Five Years, One Vote, and a Question Novato Can't Dodge

Five Years, One Vote, and the Question Novato Can't Dodge: Is Blocking the Costco Gas Station Actually Good for the Climate?

By Marc Hunter Lewis

Subscribe

On June 9, 2026, the Novato City Council will vote on whether to approve a Costco fuel center at 300 Vintage Way. And look, I get the opposition. I really do. A gas station feels wrong. It feels like exactly the kind of thing a city with a Climate Action Plan should be standing up against. It feels like progress.

But here's the thing about feelings and climate policy: the atmosphere doesn't care about feelings. It only cares about how many molecules of CO2 you put into it. And when you actually run the numbers on this particular gas station, in this particular city, at this particular moment in the energy transition, the numbers do not say what 350 Marin thinks they say.

Not even close.

The Gas Is Getting Burned Either Way. Every Single Drop of It.

Let me explain something about how gasoline demand works, because apparently this needs explaining.

Novato has a Costco. Costco members love cheap gas. The nearest Costco gas is in Rohnert Park, approximately 40 miles round-trip, or Vallejo, approximately 42 miles round-trip. And yet, thousands of Novato Costco members make that drive. Regularly. We know this because Costco's traffic engineers pulled actual membership card transaction records, geolocated by zip code, and counted them.

So here is what happens when you approve the Novato fuel center: those members drive 2.5 miles instead of 40. Net result: 702 fewer vehicle miles traveled per day, confirmed by the city's own independent transportation consultant.

And here is what happens when you block the Novato fuel center: those members keep driving to Rohnert Park. Same gas. Same car. Same CO2. Just 35 more miles of it.

That's the whole analysis. You are not preventing a single gallon of gasoline from being burned. You are determining how far someone has to drive before they burn it. And the position of the Novato climate coalition, their actual operational real-world position, is: farther is better.

I genuinely do not know how to say that more plainly.

350 Marin Is Right About Almost Everything Except the Part That Matters

Here is what I genuinely respect about 350 Marin: they are not wrong about the big picture. Transportation is Novato's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. The future of the automobile is electric. Every gas station has a lifespan, and every lifespan is a window during which someone has a financial interest in combustion technology remaining viable.

These are real points. They matter. And then something happens between "the future is electric" and "therefore deny this permit," and that something is: the argument falls completely apart.

Because here is what the opposition's logic requires you to believe. It requires you to believe that denying this permit will cause Novato Costco members to purchase electric vehicles. Not drive to Rohnert Park. Not fill up at the Shell on Redwood Boulevard. Actually go to a dealership and buy a new car. Because of a planning commission vote.

Novato's own CAP 2030 projects 26% EV adoption by 2030. Twenty-six percent. When this council votes on June 9th, three out of every four cars registered in this city will still run on gasoline. Those cars exist. They have been purchased, financed, and parked in people's driveways. And the people who own them are going to put gas in them whether this station gets built or not.

The question, the only question that matters for this vote, is whether they buy that gas two miles from their house or forty miles from their house. Everything else is vibes.

Also, and I Cannot Stress This Enough: Not All Gas Is the Same

This is the part of the debate that nobody ever mentions, and it bothers me every time.

Costco sells Top Tier Detergent Gasoline. This is a voluntary certification backed by Toyota, BMW, Honda, GM, Audi, and Volkswagen that requires two to three times more detergent additive than the EPA's minimum standard. It specifically prohibits metallic additives that destroy catalytic converters over time.

Why does this matter? Because your catalytic converter is the device that prevents your car from dumping raw hydrocarbons, benzene, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide into the air that Novato's children breathe. A car running on cheap low-grade fuel that is slowly poisoning its catalytic converter emits, per AAA's research, up to 19 times more harmful engine deposits than a car maintained on Top Tier fuel. Nineteen times.

So when a Novato driver switches from the discount station down the street to Costco: the CO2 per gallon is roughly the same. The local air quality is meaningfully better. The children near Vintage Oaks breathe cleaner air. This is a real, measurable, documented benefit that the opposition has never once acknowledged.

The opposition frames this project as a choice between fossil fuels and a clean electric future. The actual choice, for the 74% of Novato drivers who will still own gasoline cars next year, is between Costco's Top Tier gas bought locally and lower-quality gas bought locally, or slightly better gas bought after a 40-mile round trip. Costco is the cleanest available option in a world where gasoline is still being burned regardless.

Costco: Corporate Villain, or Actually One of the Better Companies Operating in This Country?

I want to address the "corporate greed" framing directly, because it shows up in the opposition's rhetoric and it deserves more than an eye roll.

Costco pays its U.S. employees an average of more than $32 per hour. Ninety-four percent of eligible employees have health benefits. Average tenure is nine years, roughly triple the retail industry average. The U.S. Secretary of Labor once publicly cited Costco as the model employer every company in America should aspire to be. Last fiscal year, the company donated $97 million to charitable organizations and provided 186 million donated meals.

On climate, and please actually read these numbers, Costco cut its Scope 1 and 2 operational emissions by 7.2% last year while growing global sales by 8%. It has 126 on-site solar installations. It has committed to 100% clean electricity by 2035. It helped facilitate the purchase of 193,000 electric vehicles through its Auto Program last year, nearly double the prior year, and is expanding EV charging at warehouse locations in partnership with Electrify America.

This is the company being called a greedy corporate actor. This is the company supposedly incompatible with Novato's clean energy future. The same company that last year helped more Americans buy electric vehicles than almost any other single retailer on the planet.

I'll just leave that there and let it breathe for a moment.

The $1.8 Million Question Nobody Is Asking

Novato's CAP 2030 has good goals. EV charging expansion, bike infrastructure, transit investment, sustainability staffing. Every single one of them requires money.

The Costco Fuel Center will sell approximately 36 million gallons of gasoline per year. At Marin County's current pump price of around $4.80 per gallon, that is roughly $172 million in annual taxable fuel sales. California's sales tax on motor vehicle fuel runs at 2.25%. Novato's local share is 1%. The math produces approximately $1.7 to $1.9 million per year in recurring, unrestricted general fund revenue, enough to fund Novato's entire sustainability department, a meaningful citywide EV charging buildout, and the active transportation improvements currently sitting unfunded in CAP 2030.

Here is the question I want every council member to sit with before casting their vote: if you deny this project, which CAP 2030 program do you cut to replace $1.8 million a year? The money does not materialize from principle. And "we'll find it somewhere" has never once been a budget strategy that worked.

A city that votes down a revenue-generating project in the name of its Climate Action Plan, and then cannot afford to implement that Climate Action Plan, has not made a principled stand. It has made a self-defeating one.

And Then There Is the Money in Your Neighbor's Pocket

Here is the argument I have not seen anyone make, and it is the one that matters most to the household trying to get through the month. This is not abstract climate accounting or municipal budget theory. This is grocery money. This is the difference between filling the tank and flinching.

Full disclosure: I drive an EV with lifetime free charging, so I have exactly zero personal stake in the price of gasoline. I had honestly tuned the whole thing out. Then I actually looked at what a fill-up costs in Marin right now, and I nearly fell over. I had no idea it had gotten this ridiculous. If you are still buying gas in this county, you have my sincere condolences, and you should be furious that anyone is fighting to keep the cheapest pump in town from opening.

Marin County has, at various points this year, posted some of the highest pump prices in the entire country, and California as a whole has been running well north of $5 a gallon while the rest of the nation sits closer to $4. Against that backdrop, Costco fuel typically runs roughly 20 to 30 cents per gallon below surrounding stations, and in high-price, low-competition markets the gap is frequently wider.

Run that math with real Bay Area driving numbers, not national averages. A Bay Area resident drives on the order of 20 miles a day, and a typical commuting driver here logs somewhere around 10,000 to 12,000 miles a year. At the roughly 25 miles per gallon the real-world on-road vehicle fleet actually gets, that is about 400 to 480 gallons of gasoline a year per driver. Call it 450 gallons to be safe.

Now apply the discount. A conservative 30-cents-per-gallon Costco savings on 450 gallons is about $135 back in that one driver's pocket every year, and that is the floor, not the ceiling. In a high-price Marin market where the local-to-Costco spread runs 50 or 60 cents, that same single driver keeps $225 to $270 a year. And this is per driver, per car. A two-car household doubles it, to $450 or more. A family with a teenager driving to school and two working parents triples it, past $675. For a senior on a fixed income or a young family already stretched by Marin's cost of living, that is not rounding error. That is multiple tanks of free gas every year, for every car in the driveway, paid for by nothing more than a permit getting approved.

And to be clear, this is a head-to-head comparison against the other gas stations right here in Novato, not some distant warehouse. It is the price on the Costco canopy at Vintage Way versus the price on the sign at the station down Redwood Boulevard or out on Rowland. Same town, same trip you were already making, 20 to 30 cents a gallon cheaper at minimum. The Costco fuel center does not ask a single Novato driver to go out of their way. It simply puts a lower number on a pump that sits in the parking lot they already shop in.

So here is the question the opposition never answers for the actual residents of this city. When you block this station, you are not protecting Novato families from anything. You are asking them to keep paying more, at the other Novato stations, for the exact same gallon of gas they could buy cheaper at the Costco two minutes away. You are defending, on their behalf, the more expensive pump in their own town. I would like to hear someone make that case to a working family in this community out loud.

The Fight 350 Marin Should Actually Be Having

Here is the thing. If 350 Marin's goal is genuinely to move Novato closer to its climate targets, and I believe it is, then blocking this permit is the wrong battle entirely. The right battle starts the morning after the council votes yes.

Because $1.7 to $1.9 million in annual sales tax revenue from this station is going to flow into Novato's general fund every year for the foreseeable future. And right now, there is no commitment from the city about what happens to that money. It goes into the general fund, gets mixed with everything else, and could just as easily fund pothole repair or administrative overhead as it could fund a single EV charger or bike lane.

That is the fight worth having. Not "stop the gas station" but "if this gas station is approved, we demand that a defined percentage of its annual sales tax contribution be dedicated to CAP 2030 implementation." A formal revenue-sharing commitment, written into the conditions of approval, or passed as a companion resolution, or extracted as a council pledge before the vote, would turn a project that 350 Marin currently opposes into the single largest dedicated funding source for climate action in Novato's history.

Think about what that looks like in practice. At $1.8 million a year, even a 50% earmark produces $900,000 annually for EV charging infrastructure, active transportation, and sustainability programs. Over ten years, that is $9 million in climate investment that would not exist if the permit were denied. Over twenty years, roughly the operating life of the facility, it is $18 million. Funded by the very activity that 350 Marin finds objectionable, directed entirely toward the transition away from it.

This is not a hypothetical. Other California cities have attached community benefit conditions to controversial commercial approvals that turned opposition energy into permanent programmatic funding. Novato's council has the authority to do it here. The question is whether anyone is going to ask for it before the vote, or whether the entire debate continues to be about whether the canopy gets built rather than what the canopy pays for.

350 Marin has 1,500 members, real organizing capacity, and genuine credibility on climate issues in this county. Showing up at the June 9th hearing to demand a revenue commitment, not to stop the project but to guarantee its profits serve the transition, would be a far more durable victory than a denial that the council could reverse next year or that Costco could appeal into the following decade.

The gas station is probably getting built. The only question is whether it funds Novato's climate future or just its general operating budget. That is the negotiation that matters, and the clock is running out to have it.

What Exactly Do You Think Moves In When Costco Moves Out?

This is the argument the opposition seems to have thought about least, and that I think about most.

Costco opened 24 new warehouses globally last year alone. It is an expanding company with choices. When Jacksonville, Florida denied Costco a fuel center permit in May 2025, Costco stayed but Jacksonville got nothing. No revenue. No enhanced member services. Just the full political cost of saying no to a company that shrugged and kept operating exactly as before, minus the community benefit.

Novato's risk runs deeper. The Vintage Way warehouse anchors Vintage Oaks Shopping Center. It employs hundreds of workers at above-market wages. Its foot traffic is the reason the surrounding tenants can pay their rent. If Costco eventually concludes that Novato is more trouble than it is worth and relocates to Petaluma or San Rafael, the question becomes: who fills 9.74 acres on Vintage Way?

The realistic options are not good. A distribution center with no retail sales tax. A big-box retailer paying $15 an hour with no sustainability commitments and no solar program. Or, most plausibly, years of commercial vacancy while Novato maintains the surrounding infrastructure at public expense. None of those outcomes remove a single kilogram of CO2 from the atmosphere. All of them are substantially worse for the city's budget, its workforce, and its capacity to fund the climate programs that 350 Marin insists it wants.

The coalition has spent five years fighting a fuel canopy on an existing paved parking lot. And the thing they may have put at risk is the anchor tenant that makes the economics of the surrounding block function. That tradeoff deserved more scrutiny than it appears to have received.

Here Is What I Actually Think

350 Marin's members are not bad people. They are not stupid. They genuinely care about climate, they have done real organizing work, and some of their structural arguments are legitimate and worth taking seriously in other contexts.

But there is a version of environmentalism that is more interested in being right than in being effective. That counts permits denied rather than tons of CO2 avoided. That treats every gas station as a moral failure without asking whether this specific gas station, in this specific city, with these specific drivers and this specific alternative, actually makes the atmosphere worse.

This one doesn't. The data says it makes things better. The revenue analysis says it funds the programs that make things better over time. The alternative-use analysis says the most plausible replacement is something worse on every environmental and economic metric simultaneously. And the revenue-dedication argument says the most powerful thing the opposition could do right now is stop fighting the permit and start fighting for the check.

The gasoline that Novato's drivers will purchase on June 10th exists whether or not this station gets built. The only questions are how far they will drive to get it, how clean it will be when they burn it, whether Novato captures nearly $2 million a year from it, and whether that $2 million builds EV chargers and bike lanes or just disappears into the general fund while everyone congratulates themselves on having strong feelings about the climate.

Approve the project. Dedicate the revenue. That is the climate policy that actually works.