You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
War with Iran adds to a long list of factors making California gas hella expensive.

California’s gasoline market is a world all its own. Gas prices there are consistently higher than anywhere else in the U.S. — and with the global oil industry currently experiencing its greatest physical supply shock since at least the 1970s, that difference has gotten especially painful.
Since Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic in response to U.S.- and Israel-led attacks, blocking around 10% of global oil production from reaching the world market, the average gasoline price in California has risen to $5.62 per gallon, according to AAA, up from $4.59 a month ago. Compare that to the national average $3.88 per gallon, up from $2.93 in February, and you’ll begin to feel Californians’ pain. The longer the strait remains closed and the higher oil prices continue to rise, the more dramatic those price increases are likely to be.
But where does that difference come from in the first place? In part it’s due to deliberate policy choices, including California’s unusually high taxes on gasoline, environmental regulations that require a unique blend of fuel, and the state’s cap and invest program. Then there’s what University of California Berkeley energy economist Severin Borenstein calls the “mystery gasoline surcharge,” which emerged after a 2015 refinery fire in Torrance that drove up prices beyond what the obvious tax and regulatory factors could explain. (Borenstein thinks it may be in part due to lack of competition between gas stations, but he admits it’s still an open question.)
California is also unusually dependent on other states — and even other countries — for its crude oil and even gasoline itself. The state is essentially cut off from the U.S. oil pipeline network due to its geographic isolation, strict environmental regulations (again), and the uncertainty of investing in fossil fuel infrastructure for a state that is actively and aggressively trying to decarbonize.
Not only that, California’s local refining capacity has been shrinking at a precipitous rate. The Phillips 66 refinery in Los Angeles shut down last year, and the Valero refinery in Benicia is due to shut down later this year, taking out some 17% of the state’s refinery capacity.
This makes California reliant on maritime imports, and thanks to the Jones Act — which requires that sea-based trade within the U.S. use American-made, owned, and crewed ships, of which there are just 55 in operation — those ships essentially have to come from overseas.
Since the Torrance refinery fire, the state’s gas price has fluctuated largely based on the price of imports of finished gasoline or components used to blend California’s unique fuel, Ryan Cummings, the chief of staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, told me.
“In California, the marginal barrel, which is what sets the price — the most expensive barrel to bring to market — is imported and has been that way since 2015,” he said.
While some of the feedstock for California’s gasoline does come from the U.S. (but arrives by way of the Bahamas to skirt Jones Act restrictions), far more comes from India and South Korea, which are at the heart of the current energy shock. Along with other states in the western U.S. that rely on imports, Cummings told me, California is “disproportionately” affected by the physical price of oil in the Middle East “because that’s where a lot of the imports come from.”
One curious feature of the unfolding energy crisis is that the benchmarks typically used as stand-ins for the price of oil — West Texas Intermediate and Brent — have diverged substantially from the physical price of oil being bought by refineries in Asia, which rely on Persian Gulf supplies. Asian refineries have been paying around $155 per barrel, according to JPMorgan chief commodities strategist Natasha Kaneva. The WTI, which is based on oil to be delivered in Oklahoma, sits at $96, and Brent, in the North Sea, is $110.
“The immediate physical shortfall is concentrated in Asian markets, where reliance on Gulf barrels is greatest,” Kaneva wrote in a note to clients. “Early signs of demand destruction are emerging in Asia as product prices surge and spot barrels become prohibitively expensive.”
California, on the other hand, will likely just continue to grit its teeth and buy. Cummings has advocated that the Benicia refinery, which is due to shut down by the end of April, be converted into an import terminal for petroleum products to ensure that California maintains adequate supplies of imported gasoline and components. That would help insulate it from shortages that cause spikes beyond high global prices.
If the strait remains closed through March and production shut-ins increase as storage fills up, “it’s totally reasonable to think oil is going to be $150 a barrel, if not more,” Cummings told me. “And if that’s the case, we’ll see higher than $7 a gallon average gasoline price in California.”
At least so far, however, “gasoline prices are doing about what you’d expect them to do,” Borenstein, the Berkeley professor, told me, rising in line with the rest of the country.But the state “really needs to make sure that we are out ahead of this by making sure there are no frictions that are created in expanding port capacity, pipeline capacity and storage,” he added. The ability to store and move gasoline around is particularly important, Borenstein explained, because of the lack of refining capacity in the state.
The real test for California’s petroleum system will be when “one of the remaining refineries has an unexpected shutdown,” Borenstein told me. “It always happens, and so at that point I hope we will have made sure there’s enough inventory to handle that and enough capacity to keep bringing product in.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
As electricity prices rise, the stakes for the leaders of states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Indiana are only getting higher.
Governors are increasingly throwing their weight around in the technocratic and often obscure utility ratemaking process. The latest example is Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, who last week published a Washington Post op-ed announcing that she would intervene in the attempted acquisition of the state’s dominant utility, Dominion, by Florida utility and energy development company NextEra Energy.
Spanberger is “deeply skeptical about whether selling our primary state-regulated utility to an out-of-state company is good for the commonwealth,” she wrote. While she didn’t go so far as to oppose the merger, she did insist that NextEra maintain jobs in the state, comply with Virginia’s clean energy goals, and come up with cost savings for Virginians. And while the state’s utility regulators will make the ultimate decision themselves, she said, she wanted to use her leverage as the state’s highest ranking and most visible elected official “to make sure Virginians have a voice in the process.”
It’s not unheard of for a governor to try to influence utility regulators by picking members of state utility commissions — or simply by haranguing them. But as electricity bills rise to their highest level ever, according to Heatmap and MIT’s Electricity Price Hub, governors in particular have started responding to pressure from voters to do something — anything — about it.
In New Jersey, Governor Mikie Sherrill won office in part by promising to freeze electricity rates — then used her influence over the utility regulators to make it happen.
In Indiana, Governor Mike Braun replaced the head of the state utility regulator after his predecessor agreed to a rate increase from the utility AES Indiana.
In North Carolina, Governor Josh Stein publicly called on the state’s dominant utility, Duke Energy, to reduce a rate increase request.
And the whole PJM Interconnection market, which includes Indiana, Virginia, and New Jersey, exists under a capacity price cap worked out in litigation initiated by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who has also led an effort alongside the White House to procure more generation and pressured the utility PECO to withdraw a rate case.
“Governor Shapiro is maybe the pioneer of this,” Eric Miller, the interim vice president of the states program at Evergreen Action and a former climate and energy official under former New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, told me. “Legislators, they hear from their constituents about utility issues, whether it’s shut-offs or high prices. They go to their elected officials, and those elected officials engage with the governor’s office,” he said.
Utility regulation and ratemaking exists in a netherworld between public policy and private business. Most customers in the U.S. are served by investor-owned electric utilities, but the prices they pay are set by boards whose members are typically appointed by governors after a long, quasi-judicial process.
The process by which rates are set is wonky by design, with thousands of pages of filings and analysis explaining what costs need to be recovered at what rate paid by ratepayers. “Intervening” in a public service commission decision typically involves quietly slipping a document into a large docket, to be seen solely by utility regulators and lawyers (plus a few enterprising reporters.) To the extent the public or elected officials get to weigh in, it’s often through non-governmental advocacy groups or state officials designated as advocates for the public.
That governors are now openly taking responsibility for such a painfully bureaucratic process is “an indication of just how central utility rates are to overall energy affordability concerns that governors are hearing,” Jeff Dennis, executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance and a former Department of Energy and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission official, told me.
With prices as high as they are, “the stakes are higher, and so the governors feel like in order to fulfill their campaign promises or their job as the top elected official in the state, that they’ve got to be directly heard,” he said. In Virginia, for example, typical bills have grown over 45% in the past five years, and by almost 12% in the past year alone.
When it comes to assigning responsibility for high electricity prices, Americans are most likely to blame their state government and their utility (and, increasingly, data centers), according to Heatmap polling.
Governors, who have a direct mandate from the public, can exert a unique countervailing force in a process that many critics argue is weighted towards utility interests. “Despite a lot of fences to prevent regulatory capture and rent seeking, it happens,” Miller said, “and having an executive weigh in directly can shake that up.”
There are risks, however, to governors getting more directly involved in the ratemaking process. One is that it could encourage short-term thinking, leading to measures that hold down prices at the expense of potentially necessary investments to maintain reliability or building out the infrastructure necessary to bring on new sources of power like wind and solar.
On top of that, “There’s certainly always a risk that the proceedings get more political,” Dennis told me. But he noted that ultimately, it’s utility commissions making the decisions, and they’re obligated to provide a record of filings and data to support their decisions.
Governors getting involved more formally could also have upsides, Dennis said, by shining a spotlight on the process that ultimately affects every resident and business in the state. “It brings a lot more spotlight to how utilities are making decisions about investments and how customers are impacted by those decisions, and I don’t think that that’s necessarily a bad thing.”
Governors also have a different set of mandates and responsibilities than the utilities do. While utilities have a mandate to provide reliable electric service — and thus spend whatever they can convince their regulators is necessary to do so — Miller argued that governors have to balance reliability and affordability for their constituents.
“The regulatory monopoly that utilities have is a political creation made by the elected officials in that jurisdiction.” Miller told me. “It is well within the authority of those same elected officials to decide to take a very hard look at whether that model is delivering the type of outcome that they want.”
A proposed change in how the agency implements an obscure Cold War-era law would impose onerous reporting requirements on renewables and pipelines.
Democrats in Congress claim that a new Trump administration proposal will have a chilling effect on the energy sector by subjecting renewables and fossil fuel pipelines alike to an obscure, rarely cited Cold War-era law requiring detailed information on foreign farmland ownership be submitted to the Agriculture Department.
In late June, the Agriculture Department released a proposal to change implementation of the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978, which requires companies to provide information to the federal government on foreign investors in farmland holdings, acquisitions, and sales. If finalized, the new rule would expand the definition of “agricultural land” in regulation to include all renewable energy facilities and pipeline corridors by explicitly tying the term to those industries’ formal codes under the North American Industry Classification System.
Top Senate Democrats on Monday argued that taken together with expanded investor reporting thresholds and land boundary mapping requirements, this rule change “may exceed what is necessary” to deal with national security issues around farmland ownership.
One of the letter’s signatories, Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman, has previously joined the GOP in railing against foreign companies purchasing U.S. farmland as a potential national security concern. And indeed, there certainly exists a broader bipartisan anxiety around Chinese influence on essential industries, e.g. mining and critical minerals. That Fetterman is now joining climate hawks Martin Heinrich and Sheldon Whitehouse in opposing the administration’s move is a striking moment of unity, especially as Fetterman bats away beltway rumors that he’ll flip parties.
The letter demands a briefing from the Agriculture Department that includes the proposal’s “anticipated impacts on the energy, infrastructure, and agricultural sectors,” as well as the legal basis for changing its definition of “agricultural land.”
“[W]e are concerned that USDA’s proposed rule may exceed what is necessary to address those objectives, have unintended national security consequences, and may create substantial compliance burdens on agricultural producers, landowners, infrastructure operators, energy developers, and investors that could undermine efforts to address rising energy and food prices without a corresponding national security benefit,” the letter reads.
As I have previously written, the USDA is an increasingly vital organ in the Trump administration’s war on renewable energy projects, and focusing its laser beam at project development on what it calls “prime” farmland. Trump also recently tapped country music star John Rich to be his “special envoy for American landowners,” which directly led to the USDA working with people fighting solar on farmland in upstate New York.
The Trump change goes after pipelines as well as renewable energy, although logic suggests that solar development could be more vulnerable due to the sheer acreage often required for utility-scale project construction and property setbacks.
The Agriculture Department responded to my request for comment with a statement: “As Secretary [Brooke] Rollins has noted before, the regulations governing the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 are extremely outdated and need to be updated to better reflect today’s conditions. USDA looks forward to considering all public comments before finalizing the rule.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include the statement from USDA.
Current conditions: The wildfires in Spokane, Washington, have now incinerated 850 structures, most of which were homes • Thunderstorms are rumbling over Des Moines, Iowa, breaking the dense “corn sweat” humidity evaporating off crop fields • Severe storms in Brazil’s southeasternmost Rio Grande do Sul province have left at least one dead.
The paradox of President Donald Trump’s critical mineral policy, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin put it last year, remains unresolved. His administration did away with the main domestic market signal for minerals by eliminating the electric vehicle tax credit with incentives for U.S. content last year. But the White House has pulled out the stops to support projects that aim to produce lithium, rare earths, and other minerals needed for weapons and energy manufacturing. On Friday, the Department of Defense announced a package worth more than $2 billion in funding for companies churning out batteries and the minerals contained in them. The funding includes $1.4 billion for the battery company Sila Nanotechnologies and $400 million for Sunrise Energy Metals, a producer of scandium, which is needed for high-heat aluminum alloys for fighter jets and spacecraft. “We want these essential products to be mined, refined and made right here in the USA,” Trump said at a press roundtable, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Trump isn’t the only one throwing money at minerals. The world’s top 50 mining stocks are now worth $2.3 trillion, up $18 billion for the month, according to a Mining.com analysis.
Amazon is reportedly behind plans to build a data center campus powered by a 7.7-gigawatt gas plant in Texas. In January, the project, known as GW Ranch, received a permit to build a gas plant with a pollution output of 33 million tons of carbon dioxide. While the developer behind the facility had been secret, the clean energy consultancy Cleanview reviewed satellite imagery that identified how much land the project was clearing and matched that to public filings for permits. In a post on X, Michael Thomas, the company’s founder, wrote that he confirmed with Amazon that it had acquired the site and planned to buy power from the plant, which is being developed by Pacifico Energy. “Partnering with GW Ranch marks Amazon’s first major investment in an off-grid data center,” Thomas wrote. “In doing so, the company joins Microsoft, Google, and Meta who have all invested significantly in natural gas power this year.”
The U.S. is facing its most brutal wildfire season in years, with blazes “scorching millions of acres.” That’s according to a new analysis by Bloomberg, which found that the 17 fires raging across Washington State have now displaced more than 60,000 people — roughly 10% of the Spokane area’s population. Across the U.S., there are at least 44,722 fires raging across about 5.2 million acres, data from the National Interagency Fire Center shows.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Ah, the electric minivan. The dream of every emissions-conscious parent or hauler of large things. Rare in America, but taking over Europe. That is, of course, what’s happening with Kia’s PV5. The small electric van now accounts for a third of Europe’s market for similar vehicles. Kia’s first electric van, according to Electrek, is the most popular electric light commercial vehicle on the continent and the United Kingdom.
Under Colombia’s last president, the far-left Gustavo Petro, the country moved to quash its oil drilling industry and embrace green energy. The new right-wing government of President Abelardo de la Espriella isn’t abandoning the effort. Edwin Palma, the minister of mines and energy, just approved a new National Hydrogen Policy that establishes a roadmap for $5 billion in investments into electrolyzers and other infrastructure through 2031, according to Hydrogen Insight.

Europe just got another new nuclear reactor. Slovakia split atoms for the first time at its Mochovce-4 nuclear plant after nearly 40 years of on-again, off-again construction, NucNet reported. The Russian-designed reactor could be among the country’s last purchases from the Kremlin-owned Rosatom as the conservative European Union nation embraces U.S. nuclear technology.