Opinion: Is California’s Green Image Fueling a Global Contradiction?

A realistic conversation about energy policy must combine environmental intent from practical outcomes. Supporting clean energy does not require ignoring current realities—and acknowledging those realities is not being “anti-green.” It is being honest.

California has positioned itself as a global leader in environmental policy, championing aggressive climate goals, refinery regulations, and a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. But as two in-state oil refineries close and diesel tankers now travel thousands of miles to supply our fuel, a difficult question emerges: are we truly reducing environmental harm, or simply exporting it elsewhere?

With fewer refineries operating locally, California has becoming increasingly dependent on Asia (Singapore), South Korea, and India—a journey that itself produces significant emissions. Adding another layer of complexity, India sources a substantial portion of its crude oil from Russia. The result is a long, politically risky, carbon-intensive supply chain that undercuts the very environmental goals California promotes.

India is one of the world’s largest global polluters, driven by rapid industrial growth, heavy reliance on coal, and weaker environmental enforcement compared to Western nations. India is among the top emitters of greenhouse gases, with coal-fired power plants supplying much of its electricity.

Although California is not directly forcing in-state refineries to shut down, many operators are facing aging infrastructure and increasingly costly repairs, and they see little incentive to invest further in a state whose policies they believe are intent on dismantling their industry.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary debate: did California push the green agenda too fast without a realistic Plan B? Ambitious climate targets matter, but transitions require infrastructure, redundancy, and timing. Electric vehicles, renewable power, and energy storage are expanding, but they are not yet capable of fully replacing liquid fuels for trucking, agriculture, emergency services, and aviation.

Energy policy cannot exist in a vacuum. When refineries close before alternatives are fully scaled, consumers pay higher prices, supply chains grow more fragile, and emissions are displaced rather than reduced. Environmental leadership should be measured not only by local regulations, but by global outcomes.

If California truly wants to lead, it must reconcile its environmental ideals with energy realities—investing just as aggressively in transition planning, domestic alternatives, and cleaner in-state production during the interim. Otherwise, the state risks promoting a green image at home while quietly relying on a dirtier, longer, and less transparent fuel journey abroad.

Well, at least we will have that High Speed Rail to help keep cars off the road in the central valley soon.

Breaking It Down

Increased Fuel Imports to California

California’s refining capacity is shrinking faster than demand is falling, forcing more fuel imports to fill supply gaps. Source: Hydrocarbon Processing
In May 2025, fuel imports reached a four-year high, with shipments coming from Asia including India. Source: Hydrocarbon Processing
India has been the largest supplier of finished gasoline to California over the past two years, delivering millions of barrels of finished fuel and blend components. Source: OPIS, A Dow Jones Company

Statewide and West Coast Economic Impact

The closure will impact California’s overall energy market and economy.

Reduced Refining Capacity: The Benicia refinery processes about 145,000 barrels of crude oil per day and accounts for approximately 9% of California’s refining capacity. Combined with another recent refinery closure, California stands to lose a combined 17.5% of its total in-state refining capacity.
Higher Fuel Prices: The reduction in local supply is expected to increase reliance on fuel imports from the U.S. Gulf Coast and Asia, which will likely lead to higher fuel premiums and potentially significant gas price hikes across the West Coast. Some estimates suggest prices could rise by as much as 15 cents/gallon, with some analysts warning of potential $7 to $8 per gallon gas in a worst-case.
Increased Reliance on Imports: California already imports a portion of its fuel; the closure will increase this dependency, potentially impacting supply chain reliability.
Political and Regulatory Debate: The closure has fueled a political debate, with critics of California’s energy policies arguing that the “hostile business climate” and “extreme regulations” are driving energy producers out of the state. State lawmakers have reportedly considered a potential bailout to incentivize Valero to maintain operations and avoid these impacts.

National Defense: Fuel Is a Strategic Asset for The Military

The U.S. military is one of the largest institutional consumers of fuel in the world. Jet fuel, diesel, and specialized petroleum products are essential for aircraft, naval vessels, armored vehicles, generators, and logistics operations. Military installations across California—including Travis Air Force Base, Camp Pendleton, and Naval Base San Diego—depend on a steady, reliable supply of locally refined fuel to maintain readiness.

When refineries shut down, the military must compete with civilian demand for limited imported supplies. In a crisis, that competition can delay deployments, reduce training operations, and strain emergency response capabilities.

Wrapping it Up

A truly responsible approach would have been to recognize that environmental ambition and economic reality must go hand in hand. It’s not about rejecting green energy, it’s about ensuring that the rollout is phased, resilient, and does not compromise essential sectors like agriculture or national security. First, do no harm. A hasty transition may look good on paper but risks creating shortages, price spikes, and unintended social consequences are now at our doorstep.

Your thoughts?