\u201cChevron, that\u2019s the problem with politics. They\u2019re not the bad guy. Does everybody here drive an electric vehicle? You need Chevron. I need Chevron. My people of the state of California need Chevron \u2026 Chevron wants to give me a check, that\u2019s \u2014 that\u2019s their prerogative.\u201d<\/p>\n
The phrase \u201cI need Chevron\u201d soon appeared in anti-Becerra videos by the likes of climate hawk Jane Fonda<\/a>, implying that the candidate was saying he needs Chevron to get elected. Progressive billionaire Tom Steyer, Becerra\u2019s lead Democratic opponent, urged him to return the contribution and said<\/a> he is \u201cdoing [the] bidding\u201d of Big Oil. Representative Katie Porter, another leading Democrat, said in a statement<\/a> that she \u201chasn\u2019t made millions off Big Oil or taken their checks.\u201d<\/p>\n Becerra is not entirely wrong. California consumes around 13 billion gallons<\/a> of gasoline annually, all of it specifically formulated to meet the state\u2019s stringent clean air standards. Most of it comes from just six refineries<\/a>, and Chevron owns two that account for one-third of the state\u2019s production. That gives the company and its peers tremendous leverage. But California\u2019s gas consumption has declined by about 15 percent<\/a> from a peak in 2004 due to improved fuel economy in conventional vehicles and growing adoption of electric vehicles. It could fall by half over the next two decades.\u00a0<\/p>\n The primary is June 2. The challenge for the next governor will be to continue the energy transition while retaining the infrastructure needed to move and refine oil. This has never been accomplished in a place as large as California, which was the world\u2019s fifth-largest economy in 2025. The risks are tremendous: If the state moves too quickly, it could create shortages and price spikes for drivers already paying the highest prices in the country. If it moves too slowly, it could lock in decades of air pollution and hinder global climate progress.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s messy,\u201d said Emily Grubert. She is a civil engineer and sociologist at Notre Dame who has studied fossil fuel transitions and advised the state government on oil infrastructure. \u201cAs soon as you realize that actually transitioning away from fossil fuels means you have to close things, people get really freaked out.\u201d<\/p>\n Newsom spent much of his governorship going after Big Oil, an effort that included a series of executive actions to restrict fracking in Kern County oil fields. When the war in Ukraine sent gas prices surging, Newsom and Democrats in the Legislature passed a series of bills<\/a> to stop what he called \u201cprice gouging.\u201d These laws empowered a new oil-focused watchdog agency, created a tool that could impose refinery price caps, and required refineries to maintain certain storage reserves, all of which cut profit margins for Chevron and others. The new refinery rules added to multiple carbon taxes<\/a> that make selling gasoline in California more expensive.<\/p>\n However, there is some evidence refiners have overcharged Californians. Even after accounting for state taxes, environmental fees, and production costs, a gap remains between gas prices in the Golden State and everywhere else. This gap appeared in 2015 after a refinery fire in Torrance and has come to be known as the \u201cmystery gasoline surcharge.<\/a>\u201d It now averages about $1. Last fall, a state regulator concluded<\/a> that refiners\u2019 monopoly power may be the reason for the price spikes.<\/p>\n Oil companies accused Newsom of trying to regulate them out of existence, and many threatened to leave. Two major refiners, Wilmington<\/a> and Benicia<\/a>, announced last year that they would close their operations, forcing a state that already imports about 60 percent<\/a> of its oil to rely on imports of gasoline refined in Asia. Chevron relocated its corporate headquarters<\/a> from the San Francisco suburb of San Ramon to Houston in 2024, and it has delivered a series of ominous warnings this year as climate regulators have revised the state\u2019s almost 15-year-old carbon tax.<\/p>\n \u201cThe proposed regulation will cripple the survivability of the state\u2019s remaining refineries, which will result in California losing the entire industry,\u201d Andy Walls, the president of Chevron\u2019s refinery business, wrote in an open letter<\/a> to Newsom in March. The implication was clear:\u00a0 unless you relax your regulations, we will leave the state and strand you without gasoline. That would mean paying Asian refiners to produce more of the state\u2019s specific blend, at significant cost.<\/p>\n The Newsom administration spent much of 2025 trying to work out a grand bargain with the industry. The Legislature eased rules governing drilling in Kern County oil fields<\/a>, helping maintain a stable supply of crude to refineries<\/a>, It also delayed implementing a refinery profit cap, and allowed the temporary sale of gasoline with higher concentrations of ethanol. The state\u2019s climate regulator has also suggested giving refineries free allowances<\/a> under the state\u2019s cap-and-trade system, even if it means less money for big projects like high-speed rail and sustainable housing. The idea is to give investors enough certainty that they\u2019re willing to remain in California even as the state uses less gasoline.<\/p>\n Experts believe it will take a lot more than that to manage inevitable changes.<\/p>\n \u201cYou actually can\u2019t have a smooth and safe and effective transition without some form of coordinating function for that decline,\u201d said Grubert. She believes a degree of state ownership of refineries will be necessary to keep facilities open if they stop being profitable. The wrong approach, she says, would be to respond to each potential a refinery closure with ad hoc subsidies and state support, since that would allow refiners to extort the state one by one.\u00a0<\/p>\n That point was reinforced this month by a report<\/a> from the California Energy Commission that has not received much notice. The analysis of the state\u2019s shaky fuel system found that \u201cCalifornia cannot sustainably manage this transition through repeated crisis interventions at an asset-by-asset level.\u201d It suggested options that included \u201clegal obligations to operate,\u201d \u201ccentralized planning of closures,\u201d and \u201cdirect state management or ownership of assets.\u201d<\/p>\n The Iran war will accelerate a decline in both the supply of, and demand for, oil. Gas retailers like Chevron are already struggling to find additional imports<\/a> of refined fuel, and some experts predict shortages<\/a> if the Strait of Hormuz does not open within weeks. Meanwhile, electric vehicles continue gaining market share<\/a>, and Newsom plans to roll out subsidies for them this year. Wider adoption of these vehicles, and hybrids, will further crimp demand, making any remaining refineries more likely to shutter.\u00a0<\/p>\n All of this helps explain the showdown between the leading Democrats in the governor\u2019s race, who are each trying to find a lane in a field that at one time included more than 50 candidates.<\/p>\n Becerra has given lip service to clean energy, but many public statements suggest a friendliness toward oil producers. As attorney general, he initiated a few lawsuits<\/a> against petroleum companies, and supported other state climate lawsuits, but punted on major investigations. He has focused his gubernatorial campaign on vows to fight Donald Trump and protect healthcare, and has made controversial promises to freeze utility and insurance rates. On decarbonization, he has noted<\/a> that \u201cclimate action only succeeds if it is affordable, reliable, and fair.\u201d<\/p>\n After the chaos of the early primary, many oil producers have decided that Becerra is their candidate. Chevron last month contributed the maximum allowable amount of $39,200 to his campaign, the first time in a decade it has backed a gubernatorial candidate. Last week, the company contributed another $500,000<\/a> to an independent political committee supporting Becerra. California Resources Corporation, the state\u2019s largest driller, also gave $500,000<\/a> to a Becerra committee. And gas companies like Sempra are among the donors to an anti-Steyer political committee that has raised more than $24 million<\/a>.<\/p>\n Steyer, meanwhile, has made attacking Big Oil the focus of his campaign, as it was during his 2020 presidential run. He says he would lower gas prices<\/a> by activating the refining profit cap that Newsom has declined to use, investigating what is causing high gas prices (something the state has already done), and taxing private jet fuel. When refineries \u201cinevitably\u201d close, he says he will stockpile an oil reserve and import more refined fuel for as long as California needs it.<\/p>\n Steyer has also had to address his own fossil fuel ties. The hedge fund he founded, Farallon Capital<\/a>, remains a major player in coal power finance abroad, including in Indonesia and Australia. Steyer still holds a stake in the firm, which he left in 2012, but his campaign says he no longer receives dividends from its fossil fuel investments.\u00a0<\/p>\n California uses a \u201cjungle primary\u201d in which the top two candidates advance to the general election, regardless of party. The latest poll<\/a> shows Becerra essentially tied with former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican, with Steyer trailing at around 15 percent. The most likely outcome is that one of Becerra or Steyer will make it to the general election. (The other Democrats, including Porter and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, trail behind in the double digits.)<\/p>\n Railing against Big Oil has long proven to be good politics in California. But in the wake of Trump\u2019s second election victory, Democrats have sought to downplay climate issues and focus instead on affordability. The question in the governor\u2019s race is how best to achieve that in the long run. Is it better to use a bully pulpit against companies like Chevron in an effort to break their market power, or conciliate them in the hope that they don\u2019t flee?<\/p>\n Mike Madrid, a veteran California political operative, believes Becerra\u2019s approach will resonate more with the young and Latinos, both of whom often decide statewide elections.<\/p>\n \u201cThis attack on Chevron, it works for the base Steyer already has,\u201d he said. \u201cYoung Latino working-class men are the demographic most affected by gas prices. Do you think they\u2019re saying we need to get rid of Chevron? Of course not.\u201d<\/p>\n Steyer\u2019s campaign may not get him over the line in the primary, but he has at least been consistent. In a 2013 blog post for this very publication, he celebrated the result of the Virginia governor\u2019s race, where a climate-focused Democrat beat a fossil-fuel friendly Republican with help from Steyer\u2019s own war chest.<\/p>\n \u201cA new political dynamic is emerging,\u201d he wrote at the time<\/a>. \u201cClimate change is a winner, not a loser,\u201d and is \u201cno longer electoral Kryptonite.\u201d<\/p>\n If Chevron has its way, next week\u2019s\u00a0 primary results will prove otherwise.<\/p>\n![\"Dozens](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/california-governor-race-becerra-chevron-gas-prices-refineries-oil-Kern-County.jpeg\"){kind=icon}
Chevron\u2019s Kern River Oil Field near Bakersfield is one of the largest oil fields in California. The state\u2019s climate policies have helped reduce gasoline demand by more than 15 percent over the past decade.
\n Mark Ralston \/ AFP via Getty Images<\/p>\n