Aug 15 (Reuters) - California Governor Gavin Newsom
proposed a plan on Thursday requiring oil refiners to maintain
minimum reserves of gasoline in an effort to prevent price
spikes.
The California Energy Commission said that on 63 days last
year California refiners maintained less than 15 days of supply
of gasoline, a situation that it said spiked prices and cost
drivers $650 million.
"Price spikes at the pump are profit spikes for Big Oil.
Refiners should be required to plan ahead and backfill supplies
to keep prices stable, instead of playing games to earn even
more profits," Newsom, a Democrat, said in a release.
It was unclear when the plan could take effect and Newsom's
office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Under the plan, which industry has criticized as attacking
producers, California's oil refiners would be required to
demonstrate resupply plans that are adequate to address losses
in production when their plants are undergoing maintenance work.
California found that in 2023 gasoline prices spiked largely
due to refineries going offline without adequately planning to
backfill supplies.
The plan comes three months after the U.S. Department of
Energy sold its 1 million barrel Northeast gasoline reserve,
which Washington created after 2014's Superstorm Sandy left
motorists scrambling for fuel supplies. The U.S. Congress
mandated the sale after the reserve was criticized as expensive
to maintain and for not increasing energy security.
California, the most populous U.S. state, is home to some of
the country's highest average gasoline prices and has had a
fraught relationship with oil companies. The state has ambitious
targets for electric car adoption and is the only one with a
waiver from the federal environmental regulator to set its own
vehicle emissions regulations.
This month, U.S. oil company Chevron ( CVX ) said it was
moving its headquarters to Houston from San Ramon, California.
Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president and CEO of the Western
States Petroleum Association said Newsom's plan was "nothing
more than a political attack on consumers and our industry."
"To impose new operational mandates on energy producers
based on such falsehoods is regulatory malpractice, and ignores
the logistical challenges and costs associated with such a
plan," she said.