Protecting the Coast Should Include Reducing Oil Tanker Imports

Governor Gavin Newsom’s October 19 announcement of new marine protected areas again casts offshore oil production as incompatible with protecting California’s coastline. The announcement describes approximately 15,000 additional acres of protected waters and explicitly contrasts the administration’s approach with federal efforts to expand offshore leasing. But its energy message overlooks a fundamental problem: restricting California production does not eliminate California’s petroleum demand. It increases the need to obtain that oil elsewhere.

The state’s own figures illustrate the imbalance. According to the California Energy Commission, foreign sources supplied 61.1 percent of crude delivered to California refineries in 2025, while California supplied just 22.9 percent. Alaska supplied the remaining 16 percent. California’s energy policy has left its refineries overwhelmingly dependent on crude originating outside the state.

CIPA believes the governor should pursue a more practical approach: increase responsible California production, including offshore production connected to shore by properly maintained pipelines, to displace a greater share of tanker-delivered imports. Where additional local barrels replace foreign shipments, California can reduce the ocean transportation needed to supply its refineries, along with associated vessel emissions and exposure to tanker transit and unloading accidents.

That opportunity deserves serious environmental consideration. Offshore platforms and pipelines require rigorous inspection, maintenance, and spill prevention, just as tankers and marine terminals do. The relevant question is the comparative impact of supplying the same refinery demand through different sources and transportation routes. The State Lands Commission’s own offshore pipeline analysis includes hypothetical spills from importing oil tankers among the alternatives being evaluated, underscoring that imported supply carries environmental risks of its own.

A credible climate policy should likewise examine the entire supply chain. Replacing a long-distance tanker shipment with nearby production can reduce transportation emissions. The overall climate benefit must account for extraction, processing and transportation together, since crude sources differ in their production emissions. California should use that comparison to identify opportunities for cleaner supply rather than assume an imported barrel is environmentally preferable simply because its production occurs beyond state borders.

The same principle applies onshore. Producers in Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, and Santa Barbara counties should have a workable opportunity to invest in responsible development and supply California refineries. California retains substantial petroleum resources, experienced workers, and infrastructure that should be part of its energy security strategy. Maintaining those capabilities also keeps jobs, investment, and public revenues here, under California oversight, instead of sending additional energy dollars to foreign suppliers operating under different standards.

Marine conservation and responsible petroleum production can both serve California’s interests. The governor should support policies that protect sensitive habitats while allowing carefully reviewed production and safe pipeline infrastructure to replace imported crude where feasible. Protecting California’s coast should include reducing the need to bring oil tankers to it.