[On September 3rd], Assemblymember Gregg Hart (D-Santa Barbara) and Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) announced that they will be introducing legislation to stabilize California’s oil market. The bill ensures refineries have adequate fuel reserves to avoid the supply shortages that hike gas prices and penalize consumers. The measure reflects the Governor’s proposal, with legislative guardrails added to protect consumers from any unintended consequences.
“When gas prices spike because of supply constraints, everyday Californians suffer and the oil industry profits. This legislation will protect California consumers by ensuring refineries maintain a stable fuel supply,” said Assemblymember Hart. “This bill is a common-sense solution. By requiring oil companies to better plan for refinery shutdowns, we can save Californians a lot of money from reduced gas prices.”
“Our Assembly understands the assignment, and that is to do everything in our power to lower the cost of living in our state. I appreciate Speaker Rivas taking action to address gas price spikes and ensuring legislation gets the public hearings and consideration that Californians deserve,” Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry said.
“We must stop oil companies from raking-in record profits at the expense of Californians. During this important special session, the Assembly will convene public hearings that thoroughly vet proposals. We’ll hear from experts and ensure that the public has a voice in the process. I’m committed to delivering solutions that rein-in soaring gas costs and provide real savings at the pump,” Speaker Robert Rivas said.
“I’m glad to see the Assembly is moving this important proposal forward to save Californians hundreds of millions of dollars at the pump. Gas price spikes are profit spikes for Big Oil, and California won’t stand by as families get gouged,” said Governor Gavin Newsom.
California’s oil market is uniquely vulnerable. The State’s air quality standards and isolated fuels market mean that prices can be severely impacted by supply disruptions. Nearly all in-state supply comes from a handful of refineries—three in Northern California and five in Southern California, with only one small refinery in Central California. A single refinery outage could drastically reduce refining capacity, by up to 45% in Northern California and 35% in Southern California. This volatility, combined with the higher costs compared to other states, has placed an undue burden on residents with fixed or limited incomes and strained the broader economy.
To stabilize California’s oil supply and prevent price spikes, the bill requires refineries to maintain adequate reserves and properly plan for refinery shutdowns. Specifically, the California Energy Commission will have the authority to require California’s petroleum refiners to implement resupply plans and arrangements that adequately offset production losses from refinery maintenance. The Commission can only adopt these regulations if it determines that they will lead to lower average retail prices, increase the fuel supply, and reduce the price volatility at the pumps for consumers.
Gregg Hart represents the California Assembly’s 37th Assembly District, which includes Santa Barbara, Goleta, Carpinteria, Montecito, Summerland, Buellton, Solvang, Lompoc, Guadalupe, Santa Maria, Orcutt, and Nipomo. He currently serves as the Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and Assembly Select Committee on the Nonprofit Sector.
Also Read
- E.P. Foster Library to Temporarily Close For Renovations Until Fall 2027
- State’s Salmon Strategy Moves Forward with $10 Million For Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Restoration Projects, New 2026 Funding Opportunity
- City of Santa Barbara Welcomes New Housing and Homeless Services Manager
- SLO City Residents Asked to Provide Input to Improve Foothill Boulevard
- SLO in Motion Update – January 17, 2026
It is naive to say that this bill “requires refiners to plan better” when in fact that is exactly what they have done for decades. They plan to use seasonal formulation changeover moments to maximize their profits by claiming a shortage and blaming it on the government. This only buffers their scam. They will surely find another way to create excuses–most commonly used historically is “maintenance” or some sort of fire or other damage (which would not be a problem if there was more competition which they stop).
Drill baby drill! Problem solved!
Only idiots think that would do anything other than magnify the disasters caused by our dependence on carbon fuels.
Again, name calling without a rebuttal. Cheap energy has reduced the poverty rate worldwide from 90% in 1900 to around 10% today.
Total fantasy. Carbon fuels are currently consigning millions in poor countries to famine and poverty as atmospheric heating causes severe weather and crop failures.
Stop being brainwashed by carbon propaganda.
Cheap energy has also killed millions of people over the past century and caused irreparable harm to our planet. Not that “cheap” when you think about it.
Renewables do not.
First of all, the planet cannot be irreparably harmed. Stop the hyperbole.
I took a Historical Geology course in college, and there has never been a time when the Earth ceased to function as a planet. The environment has changed over time, but the planet has continued to exist and will do so until the sun runs out of energy.
According to scientific estimates, over 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct, yet the Earth is still here and will be for another 5 billion years. (However, life on Earth may become unsustainable much earlier, potentially within the next 1 billion years.)
8.2 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET TODAY.
1800: 81% of the world’s population lived in poverty, defined as $1.90 per day
1910: 66% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty
1950: 55% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty
1990: 1.9 billion people lived in poverty 35%
2008: 1.2 billion people lived in poverty 28%
2015: 734 million people lived in poverty, or 10% of the world’s population
2023: Almost 700 million people lived in poverty (8.75%)
THANKS TO CHEAP ENERGY AND INNOVATIONS BROUGHT ABOUT BY FREE MARKET COMPETITION.
Poverty rate, as defined above, in the US is virtually zero.
In the United States, poverty is defined (by the government) as a family’s total income being less than the federal poverty threshold for their household size.
But, when compared to global standards, many people considered poor in the United States would be classified as middle class due to the significantly higher living standards in developed countries like the US, meaning that even those living below the poverty line in America often have a higher income than the global median; essentially, poverty in America is often considered middle class on a global scale.
ANON – yes it can. Look up the word, “extinction,” for starters.
Take more classes.
see reply below Alexblue below
Not a reply, as much as a repetition of inanity.
“there has never been a time when the Earth ceased to function as a planet. ”
Define “function”
Extinct: no longer burning, no longer active, no longer existing
Extinction: the condition or fact of being extinct
For a planet earth to be extinct, it must no longer exist.
To function as a planet, a celestial body must meet the following criteria:
-Orbit a star: The body must orbit a star, such as the sun.
-Be large enough: The body must be large enough to have enough gravity to force it into a spherical shape.
-Clear away similar objects: The body must be large enough that its gravity has cleared away any other objects of a similar size near its orbit
When did the earth stop doing any of these things?
No mention of life.
ANON – a couple things:
1) Just because the Earth hasn’t suffered “irreparable harm” before, doesn’t mean it can’t still do so. The planet has never hosted humans before us.
2) your “definition” is cherry picked and avoids what I’m talking about:
“2
: no longer existing
an extinct animal” — https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extinct
Species extinction IS “irreparable harm” by its very definition. Furthermore, resource depletion is another form of “irreparable harm” as is the deadly pollution caused caused as a result of it.
The body of our planet can withstand a lot, true. But our ability to live here cannot.
You said “caused irreparable harm to our planet.” What I think you meant to say is that you believe cheap energy will alter our environment to the point that some life forms can no longer exist on this planet.
And, as I said before, you can’t do irreparable harm to a planet. The earth was hit by a giant asteroid or comet 66 million years ago and yet the earth was not harmed; it was changed. That collusion brought about mass extinction of dinosaurs and other species, and yet life continues.
We can not destroy the “planet”.
The extinction of 99% of all species happened before human existence.
ANON – “alter our environment to the point that some life forms can no longer exist on this planet.” That IS irreparable harm.
I think you’re hung up on whether or not the rocks and dirt that make up the planet can be destroyed. I and probably most human beings consider a planet rendered uninhabitable to be IRREPARABLE HARM.
“Irreparable harm TO our planet,” as I said. Life and flora/fauna are part of our planet.
Go live on Mars if you want.
What a weird position to take.
Weird, for sure, but the one who knows no better is actually advocating for turning our planet into something more akin to Venus by spewing carbon dioxide.
Is it stupidity, or intellectual dishonesty? The planet includes its ecosystem.
You failed to define “function”.
I typed “to function as a planet” in Google and it returned, means to be a celestial body that orbits a star (like the Sun), has enough mass to be pulled into a nearly round shape by its own gravity, and has cleared its orbital path of other significant objects, essentially dominating its region of space within its orbit.
So, if the earth was hit by a massive celestial body and exploded into many small pieces, then the earth would no longer be a planet. Perhaps my wording led to some confusion. Sorry about that.
But here is the requested definition of
function:
-Purpose
The natural purpose of something or the duty of a person. For example, “The function of the heart is to pump blood through the body”.
-Ceremony
A formal social event or official ceremony, such as a party or special meal. For example, “Morse went to the White House for a ceremonial function”.
-Computer
A process that a computer or computer program uses to complete a task. For example, “a search/save/sort function”.
-Mathematics
A mathematical relationship that assigns exactly one element of one set to each element of the same or another set.
Just another load of paltering horse manure.
Deflect and distract, just like your mentor.
What a wad of horsepuckey.
People who don’t know any better post all sorts of nonsense.
You can identify them by the use of the term “free market”, which is a sign they’re brainwashed.
You’re arguing against stats, definitions, and science? I wouldn’t listen to those people that tell you they know better.
Nope. Against bogus stats, cherry-picked and frivolous interpretations of definitions, and pseudoscience propounded by the fossil fuel industries, which seem to have thoroughly brainwashed you.
Gish galloping back with another big pile of horse manure from the oil and gas industry.
Horse manure and a wad of horsepuckey are both valid arguments. Thanks for your input.
Those are valid descriptions of your arguments. How else would one deal with somebody who continually spouts misinformation, and has proven impervious to facts?
Gish galloping: I had to look it up. (see how that works)
Def: the galloper confronts an opponent with a rapid series of specious (what was wrong?) arguments, half-truths (what was false?), misrepresentations (What was misrep..and outright lies?), Each point raised by the Gish galloper takes considerably longer to refute than to assert. (A quick google search will give you all this info.)
Don’t be name calling and lazy…look it up.
You clearly have lost any faculty you once had for discerning truth from falsehood. Bubbles do that.
It’s your responsibility to provide documentation of your claims.
Don’t you just love made-up statistics?
A simple search would enlighten you to the fact that the poverty rate in the US is 11.5%, and worldwide it is 46.9%
Please come out of your bubble and get a clue about the real world.
See comment above yours for response
That’s not a response, That’s just repeating nonsense claims.
For example, while Earth will still be a planet if we keep pumping CO2 from carbon fuels into the atmosphere, it will not be a planet that is habitable for most of the current biosphere, including humans.
Repeating carbon propaganda does not make it any less false.
Yes, if you do a “simple” search you will come up with that number.
If you delve further into the subject, you find the data that I have mentioned earlier.
Type in “historical global poverty rates since 1900” on Google search bar.
Remember, In the United States, poverty is defined (by the government) as a family’s total INCOME being less than the federal poverty threshold for their household size. (My friend lives off of her two million in savings, and yet, she is considered poor by US gov. because she has no income)
Anyhoo, as I said before, when compared to global standards, many people considered poor in the United States would be classified as middle class due to the significantly higher living standards in developed countries like the US, meaning that even those living below the poverty line in America often have a higher income than the global median; essentially, poverty in America is often considered middle class on a global scale.
Using the threshold established by the U.S. government, then the poverty rate in the US would is 11%.
But compared to the world, the poverty rate in the US is statistically zero.
According to government data, the average American family or single person who is considered poor by the Census Bureau owns the following:
Housing: A centrally heated, air-conditioned house or apartment that is in good repair and not overcrowded
Transportation: A car or truck, with 43% of poor families owning two or more
Entertainment: A widescreen TV connected to cable, satellite, or a streaming service, a DVD player, and a VCR
Electronics: A computer or tablet with an internet connection, and a smartphone
Appliances: A refrigerator, an oven and stove, a microwave, a clothes washer, and a clothes dryer
Other conveniences: Ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker
Health insurance: Either public or private.
Look it up.
Just more carbon manure, in your characteristic massive quantities, left behind after a Gish Gallop.
More unsubstantiated claims.
“Look it up.”
No. The burden is on you to back your claims.
A “simple” search is inadequate-dig deeper.
Government’s definition of poverty has change dramatically over time.
Poverty in 1900
Life expectancy for white Americans was just 48 years and just 33 years for African Americans–about the same as a peasant in early 19th century India. Today, Americans’ average life expectancy is 74 years for men and 79 for women.
In 1900, if a mother had four children, there was a fifty-fifty chance that one would die before the age of 5. At the same time, half of all young people lost a parent before they reached the age of 21.
In 1900, the average family had an annual income of $3,000 (in today’s dollars). The family had no indoor plumbing, no phone, and no car. About half of all American children lived in poverty. Most teens did not attend school; instead, they labored in factories or fields.
Modern poverty standards:
Those in “poverty” or definition as”poor” in the U.S. today often have access to basic modern conveniences like air conditioning, internet, and basic electronics, which were not as prevalent in previous decades.
Car ownership:
While not guaranteed, a significant portion of individuals considered poor in the U.S. still own at least one car, necessary for transportation in many areas.
Healthcare access:
Government programs like Medicaid can provide basic healthcare access to many low-income individuals.
Food security:
While food insecurity can exist among low-income populations, most individuals in poverty in the U.S. generally have access to enough food to meet their basic needs. The word poverty changes meaning as society becomes wealthier. Historically, US poor people now have much more than middle class Americans had in 1900, and yet, they US government considered them living in poverty.
“The Poorest 20% of Americans Are Richer on Average Than Most European Nations”
https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-richer-than-most-nations-of-europe/
Just another large load of Gish Gallop.
Stupid slogans aren’t arguments and so don’t warrant a rebuttal. As for your second sentence, it’s a strawman and a non sequitur. And renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels, so it’s not an argument for drilling–and you ignore all the downsides of doing so, which is typically dishonest.
Claims that oil and natural gas producers are price gouging have been swiftly rebutted by experts across the country, but this hasn’t stopped members of Congress—both in California and at the federal level—from pushing the narrative. Politicians accuse oil companies of price gouging to appeal to voters and secure their support.
They either mistakenly believe that a state government can reduce the price of oil while disregarding the global oil market, or they are aware that their rhetoric misleads the public. Government fees and taxes add approximately $1.18 to $1.40 to the cost of a gallon of gas. Here’s a breakdown of those taxes and fees I could locate online.
60 cents in state excise tax, among the highest in the nation
18.4 cents in federal excise tax
23 cents for California’s cap-and-trade program to lower greenhouse gas emissions
18 cents for the state’s low-carbon fuel programs
2 cents for underground gas storage fees
An average of 3.7% in state and local sales taxes
Politicians then point fingers at oil companies, claiming they are the ones engaging in price gouging.
“When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.” — Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is just a reactionary mouthpiece. Anything he says should be taken with a large dose of activated charcoal. He has absolutely no interest in helping anyone but himself and the plutocrat class.
Carbon fuels currently benefit from billions of dollars in subsidies that you have failed to account for, and should be taxed to a price level about 5 times the current level to make up for the damages they cause.
Again with the name-calling. Carbon fuels have saved more lives than they’ve harmed. In 1900, the population was 1.6 billion; after 120 years of fuel use, it’s 8 billion, and people are living longer.
A subsidy is government MONEY GIVEN TO assist businesses. What you’re calling a subsidy for oil companies is just the government allowing them to deduct business expenses. Not taxing operating costs isn’t a subsidy. Oil companies and those producing petroleum-based products generate billions in tax revenue.
Most businesses follow: Income – Operating Costs = Profit. It’s not a subsidy when operating costs aren’t taxed.
We’ll leave Sowell out and just post the quote: ‘When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear
That’s really delusional stuff. Got any references for that ridiculous saving lives claim that aren’t similarly delusional? You know, demographic studies and not oily propaganda?
Oil companies get paid more in subsidies than they pay in taxes, by a long shot. And that’s not just tax breaks.
You should take that bit about telling the truth to heart. You’re not doing it now, and anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the energy business knows it.
You’re just a pawn that doesn’t know any better.
When I explained to AI that keeping one’s earned money is not a subsidy (by definition), it responded:
You’re absolutely right to highlight the inconsistency. When you asked whether oil companies receive subsidies, based on definition—money directly granted by the government—I should have strictly limited my response to direct financial support only, excluding tax breaks or credits. I mistakenly conflated the two concepts in my initial response, but by definition, tax breaks aren’t subsidies.
Here’s some data
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent-totals
Just about every oil company “subsidy” listed on those pages are tax related.
Now for your question, what has fossil fuels ever done for me?
Fossil fuels have greatly reduced poverty and improved living standards over the past 120 years by providing cheap energy for essential developments. For example, coal and oil powered factories during the Industrial Revolution, creating jobs and mass-producing goods. Oil-fueled transportation, like cars and airplanes, expanded global trade, making products and food accessible worldwide. In agriculture, fossil-fuel-powered machinery and fertilizers increased food production, reducing hunger. Electrification, driven by coal and natural gas, brought lighting, heating, and appliances to homes, improving daily life. Additionally, fossil fuels enabled the production of plastics for medical devices and powered hospitals, enhancing healthcare globally.
Keep thrashing. People who know about fossil fuels know better.
The Anonymous with the “saving lives” claim is a fan of the Gish Gallop, obviously, and will not provide any evidence to back up silly claims – he’ll just firehose out some more falsehoods.
Thomas Sowell is a life-long liar.
Hell, let the gas prices spike. The ultra-libs of the wealthy parts of Ca (like here) in their Teslas shouldn’t give a hoot right? But it’s funny to see the usual couple crazy edhatters all riled up about this. Classic.
BASIC – yet here you are….. hypocrite.
I’d like to congratulate you on not inserting an apostrophe between the “a” and the “s” of Teslas.
Huh, on my part, I don’ know how he could interpret my complimenting him on his proper grammar as being an insult.
It’s amusing that he attacked you for that compliment.
My characterization of this person was put in the penalty box but it’s not incorrect.
Classic indeed. You state “..it’s funny to see the usual couple crazy edhatters all riled up about this.”, and, like clockwork, they both respond, eager to showcase their brilliant debating skills—along with some name-calling.
ANON – calling BASIC a “hypocrite,” is not “name-calling.” Neither is calling him a “liar.” Those are statements of fact based on an objective reading of hims comments here over the past year(s). Dead to rights facts.
Now, what IS “name-calling” is calling people “crazy.” Like he did and now you are as well.
Hypocrite. Facts, not insults.
Your comment is pure ad hominem, with no substance, just self-serving nonsense, and very very very hypocritical.
You don’ tthink that calling someone “crazy” is name calling?
Mmmkay.
Beyond that, Basic is threatening SacJon for the title of number one most prolific poster and responder on Edhat.
Good to see him putting in all that work to move up in the standings.