Category Archives: Benicia CA

Dr. Richard Fleming: Many Benicia cancer rates higher than Solano County and California

Refinery leaving will hurt Bay Area town’s economy, but there will be a big benefit

The Valero oil refinery in Benicia CA. | Lea Suzuki/S.F. Chronicle

Letters, San Francisco Chronicle, by Richard Fleming, M.D., Benicia resident and author, Older But Wiser. June 3, 2025

Richard Fleming, M.D., Benicia, CA

Regarding “This Bay Area town grew into a prosperous suburb — but is now facing fiscal crisis” (Bay Area, SFChronicle.com, June 1): A key point was left out of the story — the Valero refinery’s adverse impact on the health of Benicia residents.

Despite being an otherwise healthy city, our rates of many cancers are much higher than Solano County and the rest of the state.

Benicia’s rate of lung cancer is between 14.5%-21.8% higher than the county’s and about 44% higher than the California rate. Our prostate cancer rates are 32.8% higher than the county’s and 70% higher than the state’s. For breast cancer, we have a 36% higher rate than our county and a 94% higher rate than our state. This data comes from Solano County and state public health sources.

While it cannot be definitively concluded that these higher cancer rates are due to refinery emissions, they are similar to the higher rates near refineries elsewhere that are well-documented in medical studies.

Yes, it will be economically challenging to weather Valero’s exit. But there is little doubt that when this happens, our community’s risk of cancer will drop. Many Benicia residents are looking forward to being able to breathe healthier air and are willing to work with our city government to move into a post-refinery future.

Dr. Richard Fleming, Benicia

Elizabeth Patterson: Lessons from Benicia’s past have implications for Benicia’s near future…

Telling the Tale of the Tail That Wagged the Dog

Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 - present
Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 – 2020

By Elizabeth Patterson (Benicia Mayor 2007-2020), May 29, 2025

The tale is about Sky Valley development for thousands of homes and businesses. Business as usual with city officials and land developers. “Gotta” build in the next undeveloped land. Need more housing to bring revenues to the city. We must grow more housing to survive. I always wonder how far we need to “grow” – to Fairfield, to Sacramento, to Reno? In other words, it makes no sense to say “we have to grow to survive”. What is the alternative? Let me make a suggestion or two.

When there was city leadership driving the development for Sky Valley (this is the Lake Herman area), residents began to question the collective vision of the city. This city vision is required by the State – known as the General Plan. Bob Berman, a planner and leader for smart growth and open spaces – testified and wrote that Sky Valley was the tail wagging the dog. He campaigned for updating the General Plan that would be the legal vison of the city. This was a pivotal moment for Benicia.

There was a citizen driven petition to stop the Sky Valley project. By a city council one vote margin the city driven development for Sky Valley was scuttled. The city council in the mid 90s by resolution created an advisory task force on the nature and extent of updating the General Plan. And by resolution established a seventeen-member General Plan Oversight Committee (GPOC) to prepare the General Plan.

The GPOC decision making was by consensus during open meetings that were scheduled to encourage public participation. Common and shared values were identified and agreed upon by consensus. Each goal and policy had to meet those common and shared values by consensus. Each legally required element and optional element had to be integrated. A kind of holistic process. The future vision was adopted with clarity and purpose. Each element – housing, transportation, conservation, economic development, heathy community – was driven by sustainable development as the overarching goal.

The Urban Growth Boundary Line restricting urban development replaced the thousands of proposed suburban houses. The Benicia Industrial Park association waged a stellar campaign to prevent changing zoning from light industrial to commercial and mixed use with their focus on expansion for industry along East Second. Their point was to avoid conflict with future residents who would complain about industrial noise, big trucks and other incompatible activities.

The GPOC appointed by the council and made up of voices from every corner of our community was tasked with drafting the general plan. GPOC held nearly a dozen panels of specialists on geology, property rights, economic development, urban design, affordable housing, community health, and hazardous waste to inform the committee and public. We had experts educating citizens so that opportunities and constraints – that is what trained urban and regional planners practice – were known and vetted in public.

So is the potential Valero closure the tail wagging the dog of development? Best to start with what are the objective standards for sustainable development. It sure is not building housing that creates more vehicle trips – in fact there is a state law that says just that.

And what does resiliency mean? Public Resources Code 71360 (Senate Bill 246, 2015) established the Clearinghouse to support holistic, science-based climate resilience decisions, planning, and projects across local communities, regions, and the State. Clearinghouse resources include toolkits and templates, example plans and projects, curated case studies, scientific studies, tools and data, guidance documents, and more.

Lastly, homage to historic downtown Benicia is perfect. There are approximately 482 historic towns and cities in California, though none as special as Benicia. And there is only one Historic Arsenal in California, here in Benicia – which is slated through the congressionally established Delta National Heritage Area as a destination for visitors and residents alike.

The current Benicia General Plan stipulates that goals and policies must meet sustainable development overarching goal. Decision makers for “cohesive new neighborhoods like Rose Estates, [Historic Arsenal] Jefferson Ridge and the Valero property” are not the unifying consensus vision of Benicians. Once again, the tail is wagging the dog of Benicia’s future.

Elizabeth Patterson, Mayor 2007-2020

Stephen Golub: The Price Benicia Pays: Valero, Public Health and Safety, and Moving Forward

Problematic histories of hazardous violations, accidents and incidents, and possible contributions to cancer and other negative health impacts.

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

By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. May 29, 2025 [An earlier version of this appeared in his “Benicia and Beyond” column in the Benicia Herald on 5/25/25.]

Executive Summary

As Benicia, the Valero Energy Corporation and California officials consider the future of the Texas-based firm’s Benicia refinery, this paper examines Valero’s and the petrochemical industry’s problematic histories of hazardous violations, accidents and incidents, most notably their possible contributions to cancer and other negative health impacts. It aims  to inform Benicia’s and California’s planning and policies, regardless of whether Valero closes the facility next year (its stated intention) or seeks to retain it indefinitely.

The data documenting such hazards includes:

Research from across the country and world indicates elevated disease rates in refinery communities. For instance, a wide-ranging study published in 2020, covering numerous Texas refineries, determined that “proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer diagnosis across all cancer types examined [bladder, breast, colon, lung, lymphoma, and prostate]. People living within 10 miles of an active refinery were more likely to have advanced disease or metastatic disease.”

Benicia’s cancer rates are much higher than those of the state and county, and include a breast cancer rate nearly double that of California. More specifically, the city’s breast cancer rate is 93.7 percent higher than California’s and 35.9 percent higher than Solano County’s. For prostate cancer, Benicia’s incidence is respectively 70.3 percent and 32.8 percent higher than those of the state and county. For lung cancer, it is 43.3 percent higher than California and 19.4 percent higher than Solano.

The Benicia refinery’s specific violations that spanned at least 16 years, spurring an $82 million Bay Area Air District fine, reflect a broader pattern of emissions violations, accidents and incidents in recent years. Regarding those specific violations: 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.” What’s more, “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.”

Valero’s environmental violations and health-and-safety dangers are by no means confined to Benicia. They include numerous incidents, accidents and reports of excessive emissions elsewhere in recent years. They merit attention because they may indicate that such problems are endemic to the firm’s or industry’s operations, or flow from inadequate prioritization of safety/health/environmental hazards, or both. 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.

In reviewing the information shared here, it is important to emphasize that the Benicia refinery’s fine employees are not responsible for the corporation’s track record.

Particularly in view of public health considerations, the city and state should:

      1. seek the facility’s closure within at most one-to-three years, rather than at some indefinite date;
      2. especially given the maintenance and financial challenges for a refinery in its final years, ensure that the refinery adheres to enhanced health-and-safety standards for however long it remains open (including if another petrochemical firm purchases it) and that Valero and any successor owner guarantee a complete and rigorous remediation of the property; and
      3. encourage the Air District to allow Benicia to use funds from the Valero fine to ease the city’s transition away from the refinery and toward cleaner air and a healthier Benicia and Bay Area.
I. Introduction

As Benicia, the Valero Energy Corporation and California consider the future of the Texas-based company’s Benicia refinery, this paper seeks to illuminate two topics that have received inadequate attention in discussion of the facility’s fate: the apparently severe hazards it imposes on the city’s health and safety and the brighter post-Valero future its planned closure could bring. It aims to spark greater scrutiny of these crucial matters.

The paper similarly aims to inform Benicians’ deliberations, the work of the four recently launched Benicia City Council task forces charting a course for life after Valero, and the actions of other officials in their current or future discussions with the corporation.

Relying mainly on online resources, in many regards this document only scratches the surface of Valero’s and the petrochemical industry’s problematic histories of hazardous violations, accidents and incidents, as well as their possible contributions to cancer and other negative health impacts.

The backdrop here is Valero’s April announcement of its plans to cease operations at its Benicia refinery within a year. This has sparked considerable and understandable concern about ramifications for the state and the impact on Benicia’s budget, businesses and jobs. As the corporation negotiates its potential future with California government officials, and notwithstanding its announcement about exploring redevelopment opportunities for the property, whether it will actually close the facility so soon remains in doubt. But Valero is leaving Benicia, sooner or later.

It is accordingly important to consider the inadequately discussed public health dimension and the departure’s potential benefits, which were largely lost in the storm of initial dismay over the departure. Those benefits include enhanced health and safety, the subject of this paper. But they could also feature residential, commercial and industrial development; resulting tax revenues, construction jobs, other employment and a more diversified local economy; blossoming tourism; and rising real estate values no longer burdened by some potential residents’ concerns about moving to a supposed “refinery town”.

The bottom line is that while Valero has its own decisions to make, so does Benicia. For the sake of the health and safety of the community’s children, seniors and everyone in-between, the  city and state should seek the facility’s closure within at most one-to-three years rather than further down the line.

In reviewing the information shared here, it is important to emphasize respect for the Benicians and other fine people employed by the refinery, recognize that they are not responsible for the corporation’s track record, and fervently hope that they land on their professional and financial feet whenever the facility shuts down.

II. Refinery Communities’ Elevated Cancer and Illness Rates

A plethora of studies from across the country and world indicate elevated disease rates in refinery communities. While this essay summarizes several, bear in mind that certain of the studies cited here themselves draw on numerous papers, many of them peer reviewed. Thus, this section reflects the findings of dozens of papers concerning many refineries.

For instance, a wide-ranging study published in 2020 and covering numerous Texas refineries determined that “proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer diagnosis across all cancer types examined [bladder, breast, colon, lung, lymphoma, and prostate]. People living within 10 miles of an active refinery were more likely to have advanced disease or metastatic disease.”

A 2020 review of 16 studies concerning various locations found, “Residents from fenceline communities, less than 5 km [about three miles] from a petrochemical facility (refinery or manufacturer of commercial chemicals), had a 30% higher risk of developing Leukaemia than residents from communities with no petrochemical activity.”

The results of a 2009 South Africa study of a community located near a refinery  “support the hypothesis of an increased prevalence of asthma symptoms among children in the area as a result of refinery emissions…”

In a related vein, a 1997-2003 study of persons 29 or younger in Taiwan found that “residential petrochemical exposure [based on distance from petrochemical plants, duration of stay near them and other variables] was a significant risk factor for leukemia” for those 20-29 (though not for younger persons).

Nor is the damage confined to long-term exposure. In Texas, findings from research published in 2016 on the “health effects of benzene exposure among children from a flaring incident at the British Petroleum (BP) refinery in Texas City, Texas…suggest that children exposed to benzene are at a higher risk of developing both hepatic [liver-related] and bone marrow-related disorders.”

Closer to home, a review of emergency room visits in the wake of the 2012 Richmond Chevron fire found that they skyrocketed to roughly ten times their normal levels. “It took 4 weeks for censuses to return to normal. The most common diagnosis groups that spiked were nervous/sensory, respiratory, circulatory, and injury.”

III. Elevated Cancer Rates for Benicia

While Benicia has not been the focus of the kind the rigorous research conducted elsewhere – and while recent medical statistics for the city appear hard to come by – the city’s cancer rates are worrisome.

Drawing on 2010-12 California Cancer Registry data, a 2018 Solano County report highlighting “Health Outcomes Data for Benicia” indicates a Benicia breast cancer rate nearly double that of California. The Benicia rates are substantially higher than Solano Country and California regarding lung and prostate cancer as well. (The data is broken down by zip code, with 94510 essentially constituting Benicia.)

More specifically, the city’s breast cancer rate is 93.7 percent higher than California’s and 35.9 percent higher than Solano County’s. For prostate cancer, Benicia’s incidence is respectively 70.3 percent and 32.8 percent higher than those of the state and county. For lung cancer, it is 43.3 percent higher than California and 19.4 percent higher than Solano.

“Solano County Lung Cancer Rate by Zip Code,” a 2012 chart prepared by the Solano County Public Health Epidemiology Unit, reports similar comparative data. It significantly also indicates that Benicia’s “emergency department discharge rate for lung cancer” ranks among the highest in the county, which in turn is 2.5 times that of California, and that its cancer hospitalization rate is higher than the county’s and the state’s as well.

The higher cancer rates especially stand out because the Health Outcomes report also indicates that in many regards Benicia is healthier than other parts of the county. Considered in combination with the city’s relative affluence, one might accordingly expect lower Benicia cancer rates compared to the county – thus raising the refinery as a possible reason for the higher rates.

None of the above proves that Benicia’s higher cancer levels are due to the Valero refinery’s emissions; correlation of course does not equal causation. But the elevated incidence of cancer in Benicia compared to the rest of Solano County and to California seems unlikely to be a random development. Coupled with two phenomena discussed elsewhere in this paper – that the Benicia refinery’s environmental violations feature spewing high levels of carcinogens into the air and that  proximity to refineries in general is linked to higher cancer rates – the Benicia-specific data provides cause for considerable concern.

IV. The Benicia Refinery’s Numerous Violations, Accidents and Incidents

According to the Bay Area 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.” More specifically, “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.” The emissions averaged “more than 2.7 tons for each day on which a violation occurred, over 360 times the legal limit.”

Yet, as significant as that finding and the Air District’s resulting $82 million fine seem, they represent just some of the Benicia refinery’s numerous hazardous violations, accidents and incidents in recent years. Earlier this month, for instance, many Benicians witnessed the clouds of smoke spewing from a refinery furnace fire, for which the facility has already been issued Air District notices of violation.

Last October, the environmental nonprofit Baykeeper’s lawsuit against Valero and nearby Amports yielded a $2.38 million settlement over their air and water pollution from the production of petcoke, an industrial byproduct. As reported by CBS News Bay Area (KPIX), “Petcoke dust contains fine particulate matter that, in the air, can cause serious health impacts like asthma and heart disease. The heavy metals in petcoke can also be harmful in the water to fish and birds.”

In February 2024, a hydrogen sulfide release at the refinery – categorized as a “Level 3” incident due to potential harm to human health – resulted  in the spread of fumes smelling like rotten eggs over much of the City. The incident sparked “concerns about the refinery’s promptness and openness in notifying the City and its residents of hazardous events” and questions about the root causes of the problem.

In August 2023, the Air District “said that Valero had failed to install required pollution control equipment on eight pressure relief devices,  safety devices that prevent extreme over pressurization that could cause a catastrophic equipment failure. The violations led to 165 tons of illegal emissions…”

In February 2023, Valero agreed to pay a $1.2 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “…fine over violations of chemical safety regulations…After chemical incidents at the Benicia Refinery in 2017 and 2019, a 2019 EPA inspection at the facility identified several areas of noncompliance, including that Valero failed to immediately report releases of hazardous substances and update certain process safety information.”

The violations, accidents and incidents summarized here cover just some of what has occurred over the past several years. A full list of other hazardous Benicia refinery problems would include many more violations.

This brief discussion would not be complete without mention of Valero’s unsuccessful 2012-16 fight to bring “crude by rail” to Benicia. More specifically, the plan involved the transport to Benicia, on two 50-car trains, up to 70,000 barrels of crude oil per day  from Canada and North Dakota. The potentially deadly danger of this approach was demonstrated by the 2013 Lac-Mégantic disaster, named for the Quebec town where an oil train’s derailment, fire and explosion took 47 lives and decimated the downtown area. From 2013 to 2020, there were at least 21 such derailments in North America, many resulting in massive spills and fires lasting for hours or even days.

V. Valero Refineries’ Violations and Dangers Beyond Benicia

Valero’s environmental violations and health-and-safety dangers are by no means confined to Benicia. They include numerous incidents, accidents and reports of excessive emissions in recent years. They merit attention because they may indicate that such problems are endemic to the firm’s or industry’s operations, or flow from inadequate prioritization of safety/health/environmental hazards, or both.

Valero’s Texas  track record leads the way in demonstrating such problems and hazards. Even the staunchly conservative and arguably oil industry-friendly Texas Attorney General sued the Texas-based corporation in 2019, in effect citing it as an egregious repeat offender that released nearly a million pounds of pollutants into the air during a 2017 fire and committed at least 38 unauthorized, permit-exceeding toxic emissions since 2014. His suit further asserted that, despite earlier federal EPA and state enforcement actions, “defendants’ poor operational, maintenance, and design practices continue to cause emissions events and unauthorized emissions of air contaminants from the Refinery into the environment.”

The AG’s office and state regulators  also sought more than $1 million in damages for a 2016 “backflow incident at the Valero Corpus Christi Asphalt Plant” that resulted in “residents endur[ing] three days without tap water, forcing many to rely on bottled water for drinking, showering and cooking.”

What’s more, a leading Texas environmentalist has contrasted one of Valero’s facilities there unfavorably with other refineries in the state, asserting that “Valero’s Port Arthur Refinery has a poor compliance record even when compared to other Texas oil refineries, spewing out millions of pounds of dangerous pollution into surrounding neighborhoods…”

Five workers recently sued the company for injuries suffered, including third-degree burns involving extended hospitalization, at its Three Rivers, Texas, refinery due to a January 2025 fire and explosion. Over the years, several others have died in explosions and accidents at its Texas facilities.

Valero’s hazards and damage are not confined to Texas (or Benica). Due to an emergency valve malfunction, a 2020 explosion and fire at the company’s Meraux, Louisiana, refinery seriously injured one worker and caused over $5 million in damage.  Tennessee regulators found sixteen “serious, alleged” violations linked to a Memphis refinery’s 2012 explosion that killed one worker and injured two others.

During a February 2025 storm, that same facility experienced massive flames due to flaring as, according to one news report, “ Fire and oil spewed from the stacks requiring environmental clean up on the ground and in the creek nearby.” In addition, “thousands of pounds of a toxic gas were released in the incident,” including “very toxic” sulfur dioxide at levels “twice the amount that triggers mandatory reporting to government regulators.”

More broadly, an EPA review of a dozen Valero facilities across the country found toxic emissions violations and related actions stretching from at least 2012 to 2018. The investigation resulted in a 2020 settlement involving millions of dollars of fines and mitigation measures.

A compilation of air pollution monitoring data drawn from U.S. refineries’ fence lines – aptly summarized by its title, “Nearly Half of U.S. Refineries Releasing Benzene at Levels That Could Pose a Long-Term Health Threat” – included numerous Valero facilities on the list. An associated chart ranked two Valero refineries fifth and sixth nationally in terms of the percentage by which they each exceed the relevant “threat level.”

It should be noted that neither the EPA review nor the air monitoring data compilation identified Valero’s Benicia refinery as problematic. However, it is unclear whether the Benicia facility was even included in the review. Furthermore, the facility’s approach to air monitoring has been the subject of considerable contention.

VI. Potentially Deadly Accidents

The risk of life-threatening accidents merits a bit more mention, since Benicia is by no means immune to such phenomena. This paper has already cited several instances of deadly and injurious refinery accidents, as well as the massive (non-fatal) 2012 Chevron Richmond fire and the 2013 Lac-Mégantic disaster, where a train bearing cargo akin to that of Valero’s failed crude-by-rail plan exploded and took 47 lives.

Instances of catastrophic (fortunately non-fatal) refinery events also include the three-day, February 2025 Martinez Refinery Company fire, which spewed into the air carcinogenic chemicals that can also cause heart and lung disease. Another notorious accident was a huge 2019 Philadelphia refinery fire, sparked by the failure of a pipe’s simple elbow joint. Its multiple explosions hurled several multi-ton pieces of equipment thousands of feet away.

VII. Moving Forward

As Benicia takes its first steps to plan for life after Valero, the City Council, state officials and Benicians should heed the potential public health benefits of the corporation’s departure and the price the city pays in the meantime. More specifically, city, state and other officials should pursue the following paths:

      1. They should recognize that public health considerations weigh heavily against any indefinite extension of the Benicia facility’s operation. The city and state should accordingly seek the facility’s closure within at most one-to-three years, rather than at some indefinite date.
      2. Especially (but not only) if an expedited closure does not take place, the city, state, Air District and other governmental entities should inform Valero and any potential petrochemical buyer/operator of the refinery that they will be subject to enhanced scrutiny and accountability that ensure adherence to strictest health-and-safety standards. This priority becomes all the more pressing as financial pressures could conceivably weigh against maximum maintenance in a facility slated to eventually cease operations. The city and state should also press Valero and any successor owner to guarantee a complete and rigorous remediation of the property
      3. The Bay Area Air District policy for the use of its $82 million Valero fine (and for other air pollution penalties) is to employ such funds to “to improve community health and air quality.” It should accordingly permit Benicia to use funds from the fine to ease the city’s transition away from the refinery and toward cleaner air and a healthier Benicia and Bay Area. City and state officials should play a part in advancing this flexible approach, which should also apply to other refinery-hosting Bay Area communities in transition.

[Notes: 1. This paper benefits from valuable advice from and research by Richard Fleming, M.D., a Benicia resident, and from the much-appreciated assistance of Benicia Independent Editor Roger Straw. However, any possible inadvertent inaccuracies are the sole responsibility of the author. 2. Stephen Golub is a Benicia resident and Harvard Law School graduate who formerly was a management analyst for the New York City Council President and, for the bulk of his career, served as a policy analyst, consultant and researcher for funding agencies, policy institutes and nonprofits engaged with international development – particularly regarding the rule of law, democracy, anti-corruption efforts and policy analysis, including their overlap with public health and environmental concerns. He taught law-and-development and related courses at Berkeley Law and the Central European University Public Policy School for a number of years. The institutions with which he has worked include the U.S., U.K. and Danish development agencies; the Asian Development and World Banks; several UN programs and offices, including that of the Secretary-General; the Asia, Ford and Open Society Foundations; and, currently, the Indian broadcasters WION and CNN-India.]


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

Dirk Fulton: A Great Day for Benicia, Part Three

VALERO: City Sponsored 3-Year Delay of Closure Endangers Our Health & Promotes Risk of Benicia Remaining a Refinery Town Forever

By Dirk Fulton, May 28, 2025

Dirk Fulton, Benicia

The long history of fires, explosions, shelter-in-place orders, and non-stop, cancer-causing toxic air emissions demand a Valero closure in April 2026 as announced. No later.

Using financial scare tactics to delay closure until 2029 as advocated by city officials is unjust to residents and plays into the hands of Valero, which remains vague about its plans.

PROLONGING HEALTH DANGERS

Clearly, the refinery is a bad neighbor. This is demonstrated by the $82 million Air Board fine recently imposed on Valero for the 16 years of secret, toxic emissions it spewed on our town.

We now know that Valero knowingly pollutes our air with toxins 24/7, measuring as much as 2.7 metric tons daily, which incredibly is 360% over Air Board maximums. There is a worrisome correlation between Valero’s troubling refinery operations and high asthma rates among Benicia’s children and high cancer rates, especially lung cancers, among our residents. Waiting until 2029 to regain clean air and protect our health cannot be justified.

WRONGFUL SCARE TACTICS 

The scare tactics used by the city to promote a three year closure delay are overstated and misleading. As I have set forth in prior articles, the largest income to the city from Valero is approximately $8 million in real property taxes. These taxes will not immediately cease upon refinery closure as its developable land and infrastructure improvements retain high inherent value and will increase once homes are constructed along the East Second Street corridor.

Several additional revenue streams are also available upon closure to offset any financial loss. These include:

    • Years-long, multi-million dollar residential and commercial development fees;
    • income from the city’s recapture of Valero’s fifty percent (50%) allocation of our domestic water supply;
    • “ Bridge to the Future” funds from the $82 million Air Board Valero settlement, of which $58 million is assigned to Benicia to mitigate damages from years of pollution;
    • a port tariff cargo fee similar to those earned by other California port cities, such as Richmond, Oakland, Los Angeles and Long Beach, which could measure $13 million annually;
    • increased sales and hotel (TOT) taxes as tourism blossoms;
    • and increased real property taxes on existing homes as values appreciate once the stigma of being a “refinery town” is alleviated.

Accordingly, the city’s leaders should stop spreading bad information.

EXTENDED DELAYS HURT CHANCE TO SHUT DOWN REFINERY– POTENTIALLY FOREVER 

Valero’s future remains unclear and there are reports it is lobbying Governor Newsom to ease environmental rules. The city-advocated three-year delay in closure plays to Valero’s advantage and, conversely, to the detriment of Benicia residents. There are three negative outcomes that a multi-year delay fosters:

    1. Valero can change its mind, whether or not it receives regulatory concessions from the state and continue to operate the refinery indefinitely. This result is in line with statements by a former Valero CEO who publicly stated that his company’s goal was “to keep Valero Benicia open as the last refinery operating in Northern California”.
    2. Valero can sell to another refinery operator, perhaps at a discounted price, which can decide to operate the refinery indefinitely. This result is like Shell Oil’s recent sale of the Martinez refinery to PBF, a shell entity controlled by a private equity group. This has led to one environmental disaster after another, severely harming that community.
    3. Valero can repurpose the refinery as another petrochemical type of operation. This result continues the prospect of the facility being an ongoing major polluter and pushes multi-million-dollar environmental cleanup down the road indefinitely.

PLANNING FOR BENICIA’S FUTURE WITHOUT A REFINERY SHOULD OCCUR IMMEDIATELY AND BE TRANSPARENT

The price is too high for the city to delay the closure of its major polluter for three additional years. Rather than “kicking the can down the road”, risking our health and the chance to close the refinery for good, the city should instead immediately hold community public hearings subject to the Brown Open Meetings Act to create a vision for Benicia without a refinery. This contrasts with private “Task Force” meetings not open to public input or scrutiny that can drag on indefinitely.

Dirk Fulton, Lifelong Benicia resident
Former Solano County Planning Commissioner, Benicia Vice-Mayor, City Councilman & School Board President