The future of California's oil workers hangs in the balance as the state embarks on a bold energy transition, leaving thousands uncertain about their livelihoods. But here's where it gets controversial: while the shift towards cleaner energy is celebrated by environmentalists, it's sparking a heated debate about the human cost of this transformation.
Three decades ago, Willie Cruz, then a 31-year-old environmental department worker at a Southern California oil refinery, was blindsided by the sudden closure of the Powerine Oil Company plant in Santa Fe Springs. Now 61 and residing in Arizona, Cruz recalls the anxiety of potentially losing his job. He made a bold career shift into respiratory therapy, a field he found ironically fulfilling after years in an industry often criticized for pollution. “It felt like going from being part of the problem to becoming part of the solution,” Cruz reflected.
Today, history seems to be repeating itself as Cruz advises his 37-year-old son, Wilfredo, who faces the imminent closure of the Phillips 66 refinery in Los Angeles, where he’s worked for 12 years. This isn’t an isolated incident; thousands of workers across California are at risk of losing their jobs as the state accelerates its move away from fossil fuels. Earlier this year, Valero announced the closure of a Bay Area refinery, further exacerbating concerns.
And this is the part most people miss: California’s Democratic leaders are caught in a tug-of-war between addressing job losses and managing soaring gas prices, which the oil industry blames on the state’s climate policies. State regulators are now negotiating to keep the Valero plant operational and have backed away from penalizing oil companies for high profits. Meanwhile, Governor Gavin Newsom, who once vowed to “take on big oil,” recently signed legislation to expedite oil well permitting in the Central Valley. This mixed messaging has left workers like Wilfredo feeling uncertain and, at times, forgotten.
California’s crude oil production has significantly declined, dropping from the third-largest producer in 2014 to the eighth-largest in 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The closures of the Valero and Phillips 66 refineries, which together account for 18% of the state’s refining capacity, will further reduce California’s energy independence. Both facilities produce essential fuels, including jet fuel, gasoline, and diesel.
Phillips 66 attributes its decision to close the refinery to “market dynamics” and plans to phase out operations by the end of 2025. Interestingly, this announcement came shortly after Newsom signed a law aimed at preventing gas price spikes by requiring refineries to maintain fuel reserves during maintenance. However, the company insists the closure is unrelated.
Here’s where it gets even more contentious: while Phillips 66 pledges fair treatment for its workers, the broader industry faces criticism for not doing enough to support displaced employees. Valero’s planned closure in Benicia, for instance, will deal a significant financial blow to the city, which relies on the refinery for 13% of its revenue. “This closure will have a seismic impact on our community,” said Benicia City Manager Mario Giuliani.
Between 2018 and 2024, 46 oil refineries in California shut down, and the fossil fuel industry currently employs around 94,000 people statewide. A 2021 study by the Political Economy Research Institute estimates that nearly 58,000 oil and gas workers could lose their jobs by 2030, with 56% needing to find new careers. To address this, lawmakers established the Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Fund in 2022, allocating nearly $30 million for job training and placement. However, this funding is set to expire in 2027, and no decision has been made to extend it.
Governor Newsom has taken steps to support displaced workers, including a $20 million pilot program to train them to plug abandoned oil wells in Kern and Los Angeles counties. Yet, advocates like Faraz Rizvi of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network argue that California needs a clearer, more comprehensive plan. “We stand in solidarity with these workers and want to ensure they find meaningful employment that benefits their communities,” Rizvi said.
But here’s the counterpoint that sparks debate: Jodie Muller, CEO of the Western States Petroleum Association, argues that the state could protect jobs by reevaluating its climate policies. “Those pushing to close refineries should explain why they’re willing to sacrifice some of the best blue-collar jobs available,” she stated. For many workers, the oil industry offers a stable, well-paying career without requiring a college degree. Wilfredo Cruz, for example, earns a base salary of $118,000 annually as a pipe fitter, a wage that’s hard to match in other industries.
However, the job comes with risks. Cruz takes precautions to protect his family from potential chemical exposure, showering immediately after work and never letting his 2-year-old son ride in his work car. Now, he’s enrolled in a state-funded cybersecurity training program, but he shares the frustration of many workers: “There’s no clear pathway to transition from the oil industry to these new fields. It feels like we’ve been left behind.”
As California navigates this energy transition, the question remains: Can the state balance its environmental goals with the economic well-being of its workers? What do you think? Is California doing enough to support displaced oil workers, or should it reconsider its approach to climate policy? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
