Benicia’s abuzz with important upcoming events

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.

---

CHECK OUT STEPHEN GOLUB’S BLOG, A PROMISED LAND

Eight factors that may be influencing Valero to shut down the Benicia Refinery

By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author, “Benicia and Beyond” column in the Benicia Herald, April 27, 2025

Before addressing the heart of this article, I want to flag a couple of important matters…

First, my sympathies for our many Catholic neighbors and friends in Benicia affected by the passing of Pope Francis. I’ll confess to not being a religious person. But that didn’t stop Pope Francis from touching my life and billions of others (Catholic or not) in terms of the inspiration and compassion he displayed.

Second, even as we consider the ramifications of the focus of this column – the transition Valero is undertaking – I want to emphasize my hope that Benicia can and will help those most immediately affected: the workers who stand to lose their jobs and the businesses that stand to lose substantial income. I realize that there are restrictions on how the Air District can spend the tens of millions of dollars in fines it negotiated with Valero by virtue of its over 15 years of undisclosed poisoning of our air. I hope those restrictions can be interpreted or simply changed to allow some help for those suffering most from Valero’s decision.

Which brings me to the column’s focus: What is behind Valero’s April 16 notification to the California Energy Commission (CEC) of “of its current intent to idle, restructure, or cease refining operations” and its executive vice president’s April 24 follow-up statement that “Our current intent is to close the refinery”? I obviously am not sitting 1,700 miles away in the corporation’s San Antonio headquarters, where the decision was made. But based on a number of in-person and online discussions, I’ll offer some somewhat informed speculation.

To start with, let’s cut to the chase: When a company decides to fire folks, it’s the company’s decision and responsibility, no one else’s.

Let’s also bear in mind that we don’t know for sure what Valero’s going to do, in view of its framing everything in terms of “current intent.” Intents can change.

Finally, let’s hope and expect that Valero will very soon confirm that it intends to fully clean up the refinery of pollutants, toxic wastes, etc. that it may have deposited (whether intentionally or unintentionally, legally or illegally) in the facility, on the grounds and in surrounding waters and other areas. Cleaning up one’s mess is what we expect even of little children. It’s certainly a requirement for a major corporation.

Perhaps its April 16 statement that it has “expected asset retirement obligations of $337 million as of March 31, 2025” is an indication of that clean-up intent; perhaps not. Regardless, we need that clean-up commitment quickly, in clear, non-technical language.

So, what contributed to this decision, or at least to the “current intent”? Again, I certainly don’t know for certain. But I know more than I did a week ago. Because this is so important to Benicia, I delve into this matter a bit more deeply than I did in last week’s column. So, based on both personal and online discussions, it seems that some combination of these international, national, state and market factors may well have been at play:

A negotiating tactic. Returning to the “current intent” consideration, it’s very possible that the threat of closing the refinery, coupled with the rising fuel prices that the decreased fuel supply could cause for Californians, is a ploy to force the state to relax certain regulations. If so, it may be working. A few days ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom instructed the CEC to “redouble” efforts to ensure that California refineries “continue to see the value in serving the California market…”

California regulations. Newsom’s letter seems directed at a core concern of Valero and other refinery operators: that they see California regulations as being too burdensome. While I can understand their concern from a business perspective, I also like the fact that those regulations contribute to cleaner air, healthier kids, less dangerous operations, price-gouging prevention and other benefits. For instance, a recently adopted California law requires California refineries to maintain minimum levels of fuel inventories, which in turn helps prevent surge pricing.

The cost of upgrading the refinery’s operations. As Benicia well knows, there have been frequent operational, safety, health and emissions issues at the refinery. As explained in a recent KQED interview with a UC Berkeley energy economist, “the Benicia refinery’s many production and emissions problems would likely require significant, costly upgrades to address,” so Valero probably decided that it was not worth investing in those upgrades.

Improved profits. That UC Berkeley economist has also indicated that, by reducing supply, shutting down the Benicia facility could increase profits for Valero’s Southern California refinery.

A declining market. Even as the refinery’s possible closure disrupts the California fuel market in some powerful and potentially painful short-term ways, the writing is on the wall for decreased reliance on fossil fuels – particularly in California but also beyond it as electric vehicle sales increase and international trends come into play. Valero understandably needs to plan in terms of decades instead of just years. The declining market could contribute to its reluctance to make upgrades at the refinery.

Tariffs. Though planned tariffs on various imports are such a bouncing ball that it’s tough to keep track of where they stand, the 10 percent that the Trump Administration has threatened to impose on Canadian oil imports (more than a quarter of U.S. refinery demand) could lower Valero’s and other firms’ profit margins. This could influence a cost-benefit analysis of whether operating the refinery makes economic sense. Similar tariff calculations could apply to equipment and other imports important to refinery operations.

A failed sale of the refinery. There is much speculation, some apparently informed by Valero personnel, that the corporation saw a sale of the refinery fall through last year. This could explain relatively recent personnel changes the corporation made at the facility, in anticipation of the planned purchase. In the wake of the failed sale, Valero might have decided that for various reasons outlined here it did not want to continue operating the refinery – or, again, that threatening to close it could push changes in California policies. Or perhaps it even felt that publicly announcing its plans could trigger new investors’ interest in purchasing the operation.

A problematic property. Some of the many factors I’ve sketched here could add up to the refinery being difficult to maintain or sell. Prospective buyers might have seen too many problems to make the purchase of the property financially viable. Continued operations could force the facility to make a fateful choice: on the one hand, conduct expensive upgrades in light of necessary health, safety, environmental and operational requirements; on the other, additional scrutiny of the ways it might dangerously fall short without such upgrades.

Once again, I’m speculating here rather than offering expert opinion. But in understanding how Benicia moves forward, it’s important to consider how we got here.

One thing is clear: Whatever the precise mix of causes, this decision was many months if not years in the making. It springs from major state, national, international and financial trends and factors reaching way beyond anything Benicia’s government has or hasn’t done.

Without holding out excessive hope for our neighbors and friends whose livelihoods are put at risk by the San Antonio headquarters’ decision, one other thing that seems clear is that it is not yet absolutely clear what Valero will do.

In any event, I hope that this list of potentially contributing causes helps a bit as we grapple with our current challenges and start to consider our community’s future.

---

CHECK OUT STEPHEN GOLUB’S BLOG, A PROMISED LAND