California Gov. Gavin Newsom appears to be taking actions to regulate gasoline on two fronts — through the legislature, and CARB, which consists of 14 voting members — 12 of whom are appointed by the governor without State Senate confirmation.

“In September of last year, CARB estimated that the change could lift gasoline prices 47 cents a gallon, or $6.4 billion a year,” reported the Los Angeles Times. “Other analysts put the price even higher — 65 cents a gallon, or $8.8 [billion] a year.”

It’s unclear how much the new refinery regulations — which would give the state power to tell refineries when they’re allowed to shut down for maintenance and repairs, and determine how much inventory of gasoline to maintain on hand in case refineries have to be shut down — would cost. However, a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats, neighboring governors, and even labor unions is opposing the measure, which does seem ready to pass.

The small group of labor organizations that came out against the bill — employed in energy trades — shared a number of safety and even electoral concerns.

“This issue is readily being used against our candidate in those states and beyond,” wrote the coalition regarding the potential direct implications for the swing states of Arizona and Nevada that rely on California for gasoline, and the use of California’s climate positions as a tool to attack Democrats nationally more broadly. “If we cannot be heard and believed on issues that could jeopardize the lives of our members, something is very wrong in CA. Every member who votes for this bill should be prepared to answer if something goes wrong”

Assemblymember Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, said that he believes most legislators actually no longer support the bill but feel strong-armed by the governor.

“The legislature honestly needs to stand up for itself and tell [Newsom] no. I’m guessing the vast majority of legislators want this bill to die,” said Patterson on X. “We shouldn’t do it just because of the Governor’s strange obsession with this weird policy to give bureaucrats power over gasoline production.”

CARB will be voting on the new amendments to the state’s low carbon fuel standard on November 8, just days after the presidential election, on whether or not to adopt new, stricter standards that will make it harder to generate LCFS credits, and require more LCFS credits to be purchased.

As can be seen in CARB data, the LCFS has been so successful that as of April 2024, the most recent data point, the reduction in carbon intensity of the state’s fuel system is already past the goal for 2026. While the widespread availability of LCFS credits has reduced emissions, the rapid scaling of the desired LCFS credit-producing technologies has also reduced the value of individual credits.

Should the new, more strict LCFS requirements be adopted, fewer credits would qualify, and the cost of credits would go up, but much of the billions of dollars invested in existing infrastructure to generate LCFS credits could turn worthless overnight.

California’s gas taxes are already the highest in the nation, with federal, state, and local taxes and fees adding approximately $1.62 per gallon, which is significantly more than the difference between California and national gas prices. If the LCFS is approved, California gasoline could cost approximately $2.09 to $2.27 per gallon more than the national average, a move that could drive more consumers to electric cars, or out of the state entirely.

California officials have rejected further rocket launches by SpaceX, a company owned by Elon Musk. Some of the officials have cited his posts on social media platform 𝕏, which he owns.

According to the Los Angeles Times [emphasis added]:

SpaceX’s plans to launch more rockets from the California coast were rejected by a state commission this week, with some officials citing Elon Musk’s political posts on 𝕏 and raising concerns about the billionaire’s labor record at his companies.

The plan to increase the number of rocket blasts into space up to 50 a year was rejected by the California Coastal Commission on Thursday despite assurances from Space Force and Air Force officials that they would increase efforts to monitor the effects that rocket launches have on nearby wildlife.

The 1st Amendment protects American citizens from being silenced, censored, or otherwise punished over lawful speech. It was written specifically regarding laws passed by Congress, but applies to all levels of government and is not exclusive to the legislative branch.

Of course, the First Amendment also applies to the non-legislative branches of government—to every government agency—local, state, or federal. — Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 168 n.

In other words, it is blatantly unlawful for California officials to enact government policies against Musk or anyone else based in any way on their opinions of his speech. That didn’t stop California Coastal Commission Chair Caryl Hart from citing Musk’s politics in their decision.

“We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” Hart said.

It may not matter what the California Coastal Commission believes. SpaceX is a leading contractor for Vandenberg Space Force Base. Federal officials do not need a permit or permission from the commission to launch rockets as long as they agree to mitigate negative effects from their actions.

As free speech advocate Michael Shellenberger noted:

California regulators have blocked @SpaceX launches because they disagree with @elonmusk ‘s politics. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a gross abuse of power, even in increasingly totalitarian California.

California regulators have blocked @SpaceX launches because they disagree with @elonmusk's politics. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a gross abuse of power, even in increasingly totalitarian California. pic.twitter.com/T7YZdTb0xJ

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 12, 2024

Shellenberger went on to lambast politicians across the state, particularly Governor Gavin Newsom:

The California Coastal Commission rejected SpaceX’s proposal to increase rocket launches for political not environmental reasons. Just look at what they said

— “We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” said CCC Chair Caryl Hart.

— “This company is owned by the richest person in the world with direct control of what could be the most expansive communications system in the planet,” said another commissioner.

— “Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] while claiming his desire to help hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” said another one.

All California regulators take their cues from California Gov. @GavinNewsom.

As such, this could be payback by Newsom, who has been at war with @elonmusk ever since Newsom signed legislation that makes it easier for teachers to brainwash children into believing they are the opposite gender and can change their sex through drugs and surgery.

The governor of America’s richest and most populous state yesterday doubled down on his new law, which requires that schools hide a psychiatric disorder known as gender dysphoria from parents.

California Governor Gavin Newsom claims his law “protects the child-parent… pic.twitter.com/ntyEjyUcmO

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 17, 2024

That war escalated when @GavinNewsom got the legislature to ban AI parody videos relating to elections after @elonmusk shared one mocking @KamalaHarris

Ten days ago, a federal judge blocked the implementation of Newsom’s censorship law for being an obvious violation of the First Amendment:

California's recent ban on election-related "misinformation," including political parody, is unconstitutional, a federal court has just ruled. Free speech, not censorship, is the solution to bad info. Wonderful repudiation of totalitarians @GavinNewsom @KamalaHarris & @Tim_Walz pic.twitter.com/YiUmyChqu4

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 2, 2024

Having implemented policies that increased homelessness by 40%, and that increased violent crime so much that it is now 31% higher than the national average,
@GavinNewsom is spiraling into nihilism.

Since Newsom took office in 2019, California’s population saw a net decline of around 500,000 people, resulting in the loss of a Congressional seat.

Newsom’s radical lockdowns destroyed thousands of family-owned small businesses and stunted a generation of children.

Now, Newsom appears determined to chase California’s most successful entrepreneurs out of the state.

Newsom will go down in history as the worst, most destructive governor in California’s history.

RECEIPTS:

CRIMEhttps://t.co/Ftd5iAkNmc

HOMELESSNESShttps://t.co/QTDcdqWepq pic.twitter.com/WMEINd4dM7

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) August 13, 2024

Elon Musk tends to come out on top even when there is ambiguity surrounding an issue. This is a violation of his 1st Amendment rights prima facie, so he should have no trouble smacking it into the totalitarian abyss where it belongs.