Professors Put California’s Oil Reality Under a Microscope
- Randle Communications
- Nov 17, 2025
- 6 min read
Berkeley and USC scholars explain why SB 237 is a start, not a solution
California’s oil debate is usually dominated by talking points, slogans, and accusations. Last week, something different dropped into the conversation: a dense, data-rich, 200-plus-page study on the state’s oil supply and refinery system authored by three well-respected professors, led by UC Berkeley’s Joseph B. Silvi, with co-authors James W. Rector of UC Berkeley and Michael A. Mische of USC.
As reported by California Globe Editor-in-Chief Katy Grimes in “What Does California Need to Stabilize the State’s Oil Supply?” the professors’ work is already reshaping how policymakers, media and stakeholders are talking about SB 237 and the future of in-state production.
For CIPA members, this is more than just another article. It is a rare moment when independent academic voices are validating what our producers have been warning about for years: California is sliding into an avoidable oil supply crisis, and SB 237, while welcome, will not be enough to stop it.
You can read the California Globe piece here:
And the full policy study is available here:
Independent professors, independent data
The authors make a point of stating up front that their work is fully independent. They received no special compensation, have no affiliation with petroleum companies or trade organizations, and rely on publicly verifiable data from agencies such as the California Energy Commission, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, California Air Resources Board, and the California Geologic Energy Management Division, among others.
In other words, this is not an industry white paper. It is an academic, data-driven examination of California’s oil system that reaches conclusions Sacramento has tried hard to ignore.
The brief, summarized by the Globe, zeroes in on a simple question: Can SB 237, which fast tracks up to 2,000 new wells per year in Kern County, actually stabilize California’s petroleum infrastructure, given the steep decline in production and looming loss of refinery capacity?
Their answer, after hundreds of pages of charts, trends and modeling, is equally simple: SB 237 is important, but it is not nearly enough.
What the numbers say about California’s shrinking oil backbone
In the opening paragraphs of their policy brief, Silvi, Rector and Mische lay out the scale of California’s self-inflicted decline:
In-state production has collapsed. California’s own oil production is down about 65 percent since 2001.
Foreign dependence has surged. Over the same period, reliance on foreign imports has climbed nearly 70 percent, with growing volumes from places like Iraq, Ecuador, Brazil and at times Russia, Iran and Venezuela.
Refineries are disappearing. Refinery capacity is projected to fall 21 percent between 2023 and 2026, permanently removing roughly 6.2 to 6.5 million gallons per day of in-state gasoline production.
Demand has not gone away. Gasoline consumption remains relatively flat at about 36 to 40 million gallons per day.
Put together, the professors warn, these trends point toward a very real possibility of double-digit price increases, refinery closures, and even old-fashioned gas lines, all in a state that already pays more than 50 percent above the national average at the pump.
Their study also flags an issue CIPA members know all too well: the risk to California’s northbound crude pipeline system, including the San Pablo Bay pipeline network that connects Kern County crude to refineries in Martinez and Benicia. If those refineries close or if pipeline throughput falls below viable levels, California loses not only in-state barrels but the infrastructure that moves them.
SB 237: A welcome course correction, but not a cure
Grimes’ article walks through the political backdrop: Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature on SB 237 in September, a measure that certifies Kern County’s Environmental Impact Report and allows up to 2,000 new well permits per year for the next decade. Senator Shannon Grove championed the bill as a way to arrest California’s declining production and lean back into Kern County as the “Energy Capital of California.”
SB 237 increases crude production in Kern County under the most stringent regulatory framework in the country.
For their part, Silvi, Rector and Mische treat SB 237 as an important signal, but they are blunt about its limits. Based on their modeling, they estimate:
The wells enabled by SB 237 could add around 10,125 barrels per day each year through 2030.
But statewide output is currently falling by about 18,000 barrels per day per year.
Even with SB 237 fully utilized, California production would still decline by roughly 7,875 barrels per day annually.
Their conclusion is stark:
“The additional wells allowed under SB 237 will not stabilize in-state production, and as a result, in-state production will continue to decline as it is more than likely that producers will not drill 2,000 wells annually.”
SB 237, in their view, is a first step and a tacit admission by the Governor and Legislature that more in-state production is essential to California’s economic health and energy security. But it is not a comprehensive solution to refinery losses, pipeline risk and import dependence.
Refinery closures and a new era of foreign fuel
The professors are unsparing in their assessment of where current policy is taking California. With two refineries already slated to exit the gasoline market and as many as four potentially out of the system in the coming years, they project a future in which:
Only seven refineries will remain capable of producing California-compliant fuels by 2026.
California becomes increasingly dependent on imported gasoline and diesel from India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and possibly China.
Those countries, in turn, source their crude from Russia, Iran, Venezuela and other producers whose environmental and human-rights standards do not remotely resemble California’s.
This dynamic matters more than price. As Grimes notes, and as the authors emphasize, California’s shrinking refinery capacity and heavy dependence on seaborne imports is a direct threat to U.S. military force readiness on the West Coast, particularly in a crisis where foreign fuel flows could be disrupted overnight.
In short, the professors are describing exactly what CIPA has warned about: California is exporting jobs, tax revenue and environmental responsibility, while importing volatility, national security risk and higher prices.
In-state barrels, cleaner barrels
One of the most interesting sections of the study is where Silvi, Rector and Mische address climate and environmental concerns head-on. They stress that any serious energy policy has to account for emissions, environmental protection and social justice, but they also point out several inconvenient facts for those who assume foreign imports are “cleaner” or “safer” than local barrels:
California barrels are produced under the most rigorous environmental regime in the world, with aggressive controls on methane, VOCs and other pollutants.
Many foreign suppliers operate under weaker oversight and looser environmental rules, shifting real-world emissions offshore rather than reducing them.
Local production can reduce toxic emissions from natural seeps, particularly in places like the Los Angeles Basin and Santa Barbara Channel, by capturing and managing hydrocarbons that would otherwise vent directly into the air and water.
That last point echoes other emerging research showing that responsible offshore and onshore production can actually reduce net methane and hydrocarbon emissions compared with leaving natural seeps unchecked.
The implication is clear: if California is serious about emissions, it should favor clean, tightly regulated in-state production over imported barrels from regimes that do not share our standards or our values.
CIPA’s voice in the debate
Grimes’ piece correctly highlights the stakes for consumers and communities, but it also gives space to CIPA’s leadership. Rock Zierman, CIPA’s CEO, sums up the practical, on-the-ground reality in one sentence:
“Every barrel of oil produced in-state means fewer foreign tankers idling off California’s coast, lower gasoline prices, and more money staying in local communities to fund schools, first responders, and healthcare.”
That is precisely the story the professors’ charts and tables tell over nearly 200 pages. SB 237 slightly slows the decline. It does not reverse it. To truly stabilize California’s oil supply, and to protect our refineries and pipelines, the state will need a broader policy shift that:
Supports expanded in-state production beyond Kern alone.
Protects and sustains refinery capacity, especially for California-compliant fuels.
Ensures the pipeline network can operate at viable throughput levels.
Recognizes the national security consequences of over-reliance on foreign fuels.
Aligns climate objectives with the reality that local barrels are cleaner and more accountable than imports.
Why this matters for CIPA members
For CIPA, the significance of this study goes beyond any single bill.
It gives our members a credible, academic, independent document that supports long-held industry warnings about refinery loss, pipeline risk and import dependence.
It underscores the need to defend and fully implement SB 237, while being honest that more must be done.
It provides graphs, data and language that CIPA members can use in meetings with legislators, agency staff, media and community stakeholders who may be hearing these issues framed very differently by anti-oil activists.
Most importantly, it shows that serious, data-driven observers outside our industry are beginning to say, publicly, what California’s oil producers have known for a long time:
You cannot tax, regulate and litigate your way into energy security. You cannot stabilize gasoline prices while you are shutting down refineries and pipelines. And you cannot meet climate goals by exporting production to regimes with dirtier barrels and weaker safeguards.
CIPA will continue to amplify this work, to highlight the leadership of professors like Joseph B. Silvi and his colleagues, and to use their findings as we advocate for policies that actually stabilize California’s oil supply, protect consumers, and keep our communities and our country secure.