Gavin Newsom’s recent call for a Memorial Day boycott of Chevron raises eyebrows in the political landscape of Sacramento. It seems to be another instance of misdirection by a governor intent on making oil costs more burdensome for everyday citizens.
Newsom is urging drivers to steer clear of Chevron products and choose unbranded alternatives. He suggests that aside from the “fancy” Techron additive, the fuel is basically the same. By framing Chevron as a greedy entity profiting from global issues like tensions in Iran, he’s trying to shift the blame away from the broader energy crisis.
This tactic is rather clever. Rather than addressing the real regulatory issues that fuel prices, this focuses on Chevron as the scapegoat. It’s not a display of leadership, but rather a misdirected attempt that feeds into California’s strong anti-oil campaign while neglecting the state’s own energy challenges.
There’s an undeniable element of hypocrisy lurking here—especially when the very person criticizing fossil fuel use is seen being driven around in a luxury SUV.
Gas prices in California have climbed to about $6.13 per gallon, contrasting with the national average of around $4.55. It’s not merely “big oil greed” or global disruptions at play; instead, it’s the foreseeable result of decades of intervention by Sacramento and Newsom.
When we talk about taxes, there are hefty excise taxes, environmental fees, and cap-and-trade regulations that often add more than $1 per gallon to the price.
California’s anti-oil stance has wreaked havoc on its refining capabilities. Strict regulations, exorbitant compliance costs, and various fuel standards have led to the closure of key refineries, like Phillips 66 and Valero, cutting production capacity by nearly 20%.
These closures weren’t just random market shifts; they’ve made operating in California notably unfeasible. As a result, the state now relies on imports for more than 70% of its crude oil and fuel, making it vulnerable to global fluctuations.
With rising transport costs and supply chain unpredictability, California’s inability to quickly ramp up local production has raised prices further.
Some analysts suggest that if refining capacities don’t improve, gas prices could jump an additional 40 cents or even more, potentially leading to nightmare scenarios where prices hit $8 a gallon.
Procuring drilling permits is still an arduous process, which just adds to the ongoing volatility.
Newsom hasn’t just taken on these existing anti-oil policies; he has intensified them with a focus on dismantling the internal combustion engine.
It’s striking how a sign at a gas station highlighting Chevron’s “Sacramento policy” serves as a stark reminder of the chaotic environment. When Newsom encourages a boycott of Chevron, it feels more like a way to deflect attention from his own policies rather than a meaningful directive.
States without such rigid regulations show that balanced supply can lead to cheaper, more stable fuel prices, avoiding the frantic price spikes seen in California.
During Newsom’s time in office, many companies, including Chevron, have found it increasingly untenable to operate in the state, with Chevron relocating its headquarters to Texas after more than a century in California.
It’s perplexing to consider who truly benefits from this stance, particularly when some of the critics don’t seem to grasp the costs borne by their constituents.
Ironically, Chevron doesn’t just extract resources; it plays a crucial role in California’s economy, employing 45,000 globally and providing countless direct and indirect jobs in the state.
In Richmond, where Chevron operates, the company contributes nearly 24% to the city’s general fund—supporting schools, police, fire departments, and other essential services. These funds also go towards programs like STEM education and CAL FIRE support.
But Newsom’s actions might negatively impact the small business operators at Chevron-branded stations who already face a mountain of regulations.
Branded versus unbranded gas mostly comes down to slight differences in additives and quality, not some conspiracy that explains why gas prices vary throughout California.
Timing this boycott during a peak travel period seems especially harsh, especially as Newsom’s regulatory framework continues to operate unchecked in the background.
It’s almost staggering how he manages to skirt basic economic principles, squeezing local production while expressing shock about the rising costs.
In a way, Newsom’s Chevron boycott encapsulates a disconnect—a performative move that punishes a significant economic player while reinforcing the anti-oil stance that fuels price increases.
