw off the results.

“If you’re saying that background doesn’t have any compound in it, and it actually does, when you take the next measurement and you compare it to that background, you’re not subtracting the actual pollution measurement from a zero,” Stevenson said.

As a result, Stevenson said, the system can begin to “forget” what clean air really is and report no pollution, even when the gases are still present.

Mike Davis, a former EPA regional laboratory director, brought up other concerns about Rule 12-15’s flagging rules. He noted that under the current rules, any reading that fluctuates over a certain amount — like a sudden, catastrophic leak — is held for review until the refinery verifies it.

“When these filters are applied to this real world event, most of the data would not be released to the public in real time,” Davis said.

Ultimately, Kerridge said they’d like the district to require refineries to be more accountable to the community. They asked for more access to raw data, for the refineries to monitor for more pollutants, and that the district set limits for how much pollution is allowed before the community is notified of an exceedance.

For comparison, air districts in the Central Valley and Southern California already require that refineries set pollution limits, publish quarterly data reports, and send out notifications if a threshold level is crossed.

Kerridge noted that all these provisions would have been required under state law if Newsom hadn’t vetoed SB 674.

The environmental groups said they also want the air district to more thoroughly vet the monitoring data from the refineries for accuracy, and continue to hold forums with the community to discuss fenceline data.

Joseph Lapka, the principal air quality specialist at the Bay Area Air District, said at Tuesday’s meeting that the air district is in the process of creating a survey to get community feedback on what matters the most to people when it comes to fenceline monitoring.

“I think that the fact that a facility can do these sort of things within the bounds of Rule 12-15 speaks not only to the current limitations of the rule, but also to the types of technical details and the level of detail that we need to think about when writing the new rule requirements,” he said.

The air district will be discussing fenceline monitoring and revising Rule 12-15 at a technical working group meeting on Oct. 29. The public is invited to attend.  [>> NOTE: The Air District’s recording and materials from the meeting are available in the link above at the bottom of the webpage.]

Stephen Golub: This October 29 Meeting is Vital for Benicia’s Future

‘The devil is in the details of how the  Air District’s new Local Community Investment Fund’s (LCIF) grants will be awarded’

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

By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. October 26, 2025. [First published in the Benicia Herald on 10/26/25.]

This really is important: On Wednesday, October 29, the Bay Area Air District is holding a 5:30-7 pm Zoom meeting (Webinar) to discuss draft guidelines for use of penalty/settlement funds for air pollution violations. As a result of the $82 million Air District fine for Valero’s 15 years of undisclosed toxic emissions, Benicia is by far the greatest potential beneficiary so far: $54 million (plus possible interest) is supposed to be set aside for Benicia-specific projects.

But there’s potentially big trouble in paradise, which is why Benicians’ Zoom participation in the October 29 meeting is crucial. The devil is in the details of how the  Air District’s new Local Community Investment Fund’s (LCIF) grants will be awarded for Benicia and other communities, starting next year. If the guidelines impose a bureaucratic, restrictive process, Benicia will have considerable trouble weathering the financial storm that will lash us (also starting next year) as Valero’s contributions to the city coffers come to an end.

I don’t want to jump to conclusions or urge others to do so. But I fear that the restrictive approach could be the direction the Air District takes. I hope that I’m wrong.

We’re talking about $54 million or more that could and should mainly be decided on by Benicia, rather than the staff of the Community Investments Office (CIO), which administers the Fund.

A restrictive, top-down approach dominated by CIO staff  rather than driven by Benicia and other communities may also limit our ability to best grapple with the very challenges the CIO’s site says the Fund aims to address: “Funding will support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.”

Along with serving other purposes, the Fund  can and should contribute to budget support that will help close the city’s post-Valero financial gap for a number of years. This will  strengthen Benicia’s “economic resilience for a just transition.”

I emphasize this because there’s  another Benicia-specific factor at play here. The Air District failed to uncover Valero’s egregious toxic emissions for over 15 years. It certainly fell short by waiting over three additional years to inform Benicia after it found out.

Had this information come to light far sooner, might it have helped cut down on Benicia cancer rates that are far higher than state and county levels (including nearly double California’s breast cancer incidence)? That’s hard to say.

Furthermore, it might be counterproductive to press this point on the Air District, or to do so in any but the most diplomatic ways.

Finally,  to the Air District’s great credit, it installed new, vigorous leadership after this fiasco came to light in 2022. But this all weighs in favor of the Air District awarding the LCIF grants flexibly to Benicia.

Another factor that weighs in terms of the flexible approach is Benicia’s nearly unprecedented situation: Refineries don’t close every day, to put it mildly. From financial recovery to environmental clean-up (complicated by Valero land previously being used for military ordinance testing), our challenges are daunting – even as the opportunities for our community’s quality of life, public health and economic prosperity (such as through tourism development) are inspiring. A just transition requires that the Air District take a just  approach to partnership with Benicia.

Thus, if the CIO finalizes the guidelines in ways that allow our city appropriate flexibility in the use of the funds, it will be a boon to Benicia. But the benefits extend beyond Benicia; similar flexibility will be best for other Bay Area communities regarding other Air District fines.

The 90-minute October 29 Webinar is our only chance to hear about and weigh in on the draft guidelines via a public forum (with perhaps two minutes per public comment). Let’s not let it slide by. Even if you don’t want to comment during the meeting, simply showing up (albeit via Zoom) can show that we care.

There’s already cause for concern, in that the draft guidelines won’t be released until tomorrow, October 27, just two days before the meeting. That’s precious little time for the public to review them. But let’s try.

So, what can you do?

  1. To participate in the Zoom, you must pre-register. Here’s the link: https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/community-health/community-investments-office. You might also be able to find it by searching online for something like Air District Community Investments Office.
  2. When you reach that link, please scroll down to the “Meetings and Events” section. Click the “Pre-register” box there and fill in the required information.
  3. Once you get the CIO confirmation email, scroll down to a blue box that says, “Join Webinar.” (While that link is functional, of course it won’t actually become active until the October 29 meeting.)
  4. If you wish to weigh in before or after the meeting – and perhaps to receive the guidelines as soon as they are issued on October 27 – you can email you comments, questions and guidelines request to communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov. (The comments deadline is less than a month later, on November 25.)
  5. If you do decide to participate, be it via Zoom or email, I’m sure you’ll have your own ideas on what to prioritize. But for what it’s worth, to my mind the most basic message is that Benicia and other beneficiary communities standing to benefit from the Local Community Investment Fund should have as much leeway as possible in utilizing the settlements/penalties they each receive, as long as they broadly fit within the Air District funding parameters I’ve flagged: “support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.” This is consistent with and in fact mandated by the Air District’s emphasis on partnering with rather than dictating to Bay Area communities.

I’m harping on all this not just because of the impact on Benicia, but because most of my career involved advising funding agencies on the best foci and approaches for awarding grants for community-oriented, environmental and other projects. I worked for and with the Asia, Ford and Open Societies Foundations, as well as the American, British and Danish aid agencies and numerous other funders.

The single biggest lesson I took away from those 35+ years of work was this: Grants work best when they are as simple as possible and provide as much leeway as possible to responsible local governments or community groups that receive them, as long as sensible financial auditing is in place.

If the CIO goes down this flexible road, it will be best for Benicia (and the Bay Area) in terms of advancing  clean air, public health, economic resilience and the post-Valero transition. It also will ensure the most efficient use of funds.

To be clear, I’m not saying that the Air District, via the CIO, should simply turn over the $54 million or more to Benicia; though that might make sense, I don’t believe that Air District rules allow this. I also don’t doubt the sincerity and dedication of the CIO staff who will administer the Fund.

But the finalized guidelines should provide the necessary flexibility for Benicia and other communities to decide how to use the funds within the broad parameters the CIO has already set. It’s our future that’s on the line.


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: URGENT – The State Likely Decides Benicia’s Fate Within a Week

Please Contact Lori Wilson and Other Officials Regarding Valero

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

By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. September 2, 2025. [First published in the Benicia Herald on 8/31/25.]

Before the California State Legislature session ends on September 12, the legislators and other State officials may well make crucial decisions on bills and policies regarding the Valero Benicia Refinery’s future. Benicians have barely any time to weigh in on this matter so essential to our health, safety and future, particularly by contacting State Assemblywoman Lori Wilson. She represents Benicia and plays a significant role in this process.

While there’s still a chance that Valero might depart by its self-proclaimed April 2026 deadline, it seems at least as likely that the company and the State will extend its stay by at least a few years.

I’d favor pressing for Valero to stick to that 2026 date. My main concern is that a few years could turn into many, blocking us from biting the bullet to diversify our economy and realize potential benefits such as clean air and enhanced property values in a refinery-free community. A continued presence poses demonstrated risks, including polluting our politics as well as our air. Valero’s harmful operational and advocacy track record is a testament to those risks.

For instance (and as for the most part described in far greater detail in my May 25 Benicia Independent post):

For at least 16 years, the Valero Benicia Refinery spewed toxic emissions hundreds of times the regulatory limits into the City’s air, spurring an $82 million Bay Area Air District fine. According to the Air District, from at least 2003 to 2019 the Benicia refinery committed “egregious emissions violations,” pouring into the city’s air “harmful organic compounds” containing “benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene…which cause cancer, reproductive harm and other toxic health effects.”

Valero knowingly committed these violations, yet did not  inform governmental authorities. In the same statement just cited, the Air District  explained that “refinery management had known since at least 2003 that emissions from the hydrogen system contained these harmful and toxic air contaminants but did not report them or take any steps to prevent them.”

These 16 years of violations and toxic emissions are but  one example of Valero’s hazardous track record in Benicia and across America, including Arkansas, Louisiana, New Jersy, New York, Tennessee and Texas. Even the arguably oil industry-friendly Texas Attorney General sued Valero in 2019 for refinery violations there, in effect citing it as an egregious repeat offender.

Benicia’s cancer rates are far higher than those of the State and Solano County. For example, the city’s breast cancer rate is 93.7 percent higher than California’s and 35.9 percent higher than the County’s. The possible connection to the Benicia refinery is buttressed by research from around the country and world indicating elevated cancer, leukemia and asthma disease rates in refinery communities.

What hazardous plans might the Texas-based corporation push next? Valero’s potentially threatening plans are exemplified by its dangerous “crude by rail” proposal, thankfully defeated by the Benicia City Council several years ago. The project  would have brought through town on a daily basis the kinds of petroleum-carrying trains that have frequently derailed, exploded, caught fire and in one incident killed dozens in a small Quebec city.

Valero’s contributions to climate change threaten Benicia. Above and beyond its facilities’ direct environmental impact, the Texas-based corporation has played a major role in the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), which has sought to stymie policies and legislation that would limit rising sea levels and other climate changes that challenge our town. Have you noticed the First Street Green parking lot’s winter flooding? Thank Valero and the WSPA if that kind of climate change damage increasingly bedevils Benicia in years to come.

Having said all this…

If the corporation and California nonetheless decide to extend the refinery’s stay despite these and other concerns, let’s press for ironclad Valero guarantees that it will: 1) close the refinery by 2029; 2) assure severance pay and other appropriate benefits for its workers, especially our Benicia-based friends and neighbors, who bear no responsibility for the Texas-based corporation’s track record; 3) abide by all legal and moral clean-up requirements for the property, rather than pursuing bankruptcy or other options to evade its responsibilities; and 4) not sell the property to another petrochemical industry  operator, which might have as bad or worse an environmental record.

We should similarly seek State guarantees that it will 1) support Benicia’s existing Industrial Safety Ordinance; 2) not block any other local measures to protect or enhance our community’s well-being; 3) not undertake any joint venture with the firm, as that could undercut both our refinery oversight and refinery-linked revenues; and 4) not water down or overturn State, regional and local environmental regulations.

How to advocate for these and other priorities? One way is to call, email or write (via their online contact forms) to Governor Newsom (https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact/), our State Senator Christopher Cabaldon (https://sd03.senate.ca.gov/contact), and, most crucially, our State Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (https://a11.asmdc.org/contact-me).

I emphasize Wilson because, as Chair of the Assembly’s Transportation Committee, she plays a central role regarding any Valero-related legislation and policies – which, again, may well be determined in the days to come.

We can also email Benicia’s City Council members, pressing them  to lobby state officials on our behalf if they’re not already doing so.

Time is growing very short. Now’s the time to act.

A few more noteworthy Benicia notes:

First, property owners should please vote for the Parks, Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (PLLAD ) plan on the ballot recently mailed to you. Funds to provide for vital services for our parks and related facilities are inadequate, not having been updated since 1989. The PLLAD will help keep Beautiful Benicia moving forward, as well as enhancing our property values regardless of whether we use those facilities.

Big kudos for City Manager Mario Giuliani for the “Mondays with Mario” session he hosted at Lucca’s Bar and Grill on August 25. For the 20 or so folks present, it was an illuminating discussion of why we need PLAAD, what’s happening with Valero and several other topics. Councilmembers Trevor Macenski and Terry Scott, and former Councilmember Tom Campbell, also usefully chipped in to the discussion. The next Monday with Mario will be on September 15 at Roundtable Pizza, 878 Southampton Rd, at 6-7 pm.

Equally big kudos to the Benicia Police for all that they do, but particularly (as reported in the Herald) for the August 21 arrest near the Lake Herman Road reservoir of an escaped fugitive wanted for ten counts of arson in Washington State. I don’t want to rush to judgment: As far as I know, we don’t know whether he was associated with recent blazes near Benicia or other details of his background. But if in fact he’s guilty of such acts, it’s good to get him off the streets – especially our streets.


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