Politics & Power Quote by Peter DeFazio

DeFazio’s line is a pressure-release valve aimed straight at a familiar political scapegoat: environmental regulation. By insisting that “not a single” refinery closure was driven by environmental objections, he’s trying to foreclose the standard narrative that activists and rules “killed” domestic capacity. The specificity (55 refineries, 10 years) isn’t just data; it’s a rhetorical shield, a way to sound like the grown-up in a room full of vibes and talking points.

The intent is also tactical. In debates over gas prices, supply-chain fragility, and energy “independence,” refinery closures become a convenient prop for deregulatory agendas. DeFazio redirects blame to the boardroom: consolidation, mergers, and the cold math of return on investment. That framing turns an industry complaint into an industry confession. If closures are “economic,” then they’re the outcome of corporate strategy, not civic virtue gone rogue.

Subtext: the U.S. isn’t suffering from a shortage of petroleum so much as a shortage of incentives to maintain and modernize refining in a market that rewards buyouts, rationalization, and shareholder payouts. It’s also a reminder that refinery siting and operation are politically radioactive; companies can cite regulation publicly, but mergers are the cleaner story internally.

Context matters. Over the past decade, refiners have faced volatile demand, costly upgrades, and tightening fuel standards, while mergers have concentrated capacity and bargaining power. DeFazio, a long-serving Democrat from an energy-and-environmentally contentious region, is staking out a populist critique: don’t blame the public; follow the money.