AB 2608 Adds an “Ethical Imports” Reality Check to California’s Fuels Report

Assembly Member Joe Patterson (R) has introduced AB 2608, a targeted amendment to the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Transportation Fuels Assessment, the statutory report California already must deliver every three years on fuel reliability, affordability, and import needs.

Under current law, the CEC’s assessment already looks at supply, prices, refinery constraints, and California’s future crude oil and petroleum product import needs. AB 2608 would require the next assessment to also include three “say-it-out-loud” items:

1. The human rights record of each country from which California imports oil.

2. How much in-state oil production would be required for California to stop importing from countries with negative human rights records.

3. Which California regulations are preventing increased domestic (in-state) oil production.

Bottom line: it forces Sacramento to put names, numbers, and policy barriers in the same report, rather than talking “energy transition” in the abstract while quietly leaning harder on imports.

AB 2608 was introduced on February 20, 2026, read for the first time, and moved to print. It is now eligible to be heard in committee as of February 21, 2026.

AB 2608 fits squarely in the same policy lane Senator Shannon Grove (R–Bakersfield) has staked out for years: if California is going to import crude, the state should be transparent about who it is buying from and the human rights and environmental tradeoffs embedded in that supply chain.

Recent examples include:

• SB 13 (2025–26) (“Ethical Oil”), which calls for identifying the human rights record and environmental standards of crude-exporting countries, alongside related reporting concepts.

• SB 1087 (2024), which, per CARB’s legislative tracking, would have required annual reporting tied to imported-oil impacts and data transparency (held in Senate Appropriations).

• SB 1319 (2021–22), promoted by Sen. Grove as a bill to prioritize California production and confront imports from countries with human rights abuses or weaker environmental standards.

• SB 15 (earlier “ethical energy” framing), similarly centered on the state acknowledging import sources with problematic records.

This is the Assembly version of the same common-sense question Grove has been asking for years now: Why would California strangle its own tightly regulated production, then outsource barrels to jurisdictions that would never pass California’s standards?

CIPA will strongly support AB 2608 because it aligns the state’s official fuel-supply planning with the reality CIPA members have been pointing out for years: California’s policies increasingly push supply risk and emissions “offshore,” while raising costs at home. AB 2608 doesn’t mandate production, but it compels transparency on import ethics, the in-state production required to reduce reliance on “bad actor” sources, and the regulatory roadblocks preventing that outcome.