Offshore Oil Production Restarts In California Thanks To President Trump

American oil executives told Trump administration officials that the energy crisis from the Iran war is likely to get worse — that the disruption to energy flows out of the Strait of Hormuz, where 20% of the world’s oil consumption flows through on its way to markets, would continue to create volatility in global energy markets. The Trump administration has implemented a number of measures to help mitigate the price increase, including a 30-day waiver of sanctions of Russian oil, a release of emergency energy reserves, and waiving the Jones Act.

The Trump administration has also ordered Sable Offshore to resume offshore oil drilling along California’s coast at the Santa Ynez Unit and reopen the associated Santa Ynez Pipeline System. Trump administration officials also want to increase oil flows between Venezuela and the United States to help solidify fuel supply chains in the Western Hemisphere. Chevron told U.S. officials that its oil production in the country has reached record levels and that it intends to pump more.

On March 13, Energy Secretary Chris Wright invoked the Defense Production Act for Texas-based oil company Sable Offshore to restore oil operations offshore southern California. According to a Department of Energy (DOE) news release, Wright invoked the Defense Production Act to address supply disruption risks that “have left the region and U.S. military forces dependent on foreign oil.” Sable Offshore’s facility can replace nearly 1.5 million barrels of foreign-sourced oil each month by producing roughly 50,000 barrels per day, resulting in a 15% increase to California’s oil production.

California Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the Trump administration for ordering the restoration of oil drilling off the state’s coast, calling it an attempt to illegally restart a pipeline that multiple court orders have prohibited from restarting and whose operators are facing criminal charges.

According to Newsom, the Sable Offshore pipeline would only increase total oil production by 0.05% and have “no impact on lowering global oil prices.” But California now relies on imported oil for more than 60% of the oil refined in California, including oil that must pass through the Strait of Hormuz. According to the DOE, California used to supply nearly 40% of the nation’s oil production, but onerous climate legislation and regulations, as well as a general hostility to oil and natural gas, have depressed the state’s oil production and closed numerous refineries.

California regulators further escalated the dispute by directing Sable Offshore to remove a contested segment of the pipeline crossing a state park. The order came from the California Natural Resources Agency, which said the pipeline segment crossing Gaviota State Park lacks the necessary state authorization. Sable Offshore is expected to challenge the state’s removal order.

Background

According to the Desert Sunthe Sable Offshore facility includes offshore platforms, subsea pipelines, and the Las Flores Canyon processing facility near the Santa Barbara coastline. The system has been largely dormant since the 2015 oil spill, during which a corroded onshore pipeline ruptured above Refugio State Beach, releasing about 100,000 gallons of oil, of which about 21,000 gallons flowed into the Pacific Ocean. The area was restored at a cost of about $100 million. Criminal charges were filed against the pipeline’s former owner, Plains All American Pipeline. The spill shut down the entire pipeline network serving the offshore platforms, and it has remained offline for more than a decade.

Sable bought the system from ExxonMobil in 2024 and has claimed it can increase production from about 30,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to more than 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day when the system restarts. The oil would be fed to refineries in Los Angeles, Bakersfield, and the Bay Area, replacing imported oil.

The Trump administration has wanted to restart the facility even before the current crisis because it would provide more domestic oil to California and to the military bases it hosts. Last month, however, a Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge ordered the pipeline to remain shut, ruling that the Trump administration’s earlier intervention was not enough to override an injunction requiring Sable to obtain state approvals before restarting.

March 3 legal opinion from the Justice Department, however, concluded that a federal order under the Defense Production Act of 1950 could preempt state law in the Sable case. It also said such an order could override a 2020 federal consent decree stemming from the 2015 Refugio spill that requires approval from the California State Fire Marshal before the pipeline can restart.

Analysis

California has stood in the way of energy production for far too long, and its people have suffered. As we’ve written previously regarding California’s anti-energy policies, “The consequence is not a California free of fossil fuels. It is a California that imports the fossil fuels it refuses to produce — from Iraq, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and now even the Bahamas.” The high prices resulting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz are just amplifying the issues that have long existed in California.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

President Trump Unveils First Major American Refinery To Be Built In Over Fifty Years

President Trump announced that America First Refining will build a 168,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Brownsville, Texas, a deep-water port with direct rail and sea access, supported by investment from India’s Reliance Industries. The facility — the first new major U.S. refinery project in roughly 50 years — will operate on light shale oil and help reduce the U.S. trade deficit with India by $300 billion. Many Gulf Coast refineries ‌are unable to process light, sweet oil from ⁠fracking shale fields because they were configured in the last 40 years to run on lower-cost heavy, sour oil, which has higher density and has been readily available from Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico. U.S. light oil resources were on the decline before hydraulic fracking and directional drilling brought an explosion in production. America First plans to break ground on the refinery in the second quarter of this year.

According to CNBC, the refinery will process 1.2 billion barrels of U.S. light shale oil and produce 50 billion gallons of refined products. According to Trey Griggs, president of America First Refining, “The United States has a surplus of light shale oil but a shortage of refining capacity designed to process it. By building this refinery at the Port of Brownsville, we’re unlocking a major expansion of American energy production while creating thousands of high-paying jobs and strengthening our domestic supply chain.” Unlike many existing U.S. refineries that rely on heavy oil from Venezuela, Canada, and Mexico, this facility does not require imported oil, thereby strengthening U.S. national and economic security.

Reliance owns the world’s largest oil refinery, a 1.4 million barrel-per-day refining complex, in Jamnagar, India, and has a market capitalization of $206 billion. The firm, which reported $125 billion in ‌revenue last year, also operates businesses in retail, new energy, ​digital services, media, and entertainment. Reliance has signed “a binding 20-year offtake term sheet” with America First, and will buy the products that the refinery produces. According to Reuters, the cost of constructing refineries or adding capacity in the past decade has averaged about $40,000 per barrel of capacity, or about $6.7 billion for 168,000 barrels.

The last major refinery built in the U.S. was located in Garyville, Louisiana, in 1976. According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S. ​refining capacity is currently at 18 million barrels per day, and operational utilization is around 90%. While Texas is adding refining capacity, California is permanently shuttering its refining facilities with two recent departures.

Forty years ago, California had 42 refineries. After the closure of the Valero refinery in Northern California, it will have eleven. The exodus of refineries is forcing California to turn to imports. It is even importing gasoline from the U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, sending ships to the Bahamas first to avoid the higher costs of the Jones Act.

The reason for the exodus of refineries from California is its policies and regulations that drive fuel prices above the national average. California’s combined taxes add about $1.00 per gallon, with $0.18 from a federal gasoline tax, $0.709 from a state gasoline tax, $0.10 from a sales tax, and $0.02 from a storage tank fee. California also imposes several “hidden taxes” that directly affect the price of gas. These hidden taxes take the form of environmental compliance costs, which add an estimated $0.54 per gallon from California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the state’s Cap-and-Invest Program, formerly called Cap-and-Trade.

The conflict with Iran has increased oil prices, which in turn has increased the national average and California’s gasoline prices. According to AAA, as of April 7, the national average gasoline price is $4.14 per gallon, and California’s average price is $5.93.

Analysis

Since a new domestic refinery was built in 1976, the U.S. has become a net exporter of energy products and the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. As we’ve explained previously, “The lack of refining capacity for our domestic production stems from U.S. policy that has blocked the development of new refineries for decades through adverse environmental standards and regulatory uncertainty.” The Brownsville refinery will redirect up to 60 million barrels of American oil annually back into American refining, creating thousands of both construction and permanent refining jobs, and producing gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel from an entirely domestic supply chain.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

American Energy Alliance Joins Coalition Demanding Swift Passage of ESA Amendments Act

On Friday, April 3rd, a coalition of twenty organizations dedicated to promoting property rights, free markets, and responsible environmental stewardship, including the Pacific Legal Foundation and the American Energy Alliance, sent a letter to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The coalition urged them to pass H.R. 1897, the ESA Amendments Act of 2025. After more than 50 years of failure, it is time to modernize the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to prioritize actual results over bureaucratic red tape. The full letter and list of signatories is available here.


The Honorable Mike Johnson
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Steve Scalise
Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Scalise,

We, the undersigned organizations, write to urge prompt consideration and passage of H.R. 1897, the ESA Amendments Act of 2025. As organizations committed to property rights, free markets, and responsible environmental stewardship, we believe this legislation would strengthen the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) so that it more effectively ensures species conservation while protecting the rights of landowners.

When Congress enacted the ESA in 1973, the law was intended to identify endangered and threatened species and implement measures to recover them. However, in the more than 50 years since its enactment, the ESA has often failed to achieve its intended purpose. Approximately 1,700 species have been listed under the law, yet the successful recovery rate remains just three percent.

To address shortcomings in the current framework, Chairman Bruce Westerman introduced the ESA Amendments Act of 2025, which contains numerous reforms designed to improve the effectiveness of the law and promote responsible conservation while supporting species recovery. On December 17, the legislation was reported out of the House Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan basis.

The bill includes several important reforms. First, it provides clear guardrails around the definition of “best scientific and commercial data available” to ensure that data used in ESA decision-making is impartial and applied objectively—without reliance on precautionary assumptions that can skew scientific analysis. Second, the legislation requires agencies to consider both conservation outcomes and economic impacts when issuing regulations governing the take of threatened species, codifying the recent federal district court decision in Kansas Natural Resources Coalition v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Third, the bill places reasonable limits on attorney’s fees associated with ESA litigation. For too long, certain advocacy organizations have funneled millions of taxpayer dollars into their operations through fee recoveries. The ESA Amendments Act would establish common-sense caps on the amount of attorney’s fees generated from a single lawsuit and limit the total fees that a single organization may receive each year.

Taken together, these and other reforms in the legislation would strengthen the ESA, promote species recovery, and better protect the rights of landowners.

As Congress continues to consider comprehensive permitting reform, modernizing the Endangered Species Act will be an important step toward a more effective and predictable regulatory framework. We therefore urge the House to act quickly to consider and pass this long-overdue legislation.

Sincerely,

The American Energy Alliance & Coalition Partners

The Unregulated Podcast #268: God Squad 

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle, Mike McKenna, and producer Alex Stevens discuss the updates from the Iran conflict, the upcoming midterms, Democrats’ affordability problem, and more.

Links:

EPA Final Rule Does the Improbable: Makes the Renewable Fuel Standard Even Worse

WASHINGTON DC (4/2/26) – Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) rule for 2026 and 2027 volume mandates. This rule sets the renewable fuel volume requirements at their highest level ever.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“The RFS was invented by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush to supposedly wean the country off foreign fuel sources. Today, the United States is the world’s largest oil producer and net exporter of refined products. The need for the RFS’s existence is effectively obsolete. So, what are we doing?

“Increasing compliance burdens, which will increase costs to consumers at the pump at a time when prices are already elevated, will only add to the pressure Americans are feeling. These changes by the Trump administration will inevitably invite legal challenges that will take years to play out, undermining investment certainty across the refining sector. Additionally, in delaying the proposed penalties on imported biofuels, this rule openly states that imports are necessary to keep compliance costs down. This stands in direct contrast to this administration’s domestic energy goals.

“The RFS has outlived its purpose and outstayed its welcome. It’s time for Washington to put it to rest once and for all.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:


For media inquiries, please contact:
[email protected]

Trump Administration Saves Rate Payers From Costly Offshore Wind Boondoggle

The Trump administration reached a deal with French energy producer TotalEnergies in which it would return almost $1 billion to end its offshore wind farm projects in the United States. The $928 million reimbursement, which was what TotalEnergies paid for project leases, would instead be invested in U.S. oil and gas projects. According to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, “The era of taxpayers subsidizing unreliable, unaffordable and unsecure energy is officially over, and the era of affordable, reliable and secure energy is here to stay.”

TotalEnergies will forfeit its leases in federal waters for two wind farms, purchased during the Biden administration, which would have been built off the coasts of New York and North Carolina. The larger of the two wind farms planned by TotalEnergies, known as Attentive Energy, would have been built 54 miles south of Jones Beach, N.Y., providing over 1,300 megawatts of wind capacity to N.Y. and New Jersey. The smaller wind project, Carolina Long Bay, would have been located 22 miles south of Bald Head Island, North Carolina.

Instead, the company would invest the money in oil and gas projects in the United States, including the development of four trains at the Rio Grande liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Texas, upstream oil and gas production, and new power plantsAccording to Patrick Pouyanné, chairman of the Board of Directors and CEO of TotalEnergies, “These investments will contribute to supplying Europe with much-needed LNG from the U.S. and provide gas for U.S. data center development. We believe this is a more efficient use of capital in the United States.”

Northeast Governors are Turning to Natural Gas

As the Trump administration has hindered offshore wind projects, Democratic governors in the Northeast are increasingly supporting natural gas projects to address rising energy costs, a shift from a previous focus solely on renewable energy, as seen from Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont. These northeast states are forced to seek other energy sources.

According to E&E News, Governor Hochul has pivoted to an “all of the above” energy strategy due to President Trump’s opposition to offshore wind. Delays to the development of offshore wind off New York’s coast could force the state to repower natural gas plants to serve the New York City region. Recently, Hochul has voiced concern that state climate goals were “unrealistic,” and has floated plans to soften state emissions targets.

According to The New Republic, at a press conference held by Governor Healey to address concerns around spiking utility bills, she indicated that the state needed to import more fracked gas from out of state. She referenced a $300 million project to increase natural gas infrastructure in the state via Enbridge’s Algonquin Gas Transmission Pipeline. For years, Massachusetts has blocked gas pipelines that could have alleviated spiraling energy prices long ago. Healey has bragged about stopping two gas pipelines from entering the state while she was attorney general.

In Connecticut, which was also looking into offshore wind, spiking electric prices have also changed the rhetoric. “Connecticut is committed to ensuring that our electric grid is reliable, resilient and that our energy costs become more affordable,” Rob Blanchard, director of communications for Governor Lamont, wrote in a statement. “Offshore wind and other renewables are central to that effort, but it must be complemented by a diverse mix of resources, including nuclear power, natural gas, hydropower, and other technologies.… We will continue to engage with the federal government on shared energy priorities.”

The deal with TotalEnergies also leaves New Jersey without any feasible offshore wind projects, as Democratic Governor Mikie Sherrill is looking for more “clean energy.” Sherrill’s predecessor, Phil Murphy, had approved a series of offshore wind projects that ran into financial and/or permitting challenges. The state approved Attentive Energy’s project in early 2024 as part of an attempt to reset the industry, which was already in trouble due to escalating costs and legal challenges.

Analysis

According to TotalEnergies, it made the deal because offshore wind was “not the most affordable way to produce electricity” and would require federal subsidies that the Trump administration is phasing out. The deal saves taxpayers years of subsidy payments that would have been due if the projects had been completed in accordance with federal tax rules.

Offshore wind energy is one of the most expensive technologies currently being built to generate electricity. According to the Energy Information Administration, offshore wind is almost three times as expensive as onshore wind and solar PV. Clearly, it is not a good value for consumers.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

President Trump Ends Stop-Start Nightmare

President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that it would end the “off-cycle” credit that manufacturers receive for installing engines that automatically turn off when vehicles come to a complete stop and restart when drivers take their feet off the brake pedal or accelerate. The purpose of the stop-start feature is to improve fuel efficiency and reduce carbon emissions in internal combustion engines. In 2012, the Obama EPA instituted a credit for manufacturers to install the feature in vehicles, which led to an increase in the number of vehicles with stop-start. The feature, however, was not liked by vehicle owners. In 2022, more than 1% of all automobile defect complaints collected in a Transportation Department database were related to this feature.

According to the 2024 EPA Automotive Trends Report, in 2012, less than 1% of vehicles had the start-stop feature. In 2016, about 9% of passenger cars included the feature. Now, about two-thirds of cars are manufactured with the start-stop feature. According to Consumer Reports, most cars allow drivers to temporarily turn off the start-stop feature, but they must do so each time they drive. The start-stop systems can cause a slight pause as they restart the engine, so drivers may want to turn the feature off when quick acceleration is needed to enter traffic.

One analysis found that fuel economy improvements varied significantly across drive cycles depending on the amount and percentage of idle time during the test. The largest fuel economy improvements were 7.27% and 26.4% across two of three drive cycle tests performed, using four different vehicles. Note that the savings occur under city driving conditions, not highway driving, and the highest were under New York City conditions. The greatest benefits are for city-style cycles, where vehicles sit at lights or in congestion for long stretches. According to an AAA test that used a mix of highway and city testing to get a broader average, the fuel economy savings ranged from 5% to 7%.

The Trump administration, however, has linked such features to higher automobile prices and has used the rescission of the Obama-era endangerment finding to eliminate the credit. According to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the regulatory overhaul will help save consumers an average of $2,400 when they purchase a new car. He also noted that not only do many people find the start-stop feature annoying, but it kills the vehicle’s battery without any significant benefit to the environment. Additionally, the feature allowed automakers to claim greenhouse gas credits without delivering real-world emission reductions or benefits to human health.

Engine Starters Have a Limited Life Span 

An engine starter only has so many starts in it before it burns out. So, cars that use stop-start typically feature specialized starters designed for longevity. According to CarBuzz, the starters may use different carbon and copper compositions in order to sustain more frequent use, they may turn over more slowly than conventional starters in order to reduce wear and tear, or they may use a combination of advanced technology to keep the starter from wearing down as quickly as a conventional starter motor.

Despite technology’s ability to improve a starter’s longevity, a starter still needs replacement after turning over so many times, as its life depends on how frequently it is used, not on miles or years. For the Subaru Crosstrek or the WRX, for example, one of the top 10 most common repairs listed on RepairPal is for a no-start diagnosis, usually costing around $88 to $111. According to RepairPal, a new starter costs $125 to $158 for labor and $330 to $472 for parts, totaling $455 to $629.

Analysis

The Trump administration is stopping the “off-cycle” credit that manufacturers receive for the stop-start feature on autos, a feature that U.S. drivers strongly dislike. The feature’s future development in the United States will depend on whether automakers believe the engineering gains are worth the customer resistance, cost, and added system complexity, not on federal credits.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

European Energy Disarmament Laid Bare By Iranian Conflict Shortages

The conflict with Iran is hitting Europeans very hard because energy prices were already higher there than in other regions due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. tariffs, European tax and climate policies, and bans/moratoria on fracking. Europe’s industries have faced years of high energy costs, enabling Chinese competition and leading to plant closures. Fears of deindustrialization were already common before the impacts of the Strait of Hormuz closure began to affect the continent. Germany’s economy, Europe’s biggest, could face a $46 billion hit over two years if oil stays at $100 a barrel, according to the IW German Economic Institute.

According to Reuters, Germany has some of the highest wholesale power prices worldwide at $132 per megawatt hour, significantly above $48 per megawatt hour in the United States and higher than the EU average of $120 per megawatt hour, according to International Energy Agency data. Germany has phased out its nuclear fleet and turned to renewable energy, which accounted for 55.9% of its electricity generation in 2025, mostly from intermittent wind and solar power. Its Energiewende by 2030 requires 80% of the electricity supply to come from renewable energy sources, rising to 100% by 2035.

Source: Reuters

Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz after various strikes on both sides of the Iran conflict propelled Brent oil prices to almost $120 a barrel, double the price at the start of 2026, before dropping below $100 a barrel due to President Trump’s announcement of ongoing talks with Iran. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz resulted in the reduction of about a fifth of global oil consumption that flows through the strait, with most of it headed for Asia.

According to the Wall Street Journal, liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in Qatar, the second-biggest supplier of LNG globally after the United States, are expected to be offline for months. That means the world is losing nearly 12 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas supplies, or about one-fifth of global LNG supplies. Qatar will not be able to resume production at prewar levels due to extensive damage to Qatar’s Ras Laffan hub. QatarEnergy lost about 17% of its LNG export capacity when it was struck by Iran, and repairs are expected to take up to five years, with the damage affecting LNG supply to markets in Europe and Asia. QatarEnergy expects to lose about $20 billion in annual revenue. According to S&P Global Energy, other global LNG projects could theoretically add 2.3 to 2.8 million tons per month from April through June, which would not be enough to cover the roughly seven million tons Qatar produced per month before the Iran conflict began.

Besides the disruption to oil and gas markets, supplies of fertilizers, sulfur, helium, aluminum, and other critical raw materials have been affected by Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, as the region accounts for significant production of all of them. Shipping costs have also surged.

Some Asian suppliers, which rely on oil from the Middle East, had declared force majeure, pushing up the price of their products. As the Journal reports, the supply crunch due to the closure of the strait is expected to lead to shutdowns at refineries and petrochemical complexes in Asia, which in turn will affect the output of products such as plastics. For example, one French company has suppliers in Vietnam and Thailand who have experienced force majeure and cannot ship raw materials, from which the French company gets 40,000 to 50,000 metric tons of polymers a year, Reuters reports.

According to Reuters, the French trade association Polyvia, which represents plastics and composites companies, is raising concerns with the government, saying suppliers are using soaring gas costs to renegotiate contracts and push for higher prices. European governments have less fiscal room than in 2022 to shield industry with massive subsidies. Therefore, if oil heads towards $130 a barrel, there will be a significantly greater risk of default in sectors such as metals and chemicals.

The United States Is in a Different Position

Due to President Trump’s energy dominance program and the nation’s vast energy resources, the United States is in a different position than Europe. U.S. West Texas Intermediate oil prices are about 10% lower than Brent oil prices, and retail gasoline prices are less than $4 a gallon, on average, as of March 26. The United States is also the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas and a major oil and gas exporter, selling 8.9 trillion cubic feet of LNG in 2025.

Countries are looking for secure supplies and turning to the United States. Asian refiners are sending oil cargoes from the U.S. Gulf Coast to Asia through the Panama Canal due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. oil producers are increasing production wherever possible and where they are not constrained by infrastructure. In the Permian Basin, for example, oil production growth is limited by associated gas production because excess pipeline capacity does not exist to transport it. Oil companies are also wary about adding drilling rigs because it is unclear how long the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed. Its opening will lower oil prices as more supply will be available.

Analysis

U.S. energy abundance is protecting American consumers from the severe price shocks seen in Europe due to the conflict with Iran. European energy prices were high even before the conflict began, largely due to climate regulations and subsidies for renewable energy technologies that crowd out reliable sources. How long prices will remain elevated depends on how long the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed. Once opened, it will take some time for producers to gear up production.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The Unregulated Podcast #267: Not A Florida Man

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the failed state of New York and the latest Democrat delusions from around the country.

Links:

Senator Schumer’s Energy Speech Sidesteps Accountability; Blue State Policies Have Long Kept Electricity and Gas Prices Sky-High

In his March 16, 2026, floor speech, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused the Trump administration of fueling an “energy affordability crisis” through canceled clean energy projects and foreign entanglements, particularly the conflict in Iran, which has indeed driven up global oil and gas prices.

While the Iran situation has contributed to higher gasoline costs nationwide, Schumer’s narrative conveniently sidesteps the deeper, pre-existing drivers of energy unaffordability in many Democrat-led states. These states have long prioritized aggressive renewable mandates, fossil fuel restrictions, policies that raise gasoline prices, and the premature retirement of reliable baseload power over consumer affordability and grid reliability.

For instance, California and New York’s residential electricity rates are almost double the national average. Democrats from these states have no interest in securing affordable energy for their constituents. Instead, they push mandates for 100% carbon-free or renewable power by mid-century, the premature retirement of reliable power plants, restrictions on natural gas infrastructure, and cost-shifting policies such as net metering for solar– all measures that burden everyday citizens and ratepayers. In fact, last year, 86% of states with above-average electricity prices were reliably blue, while 80% of the lowest-priced states were red. High costs aren’t an accident; they’re the predictable outcome of choosing climate symbolism and anti-fossil fuel regulations over consumer wallets. This pattern holds in the most recent data, with blue states consistently paying 30-40% more on average for electricity than red states. High costs in states like California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts aren’t anomalies; they’re policy outcomes.

New York

New York’s fracking ban provides a prime example of how the very policies championed by Democrat leaders like Chuck Schumer contribute to the energy affordability problems he decries. This suppression of domestic natural gas production has prevented the creation of thousands of jobs in the state, and it contributes to New York’s persistently high energy costs. Even though New York has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, prices for residents run about 20% higher than the national benchmark.

Democrat-led state governments in New York have historically blocked or delayed several major natural gas pipeline projects. Key examples include the Constitution Pipeline, which was repeatedly rejected starting in 2016, and the Northeast Supply Enhancement project, which was denied multiple times between 2018 and 2020 for similar reasons. In 2016, Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject the permit for the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline project, arguing it would impose environmental and health risks on New Yorkers with little benefit. Senator Schumer has spoken out against other regional gas infrastructure, such as the North Brooklyn Pipeline, protesting it in 2021 alongside activists.

California

In California, Governor Newsom has been eager to blame higher gas prices on the Iran conflict and even Trump, but this rings hollow. California’s gasoline prices are a stark story of self-inflicted wounds. The state consistently pays far more at the pump, with prices at $1.50 to $1.80 per gallon above the national average in recent years. In 2025 alone, Californians shelled out an extra $20 billion for gasoline compared to the national average, based on consumption of over 13.4 billion gallons.

California has the highest combined taxes and fees on gasoline in the nation, with direct taxes and fees totaling approximately 90 cents per gallon. This breakdown includes the federal excise tax of about 18 cents per gallon, the state excise tax of 61 cents per gallon, an average state and local sales tax component of roughly 9 cents per gallon, and the underground storage tank maintenance fee of 2 cents per gallon. In addition to these explicit levies, California imposes significant environmental compliance costs that are passed on to consumers, further driving up pump prices. These primarily arise from the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which adds 14 cents per gallon, and the Cap-and-Invest Program, which adds 24 cents per gallon. Meanwhile, other blue states like Michigan and Washington recently raised their gas taxes by 5.2 and 6.2 cents per gallon, respectively. This isn’t primarily due to global events or Trump policies; it’s the direct result of decades of anti-production regulations under governors like Gavin Newsom and his predecessors.

California, once the third-largest oil-producing state, has seen production decline consistently since the 1980s. Domestic output didn’t dry up naturally; permitting and development were systematically restricted, leading to a collapse in production. California’s dependency on Middle Eastern oil stems from California’s own choices to suppress in-state and Alaskan production, which once fueled its refineries. Environmental groups and Democratic policies have pushed this outcome for years. Rather than owning it, Newsom deflects accountability while pursuing even more regulatory mandates that would further raise prices.

Political Games Aren’t a Substitute for Sound Policy

When the choice is between playing political games or pursuing sound policies, Democrats will choose the former every time. Schumer’s speech and the accompanying Democratic report are attempts to score points in the midterm messaging war, but they overlook how similar progressive energy policies have already made life more expensive for millions in Democrat-led states. True energy affordability comes from balanced, pro-production approaches, not from stonewalling market-driven projects, vilifying fossil fuels, or creating foreign dependencies that expose consumers to global volatility. Red states deliver reliable, affordable power by embracing oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear and avoiding aggressive phase-outs of these baseload sources–outcomes Democrats could replicate if they prioritized wallets over ideology.

Americans deserve an honest accounting of what actually drives costs, not partisan spin that ignores the mirror. If Democrats truly want lower energy bills, they might start by examining the high-price outcomes in their own backyards.