Refinery closures increase uncertainty about California's fuel future
Multiple refineries in California have recently declared their intentions to shutter operations, leaving the Golden State uncertain about future fuel supplies and impacts on prices at the pump.
Valero Energy Corp. was the latest to make such an announcement, alerting the California Energy Commission (CEC) last month that it would 'idle, restructure or cease refining operations' at its Benicia refinery by the end of April 2026.
The Valero notice followed similar news at Phillips 66 in October, when that company said it would be ceasing operations at its Los Angeles-area refinery in the fourth quarter of 2025.
Firms are attributing these decisions to the restrictive regulatory environment in California, which is home to the nation's biggest car market, despite an unparalleled clean energy push.
'We know that California gasoline consumption is going to decline over time,' Severin Borenstein, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, told The Hill.
'We are going to have exit, and we need to figure out — how are we going to handle that exit?' Borenstein continued.
Following Valero's announcement that it would be reducing or closing operations at Benicia, in the northern San Francisco Bay Area, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) reportedly sent a letter to the CEC, directing the regulators to guarantee reliable fuel supplies.
The letter instructed the CEC to 'redouble the state's efforts to work closely with refiners,' as well as offer changes to the state's fuel management strategies by July 1, according to Reuters.
The governor also asked the agency to substantiate the state's belief that refineries can function profitably, while also blaming President Trump for the general market instability, Reuters reported.
Homer Bhullar, vice president of Valero, referred last week in an earnings call to a 'plan to cease refining operations' at Benicia. Lane Riggs, the company's CEO, on the same call described a regulatory ecosystem that 'is the most stringent and difficult of anywhere else in North America.'
Similarly, the Phillips 66 announcement in October described the 'long-term sustainability' of the Los Angeles location as 'uncertain and affected by market dynamics.'
Assessing the overall prospects of fuel refinery departures, Borenstein emphasized the need 'for some careful planning' on the part of regulators going forward.
Describing refineries as 'very lumpy investments,' he explained that 'when one exits, you could get a real imbalance, and in between, you could have excess supply of gas.'
In Borenstein's mind, the CEC will need to consider how to enable more imports — answering questions such whether there is enough port space or enough pipeline capacity once the fuel arrives at the ports.
The fuel refinery phaseout, he contended, will come with inherent challenges, particularly since California is the first state to initiate this long-term process — a process that has barely even begun.
'These are incredibly complex, expensive facilities, and they are constantly making long-term plans,' Borenstein said. 'It's very hard to predict how they're going to respond to threats of regulation and threats of declining demand.'
Aiming to prevent future shortages and price spikes at the pump, Newsom in October signed into law controversial legislation aimed at tightening fuel refinery storage rules.
The ABx2-1 bill, approved in a special legislative session, gives the CEC the ability to set constraints on storage levels for each refiner, fuel and blending component, while also adjusting inventory minimums and establishing conditions under which refiners can draw down or rebuild reserves.
Although ABx2-1 ultimately earned the legislature's favor to become state law, its advancement was neither unanimous nor without pushback — from oil companies, labor unions and lawmakers.
Chevron sent a letter to lawmakers warning that the imposition of new inventory constraints would only cause further price spikes, as first reported by local television station KRCA.
Meanwhile, labor unions took issue with CEC gaining 'unprecedented regulatory authority to bureaucratically dictate safety maintenance at in-state refineries,' which they said could put workers at potential risk
Yet Borenstein pointed out that the legislation hasn't yet led to any tangible action, as the bill was only giving the CEC the ability to consider establishing new regulations on these matters. The CEC, however, has yet to do so.
'I would be at least cautious in concluding those things will ever happen,' he said.
Sanjay Varshney, a finance professor at California State University, Sacramento, had a different outlook on the fuel predicament, arguing that the Golden State is coping with 'self-inflicted wounds.'
The higher prices at the pump, he contended, reflect California's higher gas taxes, the state's stricter fuel blend requirements and the lack of transportation pipelines.
Varshney said that because Newsom has both historically 'used the oil industry as a punching bag' and told 'them that they are basically rogues and scoundrels,' doing business right now makes for 'interesting' circumstances.
'The companies are fed up, so they leave,' he added.
Although Varshney said he believes that California's climate-oriented policies are well-intentioned, they may be 'overly aggressive' when it comes to meeting consumer demands and keeping prices down.
'If you are leading, but nobody is following, can you basically change the world on your own?' Varshney asked.
He suggested, for example, that if everyone nationwide was using a higher blend of gasoline, then all states would be on an 'equal footing' and Californians wouldn't necessarily be paying higher prices than other Americans.
While Borenstein agreed that California's gas prices aren't going to budge anytime soon, he also expressed fewer qualms about the fact that they are high in the first place.
'I'm perfectly comfortable with the part that is due to higher taxes, which are going towards various government policies,' he said.
Borenstein acknowledged that California's gas levies are more regressive — they take a greater toll on lower-income groups — in comparison to other taxes in the state, but he stressed that the fees fuel government action.
A bigger problem in his mind is the 'mystery gasoline surcharge,' a term he coined that refers to the difference between fuel prices in California and those of other states, even after accounting for taxes.
That unexplained gap, which he said the CEC is now investigating, is likely 'going towards profits of some company,' according to Borenstein.
'It is true that California has higher gasoline prices,' he said. 'California also has way better air quality than, say, Salt Lake City, which has chosen not to clean up its gasoline supply.'
'When I was growing up in L.A., you could not see the mountains, and now you can,' Borenstein added. 'That's a choice Californians have made, to have a cleaner environment and to pay extra for it.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump banned travel from 12 countries, but included some exceptions to avoid legal battles
MIAMI (AP) — The new travel ban on citizens of 12 countries that restricted access to people from seven others includes some exceptions, part of the administration's efforts to withstand the legal challenges that a similar policy known as the 'Muslim ban' faced during Donald Trump's first administration. The ban announced Wednesday applies to people from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The restrictions are for people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, who are outside the United States and don't hold a visa. Some exceptions apply only to specific countries, like Afghanistan. Others are for most of the countries on the list, or are more general and unclear, like the policies for foreign visitors planning to come to the U.S. for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, two of the events President Donald Trump has said he is more excited to host. Some experts agree that the current ban includes exceptions and has fixed some issues that were subject to litigation in the first travel ban. 'Absolutely, the administration is trying to avoid the problems that they had with the first proclamation,' said Jeff Joseph, president-elect at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He anticipated, nonetheless, that lawsuits are 'going to come anyway.' In one of the most confusing moments of his first administration, Trump issued an executive order in 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. People from those countries were barred from getting on flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after landing. Among them were students, faculty, businesspeople, tourists and people visiting family. The order, dubbed as 'Muslim ban' by critics, faced legal challenges in the courts for about a year and was amended twice after opponents argued in the courts that it was unconstitutional and illegal. A version of the first travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The new ban takes effect Monday at 12 a.m. It does not have an end date. __Green card holders __Dual citizens, including U.S. citizens who have citizenship of the banned countries __Some athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events __Afghans who worked for the U.S. government or its allies in Afghanistan or are holders of special visas __Iranians from an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution __Certain foreign national employees of the U.S. government that have served abroad for at least 15 years, and their spouses and children __People who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. as refugees before the travel ban took effect __People with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection with their spouses, children or parents __Diplomats and foreign government officials on official visits __People traveling to the U.N. headquarters in New York on official U.N. business __Representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits in the United States __Children adopted by U.S. citizens Trump said nationals of the countries included in the ban pose 'terrorism-related' and 'public safety' risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. Some of these countries, he said, had 'deficient' screening or have refused to take back their citizens. The Proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests. Critics of the 2017 ban said that it was racial and targeted Muslim countries. Now the policy is broader and includes countries like Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela — nations that don't have many Muslims. This will make the argument about racial animus, said Joseph, the immigration attorney. The government has also included potential end dates, and the State Department will evaluate the proclamation every 90 days and determine if it should be extended. The list can be changed, the administration said in a document, if authorities in the designated countries make 'material improvements' to their own rules and procedures. New countries can be added 'as threats emerge around the world.' The travel ban has barred most Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those hoping to come temporarily, but there are several exemptions. One of them is for special immigrant visa holders who supported the United States' two-decades-long war in Afghanistan. Another exception applies to all countries on the travel ban and allows spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens to enter the U.S. The U.S. government can decide to admit or decline their entrance on a case-by-case basis, considering if they serve a 'United States national interest.' Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup that will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico next year. Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots. But all should be able to send teams if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, the Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.' About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted in the travel restrictions, and the exceptions should apply to them if the ban is still in place in its current form. Fans from the target countries willing to travel to the World Cup and the Olympics are not mentioned in the exceptions. Traveling from abroad for the World Cup and the Summer Games is expensive. In many cases, those who can afford the travel are wealthy individuals or people living in the diaspora, who may have different visa options. ___
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump banned travel from 12 countries, but included some exceptions to avoid legal battles
MIAMI (AP) — The new travel ban on citizens of 12 countries that restricted access to people from seven others includes some exceptions, part of the administration's efforts to withstand the legal challenges that a similar policy known as the 'Muslim ban' faced during Donald Trump's first administration. The ban announced Wednesday applies to people from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The restrictions are for people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, who are outside the United States and don't hold a visa. Some exceptions apply only to specific countries, like Afghanistan. Others are for most of the countries on the list, or are more general and unclear, like the policies for foreign visitors planning to come to the U.S. for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, two of the events President Donald Trump has said he is more excited to host. Some experts agree that the current ban includes exceptions and has fixed some issues that were subject to litigation in the first travel ban. 'Absolutely, the administration is trying to avoid the problems that they had with the first proclamation,' said Jeff Joseph, president-elect at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He anticipated, nonetheless, that lawsuits are 'going to come anyway.' In one of the most confusing moments of his first administration, Trump issued an executive order in 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. People from those countries were barred from getting on flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after landing. Among them were students, faculty, businesspeople, tourists and people visiting family. The order, dubbed as 'Muslim ban' by critics, faced legal challenges in the courts for about a year and was amended twice after opponents argued in the courts that it was unconstitutional and illegal. A version of the first travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The new ban takes effect Monday at 12 a.m. It does not have an end date. Who is exempt from the new travel ban? __Green card holders __Dual citizens, including U.S. citizens who have citizenship of the banned countries __Some athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events __Afghans who worked for the U.S. government or its allies in Afghanistan or are holders of special visas __Iranians from an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution __Certain foreign national employees of the U.S. government that have served abroad for at least 15 years, and their spouses and children __People who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. as refugees before the travel ban took effect __People with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection with their spouses, children or parents __Diplomats and foreign government officials on official visits __People traveling to the U.N. headquarters in New York on official U.N. business __Representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits in the United States __Children adopted by U.S. citizens Trump said nationals of the countries included in the ban pose 'terrorism-related' and 'public safety' risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. Some of these countries, he said, had 'deficient' screening or have refused to take back their citizens. The Proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests. What is different from the 2017 ban? Critics of the 2017 ban said that it was racial and targeted Muslim countries. Now the policy is broader and includes countries like Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela — nations that don't have many Muslims. This will make the argument about racial animus, said Joseph, the immigration attorney. The government has also included potential end dates, and the State Department will evaluate the proclamation every 90 days and determine if it should be extended. Is the list final, or could it be changed? The list can be changed, the administration said in a document, if authorities in the designated countries make 'material improvements' to their own rules and procedures. New countries can be added 'as threats emerge around the world.' Exemptions for Afghans The travel ban has barred most Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those hoping to come temporarily, but there are several exemptions. One of them is for special immigrant visa holders who supported the United States' two-decades-long war in Afghanistan. Another exception applies to all countries on the travel ban and allows spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens to enter the U.S. The U.S. government can decide to admit or decline their entrance on a case-by-case basis, considering if they serve a 'United States national interest.' How does it affect the World Cup, Olympics and fans? Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup that will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico next year. Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots. But all should be able to send teams if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, the Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.' About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted in the travel restrictions, and the exceptions should apply to them if the ban is still in place in its current form. Fans from the target countries willing to travel to the World Cup and the Olympics are not mentioned in the exceptions. Traveling from abroad for the World Cup and the Summer Games is expensive. In many cases, those who can afford the travel are wealthy individuals or people living in the diaspora, who may have different visa options. ___
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Fueled by trade tensions and foreign wars, a rush for an obscure mineral heats up in Alaska
A sign warns of a sled dog crossing along Old Murphy Dome Road outside Fairbanks. The road leads to a site where an Australian company called Felix Gold could begin mining antimony. (Max Graham/Northern Journal) Alaska hasn't produced antimony — a shiny mineral used in weapons, flame retardants and solar panels — in almost 40 years. That could change this summer, according to the executives of a Texas company that has snatched up more than 35,000 acres of mining claims in Alaska. Dallas-based U.S. Antimony Corp. is looking to the state as a new source of antimony for its smelter in Montana, the only plant in the United States that refines the mineral. Alaska's antimony, the company says, could help the U.S. overcome a recent ban on exports of the mineral from China, the world's top antimony producer. Antimony is among several minerals — many of which are used in renewable energy — that the U.S. has sourced primarily from China and other countries in recent decades. Efforts to build more mines in the U.S. have accelerated amid worsening trade tensions and growing demand. With no active antimony mines, the U.S. in recent years has imported roughly 60% of its antimony from China. Meanwhile, need for the mineral has surged as antimony-laden arms flow to wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. The price of the mineral has quadrupled in the past year, rising from around $13,000 to $55,000 per ton. U.S. Antimony is now expanding its Montana smelter and rushing to find more ore to supply it. Alaska is its 'primary focus' for boosting production, an executive said in an interview last week. In the past eight months, a U.S. Antimony subsidiary, Great Land Minerals, has acquired claims in three different areas of Alaska's Interior: outside Fairbanks; near the small town of Tok; and along the Maclaren River off the Denali Highway, a scenic road that runs outside the national park. U.S. Antimony says it's looking to truck antimony ore some 2,000 miles from Alaska to its processing plant in Montana. That operation could start as soon as September, executives said on a recent call with investors. 'We can't get that antimony from Alaska to Montana fast enough,' Joe Bardswich, U.S. Antimony's chief mining officer, said on the call. The company's plans coincide with a separate effort by an Australian company to start up its own small-scale antimony mine near Fairbanks. Felix Gold is seeking to restart production this year at a long-shuttered antimony mine that sits within a few miles of a residential subdivision, Hattie Creek. The company also is eyeing prospects near the hamlet of Ester on the outskirts of Fairbanks — where U.S. Antimony's subsidiary has claims, too. The potential developments are generating a mix of responses locally. Some residents worry about environmental impacts of mining and its potential to transform tranquil Fairbanks-area neighborhoods into noisy industrial sites. 'I don't want to be all NIMBY. But it literally is my backyard,' said Lisbet Norris, who lives in Hattie Creek, about 10 miles north of downtown Fairbanks. 'It's just so close.' Norris, a dog musher, runs sled tours on trails that cross Felix Gold's claims on state land, and she's concerned that mining might impede her business. She's also worried about heavy industrial use of the dirt road that connects her neighborhood — and Felix Gold's potential operations — to the rest of town. Other Fairbanks residents, however, say they support mining in the area; some cite the town's early history as a gold mining town and the potential economic benefits of new mines. 'It's because of mining that Fairbanks is what it is,' said Roger Burggraf, a local prospector who owns some of the claims that Felix Gold has leased to study the feasibility of antimony mining. Burggraf said he understands the concerns of people who live near gold and antimony prospects. But when they bought their properties, 'they should have realized that if a mine developed, that might change their lifestyle,' he added. Felix Gold has a permit only for mineral exploration, not active mining. The company aims later this year to apply for additional state permits, and to finish studying the profitability of developing a small antimony mine near the Hattie Creek subdivision. U.S. Antimony also has applied only for a permit to search for antimony, though it hopes to apply for more permits and start mining within a year. If its exploration efforts show a mine would be profitable, it would propose an underground operation, said Rodney Blakestad, U.S. Antimony's vice president of mining. The footprint would be small, more similar to the family-run placer mines in the area than to a large-scale hardrock mine, according to Blakestad. 'We're not Fort Knox,' he said, referring to Fairbanks' huge open pit gold mine. But before U.S. Antimony begins mining, it wants to buy antimony ore from existing placer gold mines. Antimony often appears alongside more-valuable gold, and gold miners have typically thrown it aside. Now that antimony prices are surging, though, U.S. Antimony representatives say every little bit is valuable. A 25-ton truck could carry some $600,000 worth of minerals, Bardswich said in an interview. That means small loads of antimony ore from shallow, exploratory trenches that the company intends to dig at its Alaska prospects this summer also could be worth driving 2,000 miles to the Montana smelter, company executives said. In the meantime, they intend to launch an advertising campaign to share their interest in buying the mineral from placer miners. 'People don't realize this: Gold is not the best mineral to be mining, if you're looking for really good value,' said Blakestad. 'Antimony is.' Northern Journal contributor Max Graham can be reached at max@ He's interested in any and all mining related stories, as well as introductory meetings with people in and around the industry. This article was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter from Nathaniel Herz. Subscribe at this link.
