When the Center for Jobs and the Economy released its economic analysis of SB 982, I asked in a press release, “What are these legislators thinking?” Amid the worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation, Senator Scott Wiener wants to drive costs even higher. And why? It’s all a political stunt to win him a seat in Congress. And while he might be on his way out, the ramifications of SB 982, if it moves forward, will be left to the rest of us to deal with.
On its surface, SB 982 looks like just another cost driver in a state already struggling with affordability. Another bill layered onto an already complex regulatory structure. Another policy that will make energy—and everything tied to it—more expensive.
And while legislators smartly did not let SB 982 out of committee last week, Senator Wiener intends to bring it back this week because he still has a congressional race to run and needs talking points for his campaign.
As if the cost drivers aren’t enough, buried in the bill is something policymakers should know better than to touch: price controls. History has shown, time and again, that price caps don’t lower costs—they distort markets, reduce supply, and ultimately make shortages worse. Yet here we are again, watching Scott Wiener try to force California lawmakers into walking directly into the same mistake they made just two years ago.
In 2023, in yet another clear political stunt we’re all paying for today, the Legislature attempted to impose a refinery profit cap, arguing it would rein in gasoline prices. What has followed is not relief for consumers, but confusion, market instability, and a regulatory mess so complex that the California Energy Commission never fully implemented it and has even stopped publishing the data they were supposed to release. The policy was unworkable in practice because it ignored a basic reality: fuel markets are global, dynamic, and highly sensitive to regulatory risk.
The outcome was predictable. Investment slowed. Refining capacity tightened as refineries announced their closures. And California became even more dependent on imported fuel.
The irony is hard to ignore. In a move to redirect political pressure from the truth—that state policies are clearly the reason our gas prices are so high and that the state itself continues to collect more per gallon of gasoline than any oil company through taxes, fees, and regulatory costs—politicians tried to score the easy political win, regardless of the policy outcomes.
By last year, those same politicians quietly acknowledged the problem. The state has been forced into a slow-motion course correction, attempting to fix a system it broke in the first place. But the damage was already done.
California is on track to lose 23% of its refinery capacity between 2019 and 2026, leaving the state increasingly reliant on imports to meet demand. That dependency is not theoretical—it is now a defining feature of our fuel market.
And that brings us to SB 982.
___________________________________________________________
The earlier effort weakened just in-state production, but this bill goes a giant step further. It threatens not just the supply we produce here, but the imports we now depend on to keep the system running.
____________________________________________________________
Just the introduction of these amendments is a signal to global suppliers. California is already one of the most difficult places in the world to do energy business—highly regulated, legally complex, and politically unpredictable. Now add the prospect of price caps layered on top of that. Why would any supplier choose to sell into this market?
They wouldn’t.
Oil doesn’t have to come to California. It can go to Asia, to Europe, to any number of markets willing to pay market rates without imposing arbitrary limits after the fact. If California tells suppliers they can’t recover costs or earn a reasonable return, those suppliers will simply go elsewhere.
The result is not cheaper gasoline. The result is less gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and the many other crude oil byproducts that run our economy.
And less gasoline means higher prices, not lower ones. It means volatility. It means supply disruptions. It means long-term structural shortages in a state that depends on fuel to move goods, power its economy, and sustain daily life.
This is not abstract. Fuel is the backbone of California’s economy. It moves products through our ports, keeps farms running, delivers goods to stores, gets workers to their jobs, students to their schools, airline passengers to their destinations, and runs the backup generators for hospitals and other critical infrastructure. When fuel supply tightens, the impact ripples through every sector—raising costs for businesses and consumers alike.
Take away gasoline, and you don’t just have an energy problem. You have an economic collapse. And SB 982 doesn’t even need to pass to put us on that path. Its mere existence is enough to cause disruptions.
That’s the path SB 982 puts us on. All to win a seat in congress.
Price controls have failed everywhere they’ve been tried—from the gas lines of the 1970s to modern energy markets around the world. They do not create abundance. They create scarcity.
California is already walking a tightrope when it comes to fuel supply. We have fewer refineries, greater import dependence, and a regulatory environment that discourages investment. The last thing we should be doing is sending a message to the global market that California is closed for business.
Yet that is exactly what SB 982 does.
If the goal is to make energy more expensive, supply more fragile, and the economy less competitive, this bill will succeed. If the goal is to win a seat in congress, regardless of the consequences, then charge ahead, Senator Wiener. But if the goal is real affordability, stability, and growth, SB 982 takes California in exactly the wrong direction.
Source: ROB LAPSLEY, California Business Roundtable
APR 20, 2026
