Category Archives: Valero Energy Corporation

Benicia CA, Cleanup funding, Just transition, Public engagement, Signature Development Group, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

Benicia’s Marilyn Bardet – Needed perspective on Signature Development Group and Benicia’s planning for Valero cleanup and transition

October 4, 2025 Roger Straw

BACKGROUND (by BenIndy Editor): On October 1, City Councilmember Terry Scott distributed without comment a link to a website, “Moving Benicia Forward”, movebeniciaforward.com. The front page invitation there reads, “We invite you to share your thoughts” and offers visitors to click on “Share Feedback.” This goes to a page with information about Signature Development Group, which is under contract with Valero “to evaluate redevelopment opportunities for the Benicia refinery property.” The page also offers a blank box for “FEEDBACK – Share your thoughts about the potential redevelopment.”

The Benicia Independent, by Marilyn Bardet, October 3, 2025

In my view, Signature Development Group’s setting up of an online platform inviting the public to submit ideas and comments for post-closure redevelopment of Valero’s ~900 acres seems like a well-meant gesture toward public involvement. I say “gesture” because such an approach to communication can lead to one-directional, top-down decision-making.

Since Valero’s announcement in April, Signature has been under contract with Valero to come up with a comprehensive re-development plan whose options would presumably be contingent upon, and possibly limited by, findings from investigations of soil and water contamination remaining from all uses by Responsible Parties, including the military. Yet, since April, the public has learned little or nothing from Signature about their initial thoughts, their approach, and preliminary reviews of conditions. What have the mayor and council members learned in conversation with Signature?

I’m seasoned in this: we’re well past the point of needing more info than has been spoken in generalities. We must get conversations out into the open.

BENICIA’S GENERAL PLAN AND A CITIZEN TASK FORCE

I don’t believe there is any substitute for the kind of “roll-up-your-sleeves-put-on-your-thinking caps” work done in person, when learning and respectful deliberation can take place among a broad-spectrum of community stakeholders. Any discussions on this momentous venture should be under guidance of the goals and policies of the Benicia General Plan.

Such a public oversight process is necessary and foundational to any plans for the Valero properties if those plans are to gain public approval. I believe Elizabeth Patterson’s reasoning and recommendation for establishing a community stakeholder task force now is absolutely sound, based on a proven record of what such an open deliberative process nets.

The task force could resemble a modified version of the General Plan Oversight Committee [GPOC], a council-appointed 17-member committee charged in 1995 to rewrite the city’s outdated 1978 general plan. (Note: in 1978, the refinery, then owned by Exxon, was new—only 10 years old!). As a professional planner, Elizabeth was appointed to facilitate the committee’s work, and under her leadership, GPOC members dove into discussions and debates on often contentious issues concerning land use, sustainable economic development, community health and safety, and community identity. Outside speakers offered expertise to inform GPOC and the public. The goals, policies and programs hammered out by consensus became the integrated guidance document required by the state, with legal standing, that we have today, inclusive of periodic updates. Our Benicia General Plan has stood the test of time and will keep evolving.

In effect, any decisions made for the Valero properties will shape the city’s future, for good or ill, and could represent a significant general plan “update”, thus invoking need for such a citizen task force.

The visions we collectively hold for our city’s sustainability and future development must entail hard-nosed assessments of prospective major changes over the next 5 – 10 years: changes that will be cumulative. (Think large-scale residential development currently proposed for Seeno property, the Arsenal, and now, possibly for portions of Valero property). Such changes deserve open public discussion that an on-going task force would serve as vehicle for: a public process oriented toward specific goals to ensure far-sighted oversight of what will unfold through cleanup investigations and redevelopment planning, inclusive of CEQA reviews.

While it may seem early in the game, so far, five months into it, no such public process has been set up by the city council to proactively engage residents as full participants in an endeavor that has apparently already begun.

CLOSURE CLEANUP BONDING — AND A NEVER IMAGINED REFINERY CLOSURE

In 1995, Koch Industries had come to town exclaiming the benefits of permitting a development proposal for a massive petroleum coke storage and shipping terminal at the port, which would serve all five Bay Area refineries. The public’s outcry in protest was enormous, and successful. Notable at that time, activists spoke up about the need for a secure bond to be required of Exxon that would pay for a future refinery cleanup. While Koch failed in its development bid, nothing came of recommendations for a “closure cleanup bond” to be put up by the refinery.

In 1999, the new general plan was adopted, just when Valero was negotiating terms with Exxon for purchase of the refinery. Though the general plan did not directly incorporate goals that specifically addressed the refinery’s possible closure, key policies addressed the need to protect residents from exposure to contaminated soils—the concern expressed based on the city’s oversight debacles revealed by the Rose Drive/Braito Landfill investigation and cleanup.

All that said, Valero Energy Corp’s announcement of its options for shutting down by April 2026, was a stunner. It became the hottest concern of the city, and respectively for the governor and legislature: nobody was prepared. The city instantly worried about projected serious “gap” in revenues, and the state, the significant “gaps” in the gasoline supply chain that shuttering production at the Benicia refinery would/could cause. Once it was determined that Valero wasn’t “taking” any of the state’s offers to stay open, the state seemed to walk away from the problems for the City raised by prospects of closure.

So, unfortunately, the city never imagined a future refinery closure, and thus, what legal obligations attendant on such an undertaking should be raised, such as a condition of any future development permit applied for by Valero. (For example, Valero’s permit for the 10-year Valero Improvement Project begun in 2003.) Thus, the city missed several key opportunities to impose a permitting condition that would, at the very least, require that Valero put up a bond dedicated for funding of closure and thorough cleanup of refinery properties.

As City Manager Giuliani said to me recently when I met with him to discuss my concerns, “We’re on our own now”. I’d just stated that there is no state law that requires full disclosure of total costs of a thorough cleanup. This bears repeating: there’s nothing in either our municipal laws or state law that would protect the City from any Valero failure to meet what the state and city should have formerly considered firm obligations for refinery closures and cleanups. Expecting a lawsuit to resolve such issues would be a David and Goliath contest.

WE’RE LEFT WITH QUESTIONS…

Will a citizen task force be established by council for the long-haul, to be dedicated to oversight of a cleanup process, and, ultimately, for reviewing re-development plans as proposed?

We of the Benicia community are now in the responsible position to publicly model what we mean by a process that oversees “refinery closure, cleanup and restoration” and appropriate sustainable future land uses for former refinery/military lands.

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

Elizabeth Patterson: Great questions for Valero bailout

September 17, 2025 BenIndy

The city and other regional agencies should have a seat at the stakeholder table

By Elizabeth Patterson, September 11, 2025 [posted belatedly here on 9/17/25]

Brenden Chavez is a graduate student in Urban Planning at San José State University with roots in Benicia, studying refinery closures, land use & environmental planning, and community health.”

Brenden and I have been discussing the role of the community in decisions about Valero decommissioning and future land uses. He contacted me because of my work as Mayor and using the public process for major issues. Collaborative planning involves empowering the public and not being led by top down process. I will share his paper on this when it is ready. Meanwhile I thought you’d like to see his great questions, as follows:

I saw the recent news about the state possibly giving Valero a bailout of $80 to $200 million to keep them operating. This is a huge development, and honestly, a bit unexpected. My thought is that Sac politicians are motivated by fear of gas going to $8/gallon. If this goes through, it’s a setback to the state’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2045. Unfortunately, there is no concrete ‘just transition’ strategy to help cities like Benicia, which are economically dependent on the fossil fuel industry. I’m trying to wrap my head around what this means for Benicia. A few questions come to mind:

If Sacramento is willing to spend $80 billion to save Valero, why can’t they do the same for the city/county? Backfilling the general fund, remediation seed money, retraining programs, etc.

Is there any way for the city or other regional agencies to have a seat at the stakeholder table, since the state is essentially repaying them their $82 million settlement with taxpayer money?

If Valero gets bailed out, does that give other refineries like Phillips 66 the power to lobby for the same treatment? How does that shift the state’s long-term sustainability goals?

Elizabeth Patterson

Benicia CA, Just transition, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

Benicians react to news that Valero deal fails, refinery will close

September 16, 2025 Roger Straw

Many in Benicia are skeptical… “It ain’t over yet.”

The Benicia Independent, by Roger Straw, Sep 16, 2025

The news came around 7pm on Monday, and the emails began flying around among those who have advocated for clean air, safe working conditions, strict monitoring and stiff fines – and for permanent closure and cleanup of Valero’s Benicia Refinery.

Here’s how engaged Benicians are reacting – a sample taken from Monday night’s emails:

“Wow. While I don’t have any inside information at all, and I certainly could be wrong, something tells me this isn’t the final chapter in the Valero/Benicia story. “
“Some good news for a change! I’m thrilled at this latest turn of events. But I agree…we may not have seen the end of this drama yet. Fingers crossed that Valero closes, and is held accountable for the costs of clean up of the site, and a smooth and responsible ‘transition’ out of Benicia.”
“IF this is truly the end, it’s all the more imperative that we press for the Air District to allocate much of the $56 million (plus possible interest) from the Valero fine/settlement to a Transition Fund that will help Benicia navigate the next five years as it becomes a more environmentally and financially sustainable community.”
“So here we are— Valero not going with a bang but a whimper. With no public announcement from the state about their failed bargaining with Valero? They should be embarrassed.. All those private backroom discussions didn’t add up to squat. So here we are! It’s a new ballgame!”
“It feels good to finally have a decision and I’m glad the state didn’t step in. The idea of it being a tank farm with the lack of revenue and the continued danger of toxic air wás the worst outcome. We can now focus on the transition.”
“My take is that Valero is still negotiating- by pretending to walk away. This is is 4th inning of a 9 inning game. They have 7 more months. We need to stay organized and envision a positive future without the major cancer factory on our fence line. “
“Remember when you bought your first car and the salesperson wouldn’t give you the deal you wanted until you started walking off the lot? This is like that. It ain’t over yet.”

Benicia CA, CA Assemblymember Lori Wilson, California Energy Commission, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Just transition, Mario Giuliani, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

SF Chronicle: Major Bay Area refinery on track to close, city official says

September 16, 2025 Roger Straw

“The silence is deafening,” Benicia City Manager Mario Giuliani said.

Valero’s refinery in Benicia, seen here in May, is expected to close, Benicia’s city manager said. Lea Suzuki/S.F. Chronicle

San Francisco Chronicle, by Julie Johnson, September 16, 2025

The odds were low. But even so, some Benicia city leaders hoped that California would emerge from the past week’s final lawmaking push for the year with a plan to keep Valero Energy Corp. from shuttering its Bay Area oil refinery next year.

Lawmakers announced big deals on electricity affordability, oil drilling and climate measures for Gov. Gavin Newsom to either reject or sign. But none dealt directly with a dramatic problem for Benicia: That its biggest taxpayer and employer would soon be abandoning its 900-acre gasoline-making facility on the outskirts of town.

“The silence is deafening,” Benicia City Manager Mario Giuliani said.

California has some of the highest gasoline prices in the country – about $1.47 per gallon higher than the national average as of Tuesday. State officials have been grappling with how to continue transitioning away from fossil fuels without making drivers who don’t have electric cars pay exorbitant gasoline prices.

Last year, Phillips 66 announced it would shutter its facilities in Los Angeles by the end of 2025.

Then in April, Valero alerted California energy regulators that the San Antonio-based company intended “to idle, restructure, or cease refining operations at Valero’s Benicia Refinery by the end of April 2026.”

State law requires refineries to notify the state of any operational changes that might disrupt fuel supplies – and Valero’s departure would certainly be disruptive. The facility produces roughly 8% of the state’s gasoline, a difficult commodity to replace because the state requires a special blend.

During an October earnings call with investors, Valero’s chief executive Lane Riggs discussed California’s “regulatory pressure on the industry,” and foreshadowed the company’s announcement that would come six months later. He said that “all options are on the table” for its California operations and noted that the company had already “minimized” its capital spending in the state.

Valero did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

But Riggs has previously acknowledged “the impact that this may have on our employees, business partners, and community, and will continue to work with them through this period.”

Giuliani said Valero has hired a contractor to work on a redevelopment plan for the site.

Losing both Valero and Phillips 66 meant California stands to lose nearly 20% of its refining capacity. Only seven oil refineries would remain in the state, which requires a special low-carbon blend of gasoline that not all refineries can make.

The closures threatened to make California’s high gasoline prices even higher.

Estimates vary, but many experts put that increase between 5 cents and 10 cents per gallon. They warned that the closures would mean that any unplanned disruptions at other oil refineries – when production stops for repairs or emergencies like fires – could send gas pump prices soaring, albeit temporarily.

By July, state legislatures were considering whether California could pay Valero between $80 million and $200 million to cover Benicia’s maintenance costs and stave off its closure. But those deliberations appear to have gone nowhere, Giuliani said.

“It seems there is now no path that remains for Valero to remain,” he said.

Daniel Barad, western states policy senior manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said subsidizing Valero’s refinery operations would require California to be prepared to spend millions more at other refineries too – a complicated commitment given that the state is still committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

“It’s important to keep gasoline prices stable as we phase out gasoline,” Barad said. “We have to do everything at the same time.”

Senate Bill 237 could boost the supply of crude oil to the Bay Area’s three refineries – Chevron in Richmond and PBF Energy’s Martinez Refining Co. in Martinez, in addition to Valero. The legislation proposes to increase oil drilling in California, which would potentially send more in-state crude oil for refineries and allow them to operate at higher capacities.

Barad said that is likely not enough to keep Valero open.

Benicia is now preparing to lose more than $10 million in revenue streams out of its $60 million general fund budget. Valero pays about $7.7 million in sales and property taxes to the city. The refinery is also the city’s largest water customer, spending about $3 million annually.

The city has already been dealing with the challenges from stagnant growth and an aging population, Giulliani said. The city of about 26,000 residents hasn’t grown much in the last 25 years.

Kari Birdseye, who serves on Benicia’s city council, said she’s heading up a task force working with local businesses that rely on Valero.

“A lot of local businesses have Valero as their only client – they make specific valves, specific ball bearings, customized equipment,” Birdseye said.

The city is now launching a process to determine which city programs to cut. City officials will compare costs and how many residents each program serves. Giuliani said that from the outset took Valero’s closure announcement seriously and didn’t expect the state to step in. Still, they were holding out hope.

“It’s going to be a significant and seismic shift in the city’s ability to provide services,” Giuliani said.

Julie Johnson is a staff writer covering wildfires, electricity prices, oil refineries and the North Coast of California for the Chronicle.

Julie’s in-depth examination of smoke exposure among wildland firefighters was a Scripps Howard finalist in 2023 for environmental reporting. In 2024, Julie’s investigation into the killing of a Mohawk activist who helped spark the 1969 occupation of Alcatraz Island, written with Jason Fagone, won first place honors from the Online Journalism Awards. Prior to the Chronicle, Julie was a reporter with the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, where she anchored the paper’s coverage of California wildfires awarded the 2018 Pulitzer Prize in breaking news.

See also:

Many in Benicia are skeptical… “It ain’t over yet.”

“The silence is deafening,” Benicia City Manager Mario Giuliani said.