In a recent CalMatters column, veteran political journalist Dan Walters captured a subtle yet significant shift in California politics: Democratic contenders for governor are beginning to strategically distance themselves from Governor Gavin Newsom’s anti-oil policies.
While none openly criticized the governor, a notable contrast emerged during a union-sponsored forum this past week, particularly in response to a pointed question from the oil refinery workers’ union.
The candidates were asked whether, as governor, they would adopt a more pragmatic approach to California’s energy policy, one that stops targeting in-state oil and gas production in ways that jeopardize union jobs and deepen the state’s dependence on imported energy. Nearly every candidate said yes.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said, “We can’t continue to be a party of just people that drive a Tesla, not a Toyota pickup, or ride a bus like my mother did. We’re putting this notion of just renewables on the backs of working people. We have the highest gas prices in the United States of America. We have the second-highest utility costs.”
Villaraigosa’s comments echo what many Californians are feeling. The affordability crisis in this state has reached a boiling point, and the Newsom administration’s policies are making it worse. Gas prices, utility bills, and food costs are up, with few signs of relief. Meanwhile, Sacramento’s strategy to eliminate petroleum-based fuels over the next two decades has already led to the planned closure of two major refineries, a 21% drop in refining capacity that will ripple through every corner of the state’s economy.
USC economist Michael Mische warned that the closures could push fuel prices beyond $8 per gallon by 2026, especially given California’s reliance on in-state refining to meet not only its own demand but also that of Arizona, Nevada, and the U.S. military. Mische’s analysis is stark: refinery closures combined with legislative overreach could increase gas prices by 75% in less than two years.
The Newsom administration’s response? Discredit Mische, not with data, but with insinuations about his past advisory work for Saudi Arabia. They tried to discredit Mische, but did not provide any economic rebuttal.
CIPA continues to sound the alarm: this transition, if not managed responsibly, will devastate working families, eliminate good union jobs, and deepen our dependence on unstable foreign energy. We’re not alone in that view anymore. Even Democrats are beginning to acknowledge the consequences of policy divorced from economic reality.
