By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. July 6, 2025. [First published in the Benicia Herald on 7/4/25.]
Pete (not his real name) is a Brit I met 50 years ago during college and have been close friends with ever since. After graduation, he went on to a career as an international journalist, risking his life in war-torn situations from Lebanon to the former Soviet Union and beyond, as well as covering countless violent demonstrations.
I recall his calmly telling tales of mortar explosions and other such threats narrowly missing him. There’s not much that scares the guy.
And he certainly knows how to assess threats. Years ago, he cautioned me to steer clear of a particular hotel in a Middle Eastern capital during a consulting trip I was undertaking. A month later, a terrorist bomb took numerous lives there.
So, imagine my dismay when this very stiff-upper-lip Englishman contacted me recently to let me know that he was concerned about something I was doing that might put him at risk.
What could that be, you might well wonder? How could I, ensconced in bucolic Benicia, pose any kind of hazard to Pete, who lives thousands of miles away?
I was sending him news articles. More specifically, I was electronically sharing occasional updates and analyses I thought he might appreciate, something I’d been doing since email became an option. More specifically yet, some of the news items and analyses were about U.S. democracy and the dangers it’s facing.
Why is Pete concerned? Because as you might know, the Trump Administration is sometimes examining the phones and social media feeds of visitors, to determine whether they contain items deemed terrorist-sympathizing or otherwise counter to our national security.
And as you wouldn’t know, Pete occasionally visits relatives in America. He’s worried, then, that upon arrival here he might have his phone examined by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection airport agent, who in turn could bar Pete’s entry (perhaps permanently) if they find something they don’t like.
Despite dodging rocks, bullets and bombs his entire career, Pete very understandably does not want to risk such searches – even though the items I’ve shared have simply ranged from academic analyses to the latest news about the Administration’s latest steps.
So I stopped.
Due to deadline constraints, I’m writing this on Thursday, before Benicia’s July 3rd parade. The timing seems appropriate, given what the 4th of July is about, and why Americans fought Pete’s home country and its king nearly 250 years ago: Freedom, starting with freedom to say what we want, free of fear. Freedom to be who we want to be. Freedom from the use of the military to suppress peaceful rallies. Freedom from a repressive, corrupt king who put his own financial and other interests above those of his people.
I’m also writing this as word comes in that by the 4th of July Trump will sign the bill, just passed by the House of Representatives today, that will award massive tax breaks to techno-billionaires and other extremely wealthy sorts, blow up our national debt by $3.3 trillion and deny health care coverage to well over 10 million Americans.
Perhaps I’ll delve into those horrid details some other time.
In the meantime, here’s to all the freedoms that Independence Day represents and that so many Americans have fought and even died for, including against foreign fascists like Putin and others with whom Trump is currently aligning himself.
And here’s to the hope that by next 4th of July we’ll be seeing more signs of light in our troubled skies, and that eventually Pete and the rest of us won’t have to think about what news we can or cannot safely share, read or store on our phones.
A Promised Land – America as a Developing Country, by Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author, June 7, 2025 [UPDATED ON 6/10/25] (Previously appearing in The Benicia Herald, “Benicia & Beyond,” 6/8/25)
In the 1962 film, “The Manchurian Candidate,” a US soldier is captured during the Korean War and brainwashed in Manchuria (a part of China bordering Korea) by Chinese and Russian agents. They then arrange his supposedly heroic “escape” that earns him the Medal of Honor back in America.
The point of this plan? Acting as an automaton, he will then unwittingly assassinate a presidential candidate and usher in an authoritarian regime serving our enemies’ interests.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. I am not suggesting that he’s been brainwashed or that he deliberately prioritizes the Kremlin over America. His main motivators instead seem to be money, power and narcissism.
But, speaking hypothetically, what if Trump were in fact a “Manchurian President,” brainwashed by Russia to undermine the United States? What would he do?
He would intentionally and illegally call in the National Guard and Marines to inflame legitimate protests and to open the door to even more inflammatory, repressive steps.
He would, in contrast, do nothing for hours on January 6, 2021, as insurrectionists violently tried to take over the U.S. Capitol and block a presidential election’s certification.
He would pardon those very insurrectionists and praise them as patriots.
He would badmouth democracies far more than despots.
He would insult long-time friends such as Canada and Denmark by threatening their territorial integrity.
He would have his vice president back a Russia-friendly neo-Nazi party in Germany.
He would alienate other democratic allies through statements, trade policies and foreign policy decisions that force them to reconsider their relations with us.
He would purge the U.S. military brass of many officers, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, likely to prize fealty to the Constitution over loyalty to him.
He would gut our National Security Council staff and other parts of the government that guard us against efforts to cripple our security and democracy.
He would abandon Ukraine, whose fight against Russia’s brutal aggression is so crucial to European security and democracy that even formerly neutral Sweden and Finland have joined NATO.
He would appoint incompetents or people sympathetic to hostile powers to top national security positions.
He would take little action when such officials engage in discussions that leak combat plans to outsiders.
He would sabotage American soft power by ravaging foreign aid and sacrificing millions of lives abroad through public health cuts.
He would attack our democratic institutions right and left, including by condemning judges and extorting law firms and media outlets.
He would authorize a fellow narcissist and associated techno-brats to hastily purge the government of expertise, personnel and resources in a matter of weeks.
He would impose massive staff and funding cuts on medical and other research, harming public health in particular and American scientific leadership in general.
He would select individuals with bizarre public health ideas to head agencies charged with protecting the public against pandemics.
He would deregulate a cryptocurrency industry that could run amok even as it enriches him and his allies.
He would push tariff policies that whiplash practically daily and could hurl the U.S. economy into a tailspin.
He would back budget-busting, billionaire-benefiting legislation that would both damage the economy and deny health care to millions.
He would so undercut America’s financial and defense credibility that the world could lose confidence in the country for decades.
He would seek to block thousands of brilliant foreign students from studying here, ensuring that many of them will instead benefit other nations’ universities, economies and societies.
He would engage in rhetoric that cleaves our country in unprecedented ways, with boasts of retribution and brutal social media blasts against anyone who opposes him.
He would pardon other criminals in exchange for financial favors or political loyalty.
He would embark on an unparalleled reign of corruption that wreaks havoc on our rule of law at home and our image abroad.
He would order a $45 million, Soviet-style military parade on June 14, ostensibly to honor the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary but in reality to celebrate his birthday that day.
He would do all this – and far more – less than 10 percent of the way into his presidency.
He would assume that he can’t and won’t be stopped.
>>> Which brings us to the “No Kings” rallies taking place across the country on June 14. The Benicia gathering will be at the City Park Gazebo (near the corner of 1st Street and Military West) from 1 to 2 pm. >>>Through such demonstrations, we demonstrate to the media, the world and ourselves that we’re not giving up. By showing up, we’re standing up for democracy.
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:
seek the facility’s closure within at most one-to-three years, rather than at some indefinite date;
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
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.
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:
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.
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
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.]
By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author, “Benicia and Beyond” column in the Benicia Herald, May 18, 2025
Benicia is always buzzing with various political, social, cultural, artistic, athletic and other activities. Here are a few I’d like to highlight, starting with two very important events that could prove pivotal in paving the path for our community’s future:
On Monday, May 19 at 6 pm at City Hall (250 East L Street), the City’s Sustainability Commission will hear and discuss a vitally important presentation on the process by which the Bay Area Air District’s newly established Community Investments Office will decide how the Air District’s fine/settlement with Valero will be spent. As you may recall, the penalty was imposed due to the Valero refinery’s 15+ years of undisclosed toxic emissions, hundreds of times the legal limits, into our air. The public is welcome to attend and comment, whether in person or by Zoom. I believe that CIO representatives may also be present. (See agenda and how to participate here.)
This event is significant because it will help shape how at least $56 million from that $82 million fine will benefit Benicia at a time when it is in potentially dire financial straits due to Valero’s announced plan to close that facility. (Benicia will not get a blank check for those funds; the Air District will make the ultimate decisions on making grants that draw on the funds, though we can have substantial input.) I’m somewhat skeptical over whether that closure will come to pass – at least by the April 2026 date Valero announced – as it seems that the Texas oil giant may be negotiating with California over keeping it open. But regardless of what unfolds in that regard, we can help influence how this huge chunk of change is spent.
I’ve argued that the fine should be substantially devoted to a Benicia Bridge to the Future Fund, which will ease a financial transition away from Valero, especially since the facility will close sooner or later – quite possibly sooner, even if not in one year. More broadly, my experience with grant-making convinces me that the more flexible the grants are, the better for the beneficiary – in this case, Benicia. I hope you can participate in order to weigh in to favor such flexibility or otherwise make your opinions known.
In a closely related vein, on Tuesday, May 20 at 6 pm, also at City Hall, the City Council will discuss and welcome public comment (again, in person or by Zoom) on its new plan to convene four ad hoc task forces, led by Council members, to start planning for Benicia’s post-Valero path. This meeting marks another pivotal point for Benicia’s future. Offering our thoughts and questions at this early stage of the process can be crucial for how it unfolds. (Here’s more about this on the BenIndy.)
Again, regardless of whether the refinery closes as soon as Valero has stated, it’s imperative that we move ahead with such planning. In fact, our post-Valero world presents not just challenges to Benicia; it can also offer numerous substantial benefits. These include public health benefits from ceasing the spewing of carcinogenic emissions into our air, and potentially reducing the relatively high asthma and cancer rates our community experiences – though I should caution that whether Valero actually spurs such illnesses has not been determined.
The benefits also could include expanded tourism, the hosting of cleaner technologies and businesses, higher real estate values as we’ll no longer be seen as a “refinery town” by potential residents, and not least the construction of new housing on the large portions of Valero’s property that are open space rather than housing the refinery. Some such potential plots are less than a mile from downtown. (It’s noteworthy that the company has contracted with a major Bay Area developer to explore this kind of option.) Residential development could help house Benicians and buttress our tax base.
The City Council’s meeting is the first step in the crucially important process it launches for planning for life after Valero.
Ok. Enough with the heavy political stuff. While I can’t cover nearly all of the more cultural upcoming activities – the other pages of the Herald are great for that – here are a few well worth noting:
On Monday, June 2 at 6 pm (with doors opening at 5:30 pm), at the Benicia Clock Tower (1189 Washington Street), there will be the first Jazz O’Clock at the Clock Tower. The evening will feature the excellent Bruce Forman Trio, with the Benicia High School Jazz Band as the opening act. Kudos to the Benicia Performing Arts Foundation and the City’s Community Services Department for collaborating to make this happen.
Though my musical tastes run more toward Bruce Springsteen and Tim McGraw than more sophisticated options, I fully appreciate the rich, diverse Benicia music scene, as personified by these two groups. Even above and beyond the music itself, the event should be lots of fun. I understand that seating will be set up to make the performance a more intimate affair than the cavernous Clock Tower venue might otherwise entail. Plus, it’s bring your own food and drink (including alcoholic).
Google Jazz O’Clock at the Benicia Clock Tower to find online ticket purchase options. The price will be $20 in advance (with kids under 18 free, though you need to obtain a ticket for them), and $25 at the door.
On Saturday, June 7 at 2 pm, also at the Clock Tower, the Golden Gate Symphony and Chorus, which includes some great Benicia residents, will perform highlights from famous operas like La Traviata, Carmen, and Die Zauberflöt. Benicia’s own Alodiah Lunar, a mezzo soprano, is one of the Chorus’s several superb soloists. (The group also will appear on Sunday, June 8 at 2 pm at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco.)
But wait, there’s more! If you’re interested in joining here in Benicia, here’s some useful information courtesy of a friend: “The Benicia Chorus welcomes singers of all experience levels in a supportive environment. You don’t need to be an experienced singer to join. Newcomers learn alongside more experienced singers. Rehearsals take place on Tuesday evenings from 7:00 to 9:00 PM at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, led by Chorus Director Bruce Rockwell.” You can find more information about the group at the Golden Gate Symphony and Chorus site.
Tickets for the concert are available at a different site, at $50 per head, with senior and under-21 discounts. Please google Golden Gate Symphony and Chorus, City Box Office, in order to purchase them. They’ll also be available at the door.
On Saturday, June 7, from 1-6 pm, Arts Benicia will host a public reception for its Art of a Community show at 1 Commandant’s Lane (its lovely showplace/former Arsenal Commandant’s mansion). Open to the public, anyone can attend. The event will also feature some fine music, as well as wine, beer and sparkling water at a reasonable price.
The show itself will run Thursdays through Sundays at 1-5 pm, from May 31 through July 20. It’s extra special because it features art by our talented friends and neighbors – meaning mainly Benicia residents.
(Note: I may be a bit biased by the fact that some of the participating artists are friends, and one is someone I’m quite close to. But having attended several such receptions and shows, I can attest to the fact that they’re very worthwhile and enjoyable, and the location is a beautiful venue.)
For more information on Arts Benicia in general and particularly on becoming a member of this important part of the community, please go to its site.
You must be logged in to post a comment.