California Considers Taking Over Some Oil Refineries (yahoo.com) 163
California is "considering state ownership of one or more oil refineries," reports the Los Angeles Times.
They call the idea "one item on a list of options presented by the California Energy Commission to ensure steady gas supplies as oil companies pull back from the refinery business in the state." "The state recognizes that they're on a pathway to more refinery closures," said Skip York, chief energy strategist at energy consultant Turner Mason & Co. The risk to consumers and the state's economy, he said, is gasoline supply disappearing faster than consumer demand, resulting in fuel shortages, higher prices and severe logistical challenges.
Gasoline demand is falling in California, albeit slowly, for two reasons: more efficient gasoline engines, and the increasing number of electric vehicles on the road. Gasoline consumption in California peaked in 2005 and fell 15% through 2023, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrids, now represent about 25% of annual new car sales... The drop in demand is causing fundamental strategic shifts among the state's major oil refiners: Chevron, Marathon, Phillips 66, PBF Energy and Valero.
Already, two California refineries have ceased producing gasoline to make biodiesel fuel for use in heavy-duty trucks, a cleaner-fuel alternative that enjoys rich state subsidies. More worrisome, the Phillips 66 refinery complex in Wilmington, just outside Los Angeles, plans to close down permanently by year's end. That leaves eight major refineries in California capable of producing gasoline. The closure of any one would create serious gasoline supply issues, industry analysts say. But both Chevron and Valero are contemplating permanent refinery closures. The implications? "Demand will decline gradually," York said, "but supply will fall out in chunks." What's unknown is how many refineries will close, and how soon, and how that will affect supply and demand...
A state refinery takeover seems like a radical idea, but the fact that it's being considered demonstrates the seriousness of the supply issue. It's one of several option laid out by the California Energy Commission, which is fulfilling a legislative order to find ways to ensure "a reliable supply of affordable and safe transportation fuels in California." The options list is disparate: Ship in more gasoline from Asia; regulate refineries on the order of electric utilities; cap profit margins; and many more.
92% of California's gas is produced in refineries, the Times reports. But the special gasoline blends required to reduce air pollution "also drive up gasoline prices and raise the risk of shortages, because little such gasoline is produced outside California."
They call the idea "one item on a list of options presented by the California Energy Commission to ensure steady gas supplies as oil companies pull back from the refinery business in the state." "The state recognizes that they're on a pathway to more refinery closures," said Skip York, chief energy strategist at energy consultant Turner Mason & Co. The risk to consumers and the state's economy, he said, is gasoline supply disappearing faster than consumer demand, resulting in fuel shortages, higher prices and severe logistical challenges.
Gasoline demand is falling in California, albeit slowly, for two reasons: more efficient gasoline engines, and the increasing number of electric vehicles on the road. Gasoline consumption in California peaked in 2005 and fell 15% through 2023, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrids, now represent about 25% of annual new car sales... The drop in demand is causing fundamental strategic shifts among the state's major oil refiners: Chevron, Marathon, Phillips 66, PBF Energy and Valero.
Already, two California refineries have ceased producing gasoline to make biodiesel fuel for use in heavy-duty trucks, a cleaner-fuel alternative that enjoys rich state subsidies. More worrisome, the Phillips 66 refinery complex in Wilmington, just outside Los Angeles, plans to close down permanently by year's end. That leaves eight major refineries in California capable of producing gasoline. The closure of any one would create serious gasoline supply issues, industry analysts say. But both Chevron and Valero are contemplating permanent refinery closures. The implications? "Demand will decline gradually," York said, "but supply will fall out in chunks." What's unknown is how many refineries will close, and how soon, and how that will affect supply and demand...
A state refinery takeover seems like a radical idea, but the fact that it's being considered demonstrates the seriousness of the supply issue. It's one of several option laid out by the California Energy Commission, which is fulfilling a legislative order to find ways to ensure "a reliable supply of affordable and safe transportation fuels in California." The options list is disparate: Ship in more gasoline from Asia; regulate refineries on the order of electric utilities; cap profit margins; and many more.
92% of California's gas is produced in refineries, the Times reports. But the special gasoline blends required to reduce air pollution "also drive up gasoline prices and raise the risk of shortages, because little such gasoline is produced outside California."
Just end the special blends, or maybe not. (Score:2)
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao... [gao.gov]
Do they help? Well, they certainly do with older cars. New cars? Harder to say. VOCs are bad, of course. Lower carbon is good, of course. I'm ready to just throw the towel in on guzzoline.
Re: (Score:2)
What I find most interesting from that document is that states aren't allowed to require specially blended gasoline unless it's the only way deemed reasonable to meet federal emissions standards.
Also of interest: The only really significant differences in California fuel are reduction in benzene and sulfur and tighter standards for Reid vapor pressure which is a measurement of evaporation, and banning of MTBE (which is a serious contaminant of groundwater.)
Another interesting detail: There were 45 different
Re: (Score:2)
From the fine Report you linked, emphasis mine:
In addition to these broad concerns, there is also controversy over the
emissions benefits associated with special blends containing oxygenates,
which were initially added to gasoline to reduce the emissions of carbon
monoxide and other pollutants. However, although there appears to be
agreement that oxygenated fuels help reduce emissions of CO from older
vehicles, recent studies indicate that the emissions benefits for newer
vehicles are questionable. For example, AQIRP, the National Science and
Technology Council, and others have reported that improvements in
emissions controls on newer vehicles, such as oxygen sensors and
computer-controlled emissions systems, may now automatically reduce
emissions of CO and other pollutants and may negate many benefits of
adding oxygenates. Further, some experts have concluded that adding
oxygenates to gasoline may increase emissions of NOx and VOCs and may
contribute to increased levels of ozone. As a result, some states, including
California, New York, and Georgia have requested waivers from EPA to
allow them to use fuel that does not contain an oxygenate. The state of
California stipulated in its waiver application that its fuel reduces
emissions to a greater extent than federal RFG and that the oxygenate
requirement has impeded its efforts to reduce ozone. To date, EPA has not
granted any of these waivers. Recently, Congress and others have
considered expanding the use of ethanol in gasoline for other reasons,
including to benefit U.S. farmers and to reduce the countryâ(TM)s reliance on
foreign oil.
I considered fixing the smart quotes error, but I think "The Country(TM)" is a perfect description of this corporatism-raped nation.
what's missing here? (Score:2)
If the higher prices at the pump account for the higher cost of production.. and there is still demand... the assumption is the refineries are making money/profits... if the state took over... they would still need to turn a profit... is it that the refineries are to be closed or to be converted to bio-diesel which has subsidies that make it more lucrative? that makes sense...
closing a refinery that took years to build and billions to replace, piles of cash to cleanup... while it's making money.. .makes no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to be out of the Nuclear industry playbook. "ooops, this nuclear plant is costing more and more in maintenance, lets threaten to close it so the State/tax payer can pay for its up keep." [eia.gov]
No, it's way worse than that. When refineries operate in California, they are basically making fuel exclusively for California, because there aren't enough refineries here to keep up with demand. When refineries operate elsewhere, they are mostly making fuel for other states with different fuel blends. Therefore, they can charge a steep premium, most of which is profit, for selling fuel to California because of its special blend.
Thus, for companies that operate refineries in California and in other state
Re:what's missing here? (Score:4, Interesting)
if the state took over... they would still need to turn a profit
False. The state would have the option to turn a profit, but that money would just go into the general fund. The state wouldn't take on the refinery under a corporate charter that required maximizing profit, like your average corporation. Corporations are not even required to put that into their charter, but if they don't then they won't attract investors. Even corporations are not required to maximize profit, but rather, to fulfill their charter. This mistake is made over and over and over again both on and off of this site. Corporations are not required by law to be evil, that is required by shareholders.
Companies only act because of $, where is the financial incentive to close the refinery?
That's the real objection, I think. The difference between fractional distillation of one fuel or another is what catalysts are used and at what levels you want to tap the tank. The former doesn't require a new column, nor does the latter. On the other hand, maybe the state is just making it unprofitable with regulations designed to try to enhance safety. Some of these refineries in California are located near very highly populated areas, and they semi-regularly have releases that have residents hiding in their homes, or even evacuating. Mostly they do not affect the most populated areas, which is why you don't usually hear about them, but it's only a matter of time before a large enough release occurs on a day when the wind is going just the right direction. It's weird if the state wants to become responsible for one of those, they seem like a liability nightmare waiting to occur.
If California really wants to improve things for drivers here, they should get on building chargers. There are lots of public parking lots which could be so equipped by deploying solar over the tops of them. Make some funds available for local municipalities to build those, and daytime charging can make EVs feasible for more areas. There are also some rest areas which could be expanded for charging, and their parking areas covered. (Others are poorly situated for solar. I can think of examples of both, but I'm sure there's a website listing all the California rest areas which would be more illuminating than my recollections.)
With that said, it won't help us up here in far NoCal where we pay the highest fuel prices in the state. We don't have enough insolation for part of the year to make that practical. We're still going to need the liquid fuels up here. If California hadn't gone on a misguided crusade against diesel on the argument that it produces more particulate emissions, which it most certainly does not [slashdot.org], then perhaps we could solve the problem with some of this renewable diesel that the refineries are switching to. It's a really great motor fuel (as they go) as it has slightly more energy than petrodiesel, much lower emissions overall, and is made from renewable sources.
If you use plant stocks including algae to make green diesel, after separating the lipids for biodiesel, what's left could also be used to make Butanol, a 1:1 replacement for gasoline where the process also produces ethanol and acetone, the latter of which can be used to adjust octane. The ethanol can be used industrially, and a portion of it can go into the fuel — modern vehicles tolerate 10-15% ethanol. Though for my part, I'd prefer to get it out of there since it's aggressively hygroscopic, and that causes fuel system part failures.
Several things jumped out to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Already, two California refineries have ceased producing gasoline to make biodiesel fuel for use in heavy-duty trucks, a cleaner-fuel alternative that enjoys rich state subsidies.
So the state is paying them to not produce gasoline? Perhaps reduce the subsidies?
A state refinery takeover seems like a radical idea, but the fact that it's being considered demonstrates the seriousness of the supply issue. It's one of several option laid out by the California Energy Commission, which is fulfilling a legislative order to find ways to ensure "a reliable supply of affordable and safe transportation fuels in California." The options list is disparate: Ship in more gasoline from Asia; regulate refineries on the order of electric utilities; cap profit margins; and many more.
Importing gasoline from Asia? Really? Couldn't you incentivize domestic refineries to produce special CA formulations?
Treat refineries like they regulate eclectic power generation in the state? Wow, they're going to translate their great track record with electricity in CA into control of gasoline refining?
Cap Profit margins? How, seriously, how does limiting the profit on gas refineries encourage oil companies to keep their CA refineries open?
92% of California's gas is produced in refineries, the Times reports.
You may want to check that stat/wording - I guarantee you 100% of all gasoline in California is refined - gasoline is not a naturally-occurring substance, it is refined from crude oil by, you guessed it, refineries! (perhaps you meant to say "92% of California's gas is produced in California refineries"?
And finally, I'm just curious - why are the oil companies shuttering refineries in CA? Could it possibly be rooted in increased cost of operation? Oppressive environmental regulations? High taxes?
I find it hysterical that CA is even considering owning oil refineries as they incentivize EV adoption and are forcing ICE vehicles to become an ever smaller percentage of the auto population in CA!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with exactly how CA does things but generally speaking we are going to see more of this kind of managed decline of fossil fuels and nuclear as the shift to renewables and storage happens. There will be a hopefully short period where they are needed but not economically viable, even with the mega subsidies they enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still a lot of people who like
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny how people keep assuring me that California is a socialist hell-hole and dying economy, and yet it remains the biggest state by GDP (twice as much as the next two, Texas and NY), and very wealthy in general. Of course it has big problems, but so do all US states. States which are subsidized by California.
Succession would be extremely interesting to watch.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, so if only they weren't so woke they would be even richer? And you know this because you have an example of a similar state that isn't woke and it's working out great for them. Like say Texas. Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
You have the most ironic name on slash dot.
Re: (Score:2)
Triggered. I made my name to find the Dunning Kruger types. Found you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, we know it's "he".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how to do a true comparison between the states but does a large budget surplus count?
https://northdakotamonitor.com... [northdakotamonitor.com]
Re:Several things jumped out to me (Score:4, Insightful)
So the state is paying them to not produce gasoline? Perhaps reduce the subsidies?
No the state is applying a subsidy to focus production on something that is needed by policy: Biodiesel instead of normal diesel. That the market for gasoline is tight enough that the refineries cut their gasoline production has nothing to do with these subsidies and everything to do with the market forces itself.
Importing gasoline from Asia? Really? Couldn't you incentivize domestic refineries to produce special CA formulations?
Did you not read what you quoted? It's just one of the listed options.
How, seriously, how does limiting the profit on gas refineries encourage oil companies to keep their CA refineries open?
If it is more profitable to produce fuel for a foreign market than the local market then a profit cap can encourage the local market. But don't worry this would never work legally.
And finally, I'm just curious - why are the oil companies shuttering refineries in CA? Could it possibly be rooted in increased cost of operation? Oppressive environmental regulations? High taxes?
Yeah cost of operation is a good one, but the other ones are misdirects. There's a whole world of market forces on refineries. The change in demand (listed right in the summary) the change in supply (transporting fuel is cheap, refineries in America have massively struggled since the mega refineries in South Korea opened up), and market focus and consolidation (even if you're turning a profit it may not be worth the operation if you can dedicate your resources better elsewhere).
Re: (Score:3)
CNG is a cheap fuel,
Not in California! I chatted with my 80+ yo parents last night. Cold season in upon them in California. They have solar panels on the roof under the old net metering rates. My Dad was complaining about paying the utilities. His electric bill was $12. His natural gas bill caught him completely off guard at $400+. One story house, no heating a pool, etc... They're talking about adding two more panels (allowed option on their solar permit) and getting a couple box heaters. Box heaters would be unthinka
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By 'box heaters' I assume you mean simple resistive heating element types. If they are lucky enough to have surplus solar energy in winter then a reverse cycle heat pump is the way to go. It will give them more heating for the electrical same energy input.
I was just looking into that for them. They were looking at a quick fix, just heating one or two rooms they're in at a time. But even a mini-split ductless heat pump in the main living area is more bang for the buck. The problem is Kali gets all kinds of weird with permitting, vendor service lock-in, etc...
T
But it's a self-inflicted problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
California required that insurers actually insure, and lots of them didn't want to do that so they left.
The real fire problem California has created, by not addressing it, is allowing homes to be built from flammable materials. Doing otherwise would harm the timber industry which we have here and boost the steel industry, which is located in other states for emissions and energy cost reasons. Nobody in the entire country was thinking about prohibiting people from building lots of houses in forested areas un
aww it's cute my trolls are creative now (Score:3)
They modded this "flamebait" instead of "troll"... how topical!
Why subsidize the oil industry? (Score:3)
Of all places, why does California subsidize the polluting oil industry, and people and enterprises that emit lots of CO2?
Taxpayer money is spent on artificially maintaining higher capacity than what would be available if market supply and demand were allowed to do their work.
Pricier gasoline leads to faster conversion to hybrid and electric cars, while channeling taxpayer money to make gasoline cheaper increases carbon emissions.
One may or may not be environmentally concerned, but California promoting electric mobility with one hand, while subsidizing oil consumption with the other just doesn't make sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because they like having basic trappings of civilization, like always on power, no starvation or death of thirst, etc.
Re:Why subsidize the oil industry? (Score:4, Informative)
Pricier gasoline leads to faster conversion to hybrid and electric cars
ObDisclaimer: I am fully in favor of conversion of nearly all roadgoing vehicle roles to electric.
HOWEVER: You absolutely, fundamentally cannot solve the EV adoption problem by making gasoline more expensive. Instead, you will worsen the homelessness problem as you drive people into destitution.
Californians have the longest average commutes in the nation. Making those more expensive for people already commonly living paycheck to paycheck or very close to it (this can be true even for apparently well-paid professionals, due to the cost of living) is not going to improve the situation because so many people have nowhere to charge. If they do not have off-street parking so they cannot charge at home, and they do not have charging near or at work, they are going to need access to a quick charger which doesn't exist. There are simply not enough of them to serve many more EV users who cannot charge at home.
I WfH 4 days, but on the 5th day I have a 30 minute commute, and nowhere to charge an EV at either end of the trip. It already costs me $10 to drive to and from work because fuel is expensive here. Making it more expensive will not make me buy an EV. I cannot afford to live nearer, I cannot afford a new EV and cannot afford to maintain a used one if something goes wrong, and I cannot charge an EV even if I could afford one.
California promoting electric mobility with one hand, while subsidizing oil consumption with the other just doesn't make sense.
Your picture of the situation is from such a high altitude that you cannot see the humans. Remember how it's been said that from space, it looks like we're servants for automobiles? That's where you're looking at this problem from.
Re:Why subsidize the oil industry? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that California has created a regulatory environment where producing the required gasoline blends is not economic at market prices close to anywhere else in the U.S.. So they have two basic choices:
1) Subsidize the cleaner gasoline blends they require OR
2) Deal with scarcity of gasoline. Easy to say "just switch to electric" but the reality is that if gasoline suddenly became unavailable in California it would cause a calamity.
Part of the problem is that there are only a very small number of refineries that produce California blend. Normally, the response to increased regulatory cost is to increase price, and that has been happening. But many producers have decided that EVEN WITH higher revenue, it's not worth the regulatory cost and regulatory environment. Anti "price gouging" regulations will prevent a small number of remaining participants to make up for the costs with very high prices. If too many market participants leave the state, you just end up with shortages. That's what the state is trying to prevent. Even though they'd like to get rid of gasoline use entirely, the reality is that is extremely difficult to do in practice.
Gasoline math (Score:2)
> 92% of California's gas is produced in refineries
I'd go out on a limb and wager that 100% of California's gas is produced in refineries. Gasoline doesn't grow on trees and isn't just pumped out of some mythical gasoline wells.
Re:Gasoline math (Score:4, Insightful)
What's good for the goose (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They absolutely have the right to do this. It is just stupid. If they allowed any of the more common low pollution blends the rest of the country already uses this wouldn't be an issue at all but they're arrogant and deny economic and market realities. They honestly believe market and economic forces do not apply to them. They can legislate it all away.
In short, the legislature and governor are children and fucking up the state is the obvious result of wildly stupid and emotionally immature people being
They are getting real (Score:2)
Now, set up nuclear plants also controlled by the state. California is like this different country that keeps trying to play national citizen, square hole round peg. They need to embrace this states rights thing, set up their own consistent system. They are already saying no one will be able to get a mortgage across the country nationally due to weather in coming years, but with regs the houses can be made out of metal siding and foam concrete, prepped for the thing that does not exist in red states. (Clima
Re: They are getting real (Score:2)
What people do not understand is right and left are both consistent systems that are not consistent when combined. Take the case of a NIMBY, where somebody sets up a socially beneficial but ugly company on their property, and somebody else points to it and says *not in my backyard!* In a fully right wing paradigm, you do not have the socialist principles of collective ownership for that person to dictate what the other does on his own property. In a left wing paradigm, the principles of collective ownership
Re: (Score:2)
You mean we could have a federated republic of states (maybe 51 or so) where certain things are regulated nationwide but everything not specifically granted to federal control would be managed at the state level so each state could decide for themselves how to run things locally?
It's a great idea, too bad no one would ever try that. Very radical and I think unachievable, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving those not smart enough to see the truth and not dumb enough to repeat the denials of the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. We saw that happen with abortion when that wa--- oh, never mind....
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. We saw that happen with abortion when that wa--- oh, never mind....
What has happened is all that has ever happened! They have totally given up on pushing the same agenda they have been pushing for decades! Except, whoops! Every year or two they bring out another bill which would ban abortion in every state. Do you need citations or can you use a search engine, clown?
Re: (Score:2)
Every state?
Sure ok, lemme know when all those single party blue states pass an anti abortion bill or it even manages to leave committee and get a floor vote.
Stop frothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, he can't use a search engine.
And he's real upset about it, so angry in fact that he thinks it was me that caused him to be that incompetent instead of Reagan and the Republicans [theintercept.com] (worst band EVAR.)
More, socialize the losses (Score:2)
Translation: Owners of second-hand wells can sell their worthless derricks to the state, who then has the cost of removing them and cleaning the soil. Plus, the cost of capping the well-heads, which private owners won't do because disappearing behind a phoenix corporation, is cheaper.
is it still Marxism? (Score:2)
Is it still Marxist state-seizure of business if one first implements taxes and legal prohibitions making it impossible for a business to run profitably there, and drives the firms out of business, out of state, or at least out of their facilities, before then as a government taking it over?
I feel like that's just nationalization with an extra step.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Simpletons just jump on every parroted propaganda line.
The state owns all the roads. city water. city sewer... highways. Today they couldn't even create the highway system because that would be called Marxist or "socialist" neither of which the parrots understand. We'd have a huge political fight and failure to create the highway system because of all the conditioned puppets who treat their corporate masters like high priests promising to deliver them salvation like a con-man selling rain to suffering
Where does the other 8% come from? (Score:2)
From the post: "92% of California's gas is produced in refineries, the Times reports".
Where does the other 8% come from if not a refinery?
Re: (Score:3)
Siphoned out of tourist cars.
Re: (Score:2)
gasoline demand (Score:2)
"Gasoline demand is falling in California, albeit slowly, for two reasons: more efficient gasoline engines, and the increasing number of electric vehicles on the road."
It of course has nothing to do with the skyrocketing price of gasoline, including new taxes seemingly every year, or the inflation requiring tradeoffs between food and gas. And surely not because of remote work.
CA's goal? (Score:2)
I thought the dream in CA was to destroy the oil industry there so it looks like they are succeeding. Enjoy!
Do you want the CIA? (Score:2)
Do you want the CIA? Cause that's how you get the CIA...
Californgintina (Score:2)
This will not end well.
Re:Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA. Hell, RTFS. "But the special gasoline blends required to reduce air pollution 'also drive up gasoline prices and raise the risk of shortages, because little such gasoline is produced outside California.'"
Re:Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:4, Funny)
It's not just that, California also charges a high gasoline tax. Almost the highest in the nation, edged out by Pennsylvania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A bit OT, but if you've ever driven on Pennsylvania roads, it makes you wonder where all that gas tax money goes.
Re:Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:5, Informative)
Or maybe just a method of actually applying market pressure to align with government policy, nudging people towards not rolling coal and making healthier purchasing decisions when picking a car.
If California's gasoline tax is far below that of most of the rest of the OECD, which is still reflected in the fact that people in California still drive tanks to work like the rest of America instead of normal cars.
gas tax buys roads (Score:5, Insightful)
Asphalt doesn't grow on trees. Quotes to pave my long driveway came in at $20k-25k. Actual public roads costs around $2 million dollars per mile, and up.
What's driving me nuts right now is how so many people want to question where their tax dollars go, which is fine. But then jump to the conclusion that it's just being wasted on pentagon toilet seats or going into a contractor's pocket. But there are yearly, and in some cases quarterly, reports at the state and federal level on just how your money gets spent.
The media quit digging into the publicly available data because it's not a juicy story. The reality is boring and complicated and not something you can present in a 2 minute video.
I see bond measures every time I vote that are being used to pay for things that tax revenue wasn't able to cover. We're living above our means in this country because we hate taxes but are apparently fine with mandatory interest payments.
Morale of the story: Be involved in your democracy or shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
Some level of taxes is not, especially if they actually go towards maintaining the transportation network.
However, 2nd highest in the nation gives room to wonder. As does the special gasoline blends that I have read are actually ineffective in modern vehicles with O2 sensors and such, because the cars just retune to render the blend ineffective.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
RTFA. Hell, RTFS. "But the special gasoline blends required to reduce air pollution 'also drive up gasoline prices and raise the risk of shortages, because little such gasoline is produced outside California.'"
Yeah, that statement didn’t really make much sense. Cars sold there are California (CARB) compliant. The gas sold there might be higher than the standard 87 octane, but 89 octane or higher is hardly some “special” blend.
Re:Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:4, Informative)
California has a "special blend" when much of the rest of the USA allows for gasoline with no ethanol blended in the fuel but California mandates at least 10% ethanol, or California requires use of the more expensive "summer blend" gasoline all year while most other states allow a cheaper "winter blend" during, well, winter.
There's more to gasoline than the octane number. There's going to be additives for this or that, including ethanol. There's rules for how much water is allowed in the fuel, which is especially relevant given ethanol likes to suck water out of the air and dissolve it in the fuel. There's rules on how "wide of a cut" the distillation is at the refinery, the narrower the cut the fewer variants of hydrocarbons in the fuel. Gasoline is primarily octane but it can have lighter and heavier hydrocarbons. Lighter hydrocarbons like to evaporate off and cause VOC pollution. Heavier hydrocarbons are less likely to evaporate but they can be more difficult to burn in cold temperatures. It's because of how different grades of gasoline acts in different temperatures is why the blends offered at the pumps shift through the year. Because California likes to do its own thing on gasoline blends, and because they make up a relatively small market, they pay more for fuel.
If California wants to keep their special blends of fuels then they are going to have to find people willing to supply them. An easy solution is to use the same fuels as other states. Perhaps they can get back to promoting CNG vehicles as that was a thing some decades ago in California, and still is a thing in many markets.
Re: (Score:2)
California has a "special blend" when much of the rest of the USA allows for gasoline with no ethanol blended in the fuel but California mandates at least 10% ethanol, or California requires use of the more expensive "summer blend" gasoline all year while most other states allow a cheaper "winter blend" during, well, winter.
Nearly every gas station I've seen in Tennessee uses E10 (10% ethanol). The few stations that don't include ethanol consistently charge more for fuel than the ones that don't. So I don't buy the theory that ethanol makes it cost more.
There's more to gasoline than the octane number. There's going to be additives for this or that, including ethanol. There's rules for how much water is allowed in the fuel, which is especially relevant given ethanol likes to suck water out of the air and dissolve it in the fuel. There's rules on how "wide of a cut" the distillation is at the refinery, the narrower the cut the fewer variants of hydrocarbons in the fuel. Gasoline is primarily octane but it can have lighter and heavier hydrocarbons. Lighter hydrocarbons like to evaporate off and cause VOC pollution. Heavier hydrocarbons are less likely to evaporate but they can be more difficult to burn in cold temperatures. It's because of how different grades of gasoline acts in different temperatures is why the blends offered at the pumps shift through the year. Because California likes to do its own thing on gasoline blends, and because they make up a relatively small market, they pay more for fuel.
California is not a small market. It's approximately 100% of the market for the refineries located in California, and represents 11% of all the motor vehicles in the entire U.S.
Separating off the light hydrocarbons should be a small incremental cost, and because those can be
Re: (Score:2)
The special blend reduces pollution.
Other states don't care. They want to keep the peons happy with low gas prices even if it kills them.
Re: (Score:2)
Octane has nothing to do with it; octane is just a rating of how prone a gasoline mixture is to pre-ignition. Higher octane gas is not fundamentally better than lower octane gas in any way except for it's tendency to knock in high-compression engines.
Gasoline formulated for California has to be formulated to produce less air pollution, for example by having a lower sulfur content and fewer smog-promoting alkene bonds. In other words gasoline refineries in California have to remove a lot of stuff from thei
Re: (Score:3)
California has a special blend. The blend adds some coat. California has high taxes. They add some cost. Mainly, though, California is a captive market for a few refineries and vertically integrated companies. There's little competition and a lot of collusion. Then all it takes is a small disruption to cause a significant price hike. Most of the price delta is from market forces.
Re:Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess I stand corrected on this. They do have their own blend, but from what I’ve read this adds about 10 cents to the overall cost. Californias insane taxes add the rest.
False. California's gas tax is 60 cents per gallon. Tennessee has a 26 cent per gallon gas tax. California's gas prices are $2.05 more per gallon than Tennessee. The blend adds 10 cents. And despite higher wages for drivers in California, the distance that the fuel is transported is way less than almost anywhere else in the U.S., which more than makes up for that difference.
Add those numbers up, and if I counted correctly, about $1.69 of California's gas price is coming from something other than the cost of making the fuel, transporting the fuel, or taxing the fuel.
There's no way that the gas stations are spending that difference on the mortgage on the gas station building or the salary of their one employee at any given time.
Even if we assume that the gas station costs $6M, financed over 30 years, at current loan rates, that's just $34,255.80 per month. An average gas station sells 4,000 gallons per day, or 120,000 gallons per month, so even if you assume only average sales (which in a high-population area like the Bay Area is not very likely), that's still only 29 cents per gallon. And that's if you built the gas station today. When most of the stations were built, prices were nowhere near that high.
So even with a wildly high estimate of the building cost, there's still $1.40 missing. That's over $2 million per year per gas station — enough to hire about eight to ten software engineers to run the gas station at big tech salaries. Clearly, they aren't staffing the gas stations by poaching from Apple or Google. So where is this money going?
The best I can figure, the oil companies know that California has money and will pay whatever they demand, so prices don't follow normal supply and demand rules. California buying refineries, then, would likely trigger an immediate price collapse, and you'd be seeing a nearly $2 drop in average gas prices almost overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Norway is a petrostate (cue ideologically motivated denials) that decided not to use it's own main export due to its hilariously advantageous (literally unique on the planet) geography and its capacity of hydropower. Essentially they're one of maybe one or two nations total on the planet that can actually electrify everything with near zero carbon footprint, and not have massive blackouts without moving everything to nuclear. Because the weather pattern and terrain pattern formed by Scandinav
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that. Since taxation on gas is low, any swing in the price of petrol can't be compensated by adjusting taxation, especially if the tax is not a percentage of the cost. Also, consider a situation where you have a fixed 20 cent tax on each liter of gas. If the price of oil increases by 50% that 20 cent tax stays the same, so the gas price will still increase, but by less than 50%. So in Europe we pay a lot more for gas, but the swings of the oil market prices has a slightly smaller effect.
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK, the tax is £0.5295 (66 cents) per *litre*, plus a 20% sales tax on the cost including fuel tax.
Our vehicles are much more efficient, so the cost of fuel per mile driven works out about the same though, and it is a smaller country so we drive fewer miles.
Re:Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:5, Informative)
California Energy Commission has a pretty nice website that breaks down the cost of gasoline;
https://www.energy.ca.gov/esti... [ca.gov]
Of the $4.392/gal retail price (as of 2/10/25):
$0.184 (4.1%) is Federal tax
$0.596 (13.57%) State Excise Tax
$0.097 (2.21%) State and Local Sales Tax
$0.020 (0.46%) State Underground Storage Tank Fee
$0.887 (20.2%) Refinery Costs and Profits
$0.524 (11.94%) Environmental Programs
$1.792 (40.8%) Crude Oil Cost
$0.291 (6.64%) Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs, and Profits
(Note: Some of these have more than 3 decimal places so some rounding error is happening)
So out of $4.392 only $0.29 goes towards distribution, marketing, and profit. I'm not able to find much good info on profit margin for the station itself but generally seems to be about 10-15 cents per gallon. That profit is of course taxed as income as well, so the net in-pocket is even less.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
Of the $4.392/gal retail price (as of 2/10/25):
$0.184 (4.1%) is Federal tax
Which TN buyers also pay.
$0.596 (13.57%) State Excise Tax
Half of which TN also pays.
$0.097 (2.21%) State and Local Sales Tax
Tennessee's sales tax is 9.75%, so even at $2.75 per gallon, it's more than 2.5x as high (25 cents).
$0.020 (0.46%) State Underground Storage Tank Fee
These two cents plus the extra 32.3 cents in gas tax minus the 18 cents savings on sales tax basically means only 14 cents higher in California total, so I think I was actually overestimating what the price difference should be.
$0.887 (20.2%) Refinery Costs and Profits
TN pays for refinery costs and profits, too.
$0.524 (11.94%) Environmental Programs
What is this, and how does it get collected? That could explain maybe a third of the mi
Re: Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:2)
No, I didn't miss that. Those additives aren't unique to California. The most expensive one is ethanol, which is basically used as an anti-knocking agent, which replaced the much cheaper lead based additive that came before it.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of smog regions have some variation of an RFG requirement but they do not always agree on that requirement. The requirement CA imposes is the most expensive and unique compared to other areas using an RFG. CA could change their requirements to match others, thereby increasing supply of compatible gasoline. But thats never been the CA. They see themselves as the standards setters of the country. This is an example of where this flippant attitude is hurting their residents who must survive with used ICE
Re:Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:4, Insightful)
compared to cost inhuman health, the cost was more than reasonable, the truth is if Big Oil hadn't killed the electrification of transportation, this and things like lead in gas would never have been an issue in the first place, this classism and corruption has cost us all plenty
Re: (Score:2)
compared to cost inhuman health, the cost was more than reasonable, the truth is if Big Oil hadn't killed the electrification of transportation, this and things like lead in gas would never have been an issue in the first place, this classism and corruption has cost us all plenty
I love hating the oil giants (who pay no fucking tax) as much as the next person who pays tax... but they didn't kill the electric car, battery technology did. Electrification in other applications such as rail and marine worked because they could have a generator to provide enough electricity or be directly connected into the mains. We've never been able to scale this to the motor car.
Only recently has battery technology reached a point where it's at all feasible and I don't even think it'll work in the
Re: (Score:2)
you obviously didn't watch the documentary, did you?
https://archive.org/details/wh... [archive.org]
open minded people are curious and honest with themselves and others
and oh yes, Big Oil and classism deliberately corrupted and stopped the electrification of our automotive industry, the facts are clear as day
Re: (Score:2)
spoken like a true troll
we know we hit the target when the abuse starts, the truth hurts and complicit people lash out at those who dare to point this out
ethics matter most, evil people are their own reward
Re: (Score:2)
Most people would not use such brief or profane commentary when backing up their theory with a link to a literal conspiracy theory -- especially not a conspiracy theory cooked up decades after the events in question by a lawyer, that is refuted by an economist quoted in the linked source ("they couldn't possibly be correct, because major conversions in society of this character" etc.) alongside enumerations of other factors causing the effect in question.
But you do you.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Most people would not use such brief or profane commentary when backing up their theory with a link to a literal conspiracy theory
It's not a theory, it's a fact, because they were convicted.
But you do you.
Where "me" is defined as "refusing to enable stupid ignorant bullshit"? Fuck yes, every time.
Re: (Score:2)
They were convicted of doing something quite different than you accused them of doing. The fact that you can't tell the difference is your problem, not anyone else's.
Re: Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:2)
California produces a type of oil that can't be refined in California due to emissions laws enacted after horrific air quality peaked around LA in the 70's. LA is hemmed in by hills and mountains and doesn't necessarily always have wind, trapping the emissions of the huge numbers of cars there.
I live in LA. The air quality here is still terrible. Though I think the fact that the city does everything half-assed is probably a bigger contributor. Phoenix is almost completely surrounded by mountains, LA is basically half. Yet still LA has much higher PM2.5. Though also a lot of other shit like Phoenix actually does a decent job maintaining its water table, where LA relies on it being piped over a mountain because they basically refuse to do water management. Phoenix roads also look brand new in compa
Re: Something I've wondered for a long time (Score:5, Informative)
I'm guessing you didn't live in LA 40 years ago or 60 years ago. It is much, much cleaner than it used to be. Despite more people. Despite more cars. Despite more traffic. The benefits of California clean air policies are apparent every day. Today's dirtiest, except for those caused by wildfires, have nothing on the haze of the '80s.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you didn't live in LA 40 years ago or 60 years ago. It is much, much cleaner than it used to be. Despite more people. Despite more cars. Despite more traffic. The benefits of California clean air policies are apparent every day. Today's dirtiest, except for those caused by wildfires, have nothing on the haze of the '80s.
Youngsters... The 80's were actually pretty clean. I grew up in the east SF Bay area in the 70's. My parents house was on a suburban street that was according to Google Maps, was just under 800 feet (~240 meters) long. We lived close to my elementary school, and I walked home even as a kindergartner in 1972. I remember turning the corner on my street walking home, and not being able to see the other end because of the smog... Less than 800 feet!
T
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing you didn't live in LA 40 years ago or 60 years ago. It is much, much cleaner than it used to be. Despite more people. Despite more cars. Despite more traffic. The benefits of California clean air policies are apparent every day. Today's dirtiest, except for those caused by wildfires, have nothing on the haze of the '80s.
Youngsters... The 80's were actually pretty clean. I grew up in the east SF Bay area in the 70's. My parents house was on a suburban street that was according to Google Maps, was just under 800 feet (~240 meters) long. We lived close to my elementary school, and I walked home even as a kindergartner in 1972. I remember turning the corner on my street walking home, and not being able to see the other end because of the smog... Less than 800 feet!
T
The 1980s were not "pretty clean." I grew up in LA in the 1980s and we had "Carbon Monoxide Days," when the air quality was so dangerous that children were not allowed outside for recess or lunch, and PE was cancelled, due to health concerns. IIRC, at the time, the statistic was that kids in Los Angeles had up to 15% lower lung capacity due to damage from growing up in that air.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1980s were not "pretty clean." I grew up in LA in the 1980s and we had "Carbon Monoxide Days," when the air quality was so dangerous that children were not allowed outside for recess or lunch, and PE was cancelled, due to health concerns. IIRC, at the time, the statistic was that kids in Los Angeles had up to 15% lower lung capacity due to damage from growing up in that air.
We're comparing two different regions and times. The SF Bay Area has only partial containment, the east bay hills are only several hundred feet tall, and gets evening draw from the central valley that limits the concentrations. LA has 1000 meter mountains and little central valley / inland basin draw. Makes for a more stagnant air column.
The rest is just relative to our unshared experience. My "smog" was oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and VOC aerosols from pre-catalytic converter era cars unburned gas. Your
Re: (Score:2)
This is China 5 years ago. They've gotten a lot better since. Not great, but better. You would look down a school hallway, and the end of the hallway was hazy.
Re: (Score:3)
California produces a type of oil that can't be refined in California due to emissions laws
Let me fix that for you: California produces a type of oil that can't be refined in California due to refinery operators not investing in modernising their refineries to process heavy oils in ways that don't produce horrendous emissions.
This isn't uncommon by the way. There's many places where refineries are not designed to process local oil, but rather process imported oil for the local market. It has all to do with refinery design and cost, not necessarily emission standards.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of cities have an RFG requirement. They dont suffer this nonsense because they use a still effective RFG that is more available than the one CA settled on. Supply and demand. They could switch to a more commonly produced RFG. Using an RFG thst is only used and sold in CA is a recipe for higher prices. Least common denominator. Thats how you avoid a collapse like this. And collapse is where this strategy is heading.
Re: (Score:2)
Price isn't simply the cost of production (Score:3)
The answer is: Economics. It's important to remember that price isn't simply the cost of production. Comparing production costs alone doesn't explain the market price for a product.
California gasoline is its own little market that exists somewhat independently from the rest of the US's gasoline market. Prices could be lower or could be higher. But given the captive market where supply lags behind demand, California's blend is almost always going to be more expensive than the national average.
Long-term we sh
Re: (Score:2)
And EVs are getting a free ride on our road infrastructure.
There's actually an extra $118 annual fee on zero-emissions vehicles built after 2020 as part of the vehicle license fee to offset the loss of gas taxes. And because EVs hold their value way better than ICE cars, you get charged a higher transportation improvement fee, too, which can add up to $227 to the cost of your plates, depending on the current value of the vehicle.
So no, they aren't.
For now, it's mainly trucking that does the wear and tear on the roads, and they pay the most tax overall (I haven't checked that in a long time, so please correct me if I'm wrong).
They pay the most tax, but as a percentage of damage, they pay the least, because the damage increases with the axle w
Re: (Score:2)
"More worrisome"? wtf? It's like, "Awful things are happening in California where, like many countries around the wrold, dependence on fossil fuels is collapsing as sustainable energy sources are starting to provide supply in excess of consumption. But in other terrible news..."
The gist of the article seems to be dependence on fossil fuels is not collapsing.
Re: (Score:2)
"More worrisome"? wtf? It's like, "Awful things are happening in California where, like many countries around the wrold, dependence on fossil fuels is collapsing as sustainable energy sources are starting to provide supply in excess of consumption. But in other terrible news..."
The gist of the article seems to be dependence on fossil fuels is not collapsing.
Gist of the article is that oil producers see the writing on the wall and that they are bailing out of oil refining faster than the EV transition is happening. This is not going to save the internal combustion engine nor will the romanticism of roaring pistons or the iconic stink of burned fuel save it.
Re: (Score:2)
Gist of the article is that oil producers see the writing on the wall and that they are bailing out of oil refining faster than the EV transition is happening in California.
FTFY. This problem is specific to them and their uniquely poor management, hence the article. You should not extrapolate that to anywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
"It will never cease to be hilarious to me how many people write this sort of prose worshipping EVs and calling ICE based vehicles somehow outdated and bad..."
Right, because you have no other response. You're the right-wing talking head that responds to arguments with forced mocking laughter, it's all you have.
"All while they have power to write those things because of all the trucks shipping things around, computer and keyboard to type it on because of the same thing, food because of the same thing plus o
Re: (Score:2)
It will never cease to be hilarious to me how many people write this sort of prose worshipping EVs and calling ICE based vehicles somehow outdated and bad...
All while they have power to write those things because of all the trucks shipping things around, computer and keyboard to type it on because of the same thing, food because of the same thing plus oil based fertilizers, etc, etc, etc.
Zero of those things require fossil fuels, period.
We used to have a functional rail network in this country before big oil's conspiracy to destroy it. The car companies kept the rail going to their factories, though, so they could use it to bring in materials to make more cars, and to export vehicles. They knew well that it was the most efficient means of long-haul transport, they just didn't want anyone else using it where it could be avoided because that reduced the need for their products. And here you a
Re: (Score:2)
Zero of those things require fossil fuels, period.
They do today, and will for the rest of your life.
Re: (Score:3)
It will never cease to be hilarious to me how many people write this sort of prose worshipping EVs and calling ICE based vehicles somehow outdated and bad...
All while they have power to write those things because of all the trucks shipping things around, computer and keyboard to type it on because of the same thing, food because of the same thing plus oil based fertilizers, etc, etc, etc.
Essentially, like everything else, they invert reality. It's EVs that are romantic niche applications. ICE is the workhorse that keeps civilization running.
You sound like one of those white-beards who was still preaching a return coal and steam back in the 1950s. ICE has an energy efficiency of 20-30%, EVs have an energy efficiency north of 70%, battery tech will only improve and ICE is completely and irretrievably obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
And when my great-grandchildren ask if I rode a dinosaur to school I will be able say yes, my motorcycle ran on petrol created from ancient biomass some of which was from the age of the dinosaurs and we used to th
Re: (Score:2)