California Democrats Vote to Increase Gas Prices
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The California Senate on Wednesday rejected a measure that sought to stop gas prices rising by a projected 65 cents per gallon.
Senate Bill 2 had aimed to halt proposed changes to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that were approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in November.
Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a Republican who authored the bill, forced a floor vote on the measure on Wednesday. Lawmakers rejected it in a 10-23 vote, with Democrats unanimous in their opposition.
A Chevron sign at a gas station, showing California gas prices, in Walnut Creek, California, April 8, 2025.
A Chevron sign at a gas station, showing California gas prices, in Walnut Creek, California, April 8, 2025.
Getty Images
Why It Matters
A report by the University of Pennsylvania's Kleinman Center for Energy Policy predicted that the changes could increase the cost of gas by 65 cents a gallon in the near term and by 85 cents a gallon by 2030.
Supporters say the new rules are necessary to keep California on track for its climate goals. But critics have warned that the new standards could raise gas prices even higher in a state where drivers already pay some of the highest fuel costs in the nation.
What To Know
Senate Bill 2 aimed to "void specified amendments to the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard regulations adopted by the state board on November 8, 2024, or as subsequently adopted, as specified."
The proposed changes to the LCSF include updated targets to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California in order to reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Jones, a Republican, accused Democrats of choosing "higher gas prices over hardworking Californians," pointing to the estimates that the updates to the LCSF will raise gas prices by as much as 65 cents per gallon.
But David Clergen, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, has called the 65-cent figure "misinformation," saying that independent experts estimate gas prices may rise by just 5 to 8 cents per gallon. He also told the Sacramento Bee that the LCSF does not directly add to gas prices.
What People Are Saying
California Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones said in a statement on Wednesday: "I forced a Senate Floor vote to repeal Governor Newsom's 65-cent gas price hike. Senate Democrats unanimously opposed it. They had a chance to stand with California drivers, but instead, they chose to defend the highest gas prices in the nation."
CARB spokesperson David Clergen told the Sacramento Bee: "Independent experts have projected LCFS pass-through costs could range from as low as 5 cents per gallon to as high as 8 cents per gallon, much lower than widely reported projections that are as high as a dollar or more."
He added that any additional costs "would be from oil companies passing through the cost of complying with the regulation and they would decide how much, if any of that cost to pass through to consumers."
What's Next
The proposed updates to the LCFS were resubmitted to the Office of Administrative Law, which reviews the legality of state regulations, on May 16, after the agency rejected the proposed changes in February. The agency has until June 30 to make a final determination and if approved, the changes could go into effect on July 1.
That could come on the same day that an increase in California's state gas tax is set to take effect, rising from 59.6 to 61.2 cents per gallon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
29 minutes ago
Support for solar energy, offshore wind falls among Democrats and independents: poll
Americans' support for green energy tax credits and renewable energies like wind and solar power has decreased in recent years, according to a new poll, driven by a softening in support from Democrats and independents. The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that U.S. adults' support for tax credits for electric vehicles and solar panels has weakened, as well as their enthusiasm for offshore wind farm expansion. While Democrats remain the strongest supporters of these initiatives, the poll reveals signs of growing cynicism within their ranks. The poll results coincide with sweeping changes President Donald Trump's Republican administration is making to regulations related to energy and climate change, including slashing the federal workforce in these departments. And although Democrats and independents have weakened their support for some green energy initiatives, there has not been an increase in support for Trump's energy policies. The poll found only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults — including only 1 in 10 Democrats and about 2 in 10 independents, along with three-quarters of Republicans — approve of the way Trump is handling climate change, which largely tracks with his overall approval rating. About 6 in 10 Democrats, 58%, favor tax credits for purchasing an electric vehicle, down from about 7 in 10 in 2022. Among independents, support declined from 49% in 2022 to 28%. Only one-quarter of Republicans supported this policy in 2022, and that hasn't changed measurably. 'As far as the pollution goes ... the vehicles nowadays put out very little emissions to the air,' said JD Johnson, a 62-year-old Democrat from Meadowview, Virginia, who somewhat opposes tax credits to purchase an electric vehicle. That's partly because he sees the electric vehicle manufacturing process as energy intensive and believes gasoline-powered vehicles have made improvements with the pollutants they emit. The decline in favoring solar panel tax credits was across the board rather than being concentrated among Democrats. 'For solar panels, in all honesty, I don't think they're that efficient yet,' said Glenn Savage, 78, a left-leaning independent from Rock Hill, South Carolina. 'I'd rather see them pour money into research and try to get the solar panels more efficient before they start giving tax breaks to the public. I may be wrong on that, but that's just my thought.' Scientists say transitioning to renewable energies and ditching fossil fuels that release planet-warming emissions are essential to protect the planet. Billions of dollars in project grants for clean technologies awarded during President Joe Biden's Democratic administration have been canceled by the Trump administration, and the offshore wind sector has been stunted by Trump's executive order that paused approvals, permits and loans for wind energy projects. Fewer than half of U.S. adults, 44%, now say that offshore wind farms should be expanded in the U.S., down from 59% in 2022. About half favor expanding solar panel farms, while about two-thirds were in support in 2022. When people are concerned about the economy and their personal finances, environmental issues are sometimes prioritized less, said Talbot Andrews, an assistant professor in the department of government at Cornell University who was not involved in the poll. 'I think it makes people anxious to think about increased taxes or increased spending on environmental issues when the cost of eggs are going through the roof,' Andrews said. Trump has championed the expansion of offshore oil drilling, as well as domestic coal production. Despite a decline in support for expanded renewable energies, the new poll shows that only about one-third of U.S. adults think offshore drilling for oil and natural gas should be expanded in the U.S., and only about one-quarter say this about coal mining. In both cases, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to support expanding these energy sources. Trump has sought to open up national monuments for oil drilling, but more U.S. adults oppose than support auctioning off more public space for oil drilling. Only about one-quarter of U.S. adults favor this, while 4 in 10 are opposed. Republicans are much more likely than independents or Democrats to be in support. The Energy Star program that certifies appliances, such as dishwashers and refrigerators, as energy efficient recently appeared in headlines when the EPA made plans to scrap the program. The blue and white logo is well recognized, and experts say the program has long had bipartisan support until recently. The poll found three-quarters of Democrats support providing consumer rebates for efficient home appliances, compared with 6 in 10 Republicans. Patrick Buck, 54, from Chicago, describes himself as a liberal Republican and is a fan of the consumer rebates for energy-efficient appliances. 'It seems to work in terms of transforming what people have in their houses, because a lot of people have a lot of old appliances and just can't afford new ones,' he said. The poll found only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults are 'extremely' or 'very' confident in the federal government's ability to ensure the safety of their drinking water, the air they breathe and the meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables they buy in grocery stores. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults are 'somewhat' confident in the federal government's ability to ensure the safety of each of these, and about 4 in 10 are 'not very' or 'not at all' confident. The Trump administration has announced plans to roll back rules and policies related to limiting pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, such as rules that limit pollution from power plants and blocking California's efforts to phase out cars that run on gas. The federal government has also cut staff at the Food and Drug Administration, the federal agency tasked with protecting public health and ensuring food supply safety. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
29 minutes ago
What to know about debate over protesters and ICE agents wearing masks amid immigration crackdowns
CHICAGO -- President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly called for mask-wearing at protests to be banned and for protesters whose faces are covered to be arrested, with the most recent push following demonstrations in Los Angeles over immigration raids. Legal experts told The Associated Press there are a variety of reasons people may want to cover their faces while protesting, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas. With legislative action happening across the U.S., they say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. Protesters, meanwhile, have voiced anger over footage of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents covering their faces at immigration raids and masked officers at the Los Angeles protests, calling it a double standard. Here are some things to know about the debate over face masks: At least 18 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings in some way, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, according to the center. Many of these laws date back to the 1940s and '50s when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and the Republican president's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters, sometimes inconsistently. Trump's calls to arrest protesters for wearing masks came as federal agents were seen donning masks while conducting raids in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities. Democratic lawmakers in California have introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks amid concerns that ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct during high-profile immigration raids. The issue also came up at a congressional hearing on June 12, when Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Republican federal officials have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable." Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the right to free speech includes the right to speak out anonymously. But he said how it should apply to protesters wearing masks remains 'an unresolved First Amendment question.' For Stone, that raises a key question: Why should protesters and ICE agents be subject to different rules? 'The government doesn't want them to be targeted because they engaged in their responsibilities as ICE agents,' Stone said. 'But that's the same thing as the argument as to why you want demonstrators to wear masks. They want to wear masks so they can do their 'jobs' of engaging in free speech properly. The same rationale for the officers wearing masks should apply to the protesters.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP attempt to authorize states to conduct immigration enforcement
The Senate parliamentarian has rejected several more provisions in the Republican megabill to enact President Trump's agenda, including language authorizing states to conduct border security and immigration enforcement, which traditionally have been duties of the federal government. Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough also ruled against language in the bill that would increase the Federal Employees Retirement Systems (FERS) contribution rate for new civil servants if they do not agree to give up civil-service protections to become at-will employees. Additionally, the parliamentarian advised against a section of the bill that would allow the executive branch to reorganize federal government agencies — or eliminate whole agencies — without congressional oversight. The parliamentarian ruled these provisions violate the Byrd Rule and are not eligible to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote on the procedural fast track known as budget reconciliation. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, hailed the parliamentarian's rulings. 'There is no better way to define this Big Beautiful Betrayal of a bill than families lose, and billionaires win. Democrats are on the side of families and workers and are scrutinizing this bill piece by piece to ensure Republicans can't use the reconciliation process to force their anti-worker policies on the American people,' Merkley said in a statement. 'The Byrd Rule is enshrined in law for a reason, and Democrats are making sure it is enforced,' he said. The parliamentarian additionally rejected a provision granting authority to agencies to unilaterally rescind funds appropriated by Congress by establishing an incentive program for federal employees to identify 'unnecessary expenditures' and transfer savings back to the Treasury Department. And she ruled against language in the bill mandating the sale of all U.S. Postal Service electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.
