California
Fuel, energy prices raise the pressure as California officials take next steps on climate
As California regulators prepare for a massive update of the state’s signature climate program, they face mounting pushback from lawmakers and oil industry groups who warn it could drive up already-high energy costs.
Lawmakers voted last year to reauthorize the cap-and-invest program — formerly known as cap-and-trade — through 2045. The program progressively lowers the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed in the state, and lets emitters buy and sell unused pollution credits, or allowances. It is key to California’s climate strategy and generates billions in revenue for the state each year.
Although the program was always designed to ratchet down on emitters, some legislators who supported the extension say the draft unveiled by the California Air Resources Board could hit consumers and the energy sector hard at the wrong time.
Among the proposed updates, the plan would tighten the cap on carbon dioxide emissions by 118 million tons by 2030. It would also adjust the state’s system of free allowances, which have historically been given to oil refineries and other industrial facilities in the hope of keeping them in California. It would shift more of those free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities.
A wave of public comments from lawmakers, oil companies, environmental advocates and consumers flooded the state Air Resources Board in advance of this week’s deadline, and the agency will have until May to revise the plan and put it to a final vote.
Among the most notable critics are Democratic lawmakers who voted to extend the program last year. Some are concerned the plan would raise costs for refineries, driving more of them out of California and leaving the state more dependent on imported refined fuels. Others are worried the plan doesn’t do enough to address high electricity costs.
In a letter to the state Air Resources Board, a coalition of 15 Democratic Assembly members, including Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), warned that the plan moves too fast for emitters to keep up, which they said will destabilize California’s complex network of fuel, gas and energy resources and push more refiners to leave the state. Phillips 66 and Valero have already announced plans to shutter major refineries in Los Angeles and Benicia.
“This proposed regulatory update would further burden an already struggling energy market across multiple sectors and compound stress on the very infrastructure that has punished California consumers with the highest energy prices in the nation,” the lawmakers wrote.
Oil industry groups raised similar concerns. The Western States Petroleum Assn. which represents refiners, warned that their costs could rise $1.5 billion annually by 2035.
Chevron executive Andy Walz said the added costs could translate to roughly $1.70 more per gallon of gasoline by that year.
“Affordability is a top concern for California residents and Chevron, and these proposed amendments would only exacerbate the high cost of living in the state,” Walz said.
But how much regulations contribute to gasoline costs in California is disputed. Officials with the state Air Resources Board said the proposal largely maintains the status quo for refineries. It includes “flexibilities that support doing business in California and help ensure liquid fuel supply remains reliable, affordable, and resilient throughout the transition to carbon neutrality,” spokeswoman Lindsay Buckley said in an email.
The updated program would also deliver $180.7 billion in statewide benefits, including $123 billion in avoided health costs thanks to cleaner air, and up to $485 billion in global savings due to avoided climate damage, Buckley said.
“The cap-and-invest program is the most cost-effective way for California to achieve its statutorily mandated climate goals,” she said.
At the same time, some lawmakers and advocates say the proposal disproportionately burdens the electricity sector at a moment when utility bills are soaring.
Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), who wrote legislation extending the program last year, led a separate letter from more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers urging the air officials to speed up free allowances for electric utility companies in order to “meaningfully address electricity affordability in the near-term.”
They were also concerned the plan would result in lower climate credits for consumers — twice-yearly rebates that appear directly on people’s electric bills.
Policy analysts agreed the current plan burdens electric utilities, which could translate into higher bills.
Still, the proposal is a “strong starting point” that can be fine-tuned to better balance emissions cuts with affordability, said Clayton Munnings, executive director of Clean and Prosperous California, an environmental economics nonprofit focused on the cap-and-invest program.
The California Air Resources Board “had a very strong first start, but I think there’s a clear pattern in stakeholder feedback,” he said. “The intent here was to lower utility bills, and we should make good on that promise.”
On the fuel side, Munnings said the program was designed with refineries in mind, and regulators still have plenty of tools to address their concerns if needed. What’s more, he said the carbon market largely shrugged at the proposed removal of 118 million credits, and the cost of releasing one ton of carbon pollution went down — indicating that even tighter reductions could be warranted.
Indeed, an analysis by the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund and the modeling firm Greenline Insights found that the state Air Resources Board could remove as many as 180 million allowances from the market and still preserve household affordability benefits.
Ensuring the program delivers on its promised emission cuts is crucial, said the Environmental Defense Fund’s California state director Katelyn Roedner Sutter. The state is not on track to meet its targets, including a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and at least 85% by 2045.
“Cap-and-invest is so important because it helps reduce emissions, it generates desperately needed revenue, and it is the most cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gas pollution that we have,” she said.
The debate is unfolding as global oil prices soar amid the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, which has disrupted shipping and production in the Middle East. Crude prices briefly surged beyond $119 a barrel this week.
National gasoline prices averaged $3.60 a gallon Thursday, according to AAA, up from $2.94 one month ago. In California, gas averaged $5.37 a gallon, up from $4.55 a month ago.
But according to the California Energy Commission, only about 6% of the price of retail gasoline in the state is attributable to the cap-and-invest program, while nearly 37% comes from the cost of crude oil.
That’s precisely why the state should stay the course, Roedner Sutter said.
“The best thing California can do is lean on its cost-effective climate policy, which is cap-and-invest, and continue moving the state away from dependence on fossil fuels,” she said. “In the long run, that is what is going to protect Californians most — not being dependent on this volatile industry.”
The state Air Resources Board is expected to revise the proposal in the coming weeks before bringing it to a vote in May.
California
California’s Rainy Day Fund and Other Budget Reserves Overview
key takeaway
California’s state budget reserves, including the “rainy day fund” and other reserve accounts, serve as a financial safety net for services like education, health care, and child care during economic downturns. The rules for depositing and withdrawing funds are complex, and policymakers should consider reforms, such as excluding reserve deposits from the Gann Limit spending cap, to strengthen the state budget’s resilience during a recession.
Introduction
California has several state budget reserves. These reserves help to maintain essential public services — like education, health care, and child care — when revenues fall short, such as during recessions. Reserves aren’t for everyday spending, but rather a financial safety net for the state.
This report describes California’s state budget reserves, explains how funds can be accessed and used, and discusses proposals to reshape these reserves that have been floated in recent years. For more information about California’s reserve accounts, see the Budget Center’s companion resources, including this video — California’s State Budget Reserves Explained — and this fact sheet — 5 Key Questions About California’s State Budget Reserves.
state budget Reserves in a nutshell
- The Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), or “rainy day fund,” holds revenues to support any program funded through the state budget.
- The Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA), or schools reserve, periodically holds revenues to support K-12 schools and community colleges.
- The Safety Net Reserve periodically holds revenues intended to support the CalWORKs and Medi-Cal programs.
- The Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU) holds revenues to cover unexpected state budget costs during a fiscal year.
- The Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account can be used to temporarily set aside some anticipated surplus revenues and avoid spending funds that may not materialize.
Budget Stabilization Account (BSA): California’s Largest Reserve
The BSA is California’s largest state budget reserve. Deposits into and withdrawals from this “rainy day fund” are based on complex rules that were added to the state Constitution by Proposition 2 of 2014. Key rules include the following:
An annual deposit is required. Prop. 2 requires that 1.5% of General Fund revenues be set aside every year. Until 2029-30 half of these revenues must be deposited into the BSA and the other half must be used to pay down certain state debts. Beginning in 2030-31, the entire amount must be deposited into the BSA, although state leaders will have the option of redirecting up to one-half of each year’s deposit to pay down debts.
In some years, the state must set aside additional General Fund revenues. This occurs in years when estimated General Fund revenues that come from personal income taxes on capital gains exceed 8% of total General Fund proceeds of taxes. The share of these “excess” capital gains revenues that is not owed to K-12 schools and community colleges under the state’s Prop. 98 funding guarantee must be used for BSA deposits and debt repayments, following the same requirements as the mandatory 1.5% deposit. Since Prop. 2 was enacted, capital gains tax revenues have exceeded the 8% threshold in most years, but could fall below the threshold in years when there are downturns in the stock market.
State leaders may also make discretionary deposits. In addition to the mandatory annual deposits required by Prop. 2, policymakers have the option of saving additional, discretionary revenue in the BSA.
The required annual deposit may be reduced or suspended in the event of a “budget emergency. If the governor declares a budget emergency, the state may reduce or suspend the required BSA deposit with a majority vote of each house of the Legislature. Prop. 2 defines a budget emergency as a situation where:
- Conditions of disaster or extreme peril are present; or
- The state has insufficient resources to maintain General Fund expenditures at the highest level of spending in the three most recent fiscal years, adjusted for state population growth and the change in the cost of living.
BSA funds may be withdrawn in the event of a budget emergency, but the entire balance cannot be removed at once. If the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature agrees with a majority vote of each house, funds may be taken out of the BSA. However, the entire balance cannot be removed immediately. Only the amount needed to address the budget emergency may be withdrawn, subject to the additional limitation that a withdrawal may not exceed 50% of the BSA balance in the first year of a budget emergency. In the second consecutive year of a budget emergency, all of the funds remaining in the BSA may be withdrawn.
Funds that are taken out of the BSA may go toward any purpose determined by the Legislature. For example, these dollars could be used for health care services, subsidized child care for working families, cash assistance for people with low incomes, K-12 schools, and any number of other public services and systems.
Funds in the BSA cannot exceed 10% of General Fund tax revenues. Prop. 2 caps the balance of the BSA. Once the balance — excluding any discretionary deposits — reaches 10% of General Fund tax revenues, any revenue that would otherwise have been required to go into the reserve must be instead spent on infrastructure, which includes housing. Prior to 2026, the BSA balance reached the cap twice — in 2022-23 and 2023-24 — but then dropped below the cap as state leaders withdrew funds in some years to address budget shortfalls.
Prop. 2 of 2014 also established the PSSSA, the state’s budget reserve for California’s K-12 schools and community colleges. Prop. 2 does not require an annual deposit into this reserve. Moreover, Prop. 2 restricts the circumstances under which transfers to the PSSSA can occur. For a PSSSA deposit to be required, all of the following conditions must be met:
- General Fund revenues that come from personal income taxes on capital gains are relatively strong;
- Growth in General Fund revenues leads to relatively strong growth in the state’s annual minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges; and
- The Legislature does not suspend the annual K-14 education minimum funding guarantee.
Even under these restricted circumstances, Prop. 2 limits the size of the deposit to the schools reserve when such a deposit is required.
Deposits to the PSSSA may be reduced or suspended in the event of a budget emergency under the same rules that govern reductions or suspensions of deposits to the BSA (see the prior section of this report). Similarly, funds may be withdrawn from the schools reserve if the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature agrees with a majority vote of each house.
In contrast to the rules governing the withdrawal of funds from the BSA, all of the PSSSA funds may be withdrawn in one year. Moreover, funds withdrawn from the PSSSA must be used to support K-12 schools and community colleges.
Safety Net Reserve: Funds to Protect the Medi-Cal and CalWORKs Programs
The Safety Net Reserve was created in 2018 to set aside funds to help cover the costs of two programs that often see increases in enrollment during recessions: Medi-Cal and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs). Both of these programs serve Californians with low incomes — with Medi-Cal delivering health coverage, and CalWORKs providing modest cash assistance to families with children. During economic downturns, more people become unemployed and temporarily rely on these programs to cover their basic needs, increasing state costs.
The Safety Net Reserve is not a constitutional reserve, so there are no binding requirements governing deposits or withdrawals. This means that funds can be transferred into and withdrawn from the reserve at the discretion of the Legislature. In fact, state policymakers voluntarily deposited $900 million in the Safety Net Reserve before draining all of those funds in 2024 to help address a $55 billion state budget problem.
Moreover, while state law specifies that the funds are to be used only for Medi-Cal and CalWORKs costs during economic downturns, state policymakers could decide to modify this language and use the funds for other purposes. However, in establishing this reserve, policymakers clearly recognized the need to protect critical services for Californians with low incomes from budget cuts — cuts that would undermine Medi-Cal and CalWORKs at the very time that these programs are needed most.
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU): The Discretionary Reserve
The SFEU is the state’s discretionary General Fund budget reserve, meaning policymakers have a great deal of latitude in spending the funds in the reserve. The amount of money in the SFEU is equal to the difference between General Fund resources and General Fund spending in a given fiscal year.
The SFEU acts as a buffer against unanticipated revenue shortfalls or spending increases. Due to California’s constitutional balanced-budget requirement, which requires the state to enact a budget in which spending does not exceed available resources, the projected SFEU balance cannot be less than zero at the time the annual budget is adopted. However, if state revenues come in lower than projected and/or spending unexpectedly rises, the SFEU balance will decline, and may become negative as spending begins to exceed revenues.
The Legislature can appropriate funds from the SFEU at any time and for any purpose. Additionally, in the event of a disaster, the governor can allocate funds from the SFEU without the prior approval of the Legislature. Specifically, when the governor declares a state of emergency, the Department of Finance (DOF) can transfer funds from the SFEU into a subaccount called the Disaster Response-Emergency Operations Account (DREOA). These funds are allocated to state agencies for costs that are “immediate and necessary to deal with an ongoing or emerging crisis.”
Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account: A Place to Set Aside Anticipated Surplus Revenues
State leaders created the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account in 2024. This account gives policymakers a place to temporarily set aside anticipated surplus revenues, “ensuring that funds are only spent once they are realized.”
State leaders have broad authority to determine whether or how to use this holding account. The only requirement is that revenues that go into the account cannot remain there for longer than one year. If state revenues materialize as projected, the revenues in the account may be spent for any purpose or transferred back to the General Fund for future use.
This holding account is a “pilot budgeting project” that expires at the end of 2030, although state leaders could approve an extension as well as potentially modify the rules.
What’s Next for California’s State Budget Reserves?
The rules that govern California’s budget reserves can be amended by voters or state policymakers. Changing the reserve rules established by Prop. 2 (2014) would require voters to approve a constitutional amendment. Other reserve rules can be changed by state policymakers without the need for voter approval.
In recent years, state policymakers and others have advanced proposals to revise California’s reserve policies, although none have moved beyond the conceptual stage. Common proposals for changing state reserve policies include the following:
Proposals to increase the share of state General Fund revenue deposited into the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), or rainy day fund.
Proposals to allow the balance of the BSA to grow beyond 10% of annual state General Fund revenue.
Proposals to exclude reserve deposits from California’s spending cap, or “Gann Limit.”
Changes to the rainy day fund or the Gann Limit would require amending the state Constitution. This means that voters would have the last word on the most significant proposals to modify California’s state budget reserves.
California
As e-bike popularity surges in Northern California, safety concerns grow
An e-bike boom is sweeping across Northern California, with more young riders taking to the streets than ever before.
Inside California Ebikes in Fair Oaks, owner Erica Frith says business has taken off.
What started as a small operation out of a local gym in 2020 quickly grew into a storefront by 2022, and demand hasn’t slowed.
“We’re getting about 100 out the door a month,” Frith said.
But for her, it’s not just about sales, it’s about the experience.
“There’s only a few things in life that create a childlike smile and happiness, and bike riding is one of them,” she said.
With more bikes on the road, service demand is also climbing. Shop service manager Jesse Cristo says keeping up means relying on years of hands-on experience.
“You have an e-bike industry that’s fledgling, but it’s a five billion dollar a year industry,” Cristo said.
At a recent safety panel in El Dorado Hills, residents and leaders came together to address concerns about young riders on the road.
“The safety around this area has been really scary,” said resident Liz Kmiec. “I have witnessed multiple scenes where these kids do not recognize the danger they’ve put themselves in.”
For law enforcement, the focus is on education, especially for parents.
“Education is huge,” said CHP Officer Andrew Brown. “We’ve been getting out to schools, community events, and sharing information to make sure parents know what they’re buying their kids.”
As the e-bike boom continues to grow, leaders say the challenge will be making sure safety keeps up.
California
6 California men plead guilty to violence against CHP officers during Los Angeles immigration protests
Six men have pleaded guilty in federal court for acts of violence against California Highway Patrol officers. They were accused of throwing rocks, fireworks and other debris during an anti-immigration enforcement protest last year.
Prosecutors said that on the evening of June 8, 2025, a group of protestors downtown Los Angeles at the Main Street overpass of the 101 Freeway targeted law enforcement officers, essentially trapping them under the freeway overpass while throwing burning objects at them.
Three men pleaded guilty on Wednesday, while three others entered their guilty pleas earlier in the week.
Adam Charles Palermo, 40, of Rampart Village; Ismael Vega, 41, of Westlake; and Yachua Mauricio Flores, 23, of Lincoln Heights were part of a group of protestors who lit cardboard and vegetation on fire, as well as fireworks, and dropped them from the freeway overpass, targeting a CHP vehicle, according to prosecutors. The vehicle caught fire. Flores also poured a liquid on the flames, igniting them further.
Palermo pleaded guilty to one felony count of assaulting, resisting, and impeding persons assisting federal officers and employees with a deadly or dangerous weapon. He faces a statutory maximum of 20 years in federal prison.
Vega and Flores each pleaded guilty to one felony count of obstructing, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder. Both face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.
Balton Montion, 25, LA County resident at the time, Ronald Alexis Coreas, 23, of Westlake and Junior Roldan, 27, of Hollywood, threw rocks at law enforcement officers who attempted to clear the freeway overpass.
Coreas and Roldan each pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of simple assault on a person assisting a federal officer. Each faces a statutory maximum of one year in federal prison.
Montion pleaded guilty to one felony count of obstructing, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder. He faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.
Palermo has been in federal custody since August 2025. The other defendants remain free on bond.
United States District Judge John F. Walter scheduled sentencing hearings in the coming months for these defendants
Another defendant, Jesus Gonzalez Hernandez, Jr., 22, of Las Vegas, is scheduled to plead guilty on May 4 to one misdemeanor count of simple assault on a person assisting a federal officer.
-
News9 minutes agoTrump gives the go-ahead for a major new Canada-U.S. oil pipeline
-
New York2 hours agoComputer Outage Disrupts Student Exams in New York State
-
Detroit, MI2 hours ago‘He went on an adventure’: Detroit bus driver, police praised for reuniting missing 9-year-old with family
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoSan Francisco’s free, discounted childcare program adds over 700 new spots
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoThis Miami food truck was just named Florida’s top independent restaurant
-
Boston, MA3 hours agoPolice Blotter: Sticky fingers: Boston cops looking for South End candy store robber
-
Denver, CO3 hours agoEx-Broncos wide receiver lands in UFL; ex-Denver RB joins 49ers
-
Seattle, WA3 hours agoSeahawks receiver makes surprise switch to cornerback