Connect with us

Energy

California may lose two more refineries, would have to rely on gas from abroad

Published

4 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

In 2008, California produced 249 million barrels of oil, meeting 38% of state needs, with 13.5% imported from Alaska and the remaining 48.5% from foreign countries. In 2023, California produced just 124 million barrels of oil, meeting 23.4% of state needs, while importing 15.9% from Alaska and 61% from abroad.

Short on the heels of another major refinery closure, Valero signaled it is considering closing its two California refineries that produce over 14% of the state’s gasoline. Refinery closures already have the state importing 8% of its gasoline supply, which means the state could soon have to significantly increase its imports of refined products such as gasoline, on top of its existing reliance on the Middle East and South America for the majority of its crude oil.

Valero announced its profit is down significantly due to very low margins from its refinery business, prompting a question during its earning call about its costly California refineries.

Valero CEO Lane Riggs responded the company has already “minimized strategic [capital expenditures]” in the state and “California is increasing its regulatory pressure on the industry, so we’re really considering everything — all options are on the table.”

While Riggs did not explicitly state that the refineries, which represent over 14% of the state’s remaining refinery capacity, could be shut down, California legislators were quick to ring the alarm bell and tie the potential closures to new refinery regulation powers being granted to the state in a special legislative session called by the governor.

“When California Governor Gavin Newsom said in 2021 he didn’t see a future for oil in CA, I didn’t know 2024 would be the year he ended it at lightning speed,” said State Assembly member Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, on X. “Today,  another refiner said “all options are on table” with refineries here. We can thank Newsom’s legislation.”

Just last week, Phillips 66 announced it is closing its massive Los Angeles refinery complex, which alone has 8% of the state’s refining capacity, right after the new legislation was passed.

New laws making it more difficult to drill for oil in California have brought production levels to half of what they were in 2008. Then, California produced 249 million barrels of oil, meeting 38% of state needs, with 13.5% imported from Alaska and the remaining 48.5% from foreign countries. In 2023, California produced just 124 million barrels of oil, meeting 23.4% of state needs, while importing 15.9% from Alaska and 61% from abroad. California’s foreign oil mostly comes from Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and Ecuador and Columbia in Latin America.

Losing a quarter of the state’s refining capacity would necessitate replacement with products refined abroad, which would end up being a lot more expensive than shipping in crude oil to be refined in California, which in turn is more expensive than producing oil in-state and refining it.

Imports are also more subject to price shocks than domestic refining and production due to higher variance in global market conditions, which could be a concern in the future — a widespread war in the Middle East, for example, would already significantly impact California oil supplies today.

Should California adopt more strict Low Carbon Fuel Standard requirements in November, which could include having more strict requirements on refineries and raising their costs, even more refineries may shut down rather than continue operating in California. Under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard program, refiners must either produce low carbon fuels, or purchase credits; should the new standards pass in, California estimates they would add another 47 cents to the cost of each gallon of gasoline and 59 cents in 2025 to each gallon of diesel.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Trump Issues Order To End Green Energy Gravy Train, Cites National Security

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the end of green energy subsidies by strengthening provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Monday night, citing national security concerns and unnecessary costs to taxpayers.

The order argues that a heavy reliance on green energy subsidies compromise the reliability of the power grid and undermines energy independence. Trump called for the U.S. to “rapidly eliminate” federal green energy subsidies and to “build upon and strengthen” the repeal of wind and solar tax credits remaining in the reconciliation law in the order, directing the Treasury Department to enforce the phase-out of tax credits.

“For too long, the Federal Government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar,” the order states. “Reliance on so-called ‘green’ subsidies threatens national security by making the United States dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Former President Joe Biden established massive green energy subsidies under his signature 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which did not receive a single Republican vote.

The reconciliation package did not immediately terminate Biden-era federal subsidies for green energy technology, phasing them out over time instead, though some policy experts argued that drawn-out timelines could lead to an indefinite continuation of subsidies. Trump’s executive order alludes to potential loopholes in the bill, calling for a review by Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to ensure that green energy projects that have a “beginning of construction” tax credit deadline are not “circumvented.”

Additionally, the executive order directs the U.S. to end taxpayer support for green energy supply chains that are controlled by foreign adversaries, alluding to China’s supply chain dominance for solar and wind. Trump also specifically highlighted costs to taxpayers, market distortions and environmental impacts of subsidized green energy development in explaining the policy.

Ahead of the reconciliation bill becoming law, Trump told Republicans that “we’ve got all the cards, and we are going to use them.” Several House Republicans noted that the president said he would use executive authority to enhance the bill and strictly enforce phase-outs, which helped persuade some conservatives to back the bill.

Continue Reading

Trending

X