Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy And Transition Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators press agencies for concrete scenarios on refinery closures, imports and workforce impacts
Summary
Multiple senators at an oversight hearing pushed CEC, CARB and DPMO to produce step‑by‑step scenarios showing how different demand trajectories change the number of refineries California will need, the port and truck impacts of greater imports, and the workforce programs required to support displaced refinery workers.
Lawmakers used a California State Senate oversight hearing to press state agencies for tangible, near‑term scenarios that show how the state will manage refinery contractions, import reliance and job impacts during the mid‑transition away from petroleum.
"If we're to achieve 85% reductions by 2045, what does that look like? How many refineries will we still need?" Senator Richardson asked in a lengthy line of questioning that sought a clear picture of the transition’s real‑world effects on consumers, ports and jobs.
Agency witnesses said scenario modeling is under way. "We are modeling multiple demand‑decline scenarios and have identified how many refineries we would need under each," Siva Gunda, vice chair of the California Energy Commission, told the committee, promising to deliver more granular numbers and trade‑off analyses by fall.
Senators highlighted a series of considerations they said must be included in the planning: traffic and storage impacts at the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach if imports rise; additional truck and rail movements required for moving imported fuels inland; local employment effects where refineries close; and the lifecycle greenhouse‑gas and air‑quality consequences of importing fuels that were not produced under California regulatory regimes.
CARB and CEC officials acknowledged the trade‑offs and the need to quantify them. CARB’s Matt Patel said the agency is modeling how changes in gasoline specifications would affect emissions and public health and flagged that laboratory testing is required to quantify likely impacts. "Those are scientific analyses — they take months and require fuel testing," Patel said.
Several lawmakers said they want the agencies to present not only the technical scenarios but the policy choices and implications that follow: whether the state should pursue cost‑of‑service regulation, incentives to keep refineries operating, investment in more terminal and storage capacity, or accelerated deployment of alternatives (hydrogen, renewable diesel, zero‑emission trucks) with commensurate workforce programs.
Agencies agreed to follow up. CEC and CARB staff said they will return with scenario outputs that spell out expected refinery counts under different demand paths, estimated port and truck traffic implications under import‑heavy scenarios, and options for workforce transition funding and programs.
Lawmakers also requested detailed analysis of potential pipeline plans, including a Gulf Coast‑to‑California pipeline that planners have estimated could be operational in the late 2020s. Agencies said the pipeline is one of several options being modeled but that safety, permitting and local impacts must be factored into any decisions.
The hearing ended without legislative votes. Senators signaled they will use the agencies’ forthcoming assessments to inform whether and how to change statutory tools, regulatory schedules and funding to manage a transition that they said must protect consumers, communities and jobs.
