My home state, California, was once an energy-dominant state. But its embrace of radical climate policies has invited dependence on dirtier foreign energy and created an affordability crisis for its residents.
The status quo isn’t working. To lower energy costs, California must adopt abundance policies that embrace—not discourage—domestic production, prosperity, and environmental stewardship.
If California wants to make life more affordable, Sacramento must take immediate action to repeal its counterproductive climate policies. The scheduled transition to 100% clean energy by 2045, an unachievable target, will cost between $17,398 and $20,182 per California household over the next 25 years. Electricity prices are already up 30% since 2018, while gasoline prices average over $5.65 per gallon. This is due to a combination of regulations and taxes that discourage oil and natural gas production in favor of intermittent, costly wind and solar energy.
California has the most expensive gas prices and second-highest electricity rates in the U.S., respectively. Blue states with climate policies boast higher energy rates compared with red states without them. Over the past decade, the Golden State passed bills to phase out oil and gas production, ban internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, and mandate that businesses comply with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting. Adding insult to injury, subsidizing rooftop solar raises electricity costs for Californians without it. To meet its power demands, California heavily relies on electricity imported from nearby states and even Mexico. This is unsustainable.
That’s why blue states around the U.S., including the six New England states, are walking back green energy mandates. Even the Golden State altered its cap-and-trade program to keep its two remaining oil and gas refineries alive as recently as May 2026.
Despite enacting policies to phase out conventional energy sources, California remains heavily dependent on oil and gas—especially foreign imports. Last year, the California Energy Commission revealed that the Golden State imports 61.1% of its crude oil supplies from foreign nations, namely Brazil, Iraq, and Guyana. More concerning, two refinery closures, should they proceed by 2027, could invite $8 per gallon gas—further exacerbating anxiety over already-high gas prices. Therefore, California must return to its oil and gas producing roots, not continue to suppress domestic production, to see economic relief and bolster energy security.
It’s no surprise that net-zero policies invite dependence on expensive, questionably sourced foreign oil and gas. Why is California sabotaging itself like this, when it’s sitting on innumerable proven reserves? That’s why the Trump administration has acted where Governor Gavin Newsom has demonstrably failed. In March, it appropriately invoked the Defense Production Act to restart the Sable Offshore Corp’s operations near Santa Barbara. The Department of Energy reports the Sable facility will produce 50,000 barrels of oil daily. This is a 15% increase in in-state oil production aimed at replacing 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude oil California uses monthly. There are also untapped reserves in Kern County, California—boasting 71% of the state’s active wells—that can help meet consumer demands and lower prices while protecting California’s natural beauty.
In addition to boosting its oil and gas production, California must unleash and encourage new nuclear energy projects to lower costs. It was a travesty to see San Onofre Nuclear Power Station, near my hometown, shutter its operations in 2013. Today, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is the sole operating nuclear power station in the Golden State, supplying 7% of the state’s net-electricity generation. California’s net-zero policies nearly killed Diablo Units 1 and 2, which began the decommissioning process in 2016 and were slated for retirement in 2024-2025. Since premature retirement of reliable power plants increases energy costs, Diablo was spared in a 2022 extension to keep Units 1 and 2 operating through 2030. Recently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved another extension to keep it operating through, at least, 2044 and 2045.
Tony Strickland: Legislative Democrats’ Bizarro World
Tens of thousands of dollars, one square foot: Fixing the ADU loophole
Los Angeles County must replace Men’s Central Jail, not just close it
William W. Bedsworth: Why the Trump DOJ can’t even indict a ham sandwich
As a community rises from the ashes, hate will not tear it apart
Unlike intermittent utility-scale solar and wind projects, nuclear power is reliable for nearly 100% of the year, produces zero emissions, and uses a fraction of the land required for sprawling wind and solar installations. With respect to costs and affordability, Lazard’s 2026 Levelized Cost of Energy+ report determined that existing nuclear power is cheaper as an electricity source compared to other clean energy sources. Instead of resisting this technology, California should be encouraging more advanced nuclear projects and repeal its 50-year state-wide moratorium.
Like other Americans, Californians are prioritizing affordability over climate policies. There’s decreasing support for 100% renewable energy mandates, gas-powered car phaseouts, and net-zero targets by arbitrary deadlines. If California were to reform its policies, residents would save an average of $517 annually.
California’s energy crisis is entirely self-inflicted and the result of bad policymaking. Therefore, Sacramento should ditch net-zero policies and embrace abundance.
Gabriella Hoffman is a native of Orange County, California, and the director of Independent Women’s Center for Energy and Conservation. Follow her on X at @Gabby_Hoffman.