The Brief

Three years ago, California built a first-in-the-nation system aimed at protecting drivers when oil markets turn calamitous. The legislature passed it. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it. He proclaimed "California took on Big Oil and won."

Its author, then-Sen. Nancy Skinner called it a "landmark law" that "will allow us to hold oil companies accountable if they pad their profits at the expense of hard-working families."

But the law — which gave regulators the power to cap refinery profits and penalize oil companies for price gouging — has never been used. Instead, last year, the California Energy Commission voted to delay the rules for five years. Skinner – who wrote the law as a Senator – was absent when her own commission voted to delay it.

Now, with gas topping $5.30 a gallon statewide, that decision is under a new spotlight. The Iran war has sent global oil prices soaring — but the war is only part of the story. California has a structural problem: fewer refineries, a captive market and no easy outside supply options. When prices rise nationally, they can rise even more here.

Proponents say this is precisely the moment the 2023 law was designed for. The commissioners last year left the door open to rescind the delay — and move forward with the rule before the five years — if they change their minds.

"These are the moments we need them, because when the price of a commodity goes through the roof — be it crude oil or refined gasoline — that's when companies make outrageous profits," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog.

But those who backed the delay argue it was a necessary concession — that penalizing refiners risked driving them out of the state entirely. It's a tension that cuts to the heart of California's energy predicament: how to protect consumers today from an industry the state can't yet afford to lose, while still making good on its promise to leave that industry behind.

California’s unused gas-price tools

When the California Energy Commission met last August Newsom was already retreating from his confrontation with the oil industry. The question before commissioners was whether to move ahead with aggressive rules targeting refinery profits — or step back, as the governor was doing.

It was a sharp reversal. Newsom had declared special legislative sessions in 2022 and 2024, pushing through sweeping new powers to curb gasoline price spikes — including requirements that refiners store more fuel and replace lost supply during maintenance, and the profit-cap rules now sitting dormant. A new energy commission oversight division created by the law found an unexplained gasoline premium of about 41 cents per gallon between 2015 and 2024, costing drivers an estimated $59 billion.

Gas prices are displayed on a sign at a filling station in Fresno on March 6, 2026.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters

)

“Those are critically important laws,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. “What that information shows is that Californians are at the mercy of a very few refiners with immense power.”

California’s oil industry strongly opposed the measures, and some economists remain skeptical of them. UC Berkeley energy economist Severin Borenstein warned that capping refinery profits during shortages could backfire.

“The last thing we need is to start trying to regulate refinery margins,” he said. “As much as people don't like high gasoline prices, they really, really hate gas lines.”

By last August, refinery closures were looming and warnings of $8-a-gallon gasoline circulated in Sacramento. Newsom and Democratic leaders were negotiating with the oil industry to boost production in Kern County — talks that produced a law that has since driven an uptick in drilling permits.

After Valero said it would close its Benicia refinery, Newsom directed Siva Gunda, vice chair of the California Energy Commission, to “redouble the state’s efforts to work closely with refiners on short- and long-term planning” and ensure a “reliable supply of transportation fuels.” Gunda responded with a series of recommendations that aligned largely with industry’s desires — among them a pause in the state’s profit-cap rule.

Against that backdrop, energy commissioners voted on Aug. 29 to delay the rules for five years. Ahead of the vote, Gunda said the delay would help boost “investor confidence” in the state’s oil refiners, “thereby ensuring a reliable in-state refining capacity.”

Oil industry representatives say the decision made sense – the profit-cap measures, they argued, miss the real problem.

“The real problem is California is an energy island — we’re losing 17% of our refining capacity,” said Zachary Leary, a lobbyist for the Western States Petroleum Association.

But Court, of Consumer Watchdog, said the governor “panicked,” leaving the state without the “hammer” it now needs.

“When you have this type of level of gas run up, you're going to need those tools,” Court said.

The difficult middle of the energy transition

California has committed to phasing out fossil fuels by 2045 — but it still depends heavily on gasoline, and it is losing the refineries that produce it.

Phillips 66 last year shut its Los Angeles refinery, citing concerns about the sustainability of the California market. Valero is closing its Benicia refinery next month, pointing to a challenging regulatory environment.

“If you start losing refineries — as we are going to — and you don't have an alternative source of supply, we're going to start getting price spikes when there's any sort of disruption at one of our refineries,” Borenstein said. “Or just during high demand periods.”

The challenge of reducing fossil fuel use while maintaining adequate supply has created what Gunda — Newsom’s point person in negotiations with the oil industry — calls the “mid-transition.

“This is not going to be a smooth transition,” Gunda said last month in testimony to a state Senate committee. “Every time you lose a refinery, it’s going to be a double-digit percent of refined fuel lost in California. So that abrupt transition will mean an abrupt increase in imports.”

A global oil shock hits California

The recent jump in gasoline prices reflects a global oil shock tied to the war with Iran — not a policy change unique to California, experts said. But the surge highlights how exposed the state remains to global energy markets as it loses refining capacity and imports more crude and gasoline.

Since the conflict began, the international benchmark for crude oil has climbed more than $25 a barrel — a shift that typically translates to about 60 cents per gallon at the pump, in line with the increase in California retail prices, argues Borenstein, of UC Berkeley.

“All of the change we've seen in the last couple of weeks is in line with the change in crude oil prices, and therefore is not California specific,” he said.

Newsom has made a similar argument, blaming the spike on global oil markets and the war with Iran rather than California policies. But analysts note that the state's shrinking refinery base means global shocks land harder here than elsewhere.

A key concern is the Strait of Hormuz. Before the conflict, the narrow waterway carried more than 20 million barrels of oil a day — roughly one-fifth of global supply. Traffic is now at a standstill, and crude prices topped $100 a barrel again — even after more than 30 countries announced releases from emergency reserves.

Ryan Cummings, chief of staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policymaking, said a prolonged closure could push crude prices above $130 or $140 per barrel — driving California prices closer to $7, with a worst-case scenario approaching $10 at some stations.

Most analysts consider that outcome unlikely but no longer unthinkable.

“Right now, this doesn't appear likely, but it is a worst-case scenario that is growing by the day,” Cummings said.

Competing ideas for what comes next

Siegel, of the Center for Biological Diversity, said California should move forward immediately to implement the profit-cap rules and require companies to hold larger fuel inventories.

“Our leaders shouldn't rest until the rules are in place to prevent price gouging on top of volatility, and should not rest until people get their money back,” she said.

Economists say California’s biggest challenge may be infrastructure. Valero plans to close its Benicia refinery, which produces about 10% of the state’s gasoline, next month. In an analysis posted last year, Stanford economist Neale Mahoney and Cummings said California could offset lost refinery production with gasoline imports – if permitting allows refineries like Benicia to convert to fuel import terminals. Newsom said in January his administration is working with the company to continue importing gasoline into Northern California after its refinery operations close.

“If I was in the Legislature right now, all of my energies and effort would be built on, one, making sure that Benicia gets turned into an import terminal — and two, making sure whoever owns or operates that is not an incumbent,” Cummings said.

Court, of Consumer Watchdog, pointed to a proposed Phillips 66 pipeline that could bring refined gasoline from Midwest refineries into the state – something California has never had, relying instead on in-state refining and marine imports. Dubbed the Western Gateway Pipeline, the project would build a new pipeline and reverse an existing one to move gasoline and diesel from central U.S. refineries to Arizona and California.

One state lawmaker has proposed expanding access to E85, a cheaper ethanol blend. Both ideas remain proposals without clear timelines.

Meanwhile, some oil companies and even some Democrats are warning California’s climate policies could raise production costs enough that refineries reconsider operating in California — adding another pressure point to an already strained supply picture.

The profit-cap rules that could penalize oil companies remain on hold until 2029. By then, California may have lost more refineries — and may still be grappling with the problem Newsom once promised to solve: gasoline price shocks in the country’s most unaffordable market.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.