NEW YORK, April 24 (Reuters) – Valero Energy (VLO.N), on Thursday said it would cease operations at its 170,000-barrel-per-day San Francisco-area oil refinery next year amid worries about California’s declining fuel supplies and high gasoline prices.
The decision clarifies plans for the Benicia refinery after the San Antonio, Texas-based refiner last week announced its intent to “idle, restructure, or cease operations” there by the end of April 2026. Valero also said it had recorded a $1.1 billion pre-tax impairment related to its California refineries.
Valero CEO Lane Riggs cited challenging regulatory and enforcement environment for the decision to cease operations.
Benicia’s closure is the latest in a series of planned refinery shutdowns in the state. In October, Phillips 66 (PSX.N), said it would shutter its Los Angeles-area refinery by the end of this year. Phillips 66 last year converted its Rodeo refinery into a renewables production facility.
Gasoline prices in California are among the highest in the country due to the state’s reliance on imports to offset declining supplies.
California Governor Gavin Newsom this week told state officials to step up efforts to guarantee reliable fuel supplies for the state.
“California has been pursuing policies to move away from fossil fuels for the past 20 years, and the consequence of that is the regulatory and enforcement environment is the most stringent and difficult of anywhere else in North America,” Riggs said on Thursday during a call with analysts.
The Benicia refinery costs considerably more to maintain compared to Valero’s 135,000-bpd Wilmington refinery near Los Angeles, Riggs added.
The Benicia refinery accounts for about 9% of the state’s crude oil refining capacity. The facility processes feedstocks into products including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and asphalt.
“Our current intent is to close the refinery,” Rich Walsh, executive vice president at Valero, said during a call with analysts. “We’ve already had meetings with the CEC (California Energy Commission) and are working with them to minimize the impacts that would result from the loss of the refinery.”
Valero’s Benicia Refinery, located near homes, schools, and parks, has placed – and will continue to place – residents at risk during dangerous incidents or regulatory violations. Despite years of accidental spills and emissions as well as many documented violations (some egregious), Valero has maintained its historic hostility to both citizen- and City-led proposals for local oversight. | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub.
By Stephen Golub, January 26, 2025
On Tuesday, February 4, we can help protect Benicia’s kids and grandkids and all the rest of us by attending the 6 pm City Council meeting, in person or via Zoom, to show support for the draft Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) that the Council will soon vote on. The measure can reduce the risks of toxic emissions, fires and explosions at the Valero Refinery and other covered businesses. You can supplement your attendance by emailing your support to Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Trevor Macenski and Council Members Kari Birdseye, Lionel Largaespada and Terry Scott, at
Imagine you had a neighbor who had a backyard business that they repeatedly said was safe. But lo and behold, you found out that for many years the business had emitted toxic fumes dangerous to the health of your kids and grandkids and yourself.
What’s more, this was by no means the only such hazardous action by them. And some such actions also pose the risk of fire and explosions.
After all this, the neighbor sends a letter that could be seen as a threat to sue you if you seek firmer guarantees than a supposed safety-enhancing understanding you two had, which in fact had failed to ensure safety from their fumes. And folks affiliated with them reject initial attempts to discuss such guarantees. (But the neighbor does buy your kids little league uniforms as a gesture of goodwill.)
Would you feel safe? Would you want more assurance to protect the kids from toxic fumes, fires and explosions?
That’s pretty much the choice Benicia faces. On February 4, the City Council will start to consider the ISO. The measure requires that the Valero Refinery and other potentially dangerous businesses provide us with more information about their operations and accidents, information that could protect our kids and all of us from dangerous emissions and potential fires and explosions.
This should be a no-brainer. Drafted with great dedication and diligence by Council Members Birdseye and Scott as well as Fire Chief Chadwick and other personnel, the ISO gives Benicia a seat at the table in knowing what’s going on.
This in turn helps prevent dangerous events. If we’d had such a seat for the past 20 years, we might have avoided 15-plus years of Valero spewing toxic emissions hundreds of times the legal limits into our air, as well as some of the numerous other violations it committed.
The need for the ISO has increased greatly recently. With a new administration in DC backed by fossil fuel industry interests, the federal Environmental Protection Agency will almost certainly reduce its crucial role in protecting our health and safety.
Right now, all we have with Valero is a Memorandum of Understanding that the corporation can walk away from pretty easily.
The ISO would instead be binding on and paid for by Valero and other covered businesses.
All other refinery-hosting communities in the Bay Area have such ISOs; we’re merely seeking the same sort of prevention and protection for our health and safety.
As I’ve said before, I greatly respect our valued neighbors and friends who work or worked hard at the refinery. But Valero’s Texas headquarters calls the shots. We’re the ones who suffer if something goes wrong, not those San Antonio-based executives.
The threat of emissions, fires and explosions may seem far away. Many LA residents had similar thoughts before firestorms raced through their communities. Unlike them, we can take a specific step – the ISO – to reduce risks.
By showing up at the February 4 meeting and emailing our City Council members, we can help preserve this wonderful town that we love.
Speaking of the Council, it’s time for these dedicated public servants to stand up together for Benicians’ health and safety.
Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land
By Stephen Golub, first published in the Benicia Herald on October 13, 2024
When we think about courage, the kinds of things that come to mind are police taking on violent criminals or firefighters rushing into burning buildings. We don’t think of city officials poring over spreadsheets and budget documents.
But when it comes to this year’s mayoral and City Council elections, there’s an admirable element of courage at play. This is a central reason I’m endorsing Mayor Steve Young for reelection, as well as Christina Gilpin-Hayes and (current Council Member) Trevor Macenski for City Council.
They all also merit support for additional reasons that go beyond our budget crisis, including the initiative and energy they’ll bring to these (largely uncompensated) jobs. But with respect to that crisis, they’ve earned respect by biting the bullet and backing the three revenue-enhancing measures on the Benicia ballot, involving a small sales tax increase for road repair and introduction of a modest real estate transfer tax for more general purposes.
Retiring Benicia Council Member Tom Campbell has endorsed Gilpin-Hayes for City Council, along with Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Terry Scott, and Council Member Kari Birdseye. | City of Benicia.
Regrettably, as demonstrated by retiring Council Member Tom Cambell in his October 9 letter to the Herald, the responsibility shown by Young, Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski sharply contrasts with an erroneous budgetary approach taken by a twice-defeated (and once victorious) current Council candidate, Republican Lionel Largaespada. Not one to mince words, Campbell describes Largaespada’s number-juggling in terms of “voodoo math.”
As ably analyzed by Campbell, Largaespada’s misleading approach includes incorrectly claiming that he’s “found” enough existing City money to cover road repair and identifying supposedly excessive spending on outside contracting services – even though such services in fact are essential or even crucial to Benicia (and, I’d add, would most likely be more expensive if carried out by City personnel).
Campbell further explains that “Largaespada never talked to anyone in the [City’s] finance department or the City Manager’s department about his plan.” Finally, demonstrating some fine institutional memory, Campbell points to the video of a specific Council meeting to assert that in 2019, while on the Council( before being defeated in 2022), Largaespada backed a higher sales tax than the one candidate Largaespada now opposes. He was apparently for that kind of tax before he was against it.
All this worries me in three ways.
First, with 44 percent of the City budget going to fire and police protection, there seems no way to adopt Largaespada’s apparent voodoo math without cutting that essential protection. It could also mean deteriorating roads and other City services, as well as a failure to repair City buildings and facilities, such as the Police headquarters, the Senior Center, the Swim Center, the library and a host of other structures.
Second, Campbell does not stand alone in his refutation of Largaespada’s math. His critique is part of a broad consensus of criticism that I’ve heard from responsible Benicians across the political spectrum, ranging from business-centric to progressive circles.
Finally, if Largaespada brings this questionable approach to the budget, one must wonder about his judgment in handling other pressing issues Benicia faces – not least safety and health challenges presented by Texas-based Valero, who’s dangerous crude-by-rail “bomb train” plan he backed several years ago and which has massively, indirectly supported him through political action committee spending over the years – often through misleading ads that unfairly attack his opponents.
I don’t like criticizing Largaespada in these pages. He is a good, bright person. But I don’t like the possibility of gutting City services hanging over our heads either, especially when Campbell and many other experts refute his calculations.
Back to courage and judgment: It’s hard to tell people we need additional taxes. It’s harder still to put one’s political career on the line to do so. But Mayor Young has led the way in dedicating much of his campaign to that, in order to right the City’s fiscal ship for now and into the future.
The Benicia Save Our Streets Committee are fighting to pass Measure F to fix out streets.
Thus, he’s backing Ballot Measure F, the product of a citizen initiative that gathered over 2,000 signatures, which will increase the sales tax on non-grocery items by a small amount (to still less than a number of other Bay Area communities) in order to ensure that road repair is fully funded.
He’s similarly backing Measures G and H, which together will allow the City to raise funds to help close our looming budget deficits via a modest transfer tax on real estate sales – with key exceptions such as no tax in the case of inheritance or divorce.
A real value of G and H is that with state-mandated additions of housing to Benicia, other possible housing developments on the horizon and the possibility of Valero selling its refinery down the line, large chunks of revenue could be generated by the transfer tax without imposing any costs on current Benicia residents.
I won’t delve into the pros and cons of these three measures beyond very briefly addressing certain frequently heard counter-arguments.
For instance, aren’t City employees overpaid or isn’t the City overstaffed? No. In fact, sometimes Benicia does not even match the going rate for some jobs in other municipalities, which has meant losing valuable staff to them and the resulting expense of recruiting and hiring replacements. And Benicia has made staff consolidations to streamline its operations.
Or, why can’t we renegotiate employee pensions? Because we’re bound by law to honor them.
For these reasons and many more, all three measures have the support of Benicia’s public safety unions, the Solano County Association of Realtors, the County’s Democratic Party and many other organizations and individuals across the political spectrum.
The budget crisis isn’t at all the only reason I’m backing Steve Young for Mayor. He displays an even keel in leading the City, as evidenced by the calm stewardship he showed during the pandemic. He offers various sensible plans and projects to enhance our business climate and quality of life. Such initiatives will yield additional revenues down the line without imposing additional taxes.
I have not addressed Macenski’s candidacy much because, as a popular incumbent, he does not seem to need the same level of discussion as newcomer Gilpin-Hayes, whom I’ve previously, enthusiastically endorsed. Suffice to say that he is a very sharp individual who brings great knowledge to consideration of many city issues.
Smoke from the Valero Benicia refinery during a 2017 incident. | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
There is, however, one regard in which I wish Gilpin-Hayes, Macenski and especially Young were stronger: the proposed Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) that Vice Mayor Scott, Council Member Birdseye and several other individuals have labored over for the past year. All three have cautiously endorsed aspects of it in principle, which is understandable. But as a matter of leadership and legacy, and of safety and health, stronger and clearer support would be welcome in the lead-up to the election – especially in contrast with the eventual unsupportive stance we might expect from Largaespada in view of his past backing by Texas-based Valero.
I have not addressed the candidacies of Kevin Kirby for Mayor and (former Valero and Exxon Mobil employee) Franz Rosenthal for City Council because, while they both came across as nice folks in a recent forum organized by the Benicia High School debate team, neither have matched the focus or knowledge of Young, Gilpin-Hayes, Macenski or Largaespada– whether at that forum or online – regarding the crucial issues confronting Benicia. The one exception is former Valero and Exxon Mobil employee Rosenthal’s clear opposition to the ISO.
In addition, given Rosenthal’s apparent extremely late entry into the race, one wonders whether, as the other new face in the Council contest, he’ll counterproductively take votes away from the energetic and well-qualified newcomer Gilpin-Hayes.
To sum up: For their courage, judgement and many more reasons, I hope that Benicians will work for, donate to and above all vote for Young, Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski for Mayor and City Council Members. Benicia needs the sound, responsible, energetic approaches they bring to the table.
[Note: I have donated to the Young and Gilpin-Hayes campaigns.]
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
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, 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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.