Connect with us

Politics

Another refinery shuts down in California. What happens to gas prices?

Published

on

Another refinery shuts down in California. What happens to gas prices?

California’s attempt to manage a smooth transition away from gasoline just got roughed up with this week’s decision by Phillips 66 to shutter its refinery in Wilmington next year, wiping out more than 8% of the state’s crude oil processing capacity.

The closure is likely to increase California’s already high prices at the gas pump, given that much of the replacement gasoline will be shipped in by ocean vessel, analysts say.

The price issue will be “most worrisome if we have some kind of disruption in the market” and the Phillips refinery’s not there to help with resupply, said Severin Borenstein, faculty director at UC Berkeley’s Energy Institute.

The planned shutdown, announced by Phillips 66 on Wednesday, came just days after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that could force the state’s refineries to store extra gasoline, a move intended to minimize price spikes, such as those that occurred in late 2022 and 2023.

A Phillips 66 spokesman said the decision is not related to that bill, but in a press release the company called “the long term sustainability” of the refinery “uncertain.” He told The Times that “the refinery had lower profitability compared to other assets in our portfolio.”

Advertisement

State Sen. Steve Bradford (D-Gardena), who represents the Wilmington-area district where the refinery is located, sees the planned closure as the culmination of “a death of 1,000 cuts” from California energy policy “that led us to where Phillips saw no real future.”

Not only will gasoline prices rise, he said, “but now we’ll have ships docked at our ports spewing pollution while they’re unloading gasoline from countries that don’t have the same environmental standards that we have.”

He laments the loss of up to 600 direct jobs at the refinery, 300 contractors, and an unknown number of ancillary jobs. The Phillips refinery is split into two sites, one section in Wilmington and the other in nearby Carson, linked by pipeline.

“I feel for the men and women who live around that area who have depended on these jobs for decades. The refinery was there first, not the homes,” he said. “These people made a conscious decision to buy homes in these communities to be close to jobs.”

Environmentalists and community activists cheered the news, however, saying it will mean cleaner air for the thousands who live in the area and that the state must continue the transition away from its dependence on fossil fuels.

Advertisement

Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, acknowledged that gasoline prices could rise after the refinery is shut down, but said that justifies California’s plans to assert more control over gasoline supplies.

“This is the reason for command and control over the refiners,” he said. “So when one changes their plan, the others must make sure they have supply liquidity.”

The loss of the Wilmington refinery will consolidate the state’s refining capacity in fewer hands, in what Court said would raise the potential for price-fixing.

The refinery closure is the latest development in the state’s attempt to rid itself of gasoline and diesel vehicles to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases, but at the same time keep a lid on pump prices.

The governor has not been shy about blaming the industry for what he calls price gouging, and his rhetoric is heated. Earlier this week he posted an Instagram video in which he declares that “Big oil big wigs are up to their oily shenanigans here in California.”

Advertisement

Rather than go tit-for-tat with the governor, Phillips 66 is taking what might be considered a strategic retreat. The closure could indeed boost its bottom line. The company runs nine gasoline refineries in the United States and two in Europe. In an August presentation aimed at investors, the company said it planned to increase its capacity utilization. That can be accomplished by closing one or more refineries and increasing utilization at those that remain, cutting operating and capital costs and improving profit margins.

As to possible supply shortages, Phillips said it will “work with California to maintain current levels and potentially increase supplies.” No details were offered. Phillips has a strong incentive to keep supplies up: it runs about 1,000 service stations in California under the 76, Phillips 66 and Conoco brands.

But importing fuel by ship from its own refineries or buying it from other importers “adds costs,” Borenstein said.

State Sen. Steve Bradford (D-Gardena) represents the district where the Phillips 66 refinery is located. “I feel for the men and women who live around that area who have depended on those jobs for decades,” he said.

(Associated Press)

Advertisement

Newsom declined to comment. Siva Gunda, vice chair of the California Energy Commission, issued a statement saying Phillips 66’s “plan to replace the production lost from the refinery closure is an example of the type of creative solutions that are needed as we transition away from fossil fuels.”

California had 11 gasoline refineries but that number was cut to nine recently when the Marathon refinery in Martinez and Phillips 66’s other California refinery in Rodeo, both in Northern California, converted their plants from fossil fuels to renewable diesel fuel. Those conversions earn carbon credit subsidies in the state’s carbon markets.

While providing lower-carbon fuel to California truckers, with consequent reductions in pollution and greenhouse gases, the shift increased concentration in the gasoline-refining market, leading to more pricing power. Next year, the number of California refineries will shrink to eight.

While Phillips 66 said its decision isn’t related to the gasoline storage bill, it warned in its most recent annual 10-K financial report that California legislation and rulemaking could have “potential adverse effects on our refining, marketing and midstream operations in California, which may be material to our results of operations, financial condition, profitability and cash flows.”

Advertisement

The report cited the passage in 2023 of a bill that gives the state power to set limits on refinery profit margins, with heavy penalties for noncompliance. The state hasn’t yet exercised that option.

Politics

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Published

on

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Our national security correspondent David E. Sanger examines the war of choice that President Trump has initiated with Iran.

By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry

March 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

Published

on

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Some of the top rumored Democratic potential candidates for president in 2028 are showing a united front in opposing U.S. strikes on Iran, with several high-profile figures accusing President Donald Trump of launching an unnecessary and unconstitutional war.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Trump was “dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want.”

“Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice,” Harris said in a statement Saturday following the joint U.S. and Israeli strikes throughout Iran.

“This is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with American lives that also jeopardizes stability in the region and our standing in the world,” she continued. “What we are witnessing is not strength. It is recklessness dressed up as resolve.”

Advertisement

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are leading Democratic 2028 hopefuls who spoke out against U.S. strikes on Iran. (Big Event Media/Getty Images for HumanX Conference; Reuters/Liesa Johannssen; Mario Tama/Getty Images)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered some of his sharpest criticism during a book tour stop Saturday night in San Francisco, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis.

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Newsom said. “He lied to you. So reckless is the only way to describe this.”

“He didn’t describe to the American people what the endgame is here,” Newsom added. “There wasn’t one. He manufactured it.”

Newsom is currently promoting his memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” with recent and upcoming stops in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada — three key early voting states in the Democratic presidential calendar.

Advertisement

Earlier in the day, Newsom said Iran’s “corrupt and repressive” regime must never obtain nuclear weapons and that the “leadership of Iran must go.”

“But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people,” Newsom wrote on X.

California is home to more than half of the roughly 400,000 Iranian immigrants in the United States, including a large community in West Los Angeles often referred to as “Tehrangeles.”

DEMOCRATS BUCK PARTY LEADERS TO DEFEND TRUMP’S ‘DECISIVE ACTION’ ON IRAN

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leading progressive voice and “Squad” member, accused Trump of dragging Americans into a conflict they did not support.

Advertisement

“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead,” she continued.

“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not,” she said, pledging to vote “YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress. (Daniel Boczarski/Getty Images for Vox Media)

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat often mentioned as a potential 2028 contender, also criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress.

Advertisement

“No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective,” Pritzker wrote on X.

“Donald Trump is once again sidestepping the Constitution and once again failing to explain why he’s taking us into another war,” he continued. “Americans asked for affordable housing and health care, not another potentially endless conflict.”

“God protect our troops,” Pritzker added.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails.

“In our democracy, the American people — through our elected representatives — decide when our nation goes to war,” Shapiro said, adding that Trump “acted unilaterally — without Congressional approval.”

Advertisement

JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails. (Rachel Wisniewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Make no mistake, the Iranian regime represses its own people… they must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons,” he said. “But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war.”

Shapiro added that “Congress must use all available power” to prevent further escalation.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also accused Trump of launching a “war of choice.”

Advertisement

“The President has launched our nation and our great military into a war of choice, risking American lives and resources, ignoring American law, and endangering our allies and partners,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “This nation learned the hard way that an unnecessary war, with no plan for what comes next, can lead to years of chaos and put America in still greater danger.”

Buttigieg has been hitting early voting states, stopping in New Hampshire and Nevada in recent weeks to campaign for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who has been floated as a rising national figure within the party, said he lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war and opposed the strikes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people. We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die,” Gallego wrote on X. 

Advertisement

Fox News’ Daniel Scully and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.

Related Article

From hostage crisis to assassination plots: Iran’s near half-century war on Americans
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Published

on

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Advertisement

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Advertisement

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Advertisement

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

Advertisement

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

Advertisement

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending