Congressional Spotlight Lands on California’s Self-Inflicted Energy Crisis

California’s energy policy failures drew national attention in Washington last week when Congressman August Pfluger of Texas used a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing to press Energy Secretary Chris Wright on what he described as a looming energy crisis in California. In a pointed exchange during the April 16 hearing on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget, Pfluger warned that California is increasingly forcing itself to rely on foreign imports because state leaders have made it so difficult to produce, transport, and refine energy at home.

Pfluger’s concern was straightforward and hard to dispute. California continues to consume massive amounts of transportation fuel, yet state policy has spent years undermining the very in-state production and refining system needed to supply it. During the hearing, Pfluger said California is heading toward even greater dependence on other countries because it will not allow needed pipeline infrastructure and is allowing refineries to shut down. Secretary Wright agreed, calling California’s energy posture a “serious concern about national security,” especially given the military significance of the West Coast and the role California plays in supporting operations across the Pacific.

Wright went further, noting that California once produced roughly 40 percent of America’s oil but now accounts for only about 2 percent, despite consuming closer to 10 percent. He said more than 60 percent of the oil California consumes is imported from outside the United States, including crude arriving by tanker from overseas producers such as Iraq and Ecuador. He also noted that California now imports gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, a remarkable position for a state that once had far greater refining strength.

That assessment is not just political rhetoric. The U.S. Energy Information Administration warned last year that California is poised to lose 17 percent of its refinery capacity because of the planned closures of the Phillips 66 Wilmington refinery and the Valero Benicia refinery. The EIA stated plainly that these closures are likely to increase fuel price volatility on the West Coast and that, because the region lacks easy logistical access to other U.S. refining centers, replacement fuels will most likely come from overseas, particularly Asia. The California Energy Commission’s current refinery data likewise show just how concentrated and fragile the state’s remaining refining system has become.

For CIPA members, the significance of this exchange is bigger than one hearing or one news release. California’s energy crisis is no longer a niche industry warning dismissed by hostile regulators or activist lawmakers. It is now being discussed openly at the highest levels of the federal government as a matter of reliability, affordability, and national security. The facts are increasingly unavoidable: when California shuts down production, blocks infrastructure, and drives out refining capacity, it does not end demand. It merely replaces California energy with foreign energy, and reliable local supply with more fragile imported supply.

This is the policy trap Sacramento created. California still needs gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel to move people, goods, farm products, emergency services, and military readiness. But instead of maintaining a stable in-state supply chain, the state has chosen to make itself more dependent on foreign crude and imported finished fuels. That is not resilience. It is self-sabotage dressed up as climate virtue. And now even Washington, via Texas, is beginning to say so out loud.