Category Archives: Valero Benicia Refinery

Benicia CA, California Energy Commission, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Just transition, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

Benicia’s Marilyn Bardet: ‘The state has its tail between its legs, wagging, suckered into deal-making with an oil giant.’

The Benicia Independent, by Marilyn Bardet, September 12, 2025

VALERO BENICIA REFINERY TO CLOSE? – BACK ROOM PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS

On April 15th, Valero Energy Corp stunned our city making their “surprise” well-orchestrated announcement to the California Energy Commission [CEC] saying they intended to”idle, restructure or cease operations” at their Benicia refinery by next April. Evidently, the state was caught off guard, ill prepared for a second refinery closure, just after Phillips 66’s Wilmington refinery had announced last year that they’d be closing this year, (in fact, that closure is in progress).

Marilyn Bardet

So, I speculate in the dark, wondering about the state’s backroom private negotiations with the largest refiner in the USA whose profits please its investors. It’s well documented that Big Oil despises California’s extensive environmental regulations that they say impede doing business in this state. Valero tried to blame a restrictive regulatory environment including the City’s adoption of our Industrial Safety Ordinance for its reasons to opt out of refining in Benicia.

JUST A BARGAINING THREAT

But wait. Think about Valero’s position in negotiations. The law requiring refineries to report to the California Energy Commission [CEC] a year in advance of any proposed major change like closure gave Valero in particular a real advantage—a year after P66’s refinery closure that by itself wouldn’t strain the state’s gasoline supply. But if they were to threaten to end production in Benicia?

Surely Valero Corp knew the stats: stopping production at Benicia would cause a significant, though not bottomless, tanking of the state’s gasoline supply, such that consumers’ demand, while trending downward, could not be met without threatening the state’s economy: skyrocketing prices at the gas pumps, long lines for gas, empty stations—just what the all-powerful oil lobby, WSPA (“Whispa”– Western States Petroleum Association) wants us to understand.

Getting into negotiating position, Valero could demand capitulations on regulatory policy, and finesse a financial windfall to stay in business in California— with long-range implications for other oil giants’ maneuverings.

NEWSOM AND THE CEC FALLING FOR IT

After all, Valero Corp knew the governor would be very worried for his own political future as well as the state’s. He would have only four months to come up with tangible results before the end of the 2025 legislative session, which ends today, Sept 12. Newsom had quickly done his own gasoline-supply gap-math homework, and asked the CEC to advise about how to stabilize the state’s “petroleum market economy”. The CEC scrambled together an insider group of stakeholders, including environmental orgs, Benicia’s city manager, and industry reps, to put together recommendations to achieve “balance between available supply and current demand”. As it evidently turned out, the recommendations made public pivoted around the concessions that could be made to Valero to entice them to stay in business in Benicia.

In my view, Valero holds all the cards, keeping its 3 options open with no official mention of “closure”. So far, there’s no final resolution to adopt a budget that would have to incorporate the extraordinary expense of the Valero/state deal—what California tax dollars in the tens of millions will be paying so that prices at the pump will be stabilized.

IT’S ALL ABOUT A ‘JUST TRANSITION’

Think how Big Oil thinks: Valero knew their plays from the get-go: they knew the state has yet to pass “just transition” legislation; AND, the state has made clear it can’t (politically) afford to have any gap in the gas supply chain. . .

Whoever does the negotiating for the state, their hands are tied: the state had yet to adopt any clear, fair plans, policy guidance and requirements for closing refineries, for example, for ensuring thorough cleanups with full costs to be borne by the industry as Responsible Party. Right now, there are no such protections in place as called for by major environmental orgs who have worked hard to get the state to listen. The state has its tail between its legs, wagging, suckered into deal-making with an oil giant.

What does “just transitioning” mean to the Governor? What it should mean—and does mean to us—is adoption of concrete regulatory policy for moving away from fossil fuel extraction and production within the state; for health and safety protections for fenceline communities; for maintaining CEQA—the California Environmental Quality Act, the only defense of citizens’ right, within their jurisdictions, to be informed and comment on large-scale development proposals; compensating cities for fiscal and physical impacts of a refinery closure; for worker retraining within the energy sector; for the ultimate goal, namely, protecting the climate from catastrophic runaway global warming.

Big Oil very easily gambles, playing their extortionist game. Very Big Bucks will be siphoned out of state coffers to pay Valero what it considers its due as the poor victim of state regs, now under threat of evisceration by backroom deal concessions.

[See ‘California in Talks to Pay Hundreds of Millions to Valero to Stave Off Refinery Shutdown‘]

This is very ugly backroom politics indeed. What will be the time limit set for Valero’s “phase out” to closure—three years? Or…. ten? Or, will the state find another operator? And what kind of deal would that call for?

CITIZENS UNHEARD IN THE HEARING

This is what some of us from Benicia needed to hear about at the Aug 20th Assembly Oversight Committee hearing on “Transportation Fuels Transition Plan”. We needed to learn details of the state’s aim to keep the Benicia refinery operating and to voice our concerns for our own city and about state’s strategies to ensure a sufficient gas supply. There were 3-1/2 hours of presentations, mainly by the CEC, with Q&A. Benicia Mayor Young spoke for 10 minutes, speaking about the City’s estimated $8-$12 million loss of revenue should the refinery close, thus indicating his primary fear. Why was there no recommendation by the CEC to incentivize “demand destruction”— transport electrification? etc etc.

It was 5:15 p.m. by the time the public got to speak; there were only a handful of Assembly members or CEC staff left in the room. Over 40 people had lined up to testify, each given 1 minute to speak. Some had come up from Kern County to oppose more drilling near their neighborhoods. The day’s performance seemed like window dressing, all for show, with most of the assembled minds having been already made up, not apparently caring much about the fallout of negotiations for fenceline communities’ future health and safety, or how the state will ever meet its lofty climate goals.

Marilyn Bardet
Good Neighbor Steering Committee
BCAMP Board Member
BISHO Working Group
Valero Community Advisory Panel

See also:
Benicia CA, CA Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Energy Commission, California legislature, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

California in Talks to Pay Hundreds of Millions to Valero to Stave Off Refinery Shutdown

Legislators discuss giving Valero millions to stay in Benicia

Bloomberg, September 9, 2025

California legislators are considering giving Valero Energy Corp. hundreds of millions of dollars to cover refinery maintenance costs in a bid to prevent the closure of a San Francisco-area fuel plant.

Under such a deal, the state would pay Valero to continue operating its Benicia refinery, according to people familiar with the negotiations who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. The plant is slated to close by April, the latest in a string of recent California fuel-plant shutdowns.

Between $80 million and $200 million of state funds would likely be earmarked for routine maintenance work, although the terms of the arrangement could be subject to change, the people said. Maintenance is one of the biggest operating costs for refiners and the expense of major overhauls typically performed every four or five years can be a catalyst for closure. Discussions with lawmakers over keeping the Valero facility open were held as recently as this past weekend. Absent a deadline extension, legislators have until late Tuesday to submit bills for consideration.

Valero shares briefly dropped on news of the talks but have since recovered and were up 2.8% to $161.77 at 1:10 p.m. in New York, making it the day’s best-performing oil stock in the S&P 500.

Valero didn’t respond to requests for comment. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office declined to comment while representatives for state senate and assembly leaders didn’t respond to inquiries.

Newsom has in recent months taken a new tack with refiners and encouraged regulators to work with the industry to maintain fuel supplies in a state that often has the nation’s highest gasoline prices. The California Energy Commission has since walked back plans to impose a profit cap on refiners, a key factor in spurring recent plant closures.

Bay Area Air District, Benicia, California legislature, Cancer, Stephen Golub, Valero Benicia Refinery

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

Please Contact Lori Wilson and Other Officials Regarding Valero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having said all this…

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few more noteworthy Benicia notes:

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

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

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

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

CHECK OUT STEPHEN GOLUB’S BLOG, A PROMISED LAND

…and… here’s more Golub on the Benicia Independent

Benicia CA, California Assembly, California Energy Commission, Just transition, Valero Benicia Refinery

Dirk Fulton: Report on Benicia concerns before Assembly hearing in Sacramento

[Comment from BenIndy editor: We previously issued a call for Benicians to attend an August 20 hearing before a Joint California Assembly Committee in Sacramento to consider the legislation known as the “Petroleum Market Stabilization” bill. Several Benicia residents attended, including Dirk Fulton, who offers the following reflections. – RS]

California Assembly holds hearing on Gov. Newsom’s hot mess of a “Petroleum Market Stabilization” bill

By Dirk Fulton, August 21, 2025

My reflections on the 6 hour hearing yesterday:

The legislature is clearly following the recommendations of the California Energy Commission (CEC) at Gov. Newsom’s request. CEC Vice-Chair Gunda made a lengthy presentation and answered followup questions from legislators. Late in the hearing, an Assemblyman from Los Angeles asked if the State was considering “taking over” the refinery. Gunda responded saying that Valero is in private talks with the CEC and all options are being explored to keep Valero open. One option could of course include a joint venture structure between Valero & the State. Oil companies do this all the time.

This alternative would be a horrible result for Benicia from both a regulatory and refinery closure standpoint.

Another Assemblyman commented that if exports of California refined product to Nevada and Arizona were reduced, there would be a 10% surplus in capacity of refined product thereby eliminating the prospect of any California gas shortages following a Valero closure. There was also discussion of increasing imports which is doable, and subsidizing further EV usage thereby reducing demand for gasoline, which would allow Valero to close without causing gasoline prices to spike.

Importantly, a longtime energy consultant to Citizens for a Better Environment and now a consultant to the CEC released a study yesterday morning demonstrating that as the PBF Martinez refinery returns to production (closed since the February fire), its production will offset any loss of production from a Valero closure.

A lobbyist from the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) was allowed to present for twenty minutes and respond to questions for another twenty. He stated that he meets regularly with the CEC to advocate for Valero remaining open. He seemed to have strong influence over the CEC and legislators including Benicia’s representative Lori Wilson.

Mayor Young’s 10 minutes of testimony did not help us regarding getting Valero closed. He basically wants the refinery to remain open for at least five more years-which basically means forever. He did NOT address our high cancer or asthma rates or address ongoing health risks to residents.

My takeaways:

    • Refining capacity is manageable. It can be maintained at acceptable limits following a Valero closure so gas prices don’t spike.
    • A State/Valero venture would be horrible for Benicia as increased regulation would be difficult and the refinery likely would never close. This seems to be a WSPA idea and comes from the Donald Trump playbook , e.g., what Trump has our federal government doing with Intel – a joint-venture-like concept where USA is contributing capital to sustain Intel Corp and receiving equity and profits in return.
    • Our best strategy to discourage the State and Valero going forward and to discourage any potential buyer is the local Polluters Pay Excise tax ballot measure. A $1 per barrel tax would substantially diminish refinery profit thereby operating as a disincentive. The Richmond example shows it works. Mayor Young told me in a hallway conversation that he supports the idea, and has received advice from City Attorney Ben Stock this week that it is legal.
    • We need a local citizens committee to be formed to lobby for this proposal.

Dirk Fulton

Read more Dirk Fulton on the Benicia Independent

Dirk Fulton, Benicia

Dirk Fulton, Lifelong Resident & former Solano County Planning Commissioner, Vice Mayor, City Councilman & School Board President
For More Information visit: www.greatdayforbenicia.com