Top
Best
New

Posted by cdrnsf 1 day ago

California leaders report four to six weeks worth of gasoline and diesel supply(kmph.com)
99 points | 214 comments
tpurves 1 day ago|
What this article fails to mention is that there are also a record number of empty tankers routed to the US refineries right now, with the intention of shifting still-relatively cheap US oil products to overseas markets where the prices are already much higher and shortages have already hit. The effects of the Iran war on the US economy will really start to kick in over the next several months.
kyrra 1 day ago||
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 1 day ago|||
Presumably that might get an emergency resolution in the coming weeks.
throw03172019 1 day ago||||
Is this an emissions reducing based blend?
shadow28 1 day ago|||
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 1 day ago|||
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 1 day ago||
[flagged]
jsbisviewtiful 1 day ago|||
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.
rickydroll 1 day ago|||
Boston had a similar problem. I remember more than once coming over Belmont Hill on Route 2 and seeing this gray-brown cloud sitting over the city with the Prudential Building sticking up out of it.

The problem with Chinese imports and the American auto industry gives me serious flashbacks to the 1970s, when cheap Japanese compacts came in and took business away from American automakers.

Seems to me the American auto industry can't learn to adapt until some foreign competitor comes in and repeatedly kicks them in the nuts.

gjsman-1000 1 day ago|||
Not everyone in California lives in LA or has LA’s problems.
jjav 1 day ago|||
> Not everyone in California lives in LA or has LA’s problems.

That's why smog rules vary per county.

duck 1 day ago||
True, but the gas blend requirement is state wide which I think was the point being made.
jsbisviewtiful 1 day ago|||
I won't engage any further with a strawman argument made in bad faith.
jst1fthsdys 1 day ago||||
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 1 day ago||
> 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 1 day ago|||
> 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.

xethos 1 day ago|||
Between the US and Canada, Canada (with it's population the size of California) has three out of four of the highest-ridership light rail systems.

Blaming sprawl or population count, while being outshone by Canada, means it's neither of the above. Perhaps we can move on to the auto companies pushing out light rail in California in the fifties to bump their own profits, or accept that it's the American people and their ethos that has left the automobile as the claimed only option.

JKCalhoun 1 day ago|||
And economically regressive.

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

xtiansimon 1 day ago|||
And no MTBE, IIRC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE_controversy

keane 13 hours ago||
Correct, since 2002: https://arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/gasoline
flumpmaster 1 day ago|||
Yes.
at-fates-hands 1 day ago||||
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 1 day ago||
> 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 1 day ago||
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 1 day ago||||
Does this have anything to do with the extensive and happening now or very recent shutdowns of several california refineries?
flumpmaster 1 day ago||
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 1 day ago||||
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: ???
tharmas 1 day ago|||
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.

CamperBob2 1 day ago|||
Dogs and cats were being eaten, you see. And did you hear her laugh?
ChoGGi 1 day ago||
Not sure why you're being down voted, I've sadly heard those exact arguments.
CamperBob2 23 hours ago||
Nowadays, this place is basically where Trumpers go to mingle with neo-Luddites.

I don't get it either, but that's the audience that has been cultivated.

annoyingnoob 1 day ago|||
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 1 day ago|||
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 1 day ago|||
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 1 day ago||||
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 1 day ago||||
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 1 day ago||||
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 1 day ago|||
[dead]
oceanplexian 1 day ago||||
Texas has plenty of refineries and the children there aren’t dying or choking on the air.
0cf8612b2e1e 1 day ago|||
It has to do with LA geography. The surrounding landscape traps the pollution so it cannot dissipate away from the city.
wat10000 1 day ago||||
I'm certain the number of children suffering illness or even dying due to air pollution from Texas refineries is more than zero. Not very high, I imagine, but not zero. There is a very real human cost to these things which we really like to ignore.
annoyingnoob 1 day ago|||
Different geography/topology. https://www.clarity.io/blog/a-closer-look-at-los-angeles-inf...
JumpCrisscross 1 day ago|||
> 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 1 day ago|||
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 1 day ago|||
Love living in the country with the highest GDP per capita than hearing stuff like this.
JumpCrisscross 1 day ago|||
> 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.

wat10000 1 day ago|||
Not sure what living in Monaco has to do with gas prices in California.
pear01 1 day ago|||
In such a situation - especially heading into the midterms - an export ban may be increasingly probable.
mjhay 1 day ago|||
An export ban wouldn’t really help much: US oil production is (now) predominantly light crude, while US refinery capacity is oriented towards heavy crude from the gulf or Venezuela.

We produce more oil than we use, but we can’t refine it all.

jandrewrogers 1 day ago|||
Refining light crude is essentially the same process as heavy crude with fewer steps. US refineries are designed to handle virtually any kind of crude and are highly configurable. That flexibility is part of what makes their refinery business so successful. US refinery capacity is ~50% larger than their domestic oil production; it is a major export business for the US.

The real cost to not processing heavy crude oil is that many refinery assets will be sitting idle because they aren't needed to process light crude.

JumpCrisscross 1 day ago||||
> An export ban wouldn’t really help much

It could help in the long term by underwritig refinery retooling. The problem is you'd almost certainly need public support for those investments, given they could be undone by the lifting of such a ban. (An export ban would also trash America's reputation with our import partners.)

badc0ffee 1 day ago||||
> US refinery capacity is oriented towards heavy crude from the gulf or Venezuela.

Or from Alberta.

pear01 1 day ago||||
It may be a bad idea (for various reasons), but it is one already being floated. Here is a press release just today from a California congressman who is proposing a bill to this effect.

https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congre...

If you agree with the parent that Americans are going to feel more energy market pain in the coming months I would imagine the pressure for this will only increase.

mschuster91 1 day ago|||
> An export ban wouldn’t really help much: US oil production is (now) predominantly light crude, while US refinery capacity is oriented towards heavy crude from the gulf or Venezuela.

That's not too much of a problem. A refinery tooled for heavy sour crude technically can process light, heavy, sour and sweet crude - the other way around would be an issue because you'd need to construct hydrocracker and desulfurizer stages first.

The issue is a financial one. A refinery is often a multi-billion dollar asset, and having significant parts of its value sit around unused for prolonged times means write-offs which means stonk number go down, and as we all know there is nothing more important for the economy than the stonk market.

Another, but smaller, problem is that running a refinery on different crude compositions means that the volume ratio of the various oil products changes, and the refinery may find itself sitting on more, say, heavy fuel oil than it can store, sell and ship. And once the tanks are full, production has to stop.

TheGRS 1 day ago||||
This is way outside of my area of expertise, but I thought US export oil was not fungible with what we consume.
oceanplexian 1 day ago|||
It’s actually harder (requires more advanced technology) to refine heavy and sour crude. The US refining industry process this type of oil mainly because it’s more profitable not because of some limitation.

American oil on the other hand (As in extracted out of the ground) is actually too high quality for domestic consumption therefore gets shipped overseas and sold at a premium. The weird economics of this are made possible by globalization. While it’s not fungible on a dime it’s easy to solve and the US really does hold all the cards when it comes to the petroleum industry.

0cf8612b2e1e 1 day ago||||
Fake numbers, but I have heard it is something like the US produces 100 units of light crude -exports it all, and imports 50 units of heavy. Net exporter, but the stuff we use domestically for gas refineries comes from elsewhere.

Technically, the refineries can be retooled to take a different blend, but it is expensive to do.

jandrewrogers 1 day ago|||
US crude oil is exported to foreign refineries for blending purposes. By blending low-quality crude with high-quality crude it can reduce the total costs to the refiner even after accounting for the fact that you had to buy high-quality crude to improve the properties of the domestic crude.
JumpCrisscross 1 day ago|||
> an export ban may be increasingly probable

"U.S. crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves decreased 1% from 46.4 billion barrels to 46.0 billion barrels at year-end 2024" [1]. At February's 180 million barrel/month import rate, that's only 21 years of supply in the ground.

Reliance on oil, for America, is a long-term reliance on foreign oil.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/

[2] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

Avicebron 1 day ago|||
I suppose it's too much to ask that oil produced in the US be used for the US people?
legitster 1 day ago|||
Depending on the type of oil and the refinery availability it's not that simple. Not all sources of oil can go to all refineries.

Also, there's the bigger geopolitical problems that creates. If the US knocks over the global energy supply and then retreats and abandons our trading partners, the knock-on effects would be even worse.

A large part of the reason WWII existed was the breakdown of international trade during the Great Depression. Countries without domestic supplies of their own were forced to grab territory instead of peacefully trading for what they needed.

at-fates-hands 1 day ago||
How do you think the UAE leaving OPEC will effect the oil markets in the coming months and years? Its being touted as having a major impact.
thuuuomas 1 day ago||||
Why would they sell it for less when they could sell it for more?

We’re witnessing “American exceptionalism” transform from a brash claim to a whiny demand in real time.

abhiyerra 1 day ago||||
The type of oil that the US produces (light and sweet) can't be handled by US refineries which need (heavy sours). Why we are still a major importer of oil.
JimBlackwood 1 day ago||||
I don’t think it is. If we can then also ensure the US stops meddling in international affairs, we can all be happy!
tharmas 1 day ago|||
That's what Canadian oil is for. The USA gets it at a discount price.
0cf8612b2e1e 1 day ago|||
Where you can go to monitor this? Does it require an expensive AIS data feed?
daedrdev 1 day ago||
Once again, its illegal to use that oil in California due to (imo bad) environmental regulations
flumpmaster 1 day ago||
If you are referring to American light crude oil grades such as WTI (West Texas Intermediate) that is not correct. That oil could be refined in California. It would have to come by tanker from the gulf coast through the Panama Canal to get there. Until recently it would have to come on a Jones Act US flagged tanker (expensive, scarce). That requirement has been temporarily waived.
daedrdev 1 day ago||
Right I forgot we waived the jones act. Refiners are hard to come by in CA though as they keep shutting down
sfghsdgh 1 day ago||
6 weeks are standard. If you want to keep it for longer it needs additives which increase price. Noone does that usually.
_air 1 day ago||
Yeah, seems like a standard supply level to me.

"California’s inventory has averaged just over 20 days of supply over the last five years (2019–23), compared with the U.S. average of 21.6 days."

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=63944

wat10000 1 day ago|||
I think they mean that it's 4-6 weeks until they hit zero, accounting both for stored products and the current rate of production/imports.
FrustratedMonky 1 day ago|||
Usually when something like this is reported, it is because of some other milestone.

Like, they have 6 weeks, on hand, in tanks already delivered.

But, all of the ships in-bound are now done.

After the war started, there was a record number of ships, already filled, already in-transit. But now they have all reached their destinations. So there is no more incoming.

rconti 1 day ago||
I think in this case it's 6 weeks but _declining_, but that's a good distinction to point out.
Plasmoid 1 day ago||
Yeah, but what's the burn rate?

If it's going down at 1 day per week then it's not so bad. If it's closer to 0.75 days per day, that's much more serious.

bdcravens 1 day ago||
All the more reason why we need to move off of everything that doesn't require gasoline/diesel: those are precious resources that shouldn't be wasted on Starbucks runs.
hx8 1 day ago||
Isn't 4-6 weeks about normal conditions? It feels like a large amount of slack for a modern JIT logistical system. Anymore enters strategic reserves territory.
gruez 1 day ago||
Not sure about california specifically, but elsewhere in the world stocks are definitely lower than normal.

https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,quality=10...

ceejayoz 1 day ago||
Sure, but these aren't normal conditions. So that JIT amount is gonna rapidly become NJIT.
dylan604 1 day ago||
I'm not very creative, but if we could use DJiT to go along with the at fault party's initials, that could be fun.
JumpCrisscross 1 day ago||
I’m surprised that only “18.9% of new car sales” in California are electric [1].

[1] https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2026-01/california-surpasses-...

com2kid 1 day ago||
Other countries have $15k new electric city cars for sale. The US doesn't. Our domestic car manufacturers are either uninterested or unable to make them, and import bans are in place on foreign cars that meet that price point.

Also our infra not being 240v is hurting us. The rest of the world can just plug in overnight to any regular outlet and it is good enough for almost any commute.

My EV on a 120v outlet I can manage, but it'd be hard with a second EV.

The lack of ecosystem for good electric scooters is also sad. The weather in much of cali is perfect for it. Last time I went back to China the streets were so quiet as all the electric scooters drove by. An incredible change for the better.

I remember stepping into an apartment parking garage that was filled with scooter charging spaces, like hundreds of them. It was crazy.

Then I went to Taiwan and while walking around I barely talk over the noise from all the gas mopeds.

I joked that the streets in China and quiet and the sidewalks noisy, and the streets of Taiwan are noisy and the sidewalks are quiet.

joshuahaglund 1 day ago|||
I think most of the US has 240 to the home. Look at your power feed, if there are two insulated conductors on an uninsulated line, those are two 120V lines of opposite phase/polarity. I have a friend who temporarily ran a 240 volt welder by plugging into a custom outlet box, wired with two plugs that went to two outlets on different legs of the breaker box. Electric ovens, ACs, hot tubs, dryers, etc. are all commonly 240 and work with the right house breaker and wiring setup.
com2kid 1 day ago|||
I fully understand the 240 vs 120 in US houses.

The difference is other countries have 240 running everywhere. So apartment garages can have cars charging (slower than the max possible speed but faster than if they were on 120v), without tens of thousands of dollars in retrofits.

I just got an estimate of 3k for running basically 6ft of conduit for a new 240v line in my own garage (my breaker is right next to my door, super short run!)

Now thinking about my last condo I lived in, retrofitting even a small condo parking garage for EV chargers for, say, 20 spaces. Let's estimate 30 feet on average line run per space. Assuming a discount on price, maybe 12k per parking space to install a 240 plug, with lines split to cover multiple spaces.

The price is just absurd. That's 1/3rd the cost of a reasonably priced car.

relaxing 1 day ago||
That’s insane. I just paid $800 for a much longer run, materials and labor.
com2kid 1 day ago||
Seattle has absurd labor costs.

Just the needed permits are a couple hundred.

wat10000 1 day ago||
Be careful how you ask for it, too. A "NEMA 14-50 outlet" is likely to be quite a bit cheaper than "EV charger" and especially "Tesla charger."
boredatoms 1 day ago|||
Its not that 220v is missing, its that its special.

An unmodified garage in australia will have plenty of unused 240v plugs

and if they did want to modify, they can pay to have 3-phase 415v

dylan604 1 day ago||||
Most residential mains is 240v on two legs that gets divided to 120v outlets. However, major appliances like dryer/HVAC will use the 240v. I had a 240v outlet added to my garage for larger equipment. It is absolutely possible to add a 240v charger at single family homes with a visit from an electrician. The US standard of 120v is not an issue.
boredatoms 1 day ago||
It adds large cost and is a hassle
JumpCrisscross 1 day ago||||
> our infra not being 240v is hurting us

The 240V requirement has been overplayed, in my opinion. I still have a gas car. But my driving needs would easily be covered with 110V.

kibwen 1 day ago||||
> Also our infra not being 240v is hurting us. The rest of the world can just plug in overnight to any regular outlet and it is good enough for almost any commute.

US homes don't need any significant accommodations for 240 volt infra. Plenty of US home appliances are already 240 volt; this is a solved problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMmUoZh3Hq4

com2kid 1 day ago|||
In other countries every outlet is 240, a regular extension cord to outlets in a apartment complex garage is 240. It is less overall amps than the beefy 240v an American dryer plugs into, but it is good enough.

Meanwhile $3k to get 5 feet of 240 ran in a conduit and an outlet installed in the US.

For many apartment and condo complexes, it just isn't doable as a reasonable retrofit.

kibwen 1 day ago||
> Meanwhile $3k to get 5 feet of 240 ran in a conduit and an outlet installed in the US.

If you're the homeowner you can do this work yourself, and the permits and inspections will cost a tenth of that. If you live in one of the few states where this isn't true, that's a you problem.

> For many apartment and condo complexes, it just isn't doable as a reasonable retrofit.

The problem with charging in apartments and condo complexes is not that US outlets are not 240 volts, it's that if those places provide places to park at all then there's little chance those parking spots are electrified at all in the first place.

irishcoffee 1 day ago|||
Yeah this confuses me. I was under the impression that every electric oven and clothes dryer in the US was 240 (220) volts already. I was not aware or tracking that 240v was an issue. Is that the case in places in the US?
kibwen 1 day ago|||
Keeping in mind that US electric infrastructure is the oldest in the world and fragmented across a slew of jurisdictions with their own building codes that electrified in different decades, thus making it impossible to say anything with 100% certainty: US homes already have 240 volt service, but split-phase so it often appears to be 120 volts. I edited the prior comment with an informative video.
mikeyouse 1 day ago|||
Nearly all US homes have 240V to the electric panel, and some have it for specific places in the house (though many places are almost entirely gas dryers/ovens), but you would need a special outlet run to charge your car at 240V since almost all regular receptacles are 120v. Even the heavy duty receps in garages and utility spaces are most often just 20A/120V instead of the standard 15A/120V.

Quotes for a new 240V line are often >$1K which is affordable in the context of a household improvement but not exactly pocket change.

irishcoffee 1 day ago||
I've run 2 different 240v lines in my house, to code, for the cost of the wire and the breaker. It isn't hard. :)
mikeyouse 1 day ago||
I’ve done the same, ran a new 100A feed to a subpanel by the pool as well.. but that’s probably 1/100 home owners comfortable with doing so?
irishcoffee 1 day ago||
I’m a huge advocate for discouraging learned helplessness. I’m not special, I can run wires and connect them properly, I can do brakes/calipers/plugs on a car (and a lot more, self-taught, but anyone has the ability to do those).

When you realize as a software person everyone thinks what you do is black magic (someone told me that today actually, and I told them I could teach them if they wanted to learn), and then you realize that thinking of wiring, plumbing as black magic isn’t true, a whole world opens up.

It’s liberating really, I highly encourage everyone to try and learn these skills.

crooked-v 1 day ago|||
The bigger problem isn't the 240v, it's that a lot of people just don't have parking that's practical for plugging in without extensive rewiring (a vast majority of condo/apartment garages) or running a hundred-foot extension cord down the building and across sidewalk (https://i.imgur.com/ou0uYmb.jpeg).
jerlam 1 day ago|||
That's for Q4 2025.

The $7.5k EV subsidy ended in Q3 2025. Everyone considering buying an EV, bought one right before Q4 2025. The percentage for Q3 2025 is 29.1%: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/10/13/record-breaking-quarter-ca...

It may rebound back to these levels due to the gas price increase, and many car manufacturers slashing their prices to compensate for the subsidy ending.

kccqzy 1 day ago|||
That number you quote was from the fourth quarter of 2025. EV tax benefits expired in the third quarter of 2025. People who were on the fence all bought during the third quarter. The market share was 29.1%.

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/10/13/california-reaches-29-1...

philipallstar 1 day ago|||
I assume people are worried about former "we have 12 years before doom" people, having all converted into "burn Teslas" people, destroying some of the best electric cars on the planet.
johnvanommen 1 day ago|||
Anyone who lives in an apartment or condo will have a difficult time charging an EV in CA.
bak3y 1 day ago||
[dead]
mikeweiss 1 day ago||
When you see the U.S Government making near daily public statements with the intended effect of calming markets and the public.... It's time to be worried. A.K.A when the government says "everything is going to be ok, don't worry we got this under control" that's when shit is bad. This is what we have been seeing. It seems we are near a tipping point now.
AnimalMuppet 1 day ago|
Well, things can be bad because they are inherently bad, or things can be bad because people are panicking, and panicking people react in ways that make situations worse.

Saying "it's going to be OK" doesn't change any circumstances. But it may reduce the level of panic (depending on how much the people trust the government), and that can in fact change the way the circumstances evolve.

josuepeq 1 day ago||
Soon gas stations in the Bay Area will have to price Gasoline in quarts, because the gas pumps can only display up to $9.99.
dylan604 1 day ago|||
That'll confuse the average driver. The number of people that know the various measurements for fluids is not that high. I can totally see some future social media posts excited about the $2.99 price and then getting upset when the pump shows .25 gallons.
xboxnolifes 1 day ago||
Even if you know the measurements it would be confusing to see a sign say $2.99 for gas and it turn out to be for a quart and not a gallon when you pull up. It's assumed at this point that it's per gallon.
dvh 1 day ago|||
Maybe this would be a good time to switch to metric system and use liters
xethos 1 day ago||
"The United States switched to Metric to show smaller numbers at the pump", due to a surge in gas prices, caused by a war in the Middle East started for fabricated reasons, would be the most on-brand thing for America I can think of
jerlam 1 day ago|||
In the previous 2022 gas price spike, some stations could not dispense more than $100 worth of gas since that would previously indicate something wrong with the station.
Sabinus 1 day ago||
Will the "I did that" Trump stickers appear by then, I wonder?
rconti 1 day ago||
I'm a bit perplexed on this one-- Yes, we refine our own blend of gasoline, but it's based on market oil -- nothing about the war we started with Iran impacts our domestic refining capability.

Also, oil takes longer to get from Iran to the west coast than to the east coast. Shouldn't the east coast be the first to notice decreased shipments, because the west coast essentially has a stock still in transit for longer?

EDIT: Nevermind, now I see that 25% of CA gas is refined overseas.

daedrdev 1 day ago||
CA’s requirement that it gets its own blend of gas is combined with how its openly hostile towards its ever decreasing refineries and that it is impossible for a new refinery to ever open makes it’s supplies absurdly limited
doug_durham 1 day ago|||
People in LA need to breathe during the summer time. So yes we demand a blend that protects our residents. And the refiners are choosing to close refineries. They are not being compelled.
daedrdev 1 day ago|||
They are being strangled, it’s their choice to tap out is how I would put it.

The improvement in air quality is due to the clean air act, catalytic converters, and the shuttering of industry, the gas blend plays a minor part. Even then, with gas so much higher it will materially make peoples lives worse, at some point society would be better off getting rid of the blend.

ceejayoz 1 day ago|||
Yeah, I remember flying into LAX in the late 80s and early 90s. Smog so thick it looked like a physical obstacle.

Whatever they're doing seems to be working nicely.

johnvanommen 1 day ago||
Car emissions are far lower now. I lived in CA when the air was grey in July.

That ended a long time ago. A modern Honda generates something like 1% as much pollution as a car from the eighties.

tzs 1 day ago||||
There has been no major refineries opened in the US since 1977. There have been a handful of small refineries in the 2010s and early 2020s in California, North Dakota, and Texas.

How do you know California's lack of new refineries is due to California hostility rather than being due to whatever caused the same lack in every other state?

bsimpson 1 day ago||||
It's bonkers that some of the most expensive gas you'll ever buy is in SF, and Martinez is right there. You could bike there, if they allowed bikes on the bridge.
wiredfool 1 day ago||
I paid the equivalent of $12.50 a gallon for diesel at the peak price a month or so ago.
johnvanommen 1 day ago||||
> CA’s requirement that it gets its own blend of gas is combined with how its openly hostile towards its ever decreasing refineries and that it is impossible for a new refinery to ever open makes it’s supplies absurdly limited

A big one is a lack of pipelines.

As I understand it, California sits on so much oil, nobody has built a pipeline.

Building an energy pipeline in California is like bringing sand to the beach. The energy is already there.

flumpmaster 1 day ago||
There are plenty of crude oil and refined product pipelines in California.

For example crude oil is produced mid state in the San Joaquin valley and pumped by pipeline to the Bay Area and LA refineries.

Refined product from LA is delivered by pipeline from LA refineries as far east as Phoenix and up to Las Vegas.

Building new pipelines in California though is…challenging.

tencentshill 1 day ago||||
California learned that lesson the hard way. Have you been in the city during a bad smog day?
guyzero 1 day ago|||
Everyone loves gas and hates refineries. It's a tough choice.
guyzero 1 day ago|||
Weirdly California doesn't get all of its gas from domestic refining.

https://timesofsandiego.com/state-region/2026/04/23/prices-c...

"California’s top foreign refinery supplier of gasoline and blendstocks this decade is Reliance Industries Ltd.’s Jamnagar refinery complex in western India. "

"More than 9 million barrels arrived via this loophole in 2025"

Now, that's a tiny fraction of the 320M barrels of gas used in CA annually, but anything that affects global oil shipments will be felt in California.

RhysU 1 day ago||
It's beyond belief how much California imports...

> [California] imports about 60% of its crude from overseas--up from 5% in the mid-1980s- about a third of which comes from the Middle East. About 15% of the state's refined fuels are also imported, much of which depends on Middle East crude.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/gavin-newsom-california-offshore...

brightball 1 day ago||
2 refineries in California were closed over the last 2 years leading to a 17% reduction in total refining capacity.

Per the article, the type of fuel needed by California standards is produced at refineries in India, South Korea and Washington.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65704

jeffbee 1 day ago||
... because demand is down. California hit peak gas sales 20 years ago and reaching zero motor fuel sales is foreseeable.
AnimalMuppet 1 day ago||
Reaching zero motor fuel sales is foreseeable? By when do you foresee it?

How much below the peak is current sales?

jeffbee 1 day ago||
15% in absolute terms, 22% in per capita terms. And it is state policy to allow no more additional ICE cars in less than ten years, no net emissions in less than 20 years. Investing in a refinery today would obviously be folly.
comrade1234 1 day ago||
Fox News isn't real news and shouldn't be taken seriously.
0x1ceb00da 1 day ago|
Interesting. I thought the USA secured cuban oil to prepare for the fallout of the iran war. Was that not enough?
AnimalMuppet 1 day ago|
Venezuelan, not Cuban.

And what they secured (if they secured anything) was basically future. It's going to take years to ramp Venezuelan production back up to what it would be with decent management.

More comments...