The Brief

California plans to overhaul one of its cornerstone climate programs — a decision that could push gasoline prices higher in a state where residents already pay the most at the pump.

On Nov. 8, just three days after an election marked by concerns over rising costs, the California Air Resources Board will hold a public hearing and vote on its plan to amend the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

The program, which has existed since 2011, is a $2 billion credit trading system that requires fuels sold in California to become progressively cleaner, while giving companies financial incentives to produce less-polluting fuels, such as biofuels made from soybeans or cow manure. The standard has helped the state phase out fossil fuels to clean up air pollution and cut climate-warming gases.

The concern over gas prices has been part of the debate since last December, when the plan was released. Much of the agency’s overhaul, however, has focused on highly technical disputes between oil companies, dairy farms, biofuel and other lower-carbon fuel companies, and environmental justice advocates who say the program maintains polluting industries.

But as the election has approached — with costs and affordability of top concern for voters — Republicans in California’s state Legislature have urged a delay in the fuel standard changes, saying they could further drive up gasoline prices. They also have criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom, who recently declared victory over Big Oil during a special legislative session, for not doing enough to cut gas prices. On Thursday, California Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives also urged a delay in the air board plan.

The proposal to strengthen the fuel standard has fueled a recent outcry from the public: More than 100 commenters earlier this month wrote to the air board, protesting the amendments due to the potential impact on gas and diesel prices.

“Are you kidding?” Rich Marotti of Ventura County wrote, adding a profane adjective. “Gas is already more expensive in CA than HI. That’s absurd…Any action taken to increase gas prices is an attack on California citizens.”

How will this impact gas prices?

The gas price revolt over the fuel standard underscores how the state’s ambitious agenda for addressing climate change can come under fire if it threatens to make fossil fuels more expensive as the state tries to phase them out by 2045. Californians paid an average of $4.61 a gallon on Thursday.

Energy experts and air board staff say the fuel standard raises the cost of producing high-polluting gasoline and diesel for the California market. Those costs can drive up prices at the pump when companies pass them on to their customers, although it’s difficult to predict exactly by how much.

The air board said earlier this month that fuel producers typically pass on 8 to 10 cents per gallon of costs to consumers because of the program. Estimates for how the air board’s proposed changes in the program would affect gasoline prices vary.

In an initial assessment released last year, the air board projected that the proposed new standard could potentially raise the per-gallon price of diesel by 59 cents and for gasoline by 47 cents in 2025 — numbers that have turned the policy debate into a political flashpoint.

Air board officials have since disavowed that estimate, writing earlier this month that the analysis “should not be misconstrued as a prediction of the future credit price nor as a direct impact on prices at the pump.”

A separate report, released earlier this month by the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, predicted that the program’s changes could increase the cost of gas by 85 cents a gallon through 2030.

At a media briefing on Friday, air board Executive Officer Steven Cliff said the effect on gas prices is unknown. “How the oil companies choose to pass through costs is ultimately a decision that they make. It’s a business decision, and it’s driven by broader market factors,” he said.

Cliff said the air board has no choice, because under the California Climate Crisis Act, the state must slash its greenhouse gases to reach net zero greenhouse gases by 2045. Cars, trucks and other transportation are the No. 1 source.

Also on Friday, Newsom directed the air board to start evaluating whether more ethanol, made from corn and other grains, can be added to gasoline to lower the prices at the pump.

Air Resources Board Chair Liane Randolph told CalMatters in an exclusive interview that the heated debate about the fuel standard proposal prompted her to speak out ahead of the board’s vote, something she typically doesn’t do.

In the interview, Randolph emphasized that the fuel standard is critical for meeting the state’s targets to slash greenhouse gases and use of fossil fuels. She said the proposed changes are designed to prevent California from falling behind on its ambitious climate goals, which are already at risk, according to experts.

California's climate future

At the heart of the debate, Randolph said, is a fundamental question about California’s climate future: How quickly can we shift from fossil fuels to a zero-emission future?

The air board’s changes could reduce carbon dioxide-equivalent gases by 558 million metric tons through 2046, according to its initial economic assessment. That’s equal to what more than 120 million cars emit on average in a year. (Experts say that may be an overstatement because the carbon footprint from some renewable diesel such as soybeans might be more than reported.)

“The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is one of California’s most significant and most effective climate programs,” Randolph told CalMatters. “It’s a market program that comes with a mandate to fuel producers to reduce their carbon intensity over time. So the reason we undertook the update of this program is because we wanted to make sure that the ambition of the program was aligned with our goals.”

Randolph said the fuel standard has been a crucial driver in reducing pollution from cars and trucks, and can help drive a wider array of transportation choices for Californians. The program, she added, “helps clean the air in the most impacted areas.”

“For the everyday Californian… this helps fund your opportunity to buy a plug-in hybrid car, a battery electric car, a hydrogen fuel cell car,” Randolph said. And for diesel trucks and delivery vans, it “is helping make those vehicles cleaner and quieter.”

The program has been particularly successful in shifting the fuel market for medium and heavy-duty trucks, and over the course of 13 years, the program has displaced 25 billion gallons of petroleum fuels, according to the board’s economic assessment.

Regarding the cost at the gas pump, Randolph said it’s challenging to put a specific number on gas prices because fuel producers have different strategies for complying. Some might produce cleaner fuels themselves, potentially profiting from the incentives, while others may buy credits on the market, which could lead to varying costs.

It’s hard to predict whether oil companies will pass those costs onto customers or absorb them, making it difficult to determine the exact impact on prices, Randolph said. She pointed to the data indicating that fuel producers typically pass on 8 to 10 cents per gallon costs to consumers because of the program.

The current standard’s target is reducing the climate impact of transportation fuels by 20% between 2010 and 2030. The air board proposal would impose tougher “carbon intensity” targets, tightening reductions in the greenhouse gases those fuels produce by about 30% by 2030 and 90% by 2045. (Carbon intensity is the measure of carbon dioxide emissions produced per unit of energy or activity.) The board is also considering accelerating those reductions when certain conditions are met.

This tightening of the standard will affect the entire fuel market, from companies such as Chevron that dominate fuel production in California to smaller operators who import fuel.

The Western States Petroleum Association, an oil industry group, has supported the low-carbon fuels program, with many of its members producing some of the new fuels the program has spurred. However, they have argued against many of the proposed changes because they might increase costs or disadvantage some companies.

Chevron has warned against what the changes might do to costs in the state.

“At a time when fuel prices are under significant scrutiny and demand in California frequently outstrips supply, regulators should be careful about adding new measures that restrict supply,” Don Gilstrap, the company’s manager of fuels regulations wrote earlier this month.

Laura Renger, executive director of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, said the fuel standard is essential for getting more electric cars on the road and building the charging infrastructure they need.

The program has funneled billions into electric vehicles and chargers, pushing the state away from petroleum and toward cleaner electricity. With the new rules under consideration, she says, the state’s utilities will have funds to invest even more.

Through the fuel standard, California has become a proving ground for cleaner fuels.

The tighter the fuel standard, the more intense the scramble to produce lower-carbon alternatives and obtain credits. The program considers not just tailpipe emissions but also carbon emitted during fuel production and distribution.

So many companies have produced cleaner fuels that the price of credits has nosedived, dropping to an average of $62.17 in mid-October compared to $180.86 the same week three years ago. The credits have built up to the point where some companies can simply buy their way out of producing cleaner fuels.

To avoid that, regulators have proposed the changes to be voted on next month — essentially tightening the standard so that companies are incentivized to burn through the excess credits.

Biofuels: Are they better?

Most notably, the fuel standard has spurred a boom in biofuels, which are produced from plants or animal waste. Two Bay Area companies are converting their refineries to focus on biofuels: a Marathon joint venture with the company Neste at the Marathon Martinez refinery and a conversion by Phillips 66 of one of its refineries in Rodeo to a biofuels project.

But experts have increasingly questioned that approach, particularly if the state is trying to shift transportation from fuels that are burned to zero-emission vehicles. The University of Pennsylvania report, authored by Danny Cullenward, a climate economist, estimates that about 80% of the credits issued to date — worth more than $17.7 billion, have gone to biofuels.

While biofuels reduce emissions relative to traditional fossil fuels, he says that their production, particularly renewable diesel fuels, like soybean, has unintended environmental consequences, including deforestation and food system disruptions. The board has proposed caps on diesel produced from soybean oil, canola oil and sunflower oil, but some groups say that the proposed measures don’t go far enough.

A debate over fuel from cow manure

Throughout the debate, tensions have arisen over how the new fuels have impacted California’s polluted, low-income communities of color. One of the most heated disputes has been over the proposed phaseout of climate credits for cow poop — biofuel made from dairy farm manure.

California’s strategy for cutting its methane footprint has so far hinged on providing incentives, mostly to the dairy industry, through grants for construction of digesters — recovery systems that trap the methane from manure — and valuable climate credits from the fuel standard program for the natural gas that methane produces.

About half of the state’s methane emissions come from dairy and livestock, so collecting the gases wafting off of manure keeps them out of the atmosphere and offers a renewable source of fuel.

But the board has proposed a phase out of those credits, beginning in 30 years for projects that already exist and 20 years for those built before 2030. The proposal has angered environmental groups who want a more aggressive discontinuation because they say the credits support industrial dairy farms that pollute rural, low-income communities in the Central Valley.

The state’s dairy industry, meanwhile, says the credits are one of the program’s success stories.

“As a result of this important program, dairy farmers are able to reduce emissions and enhance the environment and economic stability of their farms,” wrote Michael Boccadoro, head of Dairy Cares, which promotes digesters for methane reduction.

And finally, a major debate has been waged about what the program isn’t regulating. The air board considered ending an exemption for jet fuel under the program, but under pressure from the aviation industry, declined to pursue it in its final proposal.

A new analysis of alerts sent during the Eaton Fire found “no failure” by emergency officials to issue timely evacuation orders to areas west of Lake Avenue in Altadena.

The timing of alerts to neighborhoods west of Lake, where all but one of 19 deaths in that fire occurred, has been under scrutiny since the January 2025 fire.

The independent report by Citygate Associates was commissioned by the L.A. County Fire Department at the start of this year and was released Monday.

Its conclusions are similar to those of after-action reports from other firms — that officials did the best they could amid unprecedented fire conditions and strained resources.

“While the report provides an honest account of our operations, we recognize that no investigation can truly capture the horror and tragedy residents endured,” said L.A. County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone in a prepared statement. “My focus is to ensure that the lessons learned from the Eaton and Palisades fires are turned into lasting changes that will better protect our residents and neighborhoods into the future.”

Altadena resident Zaire Calvin — whose sister died in the fire and whose own home burned down — said the report feels like another “slap in the face.” He said he wanted to see details on any mistakes that may have been made. But reading the report, he felt blame was once again largely placed on unprecedented fire conditions.

“A  community that's already down, a community that's fighting for their lives, a community that's fighting all of the people trying to take property from them — at some point you just want accountability,” Calvin said.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said in a prepared statement that the “investigation should not be interpreted as dismissing the experiences of residents. Public trust requires both accountability and a willingness to learn from every aspect of a disaster response.”

Citygate Associates, which produced an after-action report on the 2018 Woolsey Fire, used interviews, operational records, dispatch records and internal communications to analyze decisionmaking between 9 p.m. on Jan. 7, 2025, and 6 a.m. the following day.

Some of the main findings include the following:

• With aircraft grounded by  high winds, “Incident Command was forced to fight a fire while blind to its movements.” 
• Evacuation decisions were not based on “race, age or socioeconomics.” 
• “Evacuation planners who created the evacuation zone areas well before the fire tried to use, where possible, major north/south and east/west streets. … Thus, Lake Avenue was a natural, very long street that could be utilized as an anchor for creating evacuation zones.” 
• Other fire timeline reviews cite reports of fire moving westward between 11 p.m. and just before midnight, but Citygate staffers write that strained resources were focused on the eastern front of the fire at that time, which was the direction the fire was initially spreading, and that “fire progression maps … do not show the the Eaton Fire directly impacting western neighborhoods at that time.” 
• The fire initially spread westward more slowly, and did not escalate significantly until early in the morning on Jan. 8.
• Reports of fires before 1 a.m. west of Lake Avenue were likely a result of downed power lines.
• By 2 a.m., radio reports indicated embers were being cast deeper into Altadena. 
• Discussions to expand evacuation orders west started at 2:18 a.m., with evacuation orders being sent to residents west of Lake by 3:25 a.m. 
• The main fire front crossed west of Lake Avenue by about 5:15 a.m. 

Find the full report here. 

Huntington Beach must pay $50,000 for each month it continues to fail to comply with the state’s mandate to zone for more housing, according to a recent court ruling. For several years now, the city has been waging a court battle against the state's order to make way for 40,000 new homes.

The judge ruled that the city should be penalized $10,000 per month going back to January 2025, and then fined $50,000 per month, starting next month, until the city gets a compliant housing element approved.

The backstory

State law requires California cities and counties to plan for enough housing to meet the expected demand over an eight-year time period, including for low-income housing. Huntington Beach, citing its independence as a charter city, has fought its most recent housing allocation all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to review the case last year.

Does the state require cities to actually build that many homes?

No. Cities are not required to actually build housing, but rather to make sure their zoning and land use codes accommodate the amount of housing assigned to them through what’s known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

What does the city say?

In a statement, Casey McKeon, the city’s mayor, said the city “strongly opposes these penalties and will continue fighting for the rights of our residents and for the principle of local control against ongoing efforts by the Attorney General to centralize land use authority in Sacramento.”

Is Huntington Beach an outlier?

Yes. Huntington Beach is an outlier in its aggressive fight against the state housing mandates. More than 90% of California’s 539 jurisdictions are in compliance with the state requirement to plan for the amount of housing assigned to them through the latest RHNA cycle.

What’s next?

The city recently posted draft revisions to its housing plan — for the first time since 2021. That’s significant because the city’s efforts to come into state compliance have been paused for years.

One complication with compliance: Huntington Beach residents voted to require any major changes to the city’s zoning, including its state-mandated housing plan, to be put up for a public vote. That could mean more delays in coming into state compliance, and consequently, more fines, at a time when the city is facing a budget crunch.

During a press conference following a shooting at the San Diego Islamic Center, San Diego Police Department Chief Scott Wahl confirmed three adult victims at the center and the two suspects are dead.

Police said the suspects were found dead in the vehicle nearby. They were 17 and 19 years old. The motivation behind the shooting is unknown at this time.

Wahl said in 28 years, this is the most dynamic and impressive response he's seen in policing with help coming from agencies all over the county.

Imam of the Islamic Center of San Diego Taha Hassane said the center stands in solidarity "with all of the families in our community here and all the mosques and places of worship" in San Diego.

"This is something that we never expected, and I would also like to thank all the people who contacted us from all over the country and overseas to offer their condolences."

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria was also present at the news conference.

"We will do anything it takes to make sure you feel safe in this city," Gloria said.

In a statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations-San Diego Executive Director Tazheen Nizam said:

“We strongly condemn this horrifying act of violence at the Islamic Center of San Diego. Our thoughts are with everyone impacted by this attack. No one should ever fear for their safety while attending prayers or studying at an elementary school. We are working to learn more about this incident and we encourage everyone to keep this community in your prayers."

The active shooter situation was reported at 11:43 a.m. at ICSD in the 7000 block of Eckstrom Avenue in Clairemont, according to SDPD.

The department is asking people to avoid the area.

A reunification location for those impacted by the incident has been established at 4125 Hathaway Street.

According to our news partner ABC 10News, authorities shut down northbound and southbound Interstate 805 at Balboa Avenue due to the law enforcement activity.

The San Diego Unified School District confirmed several campuses were placed on lock down. SDUSD spokesperson James Canning said lockdowns are gradually being lifted but schools closest to the Islamic Center will be the last to have their lockdowns lifted.

The Islamic Center is the largest mosque in San Diego County. The center holds five daily prayers.

In California’s upcoming June primary election, you’ll have the opportunity to cast your ballot for any of the candidates for governor, regardless of which party you’re registered with. The top two vote-getters advance to the general election.

Known as a “jungle primary,” this system is different from how most states handle their primary elections.

This year, Democrats raised the alarm that two Republican gubernatorial candidates may move to the general election, locking out Democrats despite outnumbering Republican registered voters almost two to one. That’s because the crowded field of Democratic candidates threatens to split the party’s vote. Until recently, multiple polls have shown the two Republicans, former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, polling at the top of the race.

Driven in part by these concerns, critics of the top-two primary have now filed a ballot initiative that would repeal this system and return California to party-based primaries, potentially as early as 2030.

But how does this top-two arrangement work? Why does California do things this way? And what are the chances of voters choosing between two GOP candidates for governor in November?

How does California’s top-two primary system work?

In a traditional closed primary, such as in presidential races, voters can only choose among candidates from their own party: That is, say, registered Democrats could only vote for Democratic candidates.

But in a top-two primary, all candidates from all parties appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The two candidates with the most votes in that primary then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party.

Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation, said this is an even bigger concern for third parties in the state.

“One of the unfortunate byproducts” of California’s jungle primary system, Alexander said, is how “it’s really shut out a lot of minor parties from the general election and they run the risk of being kicked off the ballot altogether.”

“Because if you don’t have candidates appearing on ballots at a certain pace, then you can’t remain an official party,” she said.

Does this really mean Californians might not get a Republican vs. Democrat race for governor in November?

That’s correct: Under the top-two primary system, the November contest could be an intraparty fight.

That scenario has worried many California Democrats. With seven top Democrats crowding the field, there’s a risk of fracturing their party’s vote. Meanwhile, if enough Republican voters back both Hilton and Bianco to push them both into the top two, California could be locked into an all-Republican general election for governor.

Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, left, and Tom Steyer, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, fist-bump prior to a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco, California, on April 22, 2026. California will hold its primary election on June 2, where the top two finishers advance to the general election in November regardless of party affiliation. (Jason Henry/Nexstar via Bloomberg)In March, state Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged politicians in his party to take a hard look at the viability of their campaigns and drop out before the filing deadline.

“California’s leadership on the world stage is significantly harder if a Democrat is not elected as our next Governor,” Hicks wrote in an open letter.

None of the contenders heeded his plea.

However, the likelihood of Republicans shutting Democrats out of the November election has decreased since President Donald Trump endorsed Hilton in April. A clear front-runner could unify Republican voters behind Hilton and open the door for a Democrat to claim the second spot in the runoff.

Plus, the most recent Emerson poll now shows former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in the lead with 19% of likely voters for the first time in the race. Hilton and Democrat Tom Steyer are tied for second with 17%.

Becerra’s surge came after former East Bay Rep. Eric Swalwell — who was regarded as a front-runner for the gubernatorial primary — exited the race last month amid sexual assault and misconduct allegations.

Why does California have this top-two system?

Historically, California required a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to pass the state budget instead of a simple majority vote.

In 2009, Democrats needed to court Republican votes to pass the state budget. Then-state Sen. Abel Maldonado, a Republican, agreed to vote yes — but only if the Legislature put a measure on the ballot to create the top-two primary system.

Voters approved that measure, Proposition 14, in 2010, amending the state constitution.

Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backed the measure as a way to transform state politics, forcing candidates to appeal to voters across party lines and ultimately boost more moderate politicians.

“He liked to talk about living in a post-partisan political climate,” Alexander said. “He liked the idea of candidates having to appeal to more voters than just voters of their own party, and to face competition.”

The system was also designed to give more influence to California’s no party preference voters, who make up 23% of registered voters in the state, just behind Republicans at 25%.

Which political offices in California are decided using this system?

The top-two primary applies to “voter-nominated” offices: governor and other statewide positions like lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer, state controller, insurance commissioner and state board of equalization members.

It also covers state Senate and Assembly seats and U.S. congressional offices.

The jungle primary system does not apply to presidential elections, local and nonpartisan offices such as city council, school boards, judges, district attorneys or the superintendent of public instruction.

Which other states use this system?

Washington state was the first to adopt a top-two primary for congressional and state-level elections in 2004, but not for governor.

Unlike California, Washington allows write-in candidates in the general election — a safety valve for scenarios where one party is locked out.

A handful of other states use variations of the system. Nebraska’s legislature is nonpartisan, so it uses a top-two primary for state legislative races.

Louisiana uses a majority-vote system for statewide executive offices, state legislative seats and local offices. If a candidate receives a majority of the vote in the primary, they win outright. If not, there is a second round of voting with the top two vote-getters in November.

Alaska adopted a top-four primary in 2020 for state executive, state legislative and congressional races. An effort to repeal the state’s top-four primaries was narrowly defeated by voters in 2024 but will be on the ballot again this year.

If I’m a ‘no party preference’ voter, can I even vote in the California primary?

Yes: Any registered voter, including those with no party preference, can vote for any candidate in voter-nominated races like the governor’s contest.

The top-two primary system draws no distinction based on a voter’s party registration.

Are there any efforts to get rid of California’s jungle primary?

Driven in part by concerns that Democrats could be locked out of this year’s governor’s race, a new ballot initiative seeks to repeal California’s top-two primary system.

Democratic strategist Steven Maviglio filed the initiative, called “Undo the Top Two,” with the attorney general on May 8.
He called the jungle primary a “failed experiment.”

“The prospect of having to vote for a candidate who’s not from your party in November has really woken up a lot of voters in the state about the dangers of the top-two primary,” Maviglio said. “The chance that a Democrat would have to choose between Chad Bianco or Steve Hilton is sending a chill up the spine of a lot of Democrats.”

However, even if successful, Maviglio’s initiative won’t impact the 2026 election — since he hopes to place the measure on the 2028 ballot, with any changes taking effect no earlier than the 2030 elections.