A governor can wave off criticism.
He can dismiss opponents.
He can blame corporations.
He can even call warnings “talking points.”

But what happens when two neighboring states — one led by a Democrat, the other by a Republican — warn you that your new law will trigger a fuel crisis… and then the crisis starts to unfold exactly the way they predicted?

That’s the question surrounding California Governor Gavin Newsom today — as Arizona and Nevada’s alarm bell, once mocked and ignored, is now boomeranging back with a vengeance.

Because this is no longer just a California story. It’s a Southwest story.
And the fallout is hitting drivers, families, and businesses across three states — with Arizona increasingly forcing California to respond to what many now call a refinery reckoning.

The Letter That Should Have Stopped Everything

On September 10, 2024, something almost unheard-of happened in American politics:
Two governors from opposite parties joined forces.

Arizona’s Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs and Nevada’s Republican Governor Joe Lombardo co-signed a joint letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom — sounding the alarm about refinery rules being pushed through Sacramento’s special session.

This wasn’t a partisan stunt.
It was a regional warning.

Arizona and Nevada depend heavily on California’s refining and pipeline network. When California’s system tightens or breaks, neighboring states don’t get a backup plan — they get a bill.

Their message was blunt: California’s proposed regulations could “artificially create shortages” and drive up fuel prices across state lines.

And here’s the part that made it even harder to dismiss:
They pointed to analysis from California’s own energy apparatus warning the policy could disrupt supply.

A Democratic governor warning a Democratic governor.
A Republican governor signing on.
A bipartisan plea that screamed: Please do not do this.

Newsom Didn’t Just Disagree — He Took It Personally

Newsom responded immediately — publicly and sharply — insisting refineries were the problem, not the state.

His framing was politically clean:
California was fighting “price spikes.”
California was standing up to “Big Oil.”
California was protecting consumers.

Six days later, on September 16, 2024, Newsom sent a formal response letter to Hobbs and Lombardo, arguing their concerns mirrored oil industry messaging — essentially dismissing the warning as corporate theater. (The letter has been widely referenced in coverage of the dispute.)

The dynamic was striking: a governor in Arizona said, “Our people will pay,” and California’s governor replied, “You’re being played.”

That’s how quickly this became more than a policy disagreement.

It became a pride fight.

October 14, 2024: The Law Becomes Real

Then came the moment that locked the whole region into the experiment.

On October 14, 2024, Newsom signed AB X2-1, legislation that expanded the powers of California’s petroleum oversight division and authorized the state to require refineries to maintain minimum fuel inventories — with the stated goal of reducing price volatility.

The governor’s office celebrated the signing as a consumer victory — a way to prevent the sudden shortages that can spike prices.

But critics — and neighboring governors — argued the opposite:

Minimum inventory mandates can force refineries to operate under conditions they may view as economically or logistically impossible, especially in a state already pushing aggressive long-term fossil fuel reductions.

And almost immediately, the political argument turned into a real-world market signal.

Domino #1 Falls: Phillips 66 Announces a Major Closure

Just two days later, on October 16, 2024, Phillips 66 announced plans to cease operations at its Los Angeles-area refinery in the fourth quarter of 2025.

That refinery is not a minor operation. It produces significant gasoline output for California’s isolated fuel market — which, as the U.S. Energy Information Administration has noted, is geographically constrained and often must rely on in-state refining or imports from overseas.

Phillips 66 cited market uncertainty and said it would work with the state to meet demand — but the message was loud:

A major operator was stepping back.

And that’s the kind of move that makes every other refiner start running the math.

Domino #2: Valero’s Benicia Refinery Heads Toward Shutdown

Then came the next blow.

Valero announced plans to close (or later “idle”) its 145,000-barrel-per-day Benicia refinery by April 2026, one of Northern California’s critical fuel producers.

Reuters reported that even as Valero prepares to shut the refinery down, it will continue importing gasoline into Northern California afterward — a sign of just how hard it has become to keep refining profitable under California’s regulatory landscape.

Governor Newsom’s office welcomed Valero’s updated plan to keep supplying fuel through imports, positioning it as responsible planning.

But for consumers, the key question is simpler:

If California loses refining capacity, where does the fuel come from — and at what cost?

Why Arizona Is Forcing California to Answer

Here’s the part Sacramento can’t dodge anymore:

Arizona and Nevada aren’t just watching this unfold like spectators.

They are tied to it.

When California’s refining market tightens, the squeeze travels east — through supply relationships, pipeline realities, and the simple fact that much of the Southwest has been structured around California’s fuel system for decades.

That’s why the September 2024 letter wasn’t just symbolic — it was operational.

And now, as supply uncertainty grows, Arizona is increasingly positioned to demand real accountability:

Will California’s regulations reduce price volatility, as promised?

Or will they shrink capacity and drive up prices across state lines?

And if refineries close, will California’s solution be… taxpayer subsidies and imports?

Those questions don’t stay inside California borders.

Not when Arizona drivers feel it at the pump.
Not when Nevada businesses feel it in transport costs.
Not when the entire region’s fuel price floor starts rising.

The Problem With California’s Fuel Dream: Reality Doesn’t Move as Fast as Politics

California has some of the most ambitious climate goals in America — including the push toward an eventual end to new gas-powered car sales.

But even supporters of climate transition acknowledge a hard truth:

Millions of people still drive gas cars. And they will for years.

The transition may be inevitable — but the infrastructure reality is immediate.

Refineries cannot be replaced overnight.
Pipelines cannot be rerouted on a governor’s timeline.
And imports create costs — and contradictions — especially in a state that argues it’s reducing emissions.

Even the U.S. Energy Information Administration has described how California’s fuel market isolation makes it uniquely vulnerable to disruptions and supply shifts.

That’s what makes the entire region nervous.

Because if policy moves faster than infrastructure can adapt, consumers don’t get ideology.

They get shortages.
They get price spikes.
They get “pay more and drive anyway.”

Newsom’s Political Risk: The Narrative Is Breaking

Newsom framed AB X2-1 as a crackdown on manipulation and price spikes.

But refinery closures — even planned ones — complicate that storyline.

Because once capacity begins to disappear, it becomes harder to sell the message that refineries are “the problem,” when the public sees a simpler pattern:

Rules tighten → investment slows → closures accelerate → supply tightens → prices rise.

Even if the state argues the law prevents price spikes, the closure headlines create a different emotional truth for voters:

“We were warned.”

And in politics, “we were warned” is lethal.

Because it suggests avoidable pain.

The Pressure Point: Arizona’s Bipartisan Letter Is Now a Receipt

That September 2024 letter has become more than correspondence.

It’s a timeline marker — a written record that two governors predicted exactly the kind of disruption now unfolding.

And because it was bipartisan, it carries extra force:

This wasn’t a red-state attack on blue-state policy.

It was a regional coalition saying: your internal law will hit our citizens.

As closures advance and supply concerns grow, Arizona leaders can point to that letter and ask:

Why didn’t you listen?

That’s how political pressure becomes unavoidable — not through social media outrage, but through documented warning.

What Happens Next: A Fight Over Who Pays

Now, the battle lines are clear.

California argues it must control inventory and prevent price volatility. 
Refiners argue the environment is too uncertain and too costly. 
Arizona and Nevada argue they’re being dragged into the fallout.

And consumers are left watching the same question play out again and again:

Who pays when policy collides with fuel reality?

Because at the end of the day, gas prices don’t care about political framing.

Gas prices respond to supply.

And the Southwest runs on California’s supply.

The Bottom Line

Governor Gavin Newsom is now under pressure not just from critics inside California — but from the region that depends on California’s refineries.

Arizona’s bipartisan warning was dismissed.

Then AB X2-1 became law. 
Then a major refinery closure plan was announced. 
Then Valero confirmed a path toward idling Benicia while importing fuel instead.

Now Arizona is positioned to force what Newsom has tried to avoid since day one:

A serious, regional reckoning over how California’s regulations affect everyone downstream.

Because when the pipelines only run one direction, and the supply web is built around one state…

California doesn’t get to pretend this is only a California decision.