In a dramatic eleventh-hour compromise, California lawmakers have forged a deal with the oil industry aimed at bolstering domestic crude production amid looming refinery closures that threaten to drive up gasoline prices. The agreement, embedded in Senate Bill 237, streamlines environmental approvals for thousands of new oil wells in the state’s prolific Kern County while imposing stricter regulations on offshore drilling operations. Backed by Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, the measure represents a rare concession to the fossil fuel sector in a state long at the forefront of aggressive climate policies. But as the dust settles, questions linger: Is this a lifeline for California’s struggling oil producers, or just a band-aid on a deeper wound?
Are you Paying High Taxes in New Jersey, New York, or California?
The Deal: A Balancing Act Between Production and Protection
The core of the agreement focuses on reversing the decline in California’s onshore oil output, which has plummeted in recent years due to regulatory hurdles and market pressures. Under SB 237, the state would grant statutory approval for up to 2,000 new wells annually in Kern County—home to about three-quarters of the state’s crude production—through 2036. This provision bypasses potential legal challenges from environmental groups by embedding the approvals directly into law, allowing producers to ramp up extraction more swiftly.In exchange, the bill tightens the reins on offshore activities. It reaffirms the California Coastal Commission’s authority over pipeline repairs and mandates the use of “best available technology” for any petroleum-transporting pipes from offshore platforms, effective January 2026. This could pose significant obstacles for projects like Sable Offshore Corp.’s efforts to restart drilling off Santa Barbara County, where ongoing litigation and safety concerns have already delayed operations.The deal is part of a broader legislative package announced late Wednesday, which also includes extending the state’s cap-and-trade program—requiring major polluters to buy carbon credits—to 2045, up from its previous 2030 sunset. Lawmakers are racing to pass the bills before the session ends this week, with a potential one-day extension to meet printing deadlines.
Governor Newsom’s office signaled strong support, stating he “looks forward to signing it when it reaches his desk.” Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson, a co-author of the bill, emphasized the need to balance fuel affordability with California’s green energy commitments, warning against over-reliance on imported petroleum.
Background: Refinery Closures Spark Crisis Mode
The urgency stems from announcements by major refiners Valero and Phillips 66 to shutter facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County’s South Bay by the end of 2025. These closures would slash in-state refining capacity by roughly 20%, exacerbating California’s vulnerability to global oil market swings and potentially inflating gas prices at the pump—already among the nation’s highest.
California’s oil industry has been under siege for years. Aggressive environmental regulations, coupled with the state’s push toward renewables, have stifled production, leading to stagnating output and refinery idling. Industry leaders like Ted Cordova of E&B Natural Resources argue that low pipeline levels and regulatory bottlenecks are forcing closures, as refiners seek cheaper imports or pivot to biofuels. Earlier this summer, Newsom’s administration even delayed a vote on capping refinery profits, signaling a pragmatic shift from past hardline stances against “Big Oil.”This compromise follows months of closed-door negotiations, marking a reversal for Democrats who have cracked down on the sector since Newsom took office in 2019. As one CalMatters report noted, the move comes as the state grapples with rising cost-of-living pressures, including fuel costs that could soar if domestic supply chains weaken further.
Stakeholder Reactions: Praise, Skepticism, and Outrage
The oil industry views the deal as a welcome, if partial, victory. Producers in Kern County stand to benefit from faster permitting, potentially injecting billions into local economies and stabilizing supply chains. However, some representatives are still poring over the details, with concerns that the offshore restrictions could chill investment in riskier ventures.
Environmental advocates, meanwhile, decried the onshore boost as a step backward. Hollin Kretzmann of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute called it a “contradiction,” arguing that expanding drilling acknowledges its harms while enabling more environmental damage without addressing root causes like refinery exits. Michael Wara, a climate policy expert at Stanford, echoed this, noting that California crude makes up only a fraction of what refineries process—meaning new wells might not keep facilities humming or tame prices.
Sable Offshore Corp. declined to comment, but the tightened pipeline rules could derail its Central Coast revival plans, especially amid a federal lawsuit allowed to proceed this week over regulatory lapses.
Too Little Too Late? Analyzing the Impact
So, does this deal actually help the oil industry, or is it too little too late? On the positive side, the streamlined approvals could add meaningful production—potentially hundreds of thousands of barrels per day—easing the strain on Kern County’s fields and providing a buffer against import disruptions.
Locking in approvals through 2036 offers long-term certainty that might deter further producer exits and support refinery viability in the short term. Proponents argue this pragmatic tweak aligns with energy security needs as California transitions to cleaner fuels, preventing a “gasoline shock” that could hit consumers hard.
Yet critics, including environmental groups and some analysts, contend it’s insufficient to stem the tide. Refinery closures are driven more by corporate strategies and global economics than local crude shortages; Valero and Phillips 66 are eyeing biofuels and exports, not just supply gaps. As Bloomberg reported, even with onshore gains, the offshore curbs might offset benefits by scaring off investment altogether. Gas prices could still spike 20-50 cents per gallon post-closures, per industry estimates, and the cap-and-trade extension might raise costs for emitters without curbing overall fossil dependence.In the bigger picture, this feels like damage control in a state where oil’s role is shrinking—renewables now power over 50% of electricity, and EV adoption is surging. While it buys time for the industry, broader trends like federal clean energy incentives and California’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal suggest fossil fuels’ days are numbered. For Kern County workers and rural economies, though, it’s a vital reprieve.
Looking Ahead: Energy Security in the Golden State
As SB 237 heads to a vote, California’s energy landscape hangs in the balance. The deal underscores the tension between climate ambition and economic reality, potentially averting a near-term crisis but doing little to resolve long-term vulnerabilities. For the oil sector, it’s a foothold; for the environment, a concession too far.
Energy News Beat will continue monitoring developments as the Legislature wraps up and Newsom’s signature looms. In a state racing toward zero emissions, this compromise might just keep the lights—and pumps—on a little longer.
Avoid Paying Taxes in 2025
Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote
ENB Top News
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack
Be the first to comment