California also needs a special blend that is only required in California (CARBOB). A lot of that is refined outside of the US, because there is not the capacity domestically. Cali could immediately have more fuel and cheaper prices by dropping their special requirements.

▲

0cf8612b2e1e 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Presumably that might get an emergency resolution in the coming weeks.

▲

throw03172019 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is this an emissions reducing based blend?

▲

shadow28 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yep, it's a low sulfur, lower volatility gasoline blend (https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/how-california-reg...) which apparently cuts harmful exhaust emissions like carbon monoxide and NOx.

▲

jsbisviewtiful 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Sounds great for people and the environment. Too bad its production is now in danger thanks to horrible, ignorant decisions by this administration.

▲

gjsman-1000 4 hours ago | parent [-]

… except that it’s wildly expensive per gallon compared to the rest of the US.

If you’re making six figures on two incomes, it’s plenty tolerable.

If you’re single and working as a street sweeper or make $60K a year outside the cities, it makes you want to burn the system down.

For anyone who isn’t rolling in cash, it’s economically oppressive. I’m not surprised that breeds resentment. I consider this the biggest blind spot of green movements: “It’s not that much more expensive to be green” said by someone who can afford it to people who can’t. A modern “let them eat cake.”

▲

jsbisviewtiful 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure but do you recall what LA looked like in the 80's? The gas is more expensive but the unseen cost of that level of pollution is very high. The gov can solve all future gas problems with EV subsidies and manufacturers can help solve this problem by making affordable EVs, but getting the current admin or manufacturers to do either seems like a cruel joke at this point. The fed is going as far as to deny Chinese car imports because the EVs are so cheap it would crash the US car industry.

▲

gjsman-1000 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Not everyone in California lives in LA or has LA’s problems.

	▲	jjav an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Not everyone in California lives in LA or has LA’s problems. That's why smog rules vary per county.
	▲	jsbisviewtiful 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I won't engage any further with a strawman argument made in bad faith.

▲

JKCalhoun an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And economically regressive.

I'm not sure I would point the finger at "green movements" though.

▲

jst1fthsdys 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Prices just shot up over a dollar nationally and no one is burning anything down.

The real "let them eat cake" is the biggest polluters externalizing the costs of that pollution down to the people, all while the state is dismantling the EPA and clean energy.

Imagine if we had real public transportation across the nation. Less pollution AND cheaper for the average person. Wonder why that isn't happening.

▲

gjsman-1000 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Wonder why that isn't happening

Because the US is overwhelmingly urban sprawl and is not Europe. The only way to fix this is to tear down and rebuild (which we cannot afford), or accept that public transit wait times are terribly slow due to the distance between stops.

Combine that with a lack of nerve to aggressively combat crime or antisocial behavior on transit, maybe a fear of perpetuating inequality or something, and anyone who isn’t a man doesn’t feel safe trying it.

	▲	digitalPhonix 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Because the US is overwhelmingly urban sprawl and is not Europe That's a bad excuse a) because Europe isn't one single demographic but still public transport is useful, reliable and safe everywhere (from Dublin/Zurich on the low side of the population density scale to London/Paris/Madrid on the high side and Amsterdam/Hamburg/Prague in the middle). and b) there are plenty of examples outside of Europe. Melbourne is urban sprawl. The metro area is 50 miles east to west, 30 miles north to south (more, but there's also a big bay) and a population of only 5 million. A lower population density than the Denver MSA but manages to run a train/bus/tram system that's useful, reliable and safe.

▲

flumpmaster 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes.

▲

at-fates-hands 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Last year there was some rumbling that Newsom would start to increase production because two refineries were closing sooner than later with the prospect of much higher gas prices. Since CA is really pushing renewables hard and transitioning off of fossil fuels, all the front runners for CA governor have indicated they are steadfastly against increasing production.

Gavin Newsom warms to Big Oil in climate reversal: https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/08/oil-compromise-calif...

I think your idea is a great solution to the problem and would give politicians cover with their environmental base and a win for their constituents.

▲

dmitrygr 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Newsom would start to increase production

Newsom is not a refinery nor does he own any refineries. He cannot increase any production by definition.

	▲	AnimalMuppet 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		He can allow non-California-special-blend gasoline to be sold in California, as a temporary emergency measure. This does not increase any production, but it massively increases the production of gasoline that can legally be sold in California. (As a side benefit, he can also blame the need on Trump, if the environmentalists get on his case...)

▲

colechristensen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does this have anything to do with the extensive and happening now or very recent shutdowns of several california refineries?

	▲	flumpmaster 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. Between 2020 and present The refining capacity in California declined by 35% from 1.9 MM BPD to 1.2 MM BPD with the closure of 4 refineries: Marathon Martinez (2020) converted to renewables. Crude capacity 157 MBD, Renewables capacity 48 MBD P66 Rodeo (2022) converted to renewables. Crude capacity 120 MBD, Renewables capacity 50 MBD P66 LA (2025) shutdown. Crude capacity 139 MBD Valero Bencia (2026) shutdown. Crude capacity 145 MBD The California Air Resource Board (CARB) has promulgated a revised Cap and Invest rule that threatens the viability of the remaining refineries. All the remaining California refineries have sent CARB, the Governor and the CA legislature letters pointing this out. California is now a net importer of gasoline following these refinery closures.

▲

wilg 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nice of Donald Trump to force us into a choice between poisoning the air and financial hardship! But at least it was for a good reason: ???

	▲	CamperBob2 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Dogs and cats were being eaten, you see. And did you hear her laugh?
	▲	tharmas 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		He's trying to control the oil that goes to China. First, take Maduro then close the Straight of Hormuz (to prevent oil going to China). The rest is just collateral damage as far as he's concerned. This is all about keeping China down, and preserving American Hegemony. That's his definition of "making America great again". He doesn't care that you're paying more for food, gasoline, etc. and that the rest of the third world will soon be starving. Gulf States get a swap line (can't let Wall St crash), but you get no bail out because the elites don't care that you are hurting. They care about the Gulf States hurting because that ultimately means Wall St will crash which would hurt the Billionaire elites. So to sum up, the reason is maintain America's Hegemony and protect the Billionaire class.

▲

annoyingnoob 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We could die chocking on the air that produces too. Understand the history in CA and the reasons we have special gas. Would you really want to hurt children for cheaper gas? Really?

https://today.usc.edu/las-environmental-success-story-cleane...

▲

GenerWork 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Those rules around special gasoline were made when both federal and California car exhaust regulations were much looser than today, and electric cars were a complete pipe dream. I've seen estimates ranging for savings from $.25 to $1 per gallon if California dropped the requirements.

>Would you really want to hurt children for cheaper gas?

Nice appeal to emotion.

	▲	jshen 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You didn't really address his main point. Will this lead to higher levels of pollution that will have real health consequences? Oddly you suggest it's not valid to raise concerns around health consequences.
	▲	hparadiz 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's more emotional to drop an important regulation over a dollar. I was already paying $5 for premium before all this and now it's $5.75. Big deal. I'd rather have clearer skies.
	▲	annoyingnoob 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		How does ignoring real harm help? Because it cost you less? https://www.clarity.io/blog/how-air-pollution-affects-childr... https://www.clarity.io/blog/a-closer-look-at-los-angeles-inf... "Poor air quality does not affect all parts of LA equally. Communities of color and low-income residents are disproportionately impacted by polluted air. In certain areas, traffic-related emissions, including nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and benzene concentrations, are up to 60% higher. A study led by UCLA found that the air in disadvantaged neighborhoods contained not only more fine particulate matter, but also more toxic particulates as well. Places facing the most socioeconomic disadvantages “experience about 65% higher toxicity than people in the most advantaged group,” according to Suzanne Paulson, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and the senior author of the study. These same groups often have less access to health care and good nutrition, putting them at an even greater health risk. Everyone deserves to breathe clean air, and communities of color and low-income residents are unfortunately facing the worst of LA’s notorious smog." Saving a buck at the expense of someone with no control of their situation is a choice. https://ifunny.co/picture/yes-the-planet-got-destroyed-but-f...
	▲	annoyingnoob 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You obviously never loved through LA Smog. You never had to stay inside or skip school because the air was too dirty to breathe. Take a look at how it was: https://www.ccair.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LA-smog.jpg Cars may burn cleaner but they still burn, and there are more of them than ever. Easing economic pain in exchange for health pain is nonsensical. Breathe from your own tailpipe if its no big deal.
	▲	theturtle 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

oceanplexian 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Texas has plenty of refineries and the children there aren’t dying or choking on the air.

	▲	0cf8612b2e1e 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It has to do with LA geography. The surrounding landscape traps the pollution so it cannot dissipate away from the city.
	▲	annoyingnoob 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Different geography/topology. https://www.clarity.io/blog/a-closer-look-at-los-angeles-inf...

▲

JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Would you really want to hurt children for cheaper gas? Really?

Yes. Most voters would, too. "Cheaper gas" understates how serious even a $20/week increase in living costs can be for a household on the margin.

▲

annoyingnoob 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure that most voters that have lived through smog in SoCal would vote for that. It is easy to decide that its okay to pollute a place where you don't live.

▲

throwaway-11-1 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Love living in the country with the highest GDP per capita than hearing stuff like this.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Love living in the country with the highest GDP per capita than hearing stuff like this It's reality. It doesn't go away if you ignore it. Aversion to higher gas prices isn't a luxury problem for a lot of people. Any realistic strategy for an energy transition has to acknowledge and accomodate that.