I need – In California’s chaotic governor’s race, Chevron has become an unexpected center of gravity—used as a political weapon even as experts warn the state’s fuel transition may not survive without coordination of oil infrastructure. At stake are gas prices, refiner
When he said “I need Chevron,” Xavier Becerra didn’t sound like a man begging for political cover. He sounded, instead, like a candidate wrestling with a basic reality of California life: the gasoline supply the state still relies on doesn’t run on slogans.
The line appeared during a spotlight moment last month, when an interviewer asked Becerra about Chevron’s contributions to his campaign. The former state attorney general and Biden-era health secretary responded by challenging how voters should interpret Big Oil’s role in politics.
“Chevron, that’s the problem with politics. They’re 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 … Chevron wants to give me a check, that’s — that’s their prerogative.”
Soon. the phrase was stripped down into anti-Becerra videos shared by prominent figures including climate hawk Jane Fonda. implying Becerra was saying he needs Chevron to get elected. Progressive billionaire Tom Steyer. Becerra’s lead Democratic opponent. urged him to return the contribution and said he is “doing [the] bidding” of Big Oil. Representative Katie Porter. another leading Democrat. countered in a statement that she “hasn’t made millions off Big Oil or taken their checks.”.
That rhetorical battle is only the surface. Under it sits a market problem California can’t wish away.
California consumes around 13 billion gallons of gasoline annually. and all of it is specifically formulated to meet the state’s stringent clean air standards. Most of that supply is produced by just six refineries. Chevron. founded in California more than 100 years ago. owns two of them—refineries that account for one-third of the state’s production.
The company’s influence tracks directly with the scale of what’s at risk. Chevron reported $12.3 billion in profit last year. And while California’s gasoline consumption has fallen by about 15 percent from its peak in 2004—driven by improved fuel economy in conventional vehicles and growing adoption of electric vehicles—it could fall by half over the next two decades.
The June 2 primary is already locked into that countdown. Whoever becomes governor will have to keep the lights on—literally and economically—while the state continues its energy transition. The contradiction is brutal either way: if California 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 stall global climate progress.
“It’s messy,” Emily Grubert said. A civil engineer and sociologist at Notre Dame who has studied fossil fuel transitions and advised the state government on oil infrastructure. Grubert described the fear that hits when policy turns into shutdowns. “As soon as you realize that actually transitioning away from fossil fuels means you have to close things. people get really freaked out.”.
The race has replayed that tension as an argument about fairness. But it also points to something more technical—and more consequential—than campaign messaging.
California’s refineries aren’t just businesses; they are assets required to maintain the state’s particular gasoline blend. And the state has been trying to change the system faster than the world around it can adjust. Newsom spent much of his governorship going after Big Oil. including executive actions to restrict fracking in Kern County oil fields. When the war in Ukraine pushed gas prices surging. Newsom and Democrats in the Legislature passed bills to stop what he called “price gouging.”.
Those 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—actions that cut profit margins for Chevron and others. The new refinery rules added to multiple carbon taxes that make selling gasoline in California more expensive.
Yet there is evidence refiners have overcharged Californians even after factoring in state taxes, environmental fees, and production costs. A gap between Golden State gas prices and prices elsewhere has come to be known as the “mystery gasoline surcharge.” It appeared in 2015 after a refinery fire in Torrance and now averages about $1. Last fall, a state regulator concluded that refiners’ monopoly power may be the reason for the price spikes.
In other words: California is paying for a transition while also trying to police an industry that still controls the path of supply.
Chevron, for its part, argues the policy pressure is pushing the remaining system toward collapse.
Oil companies accused Newsom of trying to regulate them out of existence, and many threatened to leave. Two major refiners—Wilmington and Benicia—announced last year that they would close their operations. That decision forced California. which already imports about 60 percent of its oil. to rely on imports of gasoline refined in Asia.
Chevron’s response has been both strategic and pointed. The company relocated its corporate headquarters from the San Francisco suburb of San Ramon to Houston in 2024. This year, it has delivered warnings as climate regulators revised the state’s almost 15-year-old carbon tax.
In an open letter to Newsom in March. Andy Walls. the president of Chevron’s refinery business. wrote: “The proposed regulation will cripple the survivability of the state’s remaining refineries. which will result in California losing the entire industry.” Walls also warned of the cost of keeping California supplied if refineries are no longer viable.
Newsom’s administration spent much of 2025 trying to reach a “grand bargain” with the industry. The Legislature eased rules governing drilling in Kern County oil fields to help maintain stable supply of crude to refineries. It also delayed implementing a refinery profit cap and allowed the temporary sale of gasoline with higher concentrations of ethanol.
At the same time. the state’s climate regulator suggested giving refineries free allowances under the state’s 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 to stay in California even as the state uses less gasoline.
Experts say the incentives may not be enough.
Grubert argued that the transition cannot be kept smooth through piecemeal reactions to closures. “You actually can’t have a smooth and safe and effective transition without some form of coordinating function for that decline. ” she said. In her view. some degree of state ownership of refineries may be necessary to keep facilities open if they stop being profitable. She warned against responding to each potential refinery closure with ad hoc subsidies and state support. saying that approach would let refiners “extort the state one by one.”.
That warning echoes a report this month from the California Energy Commission, which has found California cannot rely on emergency fixes when the system begins to wobble.
The report’s analysis of the state’s “shaky fuel system” concluded that “California cannot sustainably manage this transition through repeated crisis interventions at an asset-by-asset level.” It suggested options including “legal obligations to operate. ” “centralized planning of closures. ” and “direct state management or ownership of assets.”.
The timing couldn’t be more unstable. The Iran war is expected to accelerate a decline in both the supply of, and demand for, oil. Gas retailers like Chevron are already struggling to find additional imports of refined fuel. Some experts predict shortages if the Strait of Hormuz does not open within weeks.
Demand is also being squeezed from another direction. Electric vehicles continue gaining market share, and Newsom plans to roll out subsidies for them this year. Wider adoption of electric vehicles, along with hybrids, will further cut demand and make remaining refineries more likely to shutter.
For Grubert and others, the political fight over Chevron reads differently once you accept that the state’s infrastructure can’t be swapped overnight.
Chevron’s Kern River Oil Field near Bakersfield is one of the largest oil fields in California. The state’s climate policies have helped reduce gasoline demand by more than 15 percent over the past decade.
That long decline is part of what shapes the showdown between the leading Democrats in the governor’s race—each searching for the right lane in a field that once included more than 50 candidates.
Becerra has given lip service to clean energy. but his public record has been read by critics as more comfortable with oil producers. As attorney general. he initiated lawsuits against petroleum companies and supported other state climate lawsuits. but “punt[ed] on major investigations. ” according to the framing in this race. On healthcare and opposition to Donald Trump, Becerra’s campaign has focused heavily on healthcare and votes. He has made controversial promises to freeze utility and insurance rates. On decarbonization, he has said, “climate action only succeeds if it is affordable, reliable, and fair.”.
Still, the money trail helps explain why the anti-Chevron rhetoric keeps colliding with the “I need Chevron” reality.
After the chaos of the early primary, many oil producers have decided that Becerra is their candidate. Chevron 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, Chevron contributed another $500,000 to an independent political committee supporting Becerra. California Resources Corporation, the state’s largest driller, also gave $500,000 to a Becerra committee.
Gas companies like Sempra are donors to an anti-Steyer political committee that has raised more than $24 million.
Steyer. by contrast. has made attacking Big Oil the centerpiece of his campaign—an approach carried forward from his 2020 presidential run. He says he would lower gas prices by activating the refining profit cap that Newsom has declined to use. investigating what he calls the drivers of high gas prices (even though the state has already done this). and taxing private jet fuel.
When refineries “inevitably” close, Steyer says he will stockpile an oil reserve and import more refined fuel for as long as California needs it.
Steyer also has had to address his own fossil fuel links. The hedge fund he founded. Farallon Capital. 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.
California uses a “jungle primary” where the top two candidates advance to the general election regardless of party. The latest poll 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. while other Democrats—including Porter and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan—trail behind in the double digits.
Railing against Big Oil has long worked as campaign strategy in California. But after Trump’s second election victory, Democrats have tried to downplay climate issues and emphasize affordability instead.
So the question becomes less about whether Chevron is powerful and more about how California manages that power as demand falls.
Mike Madrid. a veteran California political operative. believes Becerra’s approach will resonate more with young voters and Latinos. who often decide statewide elections. “This attack on Chevron, it works for the base Steyer already has,” Madrid said. “Young Latino working-class men are the demographic most affected by gas prices. Do you think they’re saying we need to get rid of Chevron?. Of course not.”.
Steyer’s own campaign record is consistent, but it may not land with voters in time. In a 2013 blog post for this very publication. Steyer celebrated the outcome of the Virginia governor’s race. where a climate-focused Democrat beat a fossil-fuel friendly Republican with help from Steyer’s own war chest.
“A new political dynamic is emerging,” Steyer wrote at the time. “Climate change is a winner, not a loser,” and he said it was “no longer electoral Kryptonite.”
If Chevron has its way, next week’s primary results will test whether that political hope still holds—especially in a state where the fuel transition is already being fought, word by word, over one phrase: “I need Chevron.”
California governor race Chevron Xavier Becerra Tom Steyer climate policy refinery price cap cap-and-trade gasoline demand electric vehicles Kern County mystery gasoline surcharge