California’s Energy Crisis is No Longer Theoretical

A KQED report put a fresh spotlight on what California’s independent oil producers, refiners, and energy workers have been warning about for years: this state is dangerously exposed to global fuel disruptions because Sacramento has spent years weakening the reliable in-state energy system that California families, businesses, farms, airports, and supply chains still depend on.

The KQED story focused on turmoil in the Middle East and the risk that interrupted oil shipments could hit California harder than most of the country. That part is true. California is uniquely vulnerable. The California Energy Commission has acknowledged that the state now imports more than 75 percent of the crude oil used by its refineries and about 10 to 20 percent of its gasoline from outside California, depending on refinery maintenance and market conditions. The same state analysis warned gasoline imports could climb to 25 to 35 percent of statewide demand by the summer of 2026, and up to 50 percent in Northern California. That is not “transition.” That is dependence.

And while KQED cited California’s exposure to imports from Iraq and other foreign sources, the state’s own petroleum data make the point even more clearly. In 2025, Brazil accounted for roughly 18 percent of California’s foreign crude imports, Iraq about 17.5 percent, Guyana about 13.7 percent, Canada about 12.2 percent, Ecuador about 11.9 percent, and Saudi Arabia nearly 7.9 percent. California has built an energy system that increasingly depends on barrels arriving by ship from foreign suppliers while state leaders continue treating in-state production like a moral crime instead of a strategic asset.

Even worse, this foreign dependence is colliding with California’s shrinking refining system. The U.S. Energy Information Administration warned last year that California is set to lose 17 percent of its refinery capacity over a 12-month period because of the planned closures of the Phillips 66 Wilmington refinery and Valero’s Benicia refinery. The EIA stated plainly that these closures are likely to contribute to increased fuel price volatility on the West Coast, and that the region’s limited connectivity to other U.S. refining hubs means replacement fuels will most likely come from overseas, especially from Asia. In plain English, when California drives out its own infrastructure, it does not eliminate demand. It merely replaces stable domestic supply with slower, riskier, imported supply.

To be clear, there was a rapid change on April 17, when the Associated Press reported that the Strait of Hormuz had reopened to commercial shipping. But that is not a rebuttal to CIPA’s position; it is proof of it. One geopolitical shock, one blockade, one regional conflict, one disrupted shipping lane, and California starts bracing for an energy crisis. A healthy energy system should not be this brittle. A serious state would look at that reality and work to preserve in-state production, keep refineries operating, and maintain the transportation infrastructure needed to move California crude to California refineries. Instead, Sacramento has done the opposite for years, now acts surprised when the math turns ugly.

California consumers are now paying the price for a policy regime built on fantasy. The state still runs on liquid fuels. Agriculture runs on diesel. Airports run on jet fuel. The movement of goods runs on trucks, ships, and heavy equipment. Families still need gasoline to get to work, school, church, baseball games, and doctor appointments. Yet rather than support more California production under some of the toughest environmental and workplace standards in the world, state policymakers have steadily made California more reliant on imported crude and imported finished fuels from places far beyond Sacramento’s control. That is not climate leadership. That is strategic negligence.

CIPA’s point remains simple: California does not become safer, cleaner, or more affordable by outsourcing its fuel supply to foreign producers and distant refiners. It becomes weaker, more expensive, and more vulnerable to disruption. The latest headlines may shift by the day, and markets may calm for a week or two, but the lesson is now impossible to ignore. California needs reliable in-state production, reliable in-state refining, and energy policies grounded in reality rather than slogans. Otherwise, the next foreign disruption will bring the same panic, only with fewer tools left to respond.