Connect with us

Business

Chevron, after 145 years in California, is relocating to Texas, a milestone in oil's long decline in the state

Published

on

Chevron, after 145 years in California, is relocating to Texas, a milestone in oil's long decline in the state

With the announcement Friday that it was moving its headquarters from California to Texas, Chevron Corp. became perhaps one of the last dinosaurs to slip into the tar pit, a symbol of California’s monumental transition from a manufacturing and production state to the brave new world of services.

In the popular imagination, California has long been seen as Hollywood, sunshine and beaches that attracted millions of new residents and built its sprawling cities. But in reality the great magnet of growth for decades was the production of things: think the aerospace industry, petroleum and agriculture.

The transition away from manufacturing has been going on for decades, exemplified by Silicon Valley, which churns out the ideas for high-tech devices but leaves the actual production to others, overseas, and the sprawling ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which offload the vast flow of manufactured goods from abroad.

Now, it’s Chevron’s turn.

The oil giant was founded in California 145 years ago at the beginning of an era when the state became one of the world’s leading suppliers of oil and its byproducts.

Advertisement

But in recent years, the company has been butting heads with Sacramento over energy and climate policies, which now loom larger than manufacturing in many people’s minds. On Friday, the company said it is moving its headquarters from the Bay Area to Houston.

The move is part of a long, steady exodus of not only Chevron’s operations, but also the larger petroleum industry from California, which in its heyday early last century produced more than one-fifth of the world’s total oil.

While California remains the seventh-largest producer of oil among the 50 states, its production of crude has been sliding since the mid-1980s and is now down to only about 2% of the U.S. total, according to the latest U.S. Energy Information Administration data.

The downshift reflects just how far the state has staked its fortunes away from fossil fuels to renewable forms of energy and, in particular, away from gas-powered cars to become the center of the electric vehicle industry

“Oil and gas has shaped California into what it became, but it has been in a tremendous decline,” said Andreas Michael, an assistant professor of petroleum engineering at the University of North Dakota. Chevron’s move out of the state, he said, “is a milestone in that decline, and it’s very sad to see.”

Advertisement

Sarah Elkind, a San Diego State University history professor who has chronicled the profound impact of oil production on people’s health and industry overall in Los Angeles, wondered out loud whether Chevron was leaving California to get away from regulatory scrutiny.

“It’s unfortunate corporations will relocate their workforces in places that have fewer environmental regulations rather than working in ways that lead to healthy and vibrant communities,” she said.

Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company, based in San Ramon, didn’t respond to interview requests Friday. In a statement, the company said that the move to Texas would allow the company to “co-locate with other senior leaders and enable better collaboration and engagement with executives, employees, and business partners.”

Chevron has been steadily shrinking its footprint in the Bay Area. It moved Chevron Energy Technology, a subsidiary, to Texas last decade, and two years ago the company sold its San Ramon campus as it began shifting jobs to Houston. The company already has about 7,000 employees in the Houston area.

Chevron has some 2,000 employees in San Ramon. It is the latest high-profile departure of a California company to another state.

Advertisement

Recently Elon Musk said he is moving his companies SpaceX and X from California to Texas, and over the last decade there have been scores of other California companies in tech and other industries that have fled the state, with many attributing it to the state’s high operating costs and other policies that they see as not supportive of business.

Last fall, California’s attorney general sued Chevron and several other big oil companies, alleging that their production and refining operations have caused billions of dollars in damage and that they deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels in global warming.

Chevron’s chief executive, Mike Wirth, has pushed back against the suit and California’s approach to climate change, saying that planet warming is a global issue and that piecemeal legal actions aren’t helpful.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office downplayed the significance of Chevron’s relocation news Friday and highlighted the growth and opportunities in clean energy for California, which it said already has six times more jobs than fossil fuels employment.

“This announcement is the logical culmination of a long process that has repeatedly been foreshadowed by Chevron,” said Alex Stack, a spokesman for the governor’s office. “We’re proud of California’s place as the leading creator of clean energy jobs — a critical part of our diverse, innovative and vibrant economy.”

Advertisement

Wirth and Chevron’s vice chairman, Mark Nelson, will move to Houston before year’s end. “There will be minimal immediate relocation impacts to other employees currently based in San Ramon,” Chevron said in its statement.

Some operations will remain in San Ramon — along with “hundreds of employees,” Wirth told CNBC on Friday — but the company said it expects all corporate functions to move to Houston over the next five years.

“We’ve got a proud history in California,” Wirth said, noting that the company began in 1879 in the Pico Canyon oil field just west of Newhall, the site of the state’s first huge flow of oil three years earlier. But he said Houston is the industry’s epicenter and where Chevron’s suppliers, vendors and other key partners are located.

Chevron started out as Pacific Coast Oil Co., incorporated in 1879 in San Francisco, and later was long known as Standard Oil of California. With other companies, it rode the drilling boom in Los Angeles in the early 1900s when big oil fields were discovered in places like Long Beach and Santa Fe Springs, spurring the region’s industrial development but also creating increasing concerns about its impact on especially working-class neighborhoods, with uncontrolled gushers, fires, oil spreads and loud diesel pumps, said Elkind. In the 1920s, a full 20% of the oil produced in the U.S. came from Los Angeles County.

California’s relationship with the oil and gas business survived well into the 1960s. But at the end of that decade the Santa Barbara oil spill helped spur a huge environmental movement, said Michael, the University of North Dakota petroleum expert. With the state’s aggressive pursuit of zero-carbon policies, production of crude has fallen to less than 300,000 barrels a day, about one-fourth of what it was in mid-1980s.

Advertisement

“And I don’t think we’ve hit bottom yet,” said Uduak-Joe Ntuk, an industry expert who until this year oversaw oil fields for the California Department of Conservation’s energy management division. Los Angeles County alone still has thousands of oil wells. “We have billions of barrels of recoverable oil in California, but they’re just in the ground.”

Business

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Published

on

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.

In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”

“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”

Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.

In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.

Advertisement

The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.

“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.

Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.

The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.

Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.

Advertisement

Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.

Continue Reading

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending