Category Archives: Benicia Mayor Steve Young

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.”

Your Vote, Our Future: Benicia City Council, Community Groups Urge YES Votes on Measures F, G and H

Benicia Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Terry Scott, and City Council Members Tom Campbell, Trevor Macenski, and Kari Birdseye have endorsed YES votes on Measures F, G and H for Benicia’s future. They are joined by the Napa-Solano Central Labor Council, Solano County Democratic Party, Benicia Police Officers’ Association, Benicia Dispatchers’ Association, the Fire people, and the Solano Association of Relators. | Images from City of Benicia and organizations’ sites.

November 3, 2024

Dear Benicia Voters,

As your City Council, we are unified in supporting Measures F, G, and H, which represent a lasting investment in Benicia’s future—strengthening our roads, enhancing infrastructure, and preserving essential services that safeguard our quality of life.

These measures weren’t proposed lightly. They reflect thoughtful planning and a vision to secure a stable, vibrant Benicia for generations to come.

While new taxes can be challenging, they’re a pathway to achieving a resilient city that thrives.

The strength of this vision is reflected in the broad support we’ve received from the Benicia Police Officers Association, Benicia Dispatchers Association, Benicia Fire Association, Solano County Association of Realtors, Napa-Solano Labor Council, California Democratic Party, and many other organizations. With these measures, we’re building a legacy of excellence and reliability that our city deserves.

Let’s come together and Believe in Benicia’s bright future.

Here’s what each measure will accomplish:

Measure F –  Street Repair Sales Tax

  • A citizen-initiative 0.5% (half-cent) sales tax
  • Dedicated exclusively to street repair
  • Includes oversight by an independent citizens committee
  • Revenue cannot be used for any other purpose

Measure G – Limited Charter City Status

  • Establishes Benicia as a Limited Charter City
  • Limited and Sole purpose is to enable implementation of the Real Property Transfer Tax (Measure H).

Measure H – Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT)

  • Applies to residential and commercial property sales
  •  Includes important exemptions:
    • Family transfers (spouse, children, parents, grandparents)
    • Property transfers into trusts
    • Mortgage refinancing
    • Creates a sustainable revenue source as Benicia grows with new housing development.
  • RPTT is a one-time tax (closing cost) only affecting sale of residential and commercial property and can be paid by either party or negotiated.

We strongly believe these Measures will significantly improve Benicia’s future.

While we encourage your support, we most appreciate your thoughtful consideration of both supporting and opposing arguments. Your engagement in this process ensures that the outcome truly reflects our community’s will.

Thank you for your participation in this crucial decision-making process.

Sincerely,

The Benicia City Council

Mayor Steve Young
Vice Mayor Terry Scott
Council Member Trevor Macenski
Council Member Kari Birdseye
Council Member Tom Campbell

Air District and CARB fine Valero Refining Co. $82 million for Benicia air quality violations

Smoke from the Valero Benicia refinery during a 2017 incident. | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, October 31, 2024
(Emph. added by BenIndy)

SAN FRANCISCO – The Bay Area Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board are announcing today a nearly $82 million penalty in a joint case to address significant air pollution violations by Valero Refining Co. at its Benicia refinery. This penalty is the largest ever assessed in the Air District’s history.

Over $64 million of these funds will be returned to the local community to finance projects aimed at reducing air pollution exposure, mitigating air pollution impacts and improving public health in areas surrounding the refinery. These projects will be selected through a public process with input from residents, community organizations, elected officials and advocates representing the impacted area. The remainder of the penalty will be used to fund beneficial clean air projects in overburdened communities throughout the Bay Area, as well as to offset the costs of investigating and prosecuting the case. In total, nearly $80 million of this historic penalty will be returned to Bay Area communities.

“Today’s historic penalty against Valero Refining Co. for its egregious emissions violations underscores the Air District’s unwavering commitment to holding polluters accountable and safeguarding the health of those living in refinery communities,” said Dr. Philip Fine, executive officer of the Air District. “Investing these funds back into the community will empower local residents to drive air quality projects that benefit the surrounding neighborhoods, advancing our mission of cleaner air for all.”

“CARB is pleased to have supported the Air District in investigating and settling this important case that helps remediate the harms Valero’s operations caused to surrounding communities,” said CARB Executive Officer Dr. Steven Cliff. “The Air District’s new community fund provides critical funding for projects that improve air quality and public health for impacted local communities. CARB is proud to direct the majority of its share of the penalties from this settlement to the community fund to expand the reach of its projects.”

“This penalty sends a strong message; adherence to air quality standards is both necessary and expected, and failure to do so can lead to significant fines,” said Steve Young, Benicia Mayor and a member of the Air District Board of Directors. “Benicia residents need to know that air quality violations are taken seriously. The use of these funds will help us address local air quality issues going forward. I am grateful for the work of the Air District, CARB and the California Department of Justice in helping bring this long-standing issue to conclusion.”

The penalty stems from a 2019 inspection that found unreported emissions from the facility’s hydrogen system containing harmful organic compounds in violation of Air District regulations. These organic compounds contributed to the Bay Area’s regional smog and particulate pollution problems, and they contained benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, or BTEX, compounds, which cause cancer, reproductive harm and other toxic health effects. Air District inspectors discovered 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. The refinery emitted an estimated 8,400 tons of these organic compounds in total over this period in violation of Air District regulations – an average of more than 2.7 tons for each day on which a violation occurred, over 360 times the legal limit.

Subsequent investigations uncovered a host of other problems involving the hydrogen system, including emissions in violation of applicable limits, failure to install required emissions abatement equipment, failure to inspect equipment for leaks and failure to report required information, among other violations.

The Air District sought abatement orders from its independent Hearing Board to require Valero to abate ongoing violations. In conjunction with CARB, the Air District has now assessed this monetary penalty to resolve all the violations. In addition to the penalty, Valero will be required to undertake several measures to prevent future violations. Valero will be required to reconfigure the facility’s main hydrogen vent and vents in its hydrogen production plants to prevent emissions from being released directly into the atmosphere. Valero will also be required to implement a training program to ensure that its staff are fully aware of all relevant Air District regulations.

In May 2024, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors adopted a groundbreaking policy that directs a significant portion of penalty funds to the communities most impacted by air quality violations. Under this policy, most of these penalty funds will be reinvested in local projects specifically designed to reduce pollution and enhance public health. To help improve regional air quality and advance the Air District’s environmental justice and equity goals, penalty funds will be allocated in accordance with this new policy. The policy will ensure that significant amounts of large penalties benefit the community where the violation occurred while also setting aside funds to address the needs of communities overburdened with air pollution that may not have industrial sources that could be subject to large penalties.

This penalty is the third major fine the Air District has assessed against Bay Area refineries this year. In February, the Air District announced a $20 million penalty against the Chevron refinery in Richmond, and earlier this month the Air District announced a $5 million penalty against the Marathon refinery in Martinez. “These significant penalties should put the refineries and other industrial operations on notice,” said Alexander Crockett, the Air District’s general counsel. “If you violate our regulations and pollute our air, we will hold you accountable to the maximum extent provided for by law.”

The joint prosecution with CARB is also indicative of a new level of cooperation among enforcement agencies for air quality violations. The Air District will look to partner with other agencies where appropriate to ensure that maximum enforcement resources are brought to bear for significant violations.

CARB is charged with protecting the public from the harmful effects of air pollution and developing programs and actions to fight climate change. From requirements for clean cars and fuels to adopting innovative solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, California has pioneered a range of effective approaches that have set the standard for effective air and climate programs for the nation, and the world.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is the regional agency responsible for protecting air quality in the nine-county Bay Area. Connect with the Air District via X/Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.

Courage, Judgment, Steve Young for Mayor and Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski for City Council

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

By Stephen Golub, first published in the Benicia Herald on October 13, 2024

When we think about courage, the kinds of things that come to mind are police taking on violent criminals or firefighters rushing into burning buildings. We don’t think of city officials poring over spreadsheets and budget documents.

But when it comes to this year’s mayoral and City Council elections, there’s an admirable element of courage at play. This is a central  reason I’m endorsing Mayor Steve Young for reelection, as well as Christina Gilpin-Hayes and (current Council Member) Trevor Macenski for City Council.

They all also merit support for additional reasons that go beyond our budget crisis, including the initiative and energy they’ll bring to these (largely uncompensated) jobs. But with respect to that crisis, they’ve earned respect by biting the bullet and backing the three revenue-enhancing measures on the Benicia ballot, involving a small sales tax increase for road repair and introduction of a modest real estate transfer tax for more general purposes.

Retiring Benicia Council Member Tom Campbell has endorsed Gilpin-Hayes for City Council, along with Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Terry Scott, and Council Member Kari Birdseye. | City of Benicia.

Regrettably, as demonstrated by retiring Council Member Tom Cambell in his October 9 letter to the Herald, the responsibility shown by Young, Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski sharply contrasts with an erroneous budgetary approach taken by a twice-defeated (and once victorious) current Council candidate, Republican Lionel Largaespada. Not one to mince words, Campbell describes Largaespada’s number-juggling in terms of “voodoo math.”

As ably analyzed by Campbell, Largaespada’s misleading approach includes incorrectly claiming that he’s “found” enough existing City money to cover road repair and identifying supposedly excessive spending on outside contracting services – even though such services in fact are essential or even crucial to Benicia (and, I’d add, would most likely be more expensive if carried out by City personnel).

Campbell further explains that “Largaespada never talked to anyone in the [City’s] finance department or the City Manager’s department about his plan.” Finally, demonstrating some fine institutional memory, Campbell points to the video of a specific Council meeting to assert  that in 2019, while on the Council( before being defeated in 2022),  Largaespada backed a higher sales tax than the one candidate Largaespada now opposes. He was apparently for that kind of tax  before he was against it.

All this worries me in three ways.

First, with 44 percent of the City budget going to fire and police protection, there seems no way to adopt Largaespada’s apparent voodoo math without cutting that essential protection. It could  also mean deteriorating roads and other City services, as well as  a failure to repair City buildings and facilities, such as the Police headquarters, the Senior Center, the Swim Center, the library and a host of other structures.

Second, Campbell does not stand alone in his refutation of Largaespada’s math. His critique  is part of a broad consensus of criticism that I’ve heard from responsible Benicians across the political spectrum, ranging from business-centric to progressive circles.

Finally, if Largaespada brings this questionable  approach to the budget, one must wonder about his judgment in handling  other pressing issues Benicia faces – not least safety and health challenges presented by Texas-based Valero, who’s dangerous crude-by-rail “bomb train” plan he backed several years ago and which has massively, indirectly supported him through political action committee spending over the years – often through misleading ads that unfairly attack his opponents.

I don’t like criticizing Largaespada in these pages. He is a good, bright person. But I don’t like the possibility of gutting City services hanging over our heads either, especially when Campbell and many other experts refute his calculations.

Back to courage and judgment: It’s hard to tell people we need additional taxes. It’s harder still to put one’s political career on the line to do so. But Mayor Young has led the way in dedicating much of his campaign to that, in order to right the City’s fiscal ship for now and into the future.

The Benicia Save Our Streets Committee are fighting to pass Measure F to fix out streets.

Thus, he’s backing Ballot Measure F, the product of a citizen initiative that gathered over 2,000 signatures, which will increase the sales tax on non-grocery items by a small amount (to still less than a number of other Bay Area communities) in order to ensure that road repair is fully funded.

He’s similarly backing Measures G and H, which together will allow the City to raise funds to help close our looming budget deficits via a modest transfer tax on real estate sales – with key exceptions such as no tax in the case of inheritance or divorce.

A real value of G and H  is that with state-mandated additions of housing to Benicia, other possible housing developments on the horizon and the possibility of Valero selling its refinery down the line, large chunks of revenue could be generated by the transfer tax without imposing any costs on current Benicia residents.

I won’t delve into the pros and cons of these three measures beyond very briefly addressing certain frequently heard counter-arguments.

For instance, aren’t City employees overpaid or isn’t  the City overstaffed? No. In fact, sometimes Benicia does not even match the going rate for some jobs in other municipalities, which has  meant  losing valuable staff to them and the resulting expense of recruiting and hiring replacements. And Benicia has made staff consolidations to streamline its operations.

Or, why can’t we renegotiate employee pensions? Because we’re bound by law to honor them.

For these reasons and many more, all three measures have the support of Benicia’s public safety unions, the Solano County Association of Realtors, the County’s Democratic Party and many other organizations and individuals across the political spectrum.

The budget crisis isn’t at all the only reason I’m backing Steve Young for Mayor. He displays an even keel in leading the City, as evidenced by the calm stewardship he showed during the pandemic. He offers various sensible plans and projects to enhance our business climate and quality of life. Such initiatives  will yield additional revenues down the line without imposing additional taxes.

I have not addressed Macenski’s candidacy much because, as a popular incumbent, he does not seem to need the same level of discussion as newcomer Gilpin-Hayes, whom I’ve previously, enthusiastically endorsed. Suffice to say that he is a very sharp individual who brings great knowledge to consideration of many city issues.

Smoke from the Valero Benicia refinery during a 2017 incident. | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

There is, however, one regard in which I wish Gilpin-Hayes, Macenski and especially Young were stronger: the proposed Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) that Vice Mayor Scott, Council Member Birdseye and several other individuals  have labored over for the past year. All three have cautiously endorsed aspects of it in principle, which is understandable. But as  a matter of leadership and legacy, and of safety and health, stronger and clearer support would be welcome in the lead-up to the election – especially  in contrast with the eventual unsupportive stance we might expect from Largaespada in view of his past backing by Texas-based Valero.

I have not addressed the candidacies of Kevin Kirby for Mayor and (former Valero and Exxon Mobil employee) Franz Rosenthal for City Council because, while they both came across as nice folks in a recent forum organized by the Benicia High School debate team, neither have matched the focus or knowledge of Young, Gilpin-Hayes, Macenski or Largaespada– whether at that forum or online – regarding  the crucial issues confronting Benicia. The one exception is former Valero and Exxon Mobil employee Rosenthal’s clear opposition to the ISO.

In addition, given Rosenthal’s apparent extremely late entry into the race, one wonders whether, as the other new face in the Council contest, he’ll counterproductively take votes away from the energetic and well-qualified newcomer Gilpin-Hayes.

To sum up: For their courage, judgement and many more reasons, I hope that Benicians will work for, donate to and above all vote for Young, Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski for Mayor and City Council Members. Benicia needs the sound, responsible, energetic approaches they bring to the table.

[Note: I have donated to the Young and Gilpin-Hayes campaigns.]


The BenIndy has also endorsed Christina Gilpin-Hayes for City Council. Learn more about her campaign by clicking the image below and visiting her website