California’s Dangerous Path: Oil Refinery Takeovers and the Coming Supply Crisis

California’s energy policies have been walking a tightrope for years, but now, the state is contemplating an extreme measure that could tip it into full-blown crisis mode: taking over oil refineries. According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, California policymakers are seriously considering state ownership of refineries to ensure gasoline supply remains stable as private refiners shut down operations​. This move—if it happens—could create a cascade of economic and logistical disasters, exacerbating the very problems the state claims to be solving.

The Reality of Refinery Closures

California’s gasoline demand has been in gradual decline due to more efficient engines and an increasing number of electric vehicles (EVs) on the road. However, demand is still high enough that losing refineries without a reliable replacement strategy could create severe shortages​.

Major refiners—including Chevron, Marathon, Phillips 66, PBF Energy, and Valero—are facing mounting pressures from the state’s aggressive environmental regulations and shifting market incentives. Some have already transitioned away from gasoline production, while others are contemplating permanent shutdowns.

The Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington is set to close by the end of the year, and more refineries could follow. The result? A shrinking gasoline supply in a state that still heavily relies on fossil fuels. As Skip York, chief energy strategist at Turner Mason & Co., put it:

“Demand will decline gradually, but supply will fall out in chunks”​.

This mismatch between supply and demand could lead to fuel shortages, price spikes, and logistical nightmares—none of which the state seems prepared for.

State Ownership: A Disaster in the Making

In response to the looming refinery crisis, the California Energy Commission has put together a list of possible solutions, including:

  • State ownership of oil refineries
  • State purchase or lease of ships for gasoline imports
  • Contracts with out-of-state and foreign refineries
  • Increased gasoline shipments via train
  • Changes to California’s strict fuel regulations
  • Encouraging neighboring states to adopt California-grade fuel standards

The most extreme option—state ownership—would put California in the company of countries like Venezuela and Iran, where government-run refineries are the norm. And we all know how efficiently those economies function.

The Western States Petroleum Association has already raised concerns about the feasibility of such a move:

“This is a very complex and hard business to run… There are commercial barriers and technical barriers that take a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the industry”​.

The idea that state bureaucrats—many of whom have spent years waging war against the oil industry—could suddenly turn around and competently manage a refinery is laughable. Running a refinery requires expertise, efficiency, and adaptability—qualities not typically associated with government-run enterprises.

Why California’s Energy Plans Are Doomed to Fail

California’s regulatory framework has been hostile to the oil industry for years. Recent policies include:

  • Banning the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035
  • Potential penalties on refinery profits
  • New minimum storage requirements for refiners

These policies are making it increasingly unprofitable to operate refineries in the state. Chevron, a California staple since 1879, has already announced plans to move its headquarters to Texas. In a statement, Chevron executive Andy Walz summed up the problem:

“Recent California policies… erode our confidence going forward”​.

This should be a wake-up call. But instead of reassessing its approach, California seems determined to double down.

The Supply Chain Nightmare

Unlike other states, California is essentially a “gasoline island.” It lacks a multi-state logistics network to mitigate supply disruptions. There are no pipelines bringing gasoline in from neighboring states, and the antiquated Jones Act restricts ocean shipments from the refinery-rich Gulf Coast.

Right now, California imports only 8% of its gasoline; the other 92% is refined within the state​. If more refineries shut down, the state will be forced to import significantly larger quantities of gasoline—most likely from Asia. That means:

  • Higher transportation costs
  • Increased vulnerability to global supply chain disruptions
  • Potential price volatility tied to international markets

And yet, while California regulators push for the closure of in-state refineries, no one seems concerned about the environmental impact of importing gasoline from across the Pacific. As Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher pointed out:

“People freak out about the environmental impacts of crude oil shipments, but no one’s freaking out about the environmental impacts of gasoline imports”​.

What’s the Endgame?

State Senator Brian Jones put it bluntly:

“The state has no business being in the oil refinery business”​.

Yet here we are, discussing the possibility of California taking over one of the most complex industries in the world—all because its policies have made it impossible for private refiners to operate profitably.

The obvious solution would be to ease regulatory burdens, allow market forces to work, and support energy diversity rather than forcing an abrupt transition to EVs. But California’s leadership seems determined to force a radical transformation, regardless of the cost.

The result? Expect higher gas prices, more shortages, and a government scrambling to fix problems of its own making.

California is walking a dangerous road, and if state-owned refineries become reality, the fuel crisis could get far worse before it gets better.

5 21 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

73 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
roaddog
February 18, 2025 2:22 am

More Power To Them … err…
California is a demonstration project that provides valuable knowledge to 49 other states. The sooner they achieve outright third world status, the better.

Scissor
Reply to  roaddog
February 18, 2025 4:42 am

They could co-locate battery storage facilities at refineries. What could go wrong?

Reply to  Scissor
February 18, 2025 11:40 am

Better yet, locate them in the backyards of every democrat politician and climate activist celebrity in the state.

Quilter52
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 18, 2025 11:37 pm

I really like this suggestion. it would allow them all to test their consciences publicly but somehow, I think battery storage facilities will end up next to the peasants rather than the oligarchy.

roaddog
Reply to  Scissor
February 18, 2025 11:58 pm

We have a winner!

ps. Get your separable magazine semi-autos now, buddy. It won’t be an option for you in a couple of days.

February 18, 2025 2:43 am

When you find you’re in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
One of the most important first steps to ending the nightmare for Californians is for the EPA to remove Cal’s ability to set vehicle emissions standards. This is in the works but also requires Congress to act.

Coeur de Lion
February 18, 2025 2:44 am

And carbon dioxide doesn’t matter

strativarius
February 18, 2025 2:47 am

Is this the real meaning of California Dreaming? California policymakers are seriously considering – messing it right up, beyond repair. Here’s an impractical idea from Australia…

‘A house battery you can drive around’: how some Australians are selling power from their cars back to the grid – The Conversation
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2025/feb/13/a-house-battery-you-can-drive-around-how-some-australians-are-selling-power-from-their-cars-back-to-the-grid

Solved. /sarc

Leon de Boer
Reply to  strativarius
February 18, 2025 3:11 am

The funny part of the whole electric charger at home part is they are becoming increasing difficult to have because of insurance and strata costs. Sure you can not disclose it to insurer and when any damage to it or a fire occurs you are likely not covered. For many strata units it’s becoming a straight no because of the insurance headache the reasoning is fire authorities say buildings with EVs and charging infrastructure should be given the same hazard status as fireworks factories or chemical plants. Normal strata units obviously have no such fire systems.

Reply to  strativarius
February 18, 2025 11:42 am

So freezing and starving in the dark…AND as a bonus, immobilized. Win-win-win!

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 18, 2025 2:56 am

They may be counting on a bail out by the rest of the US when the sh#t hits the fan. I’d expect the POTUS to block that and tell them to lay in the bed they made.

KevinM
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 18, 2025 9:47 am

Why would government block something that would make government bigger and more powerful? DT gets less than 4 years, then it’s the next guy. He’d be the Buchanan not the Lincoln if it were to start during his term.

Walter Sobchak
February 18, 2025 3:11 am

Experience is the only school of mankind. They will learn at no other.

strativarius
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 18, 2025 3:27 am

Yer average alarmist has not attended the school of hard knocks, nor the university of life.

“‘Why is climate activism so middle class and white?'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-leicestershire-51873499

Because most people have to work to put food on the table etc. Who else but the affluent have the time and money for futile nonsensical protest?

roaddog
Reply to  strativarius
February 19, 2025 12:03 am

There does seem to be a host of trust fund babies active in the NGO/shell company world. Doubt any of them ever had to mow the lawn.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 18, 2025 9:34 am

This story reads like a chapter out of Atlas Shrugged

Someone
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 18, 2025 12:26 pm

State ownership of means of production is the essence of socialism. Socialism has been tried many times with the same results. No need it try it again. Smart people learn from other people’s mistakes.

roaddog
Reply to  Someone
February 19, 2025 12:04 am

Some things are so outrageous that only a genius could believe them.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 18, 2025 3:06 pm

Some even quickly forget what they learned the hard way.

strativarius
February 18, 2025 4:25 am

Story tip: The prophecy

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” —Dr. Paul Ehrlich, speech at the British Institute for Biology, Sep. 1971

Slightly later than advertised…

The National Farmers Union – Tom Bradshaw
“Today’s meeting has been – a disappointment doesn’t describe how I feel at the moment… there is no movement. The government resolutely believe that they are correct in the decisions that they have made and that they are generous in the exemptions they are giving us. They don’t care about the human impact, they don’t care about the intergenerational impact, they don’t care about the impact on tenant farmers and the geopolitical situation that the world faces today. Food security should be on the top of everybody’s agenda, this should matter for 70 million people living on this island – and they don’t care about food production and what this means for food production going forward.”

Bradshaw added that “the reaction from our members is going to be one of fury, one of real anger, one of desperation.”
https://order-order.com/#_@/wJLubnJnb8s3yA

We’re getting there.

Scissor
Reply to  strativarius
February 18, 2025 4:52 am

I bet even Ehrlich could not have imagined that the U.S. in particular would fund terrorist organizations on the one hand and, on the hand, the West would admit immigrants from those countries where terrorists operate.

strativarius
Reply to  Scissor
February 18, 2025 4:57 am

For that matter, right now they forget whatever might be inconvenient. Biden stated that the US would tolerate a Russian incursion into Ukraine. Who knows what his state of mind was at the time? But they all choose to forget that before Biden Inc moved Burismally into Ukraine…

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University”
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

MarkW
Reply to  strativarius
February 18, 2025 10:28 am

Those assurances were contingent on Russia not invading its neighbors. Something it had already done twice before the Ukraine asked to join NATO.

Reply to  MarkW
February 18, 2025 3:03 pm

And how many countries has the US invaded in the Americas?

Also, I’d like to see a timeline that puts the Russian invasions AND NATO expansions in context.

John Hultquist
Reply to  strativarius
February 18, 2025 8:55 am

I don’t think Ehrlich’s reasoning was anything like the self-inflicted demise of the past 20 years. I recall he was more about population growth outpacing food supply (Malthus), but I’m not going to investigate. If my memory is faulty, someone or more will tell me so.

roaddog
Reply to  John Hultquist
February 19, 2025 12:06 am

You’re exactly right. Ehrlich was a firm disbeliever in the transforming capability of human innovation.

Tom Halla
February 18, 2025 4:39 am

Granting the Democratic Peoples Republic of California a special status of being able to set their own “pollution” standards was a bad idea from the start. Inevitably, the federal government will have to bail them out from their folly.

strativarius
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 18, 2025 4:48 am

Is there – hypothetically – a means of expelling a [pariah] state?

Tom Halla
Reply to  strativarius
February 18, 2025 4:55 am

Well, there was the heavy supervision of some Southern states in the 1960’s on voting rights and civil rights generally.

strativarius
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 18, 2025 5:03 am

Then, like NATO and errant members such as Turkiye, it can’t be done.

roaddog
Reply to  strativarius
February 19, 2025 12:07 am

Earlier today on another forum it was suggested that we trade them for Alberta.

John the Econ
February 18, 2025 5:03 am

Oh, please let this happen. Watching the “smart people” who couldn’t manage a lemonade stand try to run something as complex as a whole energy chain will be glorious. They can’t gouge, but they can’t do it cheap either. Watch them tie themselves in knots having to follow and then eventually exemp themselves from their own rules. I can’t feel sorry for Californians because they’ve been voting for these people for generations now. Let’s enjoy watching them live their Atlas Shrugged nightmare in realtime and as a cautionary tale.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  John the Econ
February 18, 2025 5:44 am

I agree. Let them learn how hard it is to produce gasoline.

I’m guessing Chevron and others will be willing sellers. They want to get out, and who else is going to buy these refineries and operate them under increasingly burdensome rules, other than the state?

John the Econ
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
February 18, 2025 10:51 am

I mean, those blue collar rednecks have been doing it forever. How hard could it possibly be? We’re the smart, educated ones!

Yes, I’m sure that the remaining players will be happy to get out of their stranded capital. As an added bonus, they’ll be sticking the state with the inevitable environmental cleanup costs from having been there for 100 years.

Reply to  Dave Yaussy
February 18, 2025 1:11 pm

Better yet, they should pack up the equipment and take it to Texas with them.

Let’s see the Enviro-Nazis build one for themselves. AFTER, of course, going through *THEIR* “environmental review” process.

😂 🤣 😅 😆

John the Econ
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 19, 2025 7:04 am

As we’ve seen with wind and solar, the “environmental review process” they subject themselves to will be vastly different than the one the private oil and gas industry has to endure. It’s no surprise that the communists left most of East Europe a toxic waste site.

roaddog
Reply to  John the Econ
February 19, 2025 12:10 am

I absolutely believe there was more aggregate pragmatic intelligence at the Daytona 500 than is resident in California.

0perator
February 18, 2025 6:15 am

The tried and true Venezuelan path to horrors.

Ronald Stein
February 18, 2025 6:37 am

California Governor Newsom has positioned the State to be a national security risk for the entire USA.

For the 5th largest economy in the world, the State imports most of its demand for oil from foreign countries and imports more electricity than any other state in America.
https://www.americaoutloud.news/california-governor-newsom-has-positioned-the-state-to-be-a-national-security-risk-for-the-entire-usa/
 
California policies continue to reduce in-state oil production, and in-state refinery capabilities.
Why would the California government want to own an industry that it wants to eliminate???

Reply to  Ronald Stein
February 18, 2025 1:13 pm

A dose of reality, I suspect.

“Reality” is that modern civilization is 100% dependent on fossil fuels. Whether California likes it or not.

Reply to  Ronald Stein
February 18, 2025 3:11 pm

You are assuming that democrats are rational and plan even 24-hours into the future.

roaddog
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 19, 2025 12:11 am

Boom! We have a winner. Nicely done, Clyde.

February 18, 2025 7:44 am

state ownership of refineries (businesses)

There’s a word for that

MarkW
Reply to  Tony_G
February 18, 2025 10:31 am

Private ownership with state control (fascism) is what they have now.

Someone
Reply to  Tony_G
February 18, 2025 12:28 pm

State ownership of means of production is socialism.

Reply to  Someone
February 18, 2025 3:17 pm

The nerve of those German Nazis! Calling themselves ‘socialists’ when we all know the State has to own the means of production in order to qualify as such!

/sarc

Sparta Nova 4
February 18, 2025 7:50 am

And when (not if) this fails, who will they blame? The oil companies and the lawfare will flare up again.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
February 18, 2025 1:13 pm

No pun intended? 😅

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 18, 2025 3:15 pm

The whole concept is volatile and an offense to the olfactory senses.

February 18, 2025 8:17 am

Could the state of CA actually take over refineries? Legally?

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 18, 2025 10:32 am

They would have to buy them. Under current supreme court rulings, the state would have to pay fair market value. However if existing regulations make the properties worthless …

Reply to  MarkW
February 18, 2025 10:42 am

But I wonder under what law the state can force a purchase unless it’s an emergency or public need (eminent domain), like land for a school or whatever.

roaddog
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 19, 2025 12:14 am

Based on what we witnessed in New York last summer (somewhat legally extending the statute of limitations), the California state legislature will likely be happy to rejigger state laws to accommodate whatever is the most recent Green Dream.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
February 18, 2025 8:25 am

Considering how well California tackled the homeless, illegal alien, housing, crime, and drug problems they should do just splendidly. This could accelerate the state’s population decline to the point where Denmark could buy the state at a bargain rate. It would be a win-win for all.

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
February 18, 2025 1:15 pm

No, because of two things. The biggest ports are all there, and all the idiots would bring their stupid voting tendencies to other states.

roaddog
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 19, 2025 12:16 am

We have to sell it “furnished,” no one is allowed to leave for saner territory.

February 18, 2025 8:36 am

They will back off when they realize that they’ll be responsible for the resulting fustercluck with nobody else to blame.

KevinM
February 18, 2025 8:51 am

First thought was “Venezuela”, but the article points it out.

Rud Istvan
February 18, 2025 9:04 am

I hope they do shoot themselves in the foot. Object lesson needed.

Rahx360
February 18, 2025 9:13 am

We all know the outcome. Western politicians will always take most destructive path. When so many citizens, capital and businesses are fleeing California you might be doing something wrong. The tragedy of all is that it are the poor people who can’t leave are getting ruined.

Reply to  Rahx360
February 18, 2025 1:17 pm

But if the poor are voting democrat, hard for me to feel any sympathy for them.

John Endicott
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 20, 2025 8:40 am

The problem is the poor often are not well educated economically. they end up believing the Dem’s “sock it to the rich/businesses” mantra without ever considering that the rich can simply leave for business friendlier pastures when the Dems policies get too onerous.

February 18, 2025 9:20 am

The plan would be to legislate refineries into non- profitability, then take them over with a tax dollar buyout, then sell them to investment funds a few years later.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 18, 2025 1:18 pm

Then sue the investment fund for causing “climate change.”

KevinM
February 18, 2025 9:42 am

Lincoln decided the South could not secede and went to war. Odd if California were allowed to walk away without consequences. Is there a Brexit analogy?

Boff Doff
February 18, 2025 10:10 am

As a patriotic Brit I say more power to the Californian legislature! The sooner the economic catastrophe hits and the further way the better. Who is more deserving of it than the Sacramento Snowflakes?

MarkW
February 18, 2025 10:11 am

The long term goal of the socialists is to collapse the private market. They can then ride in as saviors and take over everything.

February 18, 2025 6:10 pm

It’s telling that Shell, one of the wokest, greenwashed companies going was the first companies to abandon the California downstream market.

February 18, 2025 6:44 pm