<a href=www.vallejonews.com>Vallejo News, Monday, Jun 2, 2003 By Vicki Gray

The action this week is in Benicia, where the City Council faces a shootout Wednesday with a band of Texans called Valero. And, yes, there is a Vallejo angle. Complete Story Below

VIP? Give Me a Break!

VIP? That is the so-called (by Valero) Valero Improvement Project, known to the rest of us as the Valero Expansion Project. The company's local spokesperson, Bill Tanner, who apparently adheres to the Allison Abbott school of PR (Bechtel and the LNG project), claimed in the Vallejo Times-Herald last week that "VIP is not an expansion project per se," but admits in his next sentence that "we will realize an increase of up to 10 percent in processing."

Processing what? Not the relatively clean Alaskan North Slope crude, the supply of which is dwindling, but rather new imports of dirty, sulphur-laden oil from Venezuela.

Not to worry, Tanner and his bosses in San Antonio assure us. The project will actually reduce overall emissions by 40 percent. It will even recycle Benicia wastewater and create "200-300 high wage jobs." What a deal! Sound familiar?

Trouble is, the touted emission reduction is dependent on the installation of best available technology wet scrubber -- a device that was promised when the project was unveiled a year and a half ago and in subsequent presentations to the public. Unfortunately, the requirement for such a scrubber disappeared from the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted to the Benicia Planning Commission on April 28.

Benicia, however, remains a company town, and the Planning Commission voted overwhelmingly to approve a permit for the project that accepts Valero's plea for "flexibility" as to when and, indeed, whether to install the needed scrubber.

Where Are We Now? Where does that leave us? On May 8, the Commission's decision was appealed by a broad coalition of concerned Benicians, the Good Neighbor Steering Committee, backed by an even broader coalition of concerned Solanoans -- the Sierra Club, Solano Peace and Justice Coalition, West County Toxics Coalition, Solano Green Party, and, yes, Vallejo for Community Planned Renewal (VCPR).

Like Allison and her phantom "Citizens for LNG," Bill Tanner touts a "growing list of VIP supporters." Who? Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 343, the Benicia Chamber of Commerce and assorted hangers-on. Again, sound familiar?

The lines are drawn for, I'd like to say, the rematch at the O-K Corral, but more properly, a special meeting of the Benicia City Council on Wednesday, June 4. The council will vote on whether to approve the earlier Planning Commission decision.

Procedurally, Councilman Pierre Bidou, a Valero employee, must recuse himself on this issue. In the past he has self-interpreted that recusal requirement extraordinarily loosely; i.e., he has spoken to the issue and helped frame the vote before recusing himself from the actual vote. That is not sufficient. He should keep his mouth shut during the entire discussion of the issue or, better yet, absent himself from the room.

Valero itself, through Mr. Tanner, has displayed an arrogance on this issue worthy of a Bechtel. In his May 25 "My Turn" piece in the Times-Herald, for example, he claims that "the road to high environmental performance, conservation and efficiency does not necessarily require governmental mandates. VIP is a voluntary project, not required by law. The economic and environmental incentives already exist ... ."

Oh? Just three days earlier, Tanner told Times-Herald reporter Matthias Gaffni: "They need to understand that we're a business, and operating a scrubber, we don't make money. It's a $60 million investment, and it doesn't make us a plugged nickel." So much for the economic incentives on behalf of the environment for this $30 billion Texas conglomerate.

The Vallejo Angle? This is not just a Benicia issue, but rather a regional issue -- just like LNG and the refineries just across the Strait in Contra Costa. About 80 percent of the time, the prevailing winds will blow the pollution toward the 200,000 in Fairfield and Vacaville; and, during the remaining 20 percent of the time, Valero's increased pollution will waft over Benicia and, yes, Vallejo.

For this latter reason, I hope VCPR will present Vallejo's concerns to the Benicia City Council, just as Benicia's Downwind Coalition supported VCPR before the Vallejo City Council on LNG. If it made any mistakes, the Good Neighbor Steering Committee erred in accepting Valero's early vague promises. On the positive side, the GNSC has held the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's toes to the fire on flares and the regional impact of refinery emissions. That is something we should all support.

This is, to be sure, an opinionated abbreviation of the facts. I urge you to learn more before Wednesday night. How? Just hit the Valero Project button on BeniciaNews.com, call up Matthias Gaffni's May 22 story on timesheraldonline.com, or, best yet, contact Dana Dean, chair of GNSC at (707) 747-9454.

What's Your Opinion?

Here's what others are saying:

• Interesting Editorial From: Joan Gibbons On: June 02, 2003 09:06 AM OPINION Our view - East Bay Business Times - June 3, 2003

Approve upgrade

Valero Energy Corp.'s planned $140 million upgrade of its Benicia refinery not only will increase efficiency and keep the plant competitive, it will reduce emissions and conserve water.

What's not to like?

Nothing. And that's why the Benicia City Council on June 4 should reject demands for further study and add-ons that would, in effect, kill the project by pumping up the price tag.

The Planning Commission approved Valero's plans on April 28. Opponents appealed the commission's certification of the project's environmental impact report to the City Council.

The purported flaws in the environmental study are a canard. There is no reason to believe significant impacts have been overlooked. And just in case bureaucratic and legal delays aren't enough to kill the project, opponents have tacked on demands for such unrelated benefits as a citywide beautification program.

At least the demand for an air quality monitoring system - at an estimated cost of $1 million to $5 million - has something to do with refining oil, even if the Bay Area Air Quality Management District says it isn't necessary to keep tabs on Valero

Finally, the demand for construction of a second power plant at the refinery, which Valero estimates would cost $40 million, is at best unrealistic.

More than half of the $140 million upgrade cost will be devoted to environmental gear that will make the refinery a better corporate neighbor. That's a major - and sufficient - contribution to the community's welfare.

The City Council should let the project proceed. So should the opponents, who, despite their public protestations, appear to be more concerned about building a political power base than protecting the environment.

• Here's another editorial From: Jason On: June 02, 2003 09:11 AM Vacaville Reporter

May 30, 2003 Not-so-good neighbors Group trying to derail plan that is good for environment, economy

A puzzling and troubling peril in Solano County's port city of Benicia has emerged as an upstart environmental group needlessly tries to hamstring one of the region's top employers and community partners.

Valero Energy Corp. wants to upgrade its refinery to reduce air pollution and enhance water quality in Benicia. It wants to enhance its facilities so that it can compete in the energy market of the future and grow its business, which in turn will grow its work force.

A so-called "good neighbor" faction, however, is throwing up spurious roadblocks.

Over 16 months the refinery owners fine-tuned the Valero Improvement Project, or VIP. The new plan has undergone the scrutiny of many public hearings and workshops, as well as a full and independent environmental review and meetings with various community groups.

VIP is a $140 million proposal designed to install environmental control equipment, recycle water and modernize and update existing oil processing equipment. The primary goal is to ensure that the refinery can be more competitive into the future by allowing the use of more lower-priced raw materials, hopefully controlling the price of fuel.

What is important to remember is that this is a voluntary approach, something Valero is willing to do in response to a new dilemma it faces - the decline Alaskan crude oil.

In response, Valero has begun to look for ways to supplement oil from Alaska with oil from elsewhere. That means the refinery likely will use heavier raw materials. These alternative-source crude oils have more contaminants.

VIP has been endorsed by business, labor and more mainline environmental organizations like the Bay Planning Coalition and the Napa-Solano Audubon Society, leading the city's Planning Commission to approve the permit.

Much of the controversy focuses on a $70 million "wet scrubber" to process the sour crudes from Latin America, which will reduce overall air emissions, especially from the pollutant-laden feedstock. But the environmentalists want Valero to install the scrubber sooner, rather than on a timetable that coincides with processing the dirtier crude.

That, of course, is not a sensible business approach and Valero has balked. And it is easy to see why.

If the Benicia-based Good Neighbor Steering wants to be good neighbors, then they should work with the refinery and city officials, not fight them. They should see the job creation that can occur, and the environmental benefits of having an upgraded refinery in their community.

What they want to do now makes no sense - economically or environmentally.

• Here's what the legitmate news media is saying From: Phillip Isner On: June 02, 2003 09:19 AM Dear reading public: here's an article from the Business Times from 6/2/2003. Interesting discussion politics at the end of the article.

Valero: Delays could kill $140M Benicia upgrades Alan Doyle, Business Times

Without an unlikely last-minute deal between refinery executives and environmentalists before a June 4 City Council meeting, Valero Energy Corp.'s $140 million proposed Benicia upgrade is in danger of being canceled, refinery officials say.

There's a growing likelihood Valero will scrap the project rather than incur additional expense from more delays in getting permission for the "Valero Improvement Project" proposed 18 months ago.

The VIP project, as the company has dubbed the upgrade, encompasses a cluster of renovations and expansions that Valero says it needs to complete over the next six years to remain competitive by processing a higher percentage of "sour" or more pollutant-laden crudes.

The Benicia refinery, with a throughput capacity of 165,000 barrels per day, provides about 25 percent of the Bay Area's gasoline and jet fuel. Valero says it must be able to switch to a greater percentage of Latin American crudes as cleaner Alaska North Slope supplies dwindle and become more expensive.

Valero says it can complete many of the individual components of upgrade without overall approval, but it would not be able to install a wet scrubber that it needs to switch to less costly crudes. That would hinder its ability to compete against other East Bay refiners and cut into profits.

Valero says approval of the project would generate hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars for local government and schools facing budget cutbacks. It would also reduce air emissions.

Valero says timing is critical on the major portions of VIP projects, which must be done during major plant maintenance, or turnarounds, to control costs and production. The next major turnaround in Benicia is set for 2004.

Opponents claim the VIP environmental impact report approved April 28 by the Benicia Planning Commission is so flawed that it must be redone, which would take months and cost thousands of dollars.

Even if Benicia refinery officials wanted to slog through another round of delays, they've exhausted their budget - more than $2 million in 18 months - and additional funding from corporate headquarters isn't likely, said Bill Tanner, the Benicia refinery's community relations manager.

Tanner said fatal delays could come in three ways:

If the council doesn't wrap up proceedings at a June 4 special meeting called to consider environmentalists' appeal of the Planning Commission's April 28 approval of VIP.

If the council grants a request by an environmental coalition - Benicia's Good Neighbor Steering Committee, the Solano County Green Party and the Solano chapter of the Sierra Club - to revise and recirculate the environmental impact report on which the commission based its decision. If the council denies the appeal, but the environmental groups file suit.

A fourth uncertainty is the council vote itself. Councilman Pierre Bidou can't vote on the appeal because he's a Valero employee. That leaves four council members to vote on the environmentalists' appeal.

There are conflicting legal opinions, according to Councilman Daniel Smith, an opponent of the refinery project, whether a 2-2 vote would leave the issue in limbo or serve to affirm the Planning Commission's decision - which environmentalists already have vowed will lead to a lawsuit.

The June 4 hearing is expected to draw more than 300 people and run into the early hours of the morning.

The hearing also will serve as a test of the growing political power of the environmental movement against the backdrop of November City Council elections.

Dana Dean, the spokeswoman for the Good Neighbor Steering Committee and an officer of the local Democratic organization, has been rumored to be a potential council candidate.

"I am not running for the City Council," Dean said.

Tanner said refinery executives are willing to continue negotiations with Dean and the environmental groups until the eve of the council meeting.

"But they must realize this project must be economically viable to Valero," Tanner said. "If there are too many expenses caused by delays or add-ons, we'll walk away from it."

• Population control From: You wish! On: June 06, 2003 09:41 AM [Let me see the Conservatives cry for mandantory birth control]

That'll be a cold day in hell - don't you know the "partial birth" abortion restriction was just passed by conservatives? And they will continue their assault on abortion rights to try and make sure that women no longer have the right to privacy and control over their own bodies.

"partial birth" isn't even a medical term, it was made up by the anti-choice people.