Click the image to be redirected to the Eventbrite page with more information and tickets.
With apologies for the late notice, here is your first opportunity to hear from and learn more about the candidates for District 2 Supervisor – and let them know what you want to see in Solano County in the next few years. The Democratic candidates for supervisor are Monica Brown (incumbent) and Rochelle Sherlock. Nora Dizon is a third candidate. (We were unable to find Supervisor Brown’s campaign webpage.) Supervisor District 2 covers Benicia, parts of Vallejo, and parts of Fairfield. This is a free event that appears to be open to the public, although it looks like you can get tickets at the Eventbrite page.
Click the image to be redirected to the Eventbrite page with more information and tickets.
[Disclaimer: the BenIndy was not asked to promote these events and is not affiliated with the PAC that is hosting them in any way. This simply seems like a good opportunity for voters to learn more about the candidates.]
[Note from BenIndy: Valero’s Benicia Refinery is the 5th largest stationary greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter in California. As Sunflower Alliance founding member Shoshana Wechsler notes below, “[t]he thing that continues to strike me is that the Bay Area has no clue how important we are as a major fossil fuel hub. […] We need to understand that refining both petroleum and biofuels has a very negative effect on our public health and obviously contributes mightily to the climate crisis.” Let’s enter 2024 with clear eyes…and hope for clearer lungs come 2025.]
Valero’s Benicia Refinery, a principal contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in California, looms over residential neighborhoods. | Samantha Laurey / The Chronicle 2022.
SF Chronicle, by Kurtis Alexander, December 31, 2023
California’s largest greenhouse gas polluters, from power plants to oil refineries to chemical manufacturers, produced slightly fewer emissions last year than the previous year, federal data shows. But it’s still too much planet-warming gas to cut significantly into the problem of climate change, environmentalists say.
Three of the five biggest carbon emitters in the state were in the Bay Area, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2022 data on large polluting facilities. All three were refineries in the East Bay, where the process of turning crude oil into gasoline, jet fuel and other high-demand petroleum products creates substantial greenhouse gas discharges — even before the fuels themselves are used in vehicles or planes.
The refineries were among 367 large stationary sites in California that collectively reported 93 million metric tons of carbon pollution last year, a decline of about 1% over 2021, according to the data. The facilities produce about a quarter of the state’s total human-generated greenhouse gases, which does not include wildfires. Cars and trucks remain the biggest source of carbon emissions.
“The thing that continues to strike me is that the Bay Area has no clue how important we are as a major fossil fuel hub,” said Shoshana Wechsler, a founding member of the Sunflower Alliance, an East Bay group that advocates for reducing refinery pollution. “We need to understand that refining both petroleum and biofuels has a very negative effect on our public health and obviously contributes mightily to the climate crisis.”
Worldwide discharges of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, have contributed to warming the atmosphere about 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the post-industrial age. The heat, scientists say, has led to a host of problems, from an increase in drought and wildfire to rising seas and more extreme weather. The Earth’s 10 warmest years on record all were logged since 2010. This year is on track to be the hottest yet.
California regulators have established some of the most ambitious policies to restrict the release of greenhouse gases from large polluting facilities, including a cap-and-trade program that forces emitters to buy permits to pollute and requirements that electric utilities generate increasing amounts of clean energy.
Over the past decade, carbon emissions from the state’s big polluters have declined nearly 20%, according to the EPA data.
Many, though, say industry is still given too much leeway and stricter regulation is necessary given the climate challenge at hand. The state has a broad goal of reaching zero carbon emissions, on net, by 2045.
“Major polluters continue to pollute somewhat unabated,” said Nihal Shrinath, an associate attorney for the Sierra Club based in Oakland. “We really need to see much more aggressive emission reductions over the next 25 years.”
Shrinath said much of the decline in pollution from large facilities was due, not to regulation, but to unrelated factors, like Californians being more efficient with their energy use and needing less fossil fuels.
California’s top five greenhouse gas emitters were all oil refineries, according to the EPA data. Two were in Southern California in addition to the three in the East Bay: Chevron Richmond Refinery, Valero Benicia Refinery and Martinez Refining Company.
Ross Allen, a spokesperson for Chevron, described the company’s Richmond refinery as “absolutely essential to modern life in the Bay Area,” saying the facility supplied 60% of the fuel for Bay Area airports and about 20% of the gasoline used in Northern California. It also provides more than 3,000 jobs.
This is a screenshot of SF Chron’s interactive data table that shows greenhouse gas emissions from large industrial facilities in California, 2022. Click the image to be redirected to the webpage with the article and the table. Readers can use the table to search for and filter GHG emitters in this state. There may be a paywall.
“We are working to reduce carbon intensity of our operations, while continuing to provide an essential product,” he said.
The state’s refineries cumulatively emitted 22 million metric tons of carbon pollution in 2022, according to the EPA data. Refineries were the second-most-polluting type of facility, following power plants, which are far more numerous and emitted 35 million metric tons last year. The chemical industry, manufacturing hydrogen, nitrogen and other products, reported 10 million metric tons of emissions.
Also among California’s 25 biggest greenhouse gas polluters were two gas-fired power plants in Pittsburg and an oil refinery in Rodeo.
The EPA data on large polluting sites generally includes facilities discharging at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide and equivalent greenhouse gases a year, about what’s emitted by burning coal from 136 rail cars, according to the agency.
Since you’re here, learn more about Contra Costa’s search for accountability and transparency from refineries by clicking on any of the following links:
They are now resorting to what amounts to bribery disguised as philanthropy.
The initially anonymous investor group operating under the generic name of Flannery Associates—which now calls itself California Forever—generated widespread suspicion during the five years it purchased more than $800 million worth of largely agricultural land in Solano County.
As anyone outside Silicon Valley could have foreseen, the billionaires sowed considerable ill will when they filed a $510 million antitrust suit against those who balked at accepting even an inflated price for farmland that has been in their families for generations.
The result was a series of decidedly negative receptions at six town halls that California Forever CEO Jan Sramek began hosting in late November. As Sramek has acknowledged, the project will need voter approval to build on land that is now zoned solely for agriculture.
In a cynical ploy at the final town hall meeting Monday, Sramek announced that California Forever is accepting applications for $500,000 in “community grants” to local nonprofits.
“For too long, nonprofits in Solano County have received far less funding when compared to other Bay Area counties,” Sramek said. “The California Forever project wants to help narrow that funding gap.”
Sramek was citing a United Way study, which found that Solano County has 6 percent of the Bay Area’s population, but gets less than 1 percent of the funding for nonprofits. He spoke as if California Forever is seeking to right a wrong in the county where it is wagering nearly $1 billion that it can change local use laws and make the super-rich even richer.
But where were Sramek and his deep-pocketed billionaires before they decided they needed to buy votes along with more than 60,000 acres? They could have donated to Solano groups at any point if they were so concerned about the disparity. California Forever did not respond to a Daily Beast request for comment.
A 22-year-old named Aiden Mayhood, whose family has been farming in the county for seven generations, was at Monday’s meeting. He later told The Daily Beast that many of those in attendance recognized Sramek’s offer for what it was.
“A lot of people I think viewed it as almost like bribing,” Mayhood said.
Sramek named six “initial recipients” of the grants, among them the Solano Land Trust. For the county’s conservation organization to have accepted a grant from California Forever implied some measure of approval. And farmers such as Al Medvitz, who have conservation easement arrangements with the Trust, were concerned.
“That creates some consternation for us,” Medvitz told The Daily Beast.
But Medvitz reassured himself that he and the other farmers should still trust the Trust even when billionaires were involved
“Money is pretty powerful, but it isn’t all-powerful,” he said.
As it turns out, Sramek’s performance at the town hall meeting was misleading. The Solano Land Trust says it neither sought nor received funding from California Forever.
“No, we haven’t applied for a grant,” the trust’s executive director, Nicole Braddock, told The Daily Beast.
Braddock said the trust received a personal, anonymous donation that turned out to be from Sramek and his wife for its Put a Child on The Land program, in which school kids visit pristine undeveloped spaces such as Lynch Canyon.
“We’re learning that the donor no longer considers it anonymous, which is why I can talk to you about it,” she said.
She also said, “We never take money from individuals or businesses that require endorsement support, favors influence or quid pro quo. That wasn’t part of this or any other donation that we take. And we also have taken no position on the plans of Flannery/California Forever.”
A road sign is posted near a parcel of land purchased by Flannery Associates near Rio Vista, California. | Josh Edelson / AFP via Getty.
The donation from Sramek and his wife was made at the Solano Land Trust’s annual Sunday Supper in October. The fundraiser was also attended by Maryn Anderson, a 34-year-old high school teacher whose father is a fourth-generation Solano County farmer and has refused to sell. She introduced herself to Sramek.
“I said, ‘Hi, my name’s Maryn Anderson,’ and he immediately knew who I was,” she recalled. “And I said, ‘You are suing me and my family and my community for $510 million.’”
She later told The Daily Beast, “My main message to him was, ‘You have big amends to make in this county if you really want to go forward with this project. I don’t want you to be successful, but I’m telling you, if you do want to go forward, you have amends to make, specifically with how you’ve treated many of the farmers.”
She concluded that Sramek does not understand that most of the people who did sell to him are no longer active farmers and were only leasing their property to those who are. Many active farmers have a deep attachment to the land that seems beyond Sramek’s comprehension.
“He just can’t see why we wouldn’t sell,” she recalled.
Of the California Forever crew, she says, “It was like we confused them when we said, ‘No, there’s not really an amount of money that we would sell for. We care about what we do. We believe in what we do. We believe in agriculture.’ They would just look at you like, ‘What’s wrong with you?’ You know, it doesn’t compute that money couldn’t buy something.”
Anderson saw Sramek again at a town hall in Rio Vista on Dec. 5. She rose to speak and offered him a way to make amends.
“Will you commit to dropping the lawsuit against the local farmers who are not aligned with your vision, in a goodwill attempt to change the way that you are interacting with our community?” she asked.
Sramek seemed to believe that the farmers who did not sell were conspiring to hold out for more.
“Illegal and criminal,” he said.
California Forever has pressed ahead with the lawsuit even as Ian Anderson and his co-defendants filed a pending motion to dismiss on the grounds there was no wrongdoing. The mounting legal bills are enough to ruin a farmer.
“They, they want us to get in line or get outta the way, and they’re happy to… crush you in order to get what they want,” Anderson said.
And now that its disgraceful behavior leaves it in need of currying favor with voters, billionaire-backed California Forever suddenly says it wants to ensure Solano County’s nonprofits get their fair share.
The nerve of these people.
More about California Forever on the Benicia Independent:
People find seats as they get more information on the new California Forever proposed development off Highway 12 near Rio Vista during a town hall meeting on Thursday. | Chris Riley / Times-Herald.
Company spars with Solano Together leader at Benicia meeting
Amid skepticism at a town hall meeting in Benicia, California Forever clarified some key aspects of its plan to build a city-sized community in Solano County.
Fresh information arrived in CEO Jan Sramek’s response to a question about what the company will do if, in November, it fails to pass a ballot initiative to make this project possible. He said in an interview earlier this month that “there are other ways to proceed with the project” if the plan falls through and declined to elaborate.
Sramek clarified Thursday that California Forever owns about 800 acres of land within Rio Vista city limits. If Solano County won’t play ball, he’ll attempt to get that land zoned as residential and build on it.
This would be a less ambitious project and, in Sramek’s view, less beneficial for the area.
“We think that would be a bad idea for Solano County because if we’re doing it piecewise, that wouldn’t help us to bring in employers,” he said.
Answering other concerns about where the company would find enough water for the new development, Sramek said the current plan is to buy water that is currently irrigating almond groves. Sramek said many of these almonds are getting shipped to China, which he sees as a waste of a precious resource.
“We don’t have a shortage of water in California. We have a misuse of water,” he said.
Speakers also raised a variety of other questions about the project. Vallejo resident Michelle Pellegrin argued that while California Forever claims the development would benefit Solano County, its investors’ main goal is “to make a whole hell of a lot of money.”
“This is making money. This is not being nice to people. There’s a huge difference,” Pellegrin said.
Benicia resident Gregg Horton also took aim at a remark by Sramek that he spent a year trying to fix housing crises within existing Bay Area cities, but “became convinced that that wouldn’t be enough to make homes affordable.”
“I find that kind of awful because we have people in this room who have been working for decades on this kind of thing,” Horton said.
Sramek responded that it would be impossible to raise as much capital as California Forever has by attempting to infill existing cities. He also denied the implication that only nonprofit ventures can help people.
“I don’t shy from the fact that this is a for-profit investment. But I think that it’s a false distinction to say that that’s somehow bad,” he said.
Later in the evening, Sramek and Aiden Mayhood, founder of the anti-California Forever coalition Solano Together, went head to head in an argument about a Solano County Water Agency meeting last month.
At that meeting, the agency’s board of directors considered a California Forever proposal to potentially fund a study into improving a key Solano County waterline. The company had claimed that their funding would come with “no strings attached,” but a crowd of over 100 people packed the meeting and overwhelmingly spoke out in opposition.
The agency’s board of directors voted against the proposal, citing community concerns.
Discussing this pipeline, Sramek named Mayhood and originally attempted to blame him for the water agency’s decision – but attendees shouted him down.
Mayhood rejected Sramek’s statement that the agency’s vote took place “because people showed up and yelled at the electeds long enough that they agreed not to do it.”
“It was a question of trust. Can we trust these people?” the organizer said. “And personally, I don’t find them trustworthy.”
California Forever’s final town hall this year will take place at 6 p.m. Monday at 231 North First St. in Dixon.
More about California Forever on the Benicia Independent:
You must be logged in to post a comment.