California – Rejecting a Republican-led measure aiming to prevent a pending 65-cent gas tax increase, the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee underlined a growing split over how the state should find a balance between environmental goals and economic reality.
What happened: A narrow defeat for Senate Bill 2
Authored by Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee), Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) was passed 2-3 by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on March 20, 2025. The suggested law sought to undo changes to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) passed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in November 2024. Starting later this year, these changes are expected to increase gas prices by 65 cents per gallon.
Arguing that the financial load on daily Californians—especially those still depending on gas-powered cars—would be excessive, SB 2 was meant to stop that rise and maintain the older LCFS framework.
Read also: California Assembly Bill 435 could significantly change driving laws in California
The committee’s vote unfolded as follows:
| Senator | Party | District | Vote |
| Suzette Martinez Valladares | Republican | Santa Clarita | Yes |
| Megan Dahle | Republican | Bieber | Yes |
| Melissa Hurtado | Democrat | Fresno | Yes |
| Lena Gonzalez | Democrat | Long Beach | No |
| Steve Padilla | Democrat | Chula Vista | No |
| Catherine Blakespear | Democrat | Encinitas | Abstained |
| Caroline Menjivar | Democrat | Burbank | Abstained |
| Sasha Perez | Democrat | Pasadena | Abstained |
Although the measure received bipartisan support in the form of Democrat Melissa Hurtado’s yes vote, it finally failed to proceed, missing the votes required to go forward by the committee’s May 2 deadline.
Background: What’s driving the gas price hike?
With the LCFS being a cornerstone program, the California Air Resources Board has led initiatives meant to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Adopted in late 2024, the revised version enforces tighter fuel carbon-intensity goals that indirectly raise gasoline prices by requiring suppliers purchase more credits or fund cleaner technology.
CARB claims the new regulations will help to speed up the adoption of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and lower California’s dependence on fossil fuels. For consumers, however, the cost is high.
Critics claim the extra 65 cents a gallon might lead to Californians spending $600 to $1,000 more yearly depending on their fuel consumption and driving patterns. Extra laws could increase up to 27 additional cents per gallon; for example, AB2x-1 requires oil refiners to stockpile fuels.
Read also: The fast-food industry in California is experiencing a noticeable decline in employment
Republican response: “A Scheme to Force EVs”
Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones was blunt in his criticism of the vote.
“Today, gas prices in California are $1.55 higher per gallon than the national average because greedy, lame duck Governor Gavin Newsom and some Democrat lawmakers are price gouging us with high taxes, costly regulations and arbitrary market interference,” Jones said.
He continued to say that by rejecting SB 2, legislators are practically “complicit in this scheme to raise gas prices 65 cents per gallon in an effort to force Californians into expensive EVs.”
Jones also mentioned a petition signed by over 6,500 Californians against the LCFS modifications as proof of general anxiety over affordability.
Democratic supporters: “We Must Balance Climate and Cost”
Not all Democrats were aligned. Senator Melissa Hurtado, one of the three who voted in favor of SB 2, expressed nuanced concerns about the economic burden the new rules could create:
“I strongly believe that everybody wants to work to improve the quality of life that we have when it comes to our climate goals, when it comes to having improved air quality, but I also believe that people don’t want increased costs. And so for me, it is always about that balance. I think that we can get both done. The question is, how we’re taking an approach,” Hurtado said.
Hurtado has also proposed accompanying measures meant to raise CARB openness and reduce financial suffering for low- and middle-income families impacted by LCFS modifications. These concurrent initiatives draw attention to her desire to influence environmental policy in an egalitarian and economically viable manner.
A mysterious middle ground: The three abstentions
Perhaps the most surprising element of the vote was the decision by three Democrats—Catherine Blakespear, Caroline Menjivar, and Sasha Perez—to abstain. Their silence has left political observers puzzled.
Some experts say their abstentions show internal Democratic Party conflict, with some legislators reluctant to be considered as either hindering climate progress or putting financial pressure on voters—especially in an upcoming election where affordability is front of mind.
Political strategist Rob Stutzman claims the problem is typical of more general government problems:
“The legislator has historically given all this control to regulatory bodies like the air resources board, saying, ‘Hey, we want you to meet climate policy goals.’ Well, so they’re doing these programs that cost a lot of money,” he said.
What this means for Californians
With SB 2 dead in committee, the 65-cent gas tax increase is likely to take effect, adding to already high fuel costs across the state. While this may help California move closer to its ambitious climate targets, the economic fallout could be sharpest among:
- Commuters in rural or suburban areas who rely on gasoline-powered vehicles
- Small business owners facing higher transportation costs
- Low-income families who spend a larger share of income on fuel
Environmental groups are expected to cheer the committee’s decision as a win for emissions reductions, though their reactions weren’t included in initial reports.
Looking ahead
Despite the setback, the conversation around SB 2 has opened the door for more targeted proposals, such as means-tested rebates or infrastructure investment to support clean vehicle adoption. Senator Hurtado’s forthcoming bills may also help bridge the gap between climate ambition and economic fairness.
For now, California drivers should brace for higher prices at the pump—and continued debates over who should bear the cost of the state’s climate future.