Bills: HR21 , HR471 , HR375

Keywords: committee appointments, House of Representatives, HR21, legislative process, government structure, ethics, transparency, for-profit, board members, democracy, renewable fuels, ethanol, E15, ethanol-15, renewable fuel standard, RFS, RINs, renewable identification numbers, refinery capacity, farmers

Bills: HR187 , HR186 , HR375 , HR165 , HR204 , HR197 , HR207

Keywords: government oversight, accountability, federal employees, transparency, administrative leave, Elon Musk, conflict of interest, government efficiency, federal contracts, renewable fuels, ethanol, E15, ethanol-15, renewable fuel standard, RFS, RINs, renewable identification numbers, refinery capacity, farmers, refiners

Bills: HR1016 , HCR68 , HB6359 , HB7148 , HB7147 , HR375 , HR1014

Keywords: corrections, Department of Homeland Security, legislative process, engrossment, military intervention, Venezuela, Congress, war powers, foreign policy, pregnant students, pregnancy accommodations, college pregnancy, higher education, Title IX, student rights, campus resources, student health center, counseling center, orientation materials, student handbook

Transcript Highlights:

• The months where we had the maximum amount of imported refined fuels, not crude—import refined fuels.
• They had in-state refiners, regional local refiners, some of which became uncompetitive and have closed
• And what are the Indian refiners using?
• The rest is pure refining margin profit or potentially refiner retail margin profit.
• They've listened to the refiners, and the refiners keep asking for more cookies.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing on managing the transportation fuels transition, fuel pricing, and supply reliability. Chair Allen opened by discussing prior legislation, including SB 1322 and special session measures, that expanded reporting to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and gave the state tools to study gasoline costs, refinery margins, inventories, and potential supply disruptions. He framed the hearing around refinery closures, rising imports, global conflict affecting crude markets, and the need to balance affordability, reliability, and the state’s long-term clean-fuels transition. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda, CDTFA Chief Deputy Director Gentian Droboniku, and DPMO Director Ty Miller presented data showing California’s growing dependence on imported crude and refined products, declining in-state refining capacity, and stable-to-tight inventories that are being supported by higher imports. They said the new transparency laws have improved understanding of the market and pointed to the proposed Gateway Pipeline, marine imports, and distribution constraints as important supply issues. CDTFA and DPMO emphasized that retail margins, especially for branded gasoline, have widened significantly, with large price gaps between branded stations and hypermarts/unbranded stations, and that some of the recent price increases were tied to the Iran conflict while earlier spikes were more consistent with localized market behavior and possible price gouging. DPMO also said it is investigating high-priced branded stations, monitoring algorithmic pricing under AB 325, and continuing to analyze diesel spot-market transparency. The CEC and CARB also discussed the Transportation Fuels Transition Plan and the SB 237 assessment, describing them as efforts to plan for a managed decline in fossil fuel demand while protecting workers, communities, and consumers. They said California’s climate goals remain centered on an 85% greenhouse gas reduction by 2045, with continued use of liquid fuels expected but with lower-carbon alternatives, more efficient vehicles, and alternative fuels playing a larger role. Committee members focused heavily on workforce impacts, the need for concrete transition planning, and whether the agencies could provide a clearer picture of what California’s fuel system will look like under the state’s long-term goals. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you see that overall refining capacity, the gap between the refining capacity and the demand, has
• 50% of the total refining capacity... ...refining capacity that you're seeing there is actually only
• 50% of the total refining capacity.
• What we've done here is separate, instead of looking at all refiners, we've separated the refiners that
• Before the Torrance fire, you can see that all those refiners had similar gross refining margins.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held its annual oversight hearing on the transportation fuels sector, focused on refinery closures, gasoline supply and prices, in-state oil production, and implementation of SBX1-2 and ABX2-1. The chair emphasized that California needs a system-wide transition plan to manage the decline in fossil fuel demand while avoiding supply shocks and consumer harm, especially in light of Phillips 66’s planned refinery changes and Valero’s announced intent to close its Benicia refinery. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda and CARB Chair Liane Randolph described the broader fuel transition: EV adoption is rising, gasoline demand is declining, and California’s refining system is increasingly tight and interconnected with imports, storage, pipelines, and marine terminals. Randolph reviewed CARB’s climate and air-quality programs, including the low-carbon fuel standard, and said California still has major ozone and particulate pollution problems even as emissions have fallen. Both agencies stressed that the state must balance climate goals, air quality, consumer protection, and investor confidence, and that additional refinery closures could increase price volatility and strain supply. DPMO Director Ty Milder presented new data on gasoline pricing, saying Californians have paid a “mystery gasoline surcharge” of about 41 cents per gallon since 2015, with higher branded gasoline markups and elevated industry margins concentrated among vertically integrated firms. He said the data show some refiners do well while others struggle, and that the market is highly concentrated. Committee members questioned whether the data proved manipulation or whether state regulations and declining supply were contributing to refinery exits and higher prices. Witnesses said no specific consumer-cost threshold is used in CARB’s economic analysis, and CEC officials said they have not yet implemented the new permissive tools because they are still evaluating whether the benefits outweigh the risks. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you see that the overall refining capacity, the gap between the refining capacity and the demand,
• 50% of the total refining capacity.
• What we've done here is separate, instead of looking at all refiners, we've separated the refiners that
• Before the Torrance fire, you can see that all those refiners had similar gross refining margins.
• So, I mean, what can you give refiners, how can you give refiner certainty so they don't leave while

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held its annual oversight hearing on the transportation fuels sector, focused on California’s fuel transition, the announced refinery closures by Phillips 66 and Valero, and the potential effects on supply, prices, and the broader fuel system. Committee leadership said the state needs a system-wide transition plan rather than a piecemeal approach, and state witnesses from CARB, the CEC, and DPMO described the fuel market as a complex, interconnected ecosystem involving crude production, refining, storage, imports, and delivery. They emphasized that declining gasoline demand from EV adoption is occurring alongside shrinking in-state refining capacity, which could increase volatility and price spikes if not managed carefully. CARB Chair Liane Randolph reviewed the state’s climate and air-quality programs, including AB 32, SB 32, the 2022 scoping plan, the low-carbon fuel standard, and vehicle emissions rules. She said these policies have reduced emissions substantially but that California still faces major ozone and PM2.5 problems, especially in disadvantaged communities. Randolph also said federal actions challenging California waivers could complicate the state’s clean-air efforts, and she noted that while liquid fuels will still be needed in some sectors, the state must continue reducing fossil fuel dependence while protecting public health. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda and DPMO Director Ty Milder presented data on gasoline demand, refinery throughput, crude imports, and price differentials. Gunda said the Legislature’s special-session laws gave the agencies transparency and planning tools, and that the CEC is developing a fuels transition plan while evaluating whether any regulatory tools should be used. Milder previewed DPMO findings that Californians have paid a long-running “mystery gasoline surcharge” averaging 41 cents per gallon since 2015, with higher margins concentrated in branded gasoline and among vertically integrated firms. He said the data show a concentrated market with some refiners doing well and others struggling, and that DPMO will continue investigating price behavior, competition, and supply risks. Members pressed the witnesses on whether state regulations contributed to refinery exits or higher prices, and on whether the agencies had adequately analyzed consumer costs. Witnesses said they had not yet implemented the new permissive tools from SB X1-2 and AB X2-1 because they were still assessing risks and benefits, and they stressed that refinery closures and capital decisions are driven by broader market conditions as well as regulation. No vote was taken; the hearing was informational, with the committee seeking updates and urging the agencies to develop a practical transition strategy that balances affordability, reliability, climate goals, and worker/community protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• But as you already noted, as the demand is coming down slowly, the refining capacity, in-state refining
• And so there are some tools that need to be refined.
• It also frees up refining capacity.
• That step one of that is stabilizing in-state refiners and protecting the production and refining capacity
• It's not normal for refiners to be making a dollar-plus in refining margins.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• But as you already noted, as the demand is coming down slowly, the refining capacity, in-state refining
• Crude oil as well as refined products from.
• And it also frees up refining capacity.
• That step one of that is stabilizing in-state refiners and protecting the production and refining capacity
• It's not normal for refiners to be making a dollar-plus in refining margins.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the impact of the Iran conflict and global oil supply disruption on California fuel markets. Committee members and administration witnesses from the California Energy Commission and the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight described California’s heavy reliance on imported crude and refined products, the state’s shrinking refining base, current inventory levels, and how global supply tightness is affecting gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel prices. CEC officials said near-term supply looked adequate for roughly the next six weeks, but warned that continued disruption would likely raise prices further and increase competition for imports. DPMO said the conflict is a real supply shock, but also emphasized a separate, longstanding problem of unusually high California retail gasoline prices, especially among major branded stations. Witnesses and members debated the causes of high prices and the state’s longer-term fuel strategy. Professor Severin Borenstein argued that much of the price gap beyond taxes and environmental costs comes from a “mystery gasoline surcharge” downstream of refineries, while also noting that California’s shrinking number of refineries creates market-power and supply-resilience concerns. Western States Petroleum Association CEO Jody Mueller argued that state policies have weakened California’s refining system and made it more vulnerable to global shocks, urging the state to protect remaining refining capacity and improve infrastructure for imports. United Steelworkers Local 675 Vice President Norman Rogers stressed the need for safe, reliable refinery operations and adequate staffing. Several members pressed witnesses on whether California should rely more on imports, how to manage inventories and port/storage capacity, and whether the state needs clearer authority and better data collection to coordinate fuel policy. Discussion also covered branded versus unbranded gasoline pricing, the role of California fuel specifications, and whether a floating gas tax or other policy tools could buffer consumers from global price spikes. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• margin cap and penalty on refiners, among other provisions.
• that need to depend on more... ...refined fuels.
• The months where we had the maximum amount of imported refined fuels, not crude—imported refined fuels
• And I have no doubt that refiners made a choice based on that.
• They've listened to the refiners, and the refiners keep asking for more cookies.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Transcript Highlights:

• Can we switch most to refining?
• I personally have met with a number of our refiners.
• I personally have met with a number of our refiners.
• Refiners, and also in terms of pegging them at high risk for leakage.
• . than figuring out a way to support in-state refining capacity.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview and discussion of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840. Chairs and members emphasized the program’s role in meeting climate targets while balancing affordability, and CARB described the proposal as intended to preserve market certainty, strengthen cost containment, address utility affordability, and support the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goal. CARB also noted the public comment period, the planned board hearing, and the goal of an effective date of September 1, 2026. Members questioned CARB on several implementation issues, including whether the rulemaking would be completed on time, the treatment of carbon capture and sequestration, the timing of the transfer of allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and the impact on ratepayers. CARB said it was on track to meet the May deadline, that CCUS/CDR could be further refined in the proposal and would also be addressed in a separate SB 905 rulemaking later in the year, and that it was seeking to protect ratepayers while inviting more utility data during the comment period. The committee also discussed refining-sector leakage risk, gasoline imports, and how imported fuel is accounted for under cap-and-invest versus the low-carbon fuel standard. A second panel of outside experts and stakeholders then testified. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and IEMAC representatives explained the major statutory changes, including putting offsets under the cap, shifting allowances from natural gas to electric utilities over time, and changing how allowance value is divided among utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. They stressed that CARB has significant discretion in setting the allowance “pie,” and that more free allocations to utilities or industry reduce GGRF revenues. EDF’s representative argued the proposal should be adopted this spring, said the utility transition should happen faster, and urged a tighter near-term emissions cap. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, opposed the proposed utility allocation changes, saying they would reduce expected allowances, undermine long-term planning, and could force higher rates or reduced decarbonization investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can we switch most to refining?
• Yes. ...imported gasoline as well as in-state refined crude.
• I personally have met with a number of our refiners.
• Refiners, and also in terms of pegging them at high risk for leakage.
• Than figuring out a way to support in-state refining capacity.

Committee: House Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policy heard an overview from CARB on proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, which was reauthorized through 2045 by AB 1207 and SB 840. CARB said the draft rules are intended to preserve affordability, market certainty, and progress toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets. The agency described the program’s main features, including the declining emissions cap, utility and industrial allowance allocations, offset changes, the allowance price containment reserve, and new reporting and oversight requirements. CARB also said the rulemaking is on a public comment timeline, with board consideration planned for late May and an effective date targeted for September 1, 2026. Committee members focused heavily on electricity affordability, the planned shift of free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and whether the proposal would raise rates for investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. CARB said the proposal is meant to protect ratepayers from compliance costs and that the utility allocation is based on updated data showing utilities are greener than before, but members and utility representatives argued the transition should happen faster and that the current draft could reduce expected revenues and disrupt long-term planning. Members also pressed CARB on carbon capture and sequestration, asking that the regulations clearly recognize it as a compliance pathway, and on whether the SB 905 rulemaking for carbon capture should move forward on schedule. A second major topic was industrial allocations, especially for refiners and other sectors at risk of leakage. CARB said it is keeping all industries at high leakage risk through 2030, maintaining the current cap-adjustment approach, and leaving room for additional comments and data on whether refiners need more allowances to avoid economic leakage and preserve in-state refining. Members also questioned how imported gasoline is treated, and CARB explained that transportation fuel is regulated at the rack and through the low-carbon fuel standard, while cap-and-invest covers in-state tailpipe and smokestack emissions rather than full life-cycle emissions. CARB said it is open to using additional data, including SB 253 reporting, to improve fuel carbon-intensity estimates. The panel of outside experts largely agreed that the program must balance affordability, ambition, and leakage concerns, but they differed on how much allowance value should go to utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized that the Legislature should scrutinize CARB’s allocation choices now because they will be hard to change later. An IEMAC representative said the proposal appears to shift more allowance value to industry and utilities, which could reduce GGRF revenues, while EDF argued the cap could be tightened further in the near term without triggering price containment. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, warned that the proposal would reduce utility allowances and could raise costs for ratepayers and undermine early decarbonization investments. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can we switch most to refining?
• I personally have met with a number of our refiners.
• Refiners, and also in terms of pegging them at high risk for leakage.
• We can't apply that to foreign producers or foreign refiners, correct?
• Than figuring out a way to support in-state refining capacity.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Transcript Highlights:

• So as you see here since 2007, you continue to lose the refining capacity in California.
• We're talking about the economy, the impact the refiners have on the economy.
• The posture around sort of relative ROIs and where it's more profitable to refine petroleum.
• There are many reasons why refining is less and less profitable.
• I remember. refiners are often forced to invest less and less in proper maintenance.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and planning considerations associated with refinery closures. In opening remarks, the chair framed refinery shutdowns as a complex part of California’s decarbonization transition and said the committee would focus on environmental and land-use issues, while Vice Chair Gunda argued closures reflect years of policy-driven disinvestment and warned that supply disruptions and higher prices could harm working families. State agency witnesses from the Energy Commission, CARB, and the Water Boards described the state as being in a “mid-transition,” with declining gasoline demand, growing zero-emission vehicle adoption, and increasing conversion of some refinery assets to renewable fuels, but also with abrupt capacity losses that can force greater reliance on imports and storage. They emphasized the need for proactive planning, transparency, and coordination across agencies, and noted that refinery closures can stress pipelines, terminals, and other linked infrastructure, with potential liabilities falling to the state if those assets are not financially supported. The Water Boards explained their cleanup authorities and tools for refinery decommissioning, including investigation, monitoring, remediation, and enforcement under the Water Code, and said site-specific cleanup plans depend on contamination, groundwater conditions, and future land use. They noted that decommissioning can reveal previously inaccessible areas and require additional sampling or wells, and that cleanup costs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Committee members pressed the witnesses on whether the state has enough information to plan for land transitions, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more standardized procedures or financial assurances are needed. The witnesses generally said existing tools are useful but that more transparency and better data sharing would help communities and policymakers understand liabilities and long-term redevelopment opportunities. Members also questioned the relationship between California policy, refinery closures, imports, and global emissions. CARB said its programs apply to transportation fuel suppliers whether fuel is refined in-state or imported, and that its climate and air-quality rules are designed to reduce emissions and avoid leakage. Some senators argued that California’s policies have accelerated closures and that demand has not fallen fast enough to offset lost refining capacity, while agency witnesses responded that closures are also driven by global market forces, aging infrastructure, crude quality, and changing fuel demand. The committee then heard from outside experts, including a Notre Dame professor who said closure costs are often underestimated and that stronger financial assurance requirements can shift company behavior, a Stanford/SLAC researcher who outlined five drivers of refinery closures, and an environmental attorney who discussed community impacts and lessons from the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• But these refiners are making these choices.
• We're talking about the economy, the impact the refiners have on the economy.
• Refiners are often forced to invest less and less in proper maintenance.
• If y'all could do one super brief, like, how do we keep refining here?
• How do we keep refining here? How do we keep the good jobs here?

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and policy considerations surrounding refinery closures. Chair Blakespear framed the hearing as part of California’s broader transition away from fossil fuels, emphasizing the need for proactive planning so communities, workers, and local governments are not caught off guard. Vice Chair Gunda argued that the state has long signaled a future away from oil, while also warning that closures can create supply instability, higher prices, and infrastructure stress if not managed carefully. Senators also raised concerns about consumer costs, supply reliability, the role of imports, and whether California’s climate policies are contributing to refinery disinvestment. The first panel included the California Energy Commission, CARB, and the State Water Resources Control Board. Gunda described California as being in a “mid-transition,” with gasoline demand gradually declining, zero-emission vehicle adoption rising, and refinery capacity shrinking through both conversions to renewable fuels and outright closures. He said the state needs a coordinated strategy that balances near-term supply stability with long-term decarbonization, and noted that refinery closures can shift liabilities onto pipelines, terminals, and potentially the state. CARB’s Matthew Boutill said the agency’s focus is reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases, and that state policies are already driving billions in annual investment in alternative fuels, EV infrastructure, and refinery conversions. Water Board representative Annalisa Kihara explained the cleanup authorities used at refinery sites, including investigation, remediation, and enforcement tools, and said decommissioning often reveals previously inaccessible contamination and may require new monitoring wells and additional site assessment. Committee members pressed the panel on whether the state has enough information to plan for land reuse and cleanup costs, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more legislative direction is needed. Gunda said there are still gaps in information and transparency, especially around liability and long-term community planning. Kihara said the Water Boards can require more data, cleanup, and timelines, but that refinery remediation is highly site-specific and can take tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Senators Menjivar, Stern, and Hurtado questioned demand trends, the pace of refinery closures versus demand decline, the role of imports and the Jones Act, and whether California should consider options such as state ownership or broader ecosystem planning. The panel generally agreed that closures are likely to continue and that the state should plan proactively rather than reactively. A second panel presented recent research on refinery closures. Emily Grubert said closure costs and remediation obligations are often underestimated and that California should better define end-of-life obligations and financial assurance requirements. Tham Herschbach outlined five drivers of refinery closures: declining California crude production, falling in-state gasoline demand, the shift toward renewable diesel and other alternative fuels, global refinery consolidation, and the growing availability of imported gasoline. Anne Alexander focused on community impacts, using the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure as a case study, and said refinery sites are often heavily contaminated, cleanup can take a decade or more, and communities are often left without clear information because refineries have little end-of-life planning or financial assurance requirements. No votes or formal actions were taken at the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• we'll be can rely safely on the global refining capacity, then we'll be okay.
• We're talking about the economy, the impact the refiners have on the economy.
• Should a refinery close... ...and obligations on refiners operating in California.
• If y'all could do one super brief, like, how do we keep refining here?
• How do we keep refining here? How do we keep the good jobs here?

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• Can we switch most to refining?
• I personally have met with a number of our refiners.
• Refiners and also in terms of pegging them at high risk for leakage.
• We can't apply that to foreign producers or foreign refiners, correct?
• . than figuring out a way to support in-state refining capacity.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840 after last year’s reauthorization through 2045. CARB said the draft rule changes are intended to support affordability, market certainty, and the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets, while also addressing offsets, utility allowance transfers, leakage protections for industry, and post-2030 allowance budgets. Members emphasized the importance of completing the rulemaking on schedule this spring so the changes can take effect by September 1, 2026. A major focus was how allowances are allocated among electric utilities, natural gas utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. CARB explained that the proposal transfers natural gas utility allowances to electric utilities over time to support electrification and ratepayer protection, while maintaining free allowances for industry to reduce leakage risk and preserve in-state manufacturing and refining. Several members and panelists questioned whether the proposed utility changes could raise rates, whether the transition from gas to electric credits should happen faster, and whether the industrial allocation changes reduce climate credit and GGRF revenues more than necessary. CARB and panelists said they were open to additional data and comments, and noted that the proposal is still in public comment. The committee also discussed carbon capture, carbon removal, and refining. Members asked CARB to ensure that CCUS and CDR are clearly recognized as viable compliance pathways and to keep SB 905 rulemaking on track. On refining, members raised concerns about imported gasoline, leakage, and the need for better data on the carbon intensity of imported fuels; CARB said cap-and-invest applies to fuel suppliers at the rack, while life-cycle accounting issues are handled more through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and related modeling. CARB said it is continuing technical work on those data tools. In the second panel, the LAO, IEMAC, EDF, and SCAPA representatives generally agreed that the program faces real tradeoffs between affordability, ambition, and leakage protection. The LAO and IEMAC stressed that the Legislature should scrutinize how CARB divides the allowance “pie,” since more free allocations to utilities or industry mean less revenue for GGRF. EDF argued the program could be somewhat more ambitious in the near term without harming affordability, while SCAPA said the proposal would reduce allowances for publicly owned utilities and could undermine early decarbonization investments and ratepayer benefits. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• refined fuels in California come from California, but we still depend on 10% to 20% of imports on refined
• Some of it's even refined in California.
• of refined fuels, I don't know. and refining sector is imperative to stabilizing the sector in the state
• of refined fuels, I don't know.
• You define pathways to maintaining domestic refining capacity will lead to imports of refined fuels,

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Committees on Utilities and Energy, Transportation, and Natural Resources focused on California’s transportation fuels sector, especially the state’s response to refinery closures and the broader transition away from fossil fuels. Opening remarks emphasized the tension between climate and air-quality goals, fuel affordability, refinery jobs and local tax bases, and the need to avoid crisis-driven responses as Phillips 66 and Valero consider shutting refineries in Wilmington and Benicia. Professor Emily Grubert framed the issue as a long-term managed transition in which the public already bears much of the risk and should also capture benefits from a well-planned shift. CARB Chair Leanne Randolph reviewed the state’s emissions and fuel policies, including AB 32, the low-carbon fuel standard, clean vehicle programs, and the at-berth regulation for ocean-going vessels. She said California’s transportation sector remains the largest source of greenhouse gases and a major source of smog-forming pollution, but that the state has made substantial progress and still needs to reduce demand for fossil fuels while maintaining compliance with federal air-quality standards. Randolph also said CARB’s recent LCFS amendments had not caused the predicted spike in gas prices and explained that compliance pathways for the at-berth rule include emissions-reduction technologies or payments into a remediation fund. CEC Vice Chair Gunda described declining gasoline demand, shrinking in-state refining capacity, and growing dependence on imports, arguing that the state is in a “mid-transition” period that requires both support for legacy infrastructure and continued investment in cleaner alternatives. He outlined the administration’s petroleum market stabilization proposal, which aims to return California crude production to 125 million barrels a year through four components: codifying the ban on fracking, validating the Kern County oil-and-gas permitting ordinance, creating a temporary CEQA exemption paired with a two-for-one plug-and-drill framework, and strengthening pipeline and spill-safety requirements. Department of Conservation Director Jennifer Lucasey said the proposal is intended to stabilize crude supply and pipeline throughput while preserving health and environmental protections, and noted that CalGEM would still review permits and enforce other requirements. Mayor Steve Young of Benicia testified that a Valero closure would significantly reduce city revenue and leave the community facing years of cleanup and redevelopment challenges. He said the city supports environmental protection but is worried about the economic hit, the possibility that Benicia becomes a fuel-import terminal, and the lack of local influence over refinery decisions. Members pressed the panel on the CEQA exemption, tribal and habitat review, disclosure of closure liabilities, fuel-demand projections, and whether the proposal should include more demand-side measures. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and officials said some proposals, including a margin-cap pause and further transition planning, would be taken up later in the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• At a time like this right now where the price is somewhat steady, refiners are going to be refining or
• Refiners are going to be refining or selling their fuel at that Brent price, that $98 per barrel.
• A lot of our refiners are, with the exception of some, designed to refine heavy crudes, which is what
• The refined product gasoline will cost more. If they buy it lower, the refined product is less.
• over 70% that they refine.

Summary: The House Natural Resources Committee met with a quorum and first took up several property-transfer bills. House Bill 110, authorizing transfer of certain state property in St. Tammany Parish for a pocket park in Mandeville, was reported favorable without objection. House Bill 634, transferring state property in St. Martin Parish to Brownell Land Company LLC, was also reported favorable. House Bill 677, allowing the Tensaw Parish School Board greater flexibility to exchange school land for property of equal or greater value with certified appraisal requirements, was reported favorable after questions about the location and purpose of the exchange. House Bill 735, a cleanup bill transferring property from DOTD to LSU Health Shreveport to support expansion and parking near Mall St. Vincent, was likewise reported favorable. The committee then held an informational hearing on the effects of the Iran conflict on Louisiana’s energy sector. Secretary Dustin Davidson said the conflict has driven oil prices sharply higher, with consumers bearing the cost through higher gasoline and especially diesel prices, while producers and refiners may see short-term gains. He warned that diesel increases can signal broader economic slowdown and discussed global shipping disruptions, the Strait of Hormuz, and Saudi Arabia’s response. Members asked about Louisiana’s ability to benefit from higher prices, the timing of increased drilling, and the role of carbon capture and infrastructure investment. Davidson said higher prices could support more drilling and severance tax revenue if sustained long enough. Industry witnesses Tommy Fochay of LOGA, David Cresson of the Louisiana Chemical Association, Mike Moncla of LOGA, and LSU energy economists Greg Upton and Tyler Gray emphasized Louisiana’s role as a major LNG exporter, refiner, and petrochemical hub. They said geopolitical shocks create volatility, but Louisiana’s abundant natural gas, infrastructure, and export capacity position the state to help meet global demand. They urged stable policy, competitive taxes, pipeline and workforce investment, and caution on regulations. Upton and Gray presented data showing oil price spikes are likely temporary, futures markets expect prices to ease over time, rig counts respond with a lag, and Louisiana natural gas prices have remained relatively insulated so far. The committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• At a time like this right now, where the price is somewhat steady, refiners are going to be refining
• Refiners are going to be refining or selling their fuel at that Brent price, that $98 per barrel.
• A lot of our refiners are, with the exception of some, designed to refine heavy crudes, which is what
• The refined product gasoline will cost more. If they buy it lower, the refined product is less.
• Refining, the crack spreads have been good.

Committee: House Natural Resources & Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• You offer us this opportunity to be pure or to be refined by you, and so I ask that now, as we're here
• , would you refine us, Lord?
• Chaplain: Lord, would you go through that process of refining our hearts or thinking through the way
• by you and so I Pure or to be refined by you and so I ask<00:01:41.280><c> that</c><00:01:41.680><c>
• us Lord would you help us see the refine us Lord would you help us see the way<00:01:48.479><c> that