Category Archives: Valero Energy Corporation

Benicia City Council, Benicia elections, Lionel Largaespada, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

Stephen Golub: For City Council, Back Democrat Gilpin-Hayes Over Republican Largaespada

A Breath of Fresh Air: For City Council, Back Democrat Gilpin-Hayes Over Republican Largaespada

Christina Gilpin-Hayes, Benicia City Council Candidate. | Campaign photo.
Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

By Stephen Golub, originally published in the Benicia Herald on October 7, 2024

Images added by BenIndy.

While four candidates are vying for two Benicia City Council slots this November, the key race (for reasons I’ll explain in a subsequent column) is really between Democrat Christina Gilpin-Hayes and Republican Lionel Largaespada. They’re both good, smart people, with backgrounds in business and public service. They both love Benicia.

But they differ in crucial ways, which is why Gilpin-Hayes is by far the better choice.

Energy and Perspective

Gilpin-Hayes is a breath of fresh air with creative ideas on everything from addressing the budgetary crisis that threatens our city services to better community outreach that will keep us updated about vital government deliberations and decisions.

In contrast, Largaespada is on his fourth run for City Council in eight years. The one time he won, in 2018 (before losing again in 2022), he wore the mantle of supposed fiscal responsibility – yet sat on the Council during a crucial period when our budget crisis intensified and went unaddressed.

Endorsements

Moderate Democrat Gilpin-Hayes has endorsements stretching across much of Benicia’s and Solano County’s political spectrums. They include Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Terry Scott, Council Members Kari Birdseye and Tom Campbell, former Mayors Jerry Hayes and Elizabeth Patterson, Solano County Supervisors Monica Brown and Wanda Williams, Supervisor-elect Cassandra James, State Senate candidate Christopher Cabaldon and, last but not least, the Solano County Democratic Party.

To his credit, conservative Republican Largaespada has secured labor endorsements, including from our police and fire unions – though that does not mean those groups or individual members necessarily oppose Gilpin-Hayes. On the other hand, the largest though indirect backing he’s received over the years has come from Texas-based Valero Energy, through political action committees (PACs) that have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting him and/or attacking his opponents in misleading and mean ways.

Our Budget Crisis and Credibility

Along with Mayor Young, other Council members and other leading Benicians across the political spectrum who have made courageous decisions to back steps to balance our budget, Gilpin-Hayes supports Ballot Measures F, G and H, which will help repair our decaying roads and more generally shore up the City’s finances.

She also favors revenue-enhancing initiatives that will increase Benicia’s appeal as a place to visit and spend money and to make it easier to do business here, without sacrificing our community’s charming, small-town character.

Former Benicia City Council Member Lionel Largaespada grimaces as he considers his position.
Former Benicia City Council Member Lionel Largaespada, pictured at a 2022 candidate forum in Benicia, CA. | Vallejo Sun / Scott Morris.

Largaespada agrees that Benicia needs to be more business-friendly. But he opposes the three tax-oriented measures without proposing effective alternatives for maintaining our police, fire, parks, public works and other services. Instead, he promises apparently illusory savings: e.g., from the $9 million of spending that the City currently contracts out annually. In doing so, he overlooks the fact that such contracted-out expenditures could be even more burdensome if they instead involved hiring additional City personnel, in view of City employees’ benefits, pensions and other accompanying costs. In this and other instances, he seems to juggle budget categories without providing sound solutions.

What’s more, such services are by and large for crucial public works and public safety needs, ranging from protecting our water supply to employing the license plate readers that have helped keep Benicia safe. We can’t simply cut them.

One has to wonder, again, where was fiscal conservative Largaespada when he served on the Council in 2018-22 as our current fiscal crisis overtook the City, and why his return to the Council would prove more effective this time around.

Public Safety and Health

Gilpin-Hayes takes a responsible position in backing full funding and support for Benicia’s Police and Fire Departments. She favors a strong industrial safety ordinance (ISO), while also taking account of Valero’s financial and other contributions to the community and what she feels are at least a couple of legitimate concerns it raises about a draft ISO prepared by a Council subcommittee.

Valero’s Benicia Refinery during a flaring event. | Pat Toth-Smith.

I do not trust Valero and I feel that Vice Mayor Scott and Council Member Birdseye have done a fine job in spearheading that draft, which among other things could prevent Valero from again pouring tremendous toxic emissions into our air for at least 15 years without informing us – as it finally was forced to do in 2022. But I also respect Gilpin-Hayes’ position in staking out (along with Mayor Young and Council Member Trevor Macenski) a moderate middle ground that hopefully will still yield a strong ordinance.

Contrast this with Valero’s indirect but massive and often misleading campaign backing for Largaespada over the years, and what this might portend for future industrial safety-and-health challenges. Consider too his unfounded suggestion that the proposed ISO would duplicate the work of a rather toothless Solano County agency.

I’m not questioning his integrity at all here; but I am wondering about why the Texas-based oil giant has chosen to make such a political investment in him. Maybe it has something to do with his supporting its extremely dangerous but fortunately unsuccessful crude-by-rail project several years ago or potentially aligning with the corporation on other hazardous initiatives down the line.

I’m also concerned about whether our Police and Fire Departments, which consume a large chunk of Benicia’s budget, could continue to function well despite the inevitable City cutbacks that Largaespada’s opposition to additional revenues entails. I’ll equally admit to uneasiness about his stance opposing a mask mandate back when Covid raged, as well as his apparently solicitous stance toward the Solano County public health director, whose questionable advice at the time starkly contrasted with that of most other public health authorities, including throughout the Bay Area.

Finally, let’s note Gilpin-Hayes’ dedicated, longstanding involvement with rescue services for endangered and abandoned dogs. That won’t necessarily make her a City Council star. But as a fellow dog lover, to me it marks her as someone with a big heart.

Christina Gilpin-Hayes has my vote for Benicia City Council.

[Note: I have donated to the Gilpin-Hayes campaign.]

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

  

Benicia City Council, Benicia elections, Lionel Largaespada, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail, Valero Energy Corporation

Stephen Golub: A Question of Trust – Safety, Health, Toxins and Explosions

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

 

By Stephen Golub, originally published in the Benicia Herald on September 29, 2024

Images added by BenIndy.

Benicia has two big votes coming up this fall. The more prominent one is our Nov. 5 general election vote for city officials and on city tax measures. But around that time, the City Council will also vote on an Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) that will enable us, for the first time, to directly address the threats to our safety and health repeatedly posed by the Texas-based Valero Energy Corporation’s Benicia refinery.

Right now, we’re the only Bay Area community that hosts a refinery but does not have an ISO. Adopting one means a role for Benicia in monitoring, investigating and if necessary fining Valero’s inadequately informing us about its accidents, incidents, violations and operations.

What’s more, various regulatory agencies have left us out of the loop when it comes to such matters vital to our own safety and health. An ISO gives us a seat at the table and greater incentives for Valero to keep us informed.

Black clouds from the Valero Benicia Refinery billowed over residential neighborhoods during a 2017 incident. Despite a shaky record of failing to disclose accidental releases and emissions, including the 15 years toxic emissions hundreds of times the legal limits were released into Benicia air, Valero insists oversight measures already in place are sufficient to ensure Benicia residents are kept safe and informed .  | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Unfortunately, in both public meetings and public comments on a draft ISO prepared by a Council subcommittee, Valero has voiced resistance, hostility and even implicit legal threats toward the kind of ordinance that the other Bay Area refineries survive and thrive with.

The need for an ISO boils down to a question of trust – in Valero itself and in our elected officials. Unfortunately,  one City Council candidate in particular, Republican Lionel Largaespada, triggers doubts about where he stands.

I’ll emphasize that distrusting Valero doesn’t mean doubting the integrity, hard work and dedication of its employees and contractors, many of whom are our wonderful neighbors and friends.

I’ll add that I don’t doubt Mr. Largaespada’s commitment to Benicia. I salute him for his participation in community affairs and the civil manner in which he conducts himself – and kudos to other recent Council candidates and members as well. In these troubled political times, we need all the civility we can get.

But major corporate decisions are made at corporate headquarters – in this case, San Antonio.

And participation and civility don’t necessarily translate into adequate emphasis on public safety and health.

So let’s consider some salient facts.

Lionel Largaespada (center), who supported “Crude By Rail” and opposes Benicia adopting an ISO, is pictured here at a February 13, 2019,  Solano Transportation Authority (STA) Board Meeting. | Solano Transportation Authority.

With Mr. Largaespada’s support, for years Valero tried to bulldoze its dangerous “crude-by-rail” proposal to adoption by the City Council, only to thankfully fail in 2016. Amazingly, this push started at around the same time as the infamous 2013 Lac-Megantic disaster occurred. That tragedy, named for the small Quebec City that it decimated and where it claimed 47 lives, took place when an oil train derailed, caught fire and exploded.

That incident is by no means the only time that potentially deadly derailments and resulting fires and/or massive oil leaks have taken place in North America. By one count, there were 21 such accidents in the subsequent eight years, including two just up the coast in Oregon and Washington.

The Benicia refinery’s own list of violations, accidents and incidents is far too long for me to recount here, as is a similar list of Valero transgressions across the country. So I’ll just remind readers of this 2022 revelation by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District: For well over 15 years Valero released toxic emissions, hundreds of times the legal limits, into our air without informing Benicia.

As summarized in 2022 by a top Air District official, “The Air District is saying that that Valero knew or should have known that these emissions should have been reported and they knew or should have known that these emissions should have been minimized.”

(Note, by the way, that it took nearly three years for the Air District itself to tell the City of these violations even after it became aware of them in 2019 – yet another reason why Benicia needs a seat at the table, to avoid being left in the lurch.)

Benicia resident Kathy Kerridge speaks out at a Benicians for Clean Elections rally in 2022. Benicians for Clean Elections was founded to daylight special-interest overspending by a Valero-funded PAC in Benicia elections. | Constance Beutel.

Then there’s Valero’s spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars on political action committees (PACs) during several recent election cycles to advance its interests, often through misleading ads that boosted Mr. Largaespada as recently as 2022 during his unsuccessful campaign or that trashed other candidates in mean and misleading ways. While he has commendably disassociated himself from such tactics, we should not be blind to the fact that Valero has decided who is most likely to butter its bread.

Against this backdrop, it’s additionally disappointing that the one ISO-related matter Mr. Largaespada chose to highlight in his September 25 letter to the Herald’s Forum page is the comments on the draft ISO by the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). If you haven’t heard of this county agency, which is supposed to help protect us against hazardous materials, there’s a reason: It’s proven rather toothless, at least when it comes to Valero.

Yet rather than seeking to partner with Benicia in advancing public safety and health, CUPA’s comments fret about overlap. That’s unfortunate. Mr. Largaespada’s focus on that rather than Valero’s questionable track record, the benefits of an ISO or the support of the Air District and many other authorities for an ISO is equally regrettable.

So what can concerned Benicians do?

 

Contact the current City Council members to voice support for a strong ISO and for a vote to take place on it before the November 5 election. Though the Council unanimously backed this in principle nearly a year ago, the process has dragged for so long that getting a vote done by that date is now in doubt.

Similarly contact all Council candidates to ask that they all support a strong ISO and its effective implementation, and that they declare that support before the election. They know enough about what the ISO will entail to get them to commit to it. Benicians have a right to know where they stand.

Be on the lookout for yet more massive, misleading PAC spending by Valero, once again designed to pollute our politics, through mailings and other advertisements that mask its support for Mr. Largaespada and other allies or that trash their opponents . Past Valero-funded PACs have used such names as “Progress for Benicia” and “Working Families for a Strong Benicia.” Hopefully, Valero has learned its lesson and will refrain from repeating its misleading efforts. But if not, look for such ads’ small print, which will reveal their funding.

Finally, for more information about the ISO or to support the effort to get it adopted, please go to the private, citizen-organized site for Benicia Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance. You can also go to the City’s useful site, Engage Benicia, though be aware that comments there are now closed. 

For more on Valero’s political track record in Benicia, please go to the Benicians for Clean Elections site.

Once again, I respect Valero’s fine employees and Mr. Largaespada. Hopefully, Valero can adopt a constructive rather than combative attitude toward Benicia’s simply seeking to better protect our safety and health via the ISO, and for the first time in years stay out of our elections. But our recent history with this Texas-based multinational – as well as the experience of other communities across the country with it – teaches us too many lessons about the tiger not changing its stripes.

There’s also broader political dimension here: Why would Texas-based Valero take a hostile stance toward the ISO when the potential next President of the United States weighed in as California Attorney General to help defeat its crude-by-rail plan and when that dispute garnered national attention? Ongoing opposition to better protecting Benicia’s safety and health has the makings of another nationally prominent issue.

But let’s just get back to the local: All that Benicia wants via this ISO is simply a seat at the table and a City Council devoted to making that seat meaningful. Hopefully, this fall’s votes will make those things happen.

Air pollution, Asthma, Benicia City Council, Benicia Industrial Park, BISHO, Cancer, EngageBenicia.com, Stephen Golub, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

Refineries, Cancer and Other Health Problems: An ISO Can Help Us Breathe Easier

By Stephen Golub, originally published in the Benicia Herald on April 14, 2024

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land.

In the weeks and months to come, you may hear and read an increasing amount about Benicia adopting an Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) that will help protect us against healthy and safety threats posed by the Valero Refinery, its associated asphalt plant and possibly other large industrial facilities.

There are many reasons for Benicia to have such an ordinance, so that we’re no longer the only Bay Area locale that hosts a refinery but is not protected by an ISO. Today, at the risk of getting a bit wonky, I’ll address one key reason: Living close to refineries can increase our risk of contracting cancer and other experiencing other medical problems; an ISO could help reduce such risks.

The point of this column isn’t to prompt panic, but to instead suggest action that will help safeguard our health. Through the better air monitoring, audits, inspections, reporting and above all preventive measures that the ordinance can bring, the City will be better able to reduce safety and health risks to our kids, seniors, small businesses and all Benicians.

The City Council has already taken the crucial first step in this direction. By a unanimous vote in December, the Council acted on a proposal by Vice Mayor Terry Scott and Councilwoman Kari Birdseye: It established a subcommittee comprising those two, aided by Fire Chief Josh Chadwick, to prepare an ISO.

While the ISO is being drafted, hopefully for adoption this summer, there are at least two things we can do to participate in the process:

First, please consider following and supporting the efforts of the Benicia Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance (BISHO) initiative (of which I’m a member), which can be found  at https://www.bisho.org/. (“Safety” and not just “health” is included in the name because one priority is to protect Benicians and Refinery workers against fires and explosions, and not just toxic emissions.)

BISHO’s evolving site provides reams of relevant information. It also includes how to join the almost 200 fellow citizens who are supporting an ISO (and who, given that some folks may back a measure even if they don’t sign on to it, may well represent many thousands of Benicians).

Second, check out and post your thoughts at the “Engage Benicia” site the City has established to exchange information and opinions about the planned ISO: https://engagebenicia.com/en/. It provides “Opportunities for Input,” where you can weigh in on a number of weighty questions regarding our safety, health and an ISO.

Clicking this image will take you to EngageBenicia.com

The site isn’t ideal. (Then again, what is?) For instance, it solicits our thoughts on a current “Community Advisory Panel” (CAP) without noting that to a great extent it is controlled and serves at the discretion of Valero. Still, the site represents a laudable effort to seek community input as Birdseye, Scott, Chadwick and other City personnel work hard to take Benicians’ perspectives into account. It’s well worth visiting, to register reactions and questions.

Now, on to the less pleasant news: A variety of research findings from across the country and the world indicate that cancer rates and other health problems are higher near refineries and related facilities than elsewhere. (There’s also relevant health data from Benicia, but I’ll save that for another day.) Again, my point is that an ISO can reduce our risks, not least by regulating Valero’s operations and reporting in ways that perhaps are not being done adequately elsewhere, such as in oil industry-friendly Texas (where, by the way, Valero is headquartered).

So please take this list as grounds for hope and urgency, not despair, about what Benicia can do. (The place listed is where the refinery is located; the date is when the research was published.)

Cancer rates, Texas, 2020: “[A University of Texas] team studied the Texas Cancer Registry and US Census Data from 2001 – 2014 to compare rates of cancer (bladder, breast, colon, lung, lymphoma, and prostate) of people within 30 miles of active Texas oil refineries. The team observed that proximity to an oil refinery was associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer diagnosis across all cancer types. People living within 10 miles of an active refinery were more likely to have advanced disease or metastatic disease.” https://www.utmb.edu/news/article/utmb-news/2021/07/06/new-study-links-increased-risk-of-cancer-to-proximity-to-oil-refineries.

Children’s liver and bone-related disorders, Texas, 2016: “This study examined the health effects of benzene exposure among children from a flaring incident at the British Petroleum (BP) refinery in Texas City, Texas…These findings suggest that children exposed to benzene are at a higher risk of developing both hepatic [liver-related] and bone marrow-related disorders. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26269465/

Post-incident health problems, Richmond, California, 2019: “After the 2012 incident [release chemicals into the air], two Emergency Departments took the brunt of the surge [of patients]. Censuses [i.e., the number of patients under care] increased from less than 600 a week each to respectively 5719 and 3072 the first week…It took 4 weeks for censuses to return to normal. The most common diagnosis groups that spiked were nervous/sensory, respiratory, circulatory, and injury.”

Leukaemia, various locations, 2020: “The systematic review identified 16 unique studies, which collectively record the incidence of haematological [blood-related] malignancies across 187,585 residents living close to a petrochemical operation. Residents from fenceline communities, less than 5 km 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.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32430062/

Children’s asthma, South Africa, 2009: “The results support the hypothesis of an increased prevalence of asthma symptoms among children in the area as a result of refinery emissions and provide a substantive basis for community concern.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19781087/

Female lung cancer, Taiwan, 2000: “The study results show that mortality from female lung cancer rose gradually about 30 to 37 years after the operation of a petroleum refinery plant began.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10845779/

There’s more, but I’ll leave it at that.

An ISO won’t be a cure-all by any means. But it will enable us to build on the work of state and federal agencies that, however well-intentioned, may not prioritize Benicia in view of the many areas they serve. It could well help to diminish our cancer risks and exposure to other health challenges.

And that should make us all breathe easier.

 

Benicia CA, Price gouging, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Energy Corporation

In Q3 2023, Valero raked in 70% more per gallon in California than in any other region

[Note from BenIndy: Today, we came across an article claiming that Valero commanded  higher profits in California compared to other regions – in the third-quarter of 2023, at the very least. After looking for other articles from Q3 referencing Valero’s higher refining margins in California, we learned that Valero reported gross refining margins of 78 cents per gallon on the West Coast, vs. “41 cents for the Gulf Coast, 49 cents for the U.S. Mid-Continent, and 48 cents for the North Atlantic​​​​.” Consumer Watchdog, by the way, suggests that 50 cents is the ‘red line marker’ for price-gouging. Wow. While it’s a little old, the best analysis of the price-gouging allegations levied against Valero and other refining giants comes from this October 2023 Daily Kos post. The images in this post were added by BenIndy are are not original to the Daily Kos post.]

Valero Posts $2.6 Billion 3rd Quarter Profit On CA Gasoline Margins 70% Greater Than Other Regions

Image generated by DALL·E, OpenAI’s AI-driven image creation tool. Please note that this image’s text is gibberish and not connected to reality, a known flaw in AI image generators, but the big “78 cents” referencing Valero’s refining margins in Q3 2023 is certainly correct.
Daily Kos, by Dan Bacher, October 26, 2023

Los Angeles, CA—The third quarter report to shareholders by Valero Energy Corporation shows it made 70% more per gallon in California than in any other region of the U.S. or the globe that it operates in, according to a report from Consumer Watchdog today.

Headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, the corporation operates 15 refineries in the U.S., Canada and U.K.

Consumer Watchdog called for the California Energy Commission to expedite the process for setting a price gouging penalty under a new law passed this year, SBx1 2.

“It is time for the California Energy Commission to put its foot on the gas and set a price-gouging penalty on big refiners ripping us off at the pump,” said Consumer Advocate Liza Tucker. “It is time for the state to prevent refiners from using us as one big ATM.”

Valero, one of the five big California refiners that control nearly the entire gasoline market, reported net profits of $2.6 billion this quarter, down a tick from $2.8 billion the year before, according to Tucker. Its refining sector reported third quarter operating income of $3.4 billion, down from $3.8 billion the year before: investorvalero.com/…

“Our refineries operated well and achieved 95 percent through put capacity utilization, which is a testament to our team’s relentless focus on operational excellence,” gushed Lane Riggs, Valero’s Chief Executive Officer and President in a press release. “Product demand remained strong in our U.S. wholesale system, which matched the second quarter record of over 1 million barrels per day of sales volume.”

Tucker had a quite different assessment of the corporation’s “relentless focus on operational excellence” than Valero CEO Riggs, describing the company’s profit margins on the West Coast, obtained through apparent price gouging, as “eye popping.”

Image from the California Energy Commission’s November 28, 2023 “SBX1-2 Workshop on Maximum Gross Gasoline Refining Margin and Penalty” presentation. To learn more about this workshop, click this link. You will be redirected to the workshop page on the CEC’s website.

“3rd quarter gross refining margins of 78 cents per gallon were eye-popping on the West Coast, far higher than in any other of Valero’s operating regions,” she stated. “Valero reported margins on Gulf Coast at 41 cents; at 49 cents for the U.S. Mid-Continent; and 48 cents for the North Atlantic.”

“The West Coast gross refining margin also blew past Valero’s 60 cents per gallon reported in the third quarter of 2022. Valero only has West Coast refineries in California,” Tucker pointed out.

She also said the gross refining margins reported to investors understate the gasoline profits as jet fuel and diesel are included,

Data reported by refiners to the California Energy Commission shows the average gross refining margin from all refiners in California just for gasoline was $1.29 per gallon in August, double the January margin of 66 cents, and has been over $1.00 per gallon since February, according to Tucker. See: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market/california-oil-refinery-cost-disclosure

Senate Bill (SB) 1322 requires all refiners of gasoline products in the state to provide monthly data about various price and volume information. The California Energy Commission (CEC) must publish aggregated, volume weighted reports of this data, within 45 days of the end of each calendar month

Over the past two decades through 2021, shareholder reports reveal refiners did not exceed a gross refining margin of 50 cents per gallon—except three times by Chevron. See: https://seuc.senate.ca.gov/sites/seuc.senate.ca.gov/files/02-22-23_court_presentation.pdf

In 2022, all five refiners breached that 50-cent per gallon windfall profit barrier, noted Tucker. This data is corroborated by a recent report by the California Energy Commission looking back ten years based on OPIS data.  See: https://consumerwatchdog.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Item_09_OIIP_Refiner_Margin_Penalty_ada.pdf

“Last year, legislation empowered the California Energy Commission to form a special division to investigate gas prices in California and to set a price-gouging penalty, which Governor Newsom has called for. Last week, the Commission voted to begin such a proceeding that first involves the gathering of accurate data from refiners. SB 1322 requires refiners to report their margins to the regulator that then posts them on its website,” concluded Tucker.

WSPA and Big Oil pump Big Money into influencing California regulators 

As Valero made 70% more per gallon in California than in any other region of the U.S. or the globe that it operates in, the oil and gas regulators in“green” California, the seventh largest oil producing state in the nation, continue to issue new and reworked oil drilling permits. The Newsom administration has approved a total of 15,722 new and reworked oil wells since January 2019.

This year CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulator, “has gone rogue, approving hundreds of oil permits in vulnerable communities breathing poisonous emissions from both active and idle wells,” reported Consumer Watch and FracTracker Alliance. For a complete permit update, see: https://newsomwellwatch.com

Why do California regulators continue to approve hundreds of new and reworked oil drilling permits each quarter as oil companies like Valero gouge Californians at the pumps?

It’s all due to deep regulatory capture by Big Oil and Big Gas in the “green” and “progressive” state of California. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), Chevron and the oil companies exercise their influence and power through a very sophisticated public relations machine in California and the U.S.

WSPA describes itself as “non-profit trade association” that represents companies that account for the bulk of petroleum exploration, production, refining, transportation and marketing in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. WSPA’s headquarters is located right here on L Street in Sacramento.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President and CEO of WSPA, is the former chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast to create “marine protected areas” in the same region that she was lobbying for new offshore drilling.

Since 2009 I have documented how WSPA and the oil companies wield their power in 8 major ways: through (1) lobbying; (2) campaign spending; (3) serving on and putting shills on regulatory panels; (4) creating Astroturf groups; (5) working in collaboration with media; (6) sponsoring awards ceremonies and dinners, including those for legislators and journalists; (7) contributing to non profit organizations; and (8) creating alliances with labor unions, mainly construction trades.

The oil and gas industry spent over $34.2 million in the 2021-22 Legislative Session lobbying against SB 1137, legislation to mandate 3200 foot buffer zones around oil and gas wells, and other bills they were opposed to: cal-access.sos.ca.gov/…

For the oil companies, this was just pocket change when you consider that combined profits of California oil refiners, including PBF Energy, Chevron, Marathon Petroleum, Valero, and Phillips 66, were $75.4 billion in 2022.

The two biggest spenders were WSPA and Chevron. WSPA spent $11.7 million in the 2021-22 session, while Chevron spent a total of $8.6 million lobbying California officials.

Lobbying disclosures from Quarter 2 of 2023 reveal that oil companies and trade associations spent more than $3 million lobbying and a grand total of $4,085,639.57 in just three months to shape policymaking efforts in its favor in California. That brings the total spent by Big Oil and WSPA to over $13.4 million total in the first six months of 2023, putting them on track to exceed the 2022 expenditure of $18 million.

Chevron topped the lobbying expenses with $1,139,130, while WSPA placed second with $716,824.

The latest disclosures follow the $9.4 million that Big Oil spent to influence the California Legislature, Governor’s Office and agencies in the first quarter of 2023. Chevron came in first with over $4.9 million spent in the first quarter, while the WSPA finished second with over $2.3 million and Aera Energy finished third with nearly $628,000.

WSPA sponsors media dinners and awards for journalists

This year Big Oil has sponsored a chilling and highly successful campaign to sponsor dinners, awards ceremonies and conferences for journalists and the media. WPSA sponsored a “media dinner” on Tuesday, February 28 in Sacramento as part of #BizFedSactoDays.

The flyer for the event stated, “Journalists who play an outsize role in shaping narratives about state politics and holding lawmakers accountable will join business leaders to pull back the curtain on how they select and tell stories about California policies, policy and power.”

Speakers at the program included Coleen Nelson of the Sacramento Bee, Laurel Rosenhall of the Los Angeles Times, Kaitlyn Schallhorn of the Orange County Register and Dan Walters of Cal Matters.

Then on March 16, the Sacramento Press Club announced in a tweet that WSPA was the new “Lede Sponsor” of the Sacramento Press Club’s Journalism Awards Reception that was held on March 29: “Thank you to our new Lede Sponsor @officialWSPA! WSPA is dedicated to guaranteeing that every American has access to reliable energy options through socially, economically and environmentally responsible policies and regulations. Learn more more at http://wspa.org.

In response to this tweet, investigative journalist Aaron Cantu tweeted back on March 20, “As the recipient of @SacPressClub ’s environmental award last year, it’s concerning to see fossil fuel industry talking points passed off uncritically here. WSPA becoming lede sponsor happened in the context of a global PR turn as the climate crisis worsens.”

Unfortunately, Cantu and this writer are the only journalists with the courage to publicly criticize the sponsorship of a “journalism awards reception” by WSPA.

In addition to sponsoring journalism events in California, the Western States Petroleum Association has expanded its campaign to influence journalists nationally. WSPA and the controversial waste management firm Veolia North America sponsored events at this year’s Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) conference in Boise, Idaho, according to a report from DeSmog: https://www.desmog.com/2023/04/11/industry-sponsors-dinner-society-environmental-journalists-veolia-wspa.

The agenda for the conference, hosted in Boise, Idaho, revealed that WSPA and the waste management company Veolia North America sponsored two of the “beat dinners” hosted on April 21, the article by Sam Bright reported.

When #BigOil teams up with journalists, columnists and editors at events and only a couple of writers thinks there’s something wrong with this, you know we must be in deep trouble. Of course, no mainstream media reported on this huge scandal because it unveils the deep links between Big Oil and Big Media.

Background: California Oil Refinery Cost Disclosure Act Monthly Report

Senate Bill (SB) 1322 requires all refiners of gasoline products in the state to provide monthly data about various price and volume information. The California Energy Commission (CEC) must publish aggregated, volume weighted reports of this data, within 45 days of the end of each calendar month.

Specifically, SB 1322 requires the CEC to publish the following information from the refinery operators’ monthly reports:

  • A volume weighted gross gasoline refining margin for the state.
  • The gross gasoline refining margin for each refinery with two or more refining facilities in the state.
  • Volume and price of domestic and imported crude oil.
  • The breakdown of five types of sales required to be reported by refiners and associated volumes, prices per gallon, and actual or estimated costs associated with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and Cap and Trade programs.

SB X1-2, which took effect June 2023, expands the monthly reports to require refinery operators to provide net gasoline refining information. For more information, please visit Senate Bill X1-2 Implementation.

The data below complies with the CEC’s requirements to post the data as reported by the refiners. CEC continues to investigate the reported numbers. Additional findings, recalculations, further analysis, revised data, or other conclusions will be publicized here as we continue to verify the reported data.

Refiner Margin Data

Data last updated: October 18, 2023.

On October 3, 2023, the California Energy Commission published new petroleum market data showing the net gasoline refining information for California refiners. Volume-weighted average California gross refiner margin, net refiner margin, and numbers in the “Aggregated Data Reported” section are all calculated using information obtained from all six refinery companies. Gross and net margins reported by refinery company only reflect information from California refiners with two or more facilities which are Chevron, Valero, PBF, and Phillips 66.

The data show that in August, California refineries produced and sold 950,529,000 gallons of gasoline for a total estimated profit of $228,126,960.*

CEC staff will continue to collect and report refiner information on a monthly basis in order to analyze long-term trends as part of its assessment of setting a maximum gross refining margin and penalty for exceeding that maximum, as allowed by SB X1-2.

* Based on data reported by California refiners. The total profit estimate does not include spot pipeline transaction sales and may be considered a conservative estimate as a result.