California’s energy transition is failing the middle class — and we need to admit it

California has led the nation on clean air and environmental standards, and that leadership has delivered real results. There was a time when smog routinely blanketed the San Fernando Valley; today, on a sunny day, the air is clear. That progress matters, and it should not be taken for granted.

But leadership also requires honesty. And right now, California’s energy transition is failing the very people it’s supposed to help — working- and middle-class families — because it is being driven more by mandates and hope than by realism, reliability, and affordability.

Energy demand in California is growing, not shrinking. Electrification mandates, population growth, and the rapid expansion of AI-driven data centers are driving electricity use higher every year. Yet at the same time, the state has allowed its in-state energy infrastructure to erode without a credible plan to bridge the gap.

Hope is not a strategy. Former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz has warned that planning around technology that doesn’t yet exist, or hasn’t been deployed at scale, is wishful thinking. Too much of California’s policy assumes technological breakthroughs will simply appear on schedule, at an affordable cost, to meet the looming lofty goals. That’s not how energy systems work, and it’s not how families budget.

This disconnect shows up clearly in our fuel policy. California policies have led to sharply reduced in-state oil and gas production and refining capacity, resulting in our increased reliance on imported fuels. That doesn’t reduce demand. It shifts fuel production elsewhere, often to countries with weaker environmental standards and fewer labor protections. Shipping fuels across oceans doesn’t lower emissions; it exports them, unmeasured and unaccounted for.

At the same time, refinery capacity continues to shrink, and investors are unwilling to commit capital to a system policymakers have openly said they want to dismantle. No one rebuilds an engine in a car they plan to scrap. The result is predictable: tighter supply, greater volatility, and higher prices.

California has taken some steps in the right direction, including efforts to responsibly unlock in-state oil production in Kern County. But permitting moves too slowly, regulatory timelines stretch indefinitely, and long-term certainty remains absent. Cleaner in-state production paired with modernized refining could reduce global emissions and stabilize supply, but policy barriers continue to stand in the way.

We’ve made similar mistakes elsewhere. Shutting down reliable sources of zero-emission energy, including nuclear power, while demand is rising has weakened grid stability and driven costs higher. A resilient energy system requires all available tools including renewables, natural gas, nuclear, storage, and emerging technologies working together. Ideology cannot replace physics.

The consequences are already hitting families. Gasoline isn’t a luxury in California. It’s how parents get to work, how small businesses operate, how food reaches grocery shelves, and how emergency services function. When supply tightens and prices spike, the burden doesn’t land on theories, it lands on Californians’ household budgets and business ledgers.

Electricity tells the same story. Prices are moving in one direction, and it’s not down. Yet mandates continue to race ahead of grid readiness. Policies like electric heavy-duty truck requirements at ports have stranded real investments made by working-class owner-operators who followed the rules, only to see them change midstream.

Resilience also means asking practical questions. When public safety power shutoffs last days, how do families, small businesses, hospitals, and first responders operate? Would anyone feel comfortable relying solely on electric ambulances during a prolonged outage?

This is the first in a three-part series examining California’s looming energy crisis, how we got here, why the warning signs are already flashing, and what happens if we don’t change course. The goal isn’t to debate whether Californians care about clean air. We do. The question is whether we are willing to confront the hard truths required to keep energy reliable and affordable.

This isn’t a distant hypothetical. Seasonal fuel blend changes, refinery outages, rising summer demand, and grid strain are converging on a system with no margin left. When that happens, prices won’t just rise, they will surge. And when energy costs more, everything costs more.

Californians need structural stability, not short-term luck or talking points. A serious energy transition must protect clean air and affordability, not sacrifice one for the illusion of the other.

If we keep pretending this system is sustainable, $8 gas won’t be a headline.

It will be the floor.

Suzette Martinez Valladares represents California’s 23rd state Senate District.