Oil

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
irvinehomeowner said:
Did some research and while there are tons of Cali taxes/fees, geography has a big part in high prices and spikes.

So I get the offshore drilling to help with supply but we will still need to increase refinery infrastructure which is expensive and Cali's car culture creates a demand that is much higher than other West Coast states.

Cut taxes and fees but how do we maintain roads because we have so many cars?

Switch to the national blend so we can use the other states supplies (but still transport issues)?

High home prices... high gas prices.

Even if Cali was a red state (since morekaos always like to blame Newsom), there is much more that lends to Cali gas prices than politics.

I know... more EV adoption. :)
Click to expand...
Politics explains most of the root problem…If Cali was a red state then many of those problems you list would not exist…lower taxes more drilling and more refineries (Texas just opened the first one in decades). General fund robs the road tax bucket to fund ridiculous social program largesse. Pointless specialty blends would be non-existant and pipeline infrastructure would probably be robust…more EV’s hasnt even put a dent in total autos (we have the most and that has not been relivant) should've, would've, could’ve… but you have to start somewhere…now is as good a time as any.🤷🏽😂😂😂👎🏽🦄🌈
 
Last edited:
Again, biasing the facts with politics. Most of the gas taxes/fees go towards transportation (unless you can show me otherwise).

The pipeline infrastructure I already mentioned, the expense and geography makes that a very long term and expensive solution.

Statistically, EVs are making a difference but this is just the start:

>>

Gasoline consumption has declined​

Gasoline demand in California has flattened or slightly declined over the past decade, even as population grew.

That change comes from a combination of:
  • EV adoption
  • better fuel efficiency
  • hybrid vehicles
  • reduced driving in some years
So EVs are making a measurable dent, but it’s gradual.

California EVs are already estimated to displace over 1 billion gallons of gasoline per year, but the state still uses around 13–14 billion gallons annually, which is why the dent doesn’t look huge yet.

<<

So you like you said... you have to start somewhere. :)
 
Its all about politics and a political agenda…Republicans would never have layers this Climate pork on the budget in the first place…now they will never let it go…👎🏽🤬🤬🤬🦄🌈

California State Transportation Agency released a statement regarding this report:

“The state is confronting the climate crisis head on. In doing so, Caltrans will use available transportation dollars to prioritize projects that manage congestion and reduce vehicle miles traveled in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Those who claim the state is canceling projects funded by gas tax dollars are incorrect. Aligning climate goals with transportation goals requires new thinking, not obstructionism. With the long lead time to plan, design, and construct transportation projects, we must act now to achieve our climate goals.”

CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY DAVID S. KIM

While the California Constitution generally prohibits diverting fuel tax revenue to the General Fund, gas tax funds have historically been used for debt service on transportation bonds or shifted via the "Fuel Tax Swap" of 2010.

  • The "Swap" and Other Uses: In the 2000s, the state switched fuel sales taxes to pay for transportation bonds and general state services, prompting court challenges and the eventual "Fuel Tax Swap" to maintain revenue for, in part, state transportation bond debt.
Alternative Uses/Diversion Claims: Critics often cite that some funds still go to transit, rail, and environmental projects rather than solely highways.

Essentially, direct diversion to the general fund for general spending is technically illegal, but the definition of what constitutes "transportation spending" (e.g., roads vs. rail/transit) is a subject of political debate.
 
Like I said, politics plays a part but there is more to that.

Maybe if you took off your bias glasses you would see that... I'll let AI explain:

Yes—some of those factors are influenced by policy, but not all of them. The best way to think about California gas prices is that structural/geographic issues set a high baseline, and policy choices add additional cost on top of that.
Here’s how those five factors break down.

1. Geographic isolation from U.S. pipelines​

Mostly not political.
California is separated from the big Gulf Coast refining region by the Rocky Mountains and deserts. That makes pipelines like the Colonial Pipeline (which serves the East Coast) impractical to build across the entire country.
There has never really been a major pipeline proposal connecting the Gulf Coast to California because:
  • distance (~1,500+ miles)
  • mountains
  • cost vs shipping
So this is largely geography and economics.

2. Limited refining capacity​

Partly policy, partly market economics.
Refineries run by companies like Chevron, Marathon Petroleum, and Valero Energy have closed or converted some plants.
Reasons include:
  • declining gasoline demand expectations
  • high environmental compliance costs
  • corporate strategy to shift to renewable fuels
Permitting and environmental rules make building new refineries difficult, so policy plays a role, but companies also decide based on profitability.

3. Huge gasoline demand​

Not political.
California simply has:
  • ~40 million people
  • massive car usage
  • large suburban regions
Even if policy changed tomorrow, it would still be one of the largest gasoline markets in the world.

4. Higher business and land costs​

Mostly economic, partially policy.
Things like:
  • land prices
  • wages
  • insurance
are generally higher in California’s economy.
Some regulatory requirements for gas stations also increase costs, but much of it is simply the overall cost of doing business in the state.

5. West Coast crude supply dynamics​

Mostly geology and geography.
California refineries historically used oil from places like Alaska North Slope.
Production there declined over time, so refineries import more crude by ship. That’s largely due to resource depletion and global oil markets, not state policy.
✅ Summary
FactorPolitics involved?
Geographic isolationNo
Limited refinery capacityPartly
Huge demandNo
Higher business costsPartly
Crude supply dynamicsMostly no
So the reality is mixed:
  • Geography and market structure explain a big part of California’s high gas prices.
  • Policy choices add additional cost and make supply tighter, which can amplify price spikes.
A useful way analysts describe it: California’s gas market has a “high structural floor” (geography + infrastructure), and policy determines how much higher prices sit above that floor.
 
And all that demand was squelched by bad politics. Over regulation and taxation stopped new pipelines from being built, new refineries from being built and domestic oil exploration and extraction. Companies would have enthusiastically met demand with supply as it built but foolish political policy negated any of that growth and investment. Politics and policy are most of the reason we pay the highest gas and energy prices in the country. We screwed ourselves…but that can be fixed, just need the will🤷🏽‍♂️👍🏽😂😂🇺🇸
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top