In a striking break from the green orthodoxy that has dominated California politics for years, former Attorney General Xavier Becerra openly declared in May that the state still needs Chevron and the reliable energy it produces. “They’re not the bad guy,” Becerra said. “You need Chevron. I need Chevron. My people of the state of California need Chevron.” That pragmatic nod to energy reality helped propel Becerra to victory in the state’s jungle gubernatorial primary, while billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer finished a distant third behind Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton. Steyer’s also-ran finish came despite having poured more than $215 million of his own money into the race while pushing the Rockefeller-backed “Make Polluters Pay” and “Keep It in the Ground” agenda.
This outcome should send a clear message to the entire climate-lawfare litigation complex: Even in deep-blue California, voters appear to be growing weary of policies that prioritize virtue-signaling over keeping the lights on and cars affordably fueled.
Steyer campaigned aggressively against “Big Oil,” utilities, and anyone associated with conventional energy production. But Californians, saddled with the nation’s highest gasoline prices, electricity rates, and insurance premiums thanks in large part to Sacramento’s green agenda, rejected the pitch. It’s an indicator of a rising public realization that demonizing the companies that refine their fuel and supply their energy isn’t a path to prosperity, but a shortcut to economic pain.
Energy Reality Prevails Over Comparative Extremism
Becerra’s positioning as a comparative moderate on energy issues initially attracted skepticism among political pundits but may well have proved decisive. While he supports aggressive climate goals, his willingness to recognize Chevron’s vital role in the state’s economy and daily life set him apart from Steyer’s rigid extremism.
That stance didn’t go unnoticed in the corporate world. In June, Chevron made headlines by donating $500,000 to a Super PAC supporting Becerra. That move triggered howls of outrage from Steyer and his allies, complete with billboards and attack ads accusing the former state attorney general of being “captured” by industry. Yet voters weren’t swayed by Steyer’s money, seeing the donation as a rational response by a company deeply invested in California to a candidate who at least acknowledges basic energy reality.
The contrast between the two leading Democrats was stark. Steyer ran as the ultimate embodiment of the long-running strategy promoted by the Rockefeller family and fellow billionaire interests to weaponize courts, legislatures, and public opinion against American oil and gas producers. The goal has long been clear: Impose massive retroactive liabilities through climate superfund schemes, tie producers up in endless litigation, and force an accelerated shutdown of reliable hydrocarbon production.
A Shift In California’s Energy Playing Field
California has served as a friendly playing field for this more extreme agenda, with its legislature willing – “eager” may be an even more accurate word – to impose aggressive renewable mandates, cap-and-trade programs, electric vehicle mandates and subsidies, and refinery constraints. The results speak for themselves: A permanent affordability crisis in a state with the highest gasoline prices in the nation, chronic grid reliability concerns, resulting in businesses and residents fleeing the state in droves.
Now, many of the state’s voters appear to have finally connected the dots between their longtime voting habits and their struggles to pay the bills. “Make Polluters Pay” always meant “Make Consumers Pay,” and Californians have had enough.
This primary result carries profound implications far beyond the Golden State. If the full-throated “Keep It in the Ground” message, backed by unlimited money from a committed billionaire and amplified by a sympathetic media, can’t prevail in California, it faces an even steeper uphill battle in more energy-realist regions like Pennsylvania, Texas, or the Midwest. It also casts serious doubt on the political viability of California’s high-profile climate lawsuit against oil and gas companies. Becerra, who declined to pursue such litigation during his time as AG, now sits in the driver’s seat, while even current AG Rob Bonta remained neutral in the race – a telling retreat from earlier aggressive posturing.
No one should think that Becerra’s win was about denying legitimate climate concerns or a rejection of reasonable government attempts to address them. Rather, it was about Becerra’s rejection of Gavin Newsom’s overt efforts to destroy the state’s once-powerful industry. Newsom’s agenda has decimated California’s refining sector and convinced Chevron to move its company headquarters to Houston in 2024 after more than a century in the San Francisco Bay area.
Energy Reality Can’t Be Litigated Out Of Existence
America’s oil and gas industry delivers the cleanest, most responsibly produced hydrocarbons on the planet. Attempting to litigate and regulate it out of existence won’t save the climate. Instead, it simply exports jobs, emissions, and energy security to adversaries like China and Russia.
Becerra’s bet on energy moderation and the proposition that his state needs Chevron to remain a big player into the future turned out to be a winning one, an outcome no one would have seen coming a year ago. But the political ground around energy has evolved dramatically across the intervening months and energy reality is emerging as the clear winner, even, as it turns out, in California.