Aging oil refineries don’t need more public dollars. California should let them retire 60%

By Ranjit Deshmukh0%

7/24/2026, 12:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Indoctrination, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 17.6% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 935 faulty-reasoning hits from 613 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.7% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,924 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.20% of the article peer group.

The U.S.-Iran war has seen gasoline prices double at times and cost Californians an additional $3.6 billion at the pump. 
That’s not the only thing affecting California’s gasoline prices. 
Two refineries, Phillips 66 and Valero Benicia, recently shut down, leaving only six major refineries responsible for California’s petroleum fuels, reducing the state’s refining capacity by 17% . 
California is an island when it comes to gasoline. 
The state requires a special blend that results in lower air pollution and avoids the smog that used to blanket Los Angeles. 
While California’s refineries are tuned to make this special blend, imports to meet shortfalls come through marine ports. 
No pipelines bring out-of-state gasoline into California. 
The recent refinery retirements have left the rest with less competition and more opportunities to raise their profit margins when inventories are tight. 
The average gross margin of California’s refineries was about 50% higher in the two months following the start of the war compared to the average margin in the previous 12. 
Refinery companies in California are also making more money from retail business. 
This year branded gasoline, which is sold by gas stations with direct ties to refinery companies, is 30 cents per gallon more than unbranded gasoline in California. 
California’s refineries are asking for more financial support from the state (read taxpayers) and threatening to shut down, citing the state’s higher taxes, stricter environmental laws and the additional costs imposed by the  cap-and-invest” market on carbon polluters. 
But these taxes and regulations are necessary to ensure clean air and water for our communities. 
In May, the California Air Resources Board approved a provision of free allowances worth about $2 billion for refineries , to incentivize them to decarbonize and not retire. 
Yet there is no guarantee that the remaining refineries won’t retire in coming years. 
Most are more than 100 years old. 
Refineries are already facing declining demand for gasoline, which accounts for more than half their output. 
This decline is likely to accelerate as more Californians adopt electric vehicles. 
One in 4 vehicles sold now is electric . 
One option is to just let California’s refineries retire, based on their internal financial decisions, without any state interventions or relaxing any environmental laws. 
We’d have to make sure that the cost of gasoline for those who are still driving gas cars, especially low-income households, remains reasonable. 
For that, we must ensure an adequate supply of gasoline by facilitating more imports via marine shipments and developing more storage to avoid price spikes. 
California could also allow the development of a pipeline to import petroleum products. 
One is already proposed which would connect Texas to Arizona and then reverse the flow on an existing pipeline that currently exports fuels from California to Arizona. 
The increased competition would help keep refinery profit margins in check, buffer the state from additional refinery retirements and limit costs to California drivers. 
California should make sure that refinery workers who lose jobs and communities that lose taxes from refineries are well supported through this transition. 
The state also should ensure that refineries are transparent about  and pay for  the costs of cleaning up their sites after retirement to ensure host communities, already exposed to high levels of refinery pollution, are not left with a toxic site in their backyard. 
To be clear, we want to see California refineries provide the state’s demand for petroleum fuels. 
However, many retirements will be inevitable on the road to a clean energy transition. 
How we manage this transition is critical for ensuring affordable fuel, better health and economic wellbeing for all Californians. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.6%Ranjit Deshmukh: 3.4%CalMatters: 2.5%Confirmation Bias2.6%This article: 1.1%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.8%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias1.1%This article: 7.7%Ranjit Deshmukh: 4.1%CalMatters: 2.4%Availability Heuristic7.7%This article: 2.6%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.9%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.6%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 2.2%CalMatters: 5.7%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Ranjit Deshmukh: 2.5%CalMatters: 0.8%Loss Aversion3.8%This article: 7.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 2.3%CalMatters: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Ranjit Deshmukh: 3.9%CalMatters: 1.9%Optimism Bias5.9%This article: 2.3%Ranjit Deshmukh: 2.3%CalMatters: 2.0%Pessimism Bias2.3%This article: 12.7%Ranjit Deshmukh: 4.2%CalMatters: 8.0%Negativity Bias12.7%This article: 6.4%Ranjit Deshmukh: 2.1%CalMatters: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias6.4%This article: 3.8%Ranjit Deshmukh: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error3.8%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Ranjit Deshmukh: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.8%In-Group Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 2.1%CalMatters: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Ranjit Deshmukh: 3.8%CalMatters: 1.1%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 2.3%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.8%CalMatters: 0.2%Primacy Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 2.1%CalMatters: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.6%Ranjit Deshmukh: 1.5%CalMatters: 3.2%Appeal to Authority4.6%This article: 4.7%Ranjit Deshmukh: 1.6%CalMatters: 1.0%False Dilemma4.7%This article: 5.1%Ranjit Deshmukh: 1.7%CalMatters: 1.3%Slippery Slope5.1%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.4%Ranjit Deshmukh: 1.5%CalMatters: 3.7%Hasty Generalization4.4%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 5.5%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 6.7%Ranjit Deshmukh: 3.1%CalMatters: 0.8%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 17.6%Ranjit Deshmukh: 7.0%CalMatters: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.6%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 5.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.4%Ranjit Deshmukh: 2.1%CalMatters: 0.9%Unattributed Quote6.4%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.8%Ranjit Deshmukh: 13.1%CalMatters: 3.3%Biased Writer Voice0.8%This article: 10.1%Ranjit Deshmukh: 12.6%CalMatters: 1.0%Indoctrination10.1%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 3.6%CalMatters: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ranjit Deshmukh: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

613 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.6%attributed speech585writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCalifornia Air Resources Board • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words100% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Indoctrination-10.6 ptsWriter: 10.6%California Air Resources Board: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%California Air Resources Board: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-0.9 ptsWriter: 0.9%California Air Resources Board: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.