California is home to some of the highest gas prices in the United States, according to AAA.
The national average for a gallon of regular unleaded was $3.40 as of Thursday, according to the organization’s data. In California, the average was $4.87, more than any other state.
Several factors go into what drivers pay for gas, including refining costs, taxes, distribution and marketing, and crude oil prices, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
High taxes are partly to blame in California. The state has the highest gasoline taxes in the nation, according to EIA.
But there’s more to the story.
An isolated market and a special fuel blend
California requires a special blend of gasoline that reduces pollution — and costs more money.
“California also has seen a drop of 66% in the amount of refineries in operation from where we were 40 years ago,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy. “So there are fewer refineries producing this special blend of gasoline.”
California has an isolated refinery market. The special fuel blend that is consumed in California is produced by 11 major refineries within the state, according to the California Energy Commission.
“Not many other states use the same blend of fuel, which limits California’s supply when there’s an outage, when there’s an issue at one of our refineries,” Anlleyn Venegas, a senior public affairs specialist at AAA, told CNBC.
The isolated market means that any outages will lead to volatility in prices at the pump.
“Part of the reason why prices have been so high is that California has really restricted the ability for refineries to expand and grow,” said De Haan. “California has been rather hostile to refinery expansions or oil industry investments, trying to push them away and transition California to more electric vehicles.”
California plans to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035 as it transitions to cleaner vehicles. A quarter of new cars sold in California in 2023 were zero-emission vehicles, according to the California Energy Commission.
“The high price of gasoline does encourage more EV adoption,” De Haan said. “Americans getting hit with $5 and $6 [per] gallon prices in California is likely accelerating the shift away.”
In 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law to combat alleged price gouging at the pump. The law aims to increase transparency in the oil and gas industry and created an independent watchdog called the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight.
“There hasn’t really been much impact,” De Haan said. “But I do believe that in the months ahead, there probably will be more … talk on this subject.”
Driving behaviors, smart shopping can cut fuel costs
Families are spending thousands of dollars on gasoline each year. In 2022, the average annual spending per consumer unit on gasoline and other fuels was $3,120, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That tally was up 45.3% from 2021, as more people resumed commuting after the pandemic and fuel prices rose.
“Adopting new and improved driving behaviors can contribute to significant savings,” Venegas said.
For drivers who aren’t going electric, here are a few ways to save on gas, according to AAA:
Plan your route before you go
Don’t drive aggressively
Watch the video above to learn more about what is driving gas prices higher and what drivers can do about it.
A new bill submitted to the Oregon Legislative Assembly seeks to ban street-legal Class 3 electric bicycles from bike lanes in the state.
Class 3 electric bicycles include those that can reach motor-assisted speeds of up to 28 mph (45 km/h), whereas Class 1 and 2 electric bicycles can only reach 20 mph (32 km/h) under motor assist.
Under Senate Bill 471, the proposed legislation would make it an offense if a rider “operates a moped or a Class 3 electric assisted bicycle upon a sidewalk, a bicycle path or a bicycle lane.” Under Oregon law, traditional pedal bicycles can be legally operated on sidewalks unless restricted by a local ordinance, but e-bikes are already banned from operating on sidewalks.
Thus, the proposed legislation is effectively a ban on electric bikes capable of speeds exceeding 20 mph from being used in bike lanes. Instead, such bikes would only be permitted for use on public roadways.
In addition, Section 2 of the bill seeks to remove key protections for cyclists operating such 20+ mph electric bikes in bike lanes. Under current law, a motorist can be cited for failing to yield right of way to a cyclist in a bike lane when the motorist crosses over the bike lane, such as when crossing into a driveway, parking lot, etc.
The proposed legislation would remove the requirement for motorists to yield the right of way to cyclists on Class 3 e-bikes in bike lanes.
It should be noted that drivers cannot visually distinguish a Class 3 e-bike from other classes of e-bikes being ridden in a bike lane because the difference is performance-based.
Electrek’s Take
Sure, I support this law, as long as we can apply the logic equally. If the logic goes that Class 3 (28 mph maximum) e-bikes have the ability to be ridden faster than much of the traffic flow in a bike lane and thus should be banned in such bike lanes, then we might as well just ban cars capable of highway speeds from being operated on city streets. “Can your car go faster than 40 mph? Sorry, you know the rules. Keep that thing off city streets.”
It makes sense, right? Same logic. If it *can* go faster, it shouldn’t be allowed to operate there at all.
I mean, if a 60 lb e-bike that has the potential to go 8 mph faster than another e-bike is such a menace to public health and safety, then oh lordy what must we think of 5,000 lb vehicles that can easily exceed 120 mph with just a two-inch deviation of a distracted driver’s big toe? Surely we’ll be kicking those out of cities any day now, right? Right, guys? Guys…?
Ok, let’s get serious now. This law is awful and the legislators that conjured it up should be put on a 21 mph bicycle and forced to spend a couple minutes riding with their handlebar inches from 40+ mph cars to truly understand what real danger is. Then let’s hear them try to tell us how it’s a Class 3 e-bike that is the true danger.
I’m not trying to say that we should completely ignore that sometimes people get hit by an e-bike. It happens. It has even been lethal on exceedingly rare occasions. But you know what happens on regular occasions? Cyclists and pedestrians getting hit and killed by cars. So instead of spending legislative effort trying to push e-bikes back out onto roads, maybe we should expend some effort keeping car fenders off of cyclists’ bodies. Or invest in more bike lanes. Or increase enforcement of traffic violations for all road users. Or increase awareness education for drivers and riders alike. There are so many good answers, but none of them can be found in this bill.
Oil-linked shipping costs rallied after last week’s announcement of tighter U.S. sanctions to drain Russia’s war coffers, in a move that poses significant threats to Moscow’s maritime distribution chains.
On Jan. 10, the U.S. Treasury Department announced fresh measures to deplete Russia’s energy revenues, including sanctions against key producers Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas, along with 183 vessels that were “largely oil tankers that are part of the shadow fleet as well as oil tankers owned by Russia-based fleet operators.”
The Treasury added that several of the designated tankers had transported both Russian and Iranian oil, and further extended sanctions to Russia-based maritime insurance providers Ingosstrakh Insurance Company and AlfaStrakhovanie Group.
This is set to deliver a critical blow to Russia, which has been forced to reroute its crude and oil product supplies to Asia-Pacific, after these volumes were banned by European and G7 sanctions, which came in effect in December 2022 and February 2023, respectively.
Already, around 890 unique tankers loaded Russian oil — comprising both crude and oil products — in the past six months, analytics firm Vortexa told CNBC on Jan. 7, with 107 of these ships — or 12% of the total — being subject to vessel-specific sanctions at the time.
The figures do not factor in the Jan. 10 announcement. On Wednesday, the Paris-based International Energy Agencyassessed that around 160 out of the 183 blocked tankers had moved over 1.6 million barrels per day of Russian oil last year, accounting for 22% of Russian seaborne exports over the period.
The latest U.S. measures are also set to tighten the number of vessels available for the commission of non-Russian parties, pushing up shipping costs for other tankers. Since the Jan. 10 announcement, the effect of the bans has spilled into freight derivatives, with the volume of traded Forward Freight Agreement (FFA) contracts — which can allow traders to hedge against volatility in fluctuating freight rates – jumping to 11,412 on Jan. 10, and topping 7,900 and 6,700 on Jan. 13 and Jan. 14, respectively, according to data from the Baltic Exchange. The figures compare with 2,987 and 1,683 contracts traded daily on average in the months of November and December, respectively.
Rates for supertankers crossing from the Middle East Gulf to Asia-Pacific — a bellwether route for the oil industry — picked up by more than 40% between Jan. 9 and Jan. 14, according to pricing data from Argus Media.
As a result, the sanctions “could significantly disrupt Russian oil supply and distribution chains,” the IEA warned, noting that Russian exports will “take a hit from the shadow tanker fleet reduction” and the “elimination of shipping insurance, the bridling of dominant traders of Russian oil and designation of key handling companies in consumer markets.”
The agency nevertheless fell short of factoring the latest U.S. steps into its Russian supply forecasts, while noting that crude exports from the Eastern European country – a key member of the OPEC+ alliance – fell by 250,000 barrels per day month-on-month to 4.6 million barrels per day in December.
Swedish and Chinese EV automaker Polestar has shared an updated business strategy, looking to 2025 and beyond as its next chapter in growth. Per the release detailed below, Polestar is expecting increased sales volume, especially as its long-promised Polestar 5 GT is set to launch this year. Additionally, the automaker confirmed its Polestar 7 model will be a compact SUV and its most affordable BEV to date.
Polestar remains a growing name in the EV segment, and more and more people are becoming aware of the Geely-owned brand as it brings more models to market. Its two most recent were the Polestar 3 SUV and 4 crossover, built in the US and China, respectively. According to Polestar, those two models have gained “strong product momentum,” accounting for 56% of orders in Q4 2024.
Polestar looks to ride that wave into 2025 and add to its impetus with the launch of the Polestar 5, a sports sedan based on the automaker’s Precept concept EV that is targeting up to 884 hp and will attempt to compete against some of the big boys, like the Tesla Model S and Porsche Taycan.
While it won’t be part of Polestar’s 2025 launches, the automaker’s executives have divulged some new details about a new model called the Polestar 7, which was teased back in April 2024.
Polestar 7 to replace the 2 as its entry-level model
According to a release published on its investor page, Polestar expects a fruitful 2025 that will set the town for its revamped business strategy through at least 2027. Per the automaker, it is targeting compound annual retail sales volume growth of 30-35% over the next three years and positive adjusted EBITDA in 2025. Furthermore, Polestar executives expect positive free cash flow after investments in 2027. Polestar CEO Michael Lohscheller elaborated:
With Scandinavian design, performance and a premium brand, Polestar has successfully positioned itself in the global automotive market. We have three outstanding cars on the road and a growing, passionate customer base.We are building on the strong Polestar brand with design and performance at its core.
But significant changes are needed to make this well-respected progressive brand a successful and viable business. We are speeding up our retail expansion and commercial transformation, whilst adjusting our future model line-up and significantly reducing our cost base. Both in terms of volumes and financials, we expect 2025 to be the strongest year in Polestar’s history.
Part of Polestar’s success in 2025 will depend on the start of sales of the Polestar 5, the automaker’s first model to sit atop an 800V platform. According to the company, that launch is expected in the second half of this year. Until then, Polestar will continue to push sales of its current lineup, which consists of the Polestar 2, 3, and 4.
While the Polestar 2 will be remembered as the BEV that put the brand on the map, its days are unfortunately numbered. Previous Polestar CEO Thomas Ingenlath said the company intends to phase out the 2 sedans around 2027, and its successor will be a new model called the Polestar 7.
We hadn’t heard much about the Polestar 7 since then, but the company confirmed today that it will arrive as a premium compact SUV. Additionally, we’ve learned the Polestar 7 will be the brand’s first model built in Europe. With production footprints in China, South Korea, and the US, Europe is a natural next step in expansion, especially for an affordable, compact SUV the Polestar 7 promises to be, because that is such a popular segment in the EU.
The Polestar 7 will also represent a new design strategy for the automaker. From that launch onward, it will “gradually move from a multi-platform approach to one single architecture, reducing complexity, costs, and investments.”
While we’ve learned what style of BEV the Polestar 7 will be, we don’t know much else at this point. With the expectation that we won’t see anything come to market until 2027 at the earliest, our immediate focus will remain on the upcoming launch of the Polestar 5 in 2025, followed by the Polestar 6 roadster convertible in 2026.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.