Opinion: California Can't Run on Wishful Thinking Without Refineries

A recent CalMatters opinion piece argues that California should simply accept the closure of its remaining oil refineries as part of the state's clean energy transition. While the author portrays refinery shutdowns as an inevitable and even desirable outcome, the editorial overlooks one fundamental reality:

California still consumes enormous amounts of petroleum every single day.

Closing refineries does not eliminate demand. It simply eliminates California's ability to produce the fuels it continues to rely upon.

Every ambulance, fire engine, police cruiser, commercial aircraft, farm tractor, freight locomotive, cargo ship, military installation, construction project, and the overwhelming majority of California's heavy-duty trucking fleet still depend on petroleum products. Even electric vehicles require petroleum to manufacture their plastics, synthetic rubber, lubricants, asphalt roadways, paints, insulation, and thousands of other components.

The question is not whether California will use oil tomorrow.

The question is where that oil will come from, and who will refine it.

California has already begun losing refining capacity at an alarming pace. State data show the remaining refineries are carrying an increasingly heavy burden as the system shrinks.

If additional refineries disappear, California will not suddenly become petroleum-free.

Instead, California will increasingly rely upon:

• Foreign crude oil.

• Foreign refineries.

• Foreign shipping.

• Foreign environmental standards.

• Foreign labor practices.

The carbon emissions associated with transporting crude halfway around the world, or importing finished gasoline and diesel by tanker, do not disappear simply because refining occurs outside California's borders.

They merely occur somewhere else.

The CalMatters editorial also ignores one of the most immediate consequences of refinery closures.

California's independent producers cannot simply place locally produced heavy crude onto a pipeline headed for Texas or Oklahoma.

There is no interstate crude pipeline connecting California to the rest of the country.

Without in-state refineries capable of processing California's unique heavy crude, many independent producers would lose their only practical market.

That means:

• Thousands of high-paying jobs disappear.

• Hundreds of millions of dollars in local property tax revenue evaporate.

• Royalty owners lose income.

• Counties lose economic activity.

• Small family-owned producers are forced to shut down.

Ironically, California would still consume essentially the same amount of petroleum, just imported instead of produced locally.

Unlike most of the United States, California operates as an energy island.

Specialized CARB gasoline specifications, geographic isolation, and limited pipeline infrastructure mean California cannot easily replace lost refining capacity with fuel from neighboring states. Even federal analysts have warned that refinery closures increase the risk of supply disruptions and greater price volatility throughout the West Coast fuel market.

Recent refinery closures have already reduced available refining capacity while increasing dependence on imported gasoline and diesel.

The result is predictable:

• Higher gasoline prices.

• Greater price volatility.

• Increased dependence on overseas markets.

• Reduced energy security.

None of these outcomes advances California's environmental goals.

Even advocates of electrification generally acknowledge that California's transition will take decades, not years.

During that transition, Californians will continue needing:

• Gasoline

• Diesel

• Jet fuel

• Asphalt

• Lubricants

• Petrochemical feedstocks

• Medical plastics

• Agricultural chemicals

• Countless industrial products

If California intends to consume these products, and every forecast indicates it will, it makes far more environmental and economic sense to refine them under California's world-leading environmental standards than to outsource production to countries with weaker regulations and then ship the products thousands of miles across the Pacific.

California should absolutely continue investing in cleaner technologies and lower-emission energy sources. But dismantling the very infrastructure that keeps the state's economy functioning before practical alternatives exist is not a transition; it is an abdication of responsibility.

The CalMatters editorial presents refinery closures as though they represent the end of oil consumption. They do not. They merely represent the end of California's ability to refine the fuels it still needs every day.

The state's independent producers, refinery workers, consumers, farmers, airlines, manufacturers, first responders, and military installations all depend upon a reliable and resilient in-state petroleum supply chain. Eliminating that infrastructure does not make petroleum disappear. It simply hands California's energy future to foreign producers and overseas refineries.

California deserves an honest conversation about energy policy, one grounded in engineering, economics, and supply-chain realities, not the mistaken belief that closing refineries will somehow eliminate demand for the products they produce.