The State Where Gas Could Top $8 a Gallon Soon — and How To Save on Gas
Although prices have abated a bit in 2025, one report, as reported by ABC 7 News, suggests that things could get much worse for the state that already has the highest gas prices in the nation — California. In fact, Michael Mische, a professor at the University of Southern California who wrote the report, believes that gas prices could rise to as much as $8 by 2026 in California, which currently has an average gas price of about $4.88, per AAA.
Read Next:
Check Out:
Here are the reasons behind Mische's thesis, along with a look at what Californians can do to save on gas.
While it remains to be seen whether gas prices in California will actually reach $8 per gallon, there are some solid economic principles behind Mische's prediction — specifically, the law of supply and demand.
Several refineries in California, including ones in Benicia and Los Angeles, are slated to close. This will lower the supply of oil and gas, knocking the supply-demand equation out of whack. As any economics student can tell you, when the supply of a good or service that is in demand falls, its price rises. That's exactly what Mische sees happening in California.
Not everyone agrees. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, is one of the most vocal critics of Mische, questioning both Mische's credibility and his predictive model, ABC reported.
Learn More:
State governments don't control gas prices, but the policies they enact can certainly influence them. To that end, Mische had some direct recommendations for California's governor and legislators, ABC reported. Those include rolling back the state excise tax, delaying any low-carbon fuel standard implementation and capitating cap-and-trade to a fixed amount.
'Those would all be beneficial to the California consumer,' Mische said.
While individual consumers don't have much control over the direction of gas prices, there are some steps everyone can take to help minimize the pain.
Use mobile apps to find cheap gas: A number of apps like GasBuddy can show the lowest gas prices available in a given area.
Pump regular gas: Although gas stations are good at making midgrade and premium fuel sound attractive, and even necessary, the truth is that regular unleaded fuel is perfectly fine for the vast majority of cars on the road today. Always using regular gas can save you a significant amount of money.
Take advantage of discounts: Some gas stations offer a discount if you use cash instead of a credit card. If you use a credit card, consider using one that gives you cash back or other bonuses for purchases at gas stations. Most major oil companies also offer their own credit cards that can provide discounts on the amount you pay at their stations.
Plan your trips: Combining your daily trips into one and using a fuel-efficient method to reach all your stops is a good way to lower your gas costs.
Cut down on your driving: Consider using public transportation or ride-sharing to avoid paying for gas.
More From GOBankingRates
4 Affordable Car Brands You Won't Regret Buying in 2025
Sources
Pew Research Center, 'Eggs, gasoline and car insurance: Where inflation has hit Americans hardest.'
ABC 7 News, 'California gas prices could top $8 a gallon by 2026, new study says.'
AAA, 'Fuel Prices.'
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: The State Where Gas Could Top $8 a Gallon Soon — and How To Save on Gas
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republican spending bill could deal a huge blow to abortion access in California
Access to abortion in California could be substantially reduced if the House passes President Donald Trump's budget bill. The legislation, now awaiting a final vote in the House, would eliminate federal Medicaid funding for any type of medical care to organizations that perform abortions. An earlier version of the bill would have cut the funds off for 10 years, but lawmakers supporting the measure limited it to the 2025-26 fiscal year before the latest vote. Even so, Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, says it may have to close about one-third of its 600 U.S. clinics if it lost all $700 million of the federal funds it receives annually from Medicaid and the Title X family-planning program. Planned Parenthood says its 115 clinics in California serve about one-third of its patients nationwide — nearly 1 million per year, about 80% of whom are low-income patients on Medi-Cal. Clinics that remain open, for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, might have to limit their services without increased funding from private donors or from state and local governments. That means cancers would go undetected, sexually transmitted infections would be untreated and birth control would be less available. 'The public health infrastructure of California's most vulnerable communities will break down,' said Jodi Hicks, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. Shelby McMichael, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson, said Wednesday that the organization 'worked with the state to ensure that these reproductive health services were in the state budget' for 2025-26, which includes funding for the clinics. But McMichael told the Chronicle that the federal legislation was 'effectively a back-door abortion ban, even in a state like California where voters have affirmed that it's a constitutional right.' She was referring to a ballot measure approved by two-thirds of the state's voters in November 2022, five months after the Supreme Court repealed the nationwide constitutional right to abortion that it had declared in 1973. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the congressional action was 'a major step toward ending the forced taxpayer funding of the Big Abortion industry — a crucial victory in the fight against abortion, America's leading cause of death.' Congress cut off federal abortion funding for low-income women in the Medicaid program with the Hyde Amendment in 1977. A 1981 California Supreme Court decision has enabled the state to replace the federal dollars with its own funds for Medi-Cal abortions. California's laws would not be changed by the cutoff of federal funding to abortion providers. But by forcing shutdowns of abortion clinics and reductions in services from those that remain open, the congressional legislation would make it harder for many Californians to find abortion providers. 'Medi-Cal patients will have less places to turn for care, for any type of reproductive health care services, including abortion,' said Melissa Goodman, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy at UCLA Law School. 'The federal effort to defund those who provide abortion services is a key tactic for restricting abortion access in states that protect abortion by radically shrinking the pool of abortion providers who can afford to continue operating.' Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and author of several books on reproductive law, said some health care providers in California may have to stop providing abortions because of the loss of funding. Or, she said, they 'may have to scale back other services, their wait times may get longer or they may close.' In a separate action in March, the Trump administration ordered withdrawal of federal funding to California and other states for Title X, which pays for family planning programs for low-income residents and those who lack insurance. Those programs would have had to close without state funding, which was provided in the newly enacted 2025-26 budget. But on Wednesday, Essential Access Health, a nonprofit that administers Title X grants in California, said it had been notified by the Trump administration's Department of Health and Human Services that the state would receive $12.2 million in Title X funding this year, about $1 million less than last year's family-planning funds. McMichael, of Planned Parenthood, said the state budget also includes funding to make up for the federal reduction. 'We recognize that this may be only a temporary reprieve,' as the administration could change course again in the coming months, said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, a spokesperson for Essential Access Health. She said advocates of the funding have sued the Trump administration in federal court in Washington, D.C. over nationwide reductions in Title X funding. Federal courts blocked a similar action by Trump's first administration in 2019. The congressional budget vote comes in the wake of the latest legal victory for abortion opponents, a Supreme Court decision allowing South Carolina to eliminate all Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood or any other health care provider that also performs abortions. The state had banned the funding in 2018, saying funds provided for other services could be diverted by the providers to pay for abortions. A federal appeals court said the cutoff violated a 1965 federal law that requires states to allow Medicaid patients to receive services at any qualified institution. But in a 6-3 ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood on June 26, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said the law could be enforced only by the federal government, not by private parties like Planned Parenthood or the patient who joined the suit. Although the ruling applied only to states with laws against abortion funding, it could also affect states like California, which has provided abortions and other reproductive care for women who have been denied treatment in their home state.
Axios
3 hours ago
- Axios
Media's death by a thousand cuts
Press freedom advocates are sounding the alarm following Paramount's $16 million settlement with President Trump, arguing the deal sets a dangerous new precedent, particularly for smaller outlets with fewer legal resources. Why it matters: A steady decline in media trust, coupled with enormous financial challenges, has made the press more vulnerable to political pressure campaigns than ever before. Between the lines: The deal has drawn outrage from critics who believe Paramount could have won what they believe is a frivolous lawsuit. While the size of the agreement is nearly identical to ABC's settlement with Trump last year, Paramount is under fire because its deal comes as the company seeks regulatory approval for its $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren both called the settlement "bribery." The Knight Institute said Paramount's legal exposure was "negligible," and argued it should've fought the case in court. PEN America, another press freedom group, said Paramount "caved to presidential pressure" and "chose appeasement to bolster its finances." Reality check: The Wall Street Journal editorial board on Wednesday noted that this moment feels like a turning point for press freedom. "President Trump has taunted the media for years, and some of his jibes are deserved given the groupthink in most newsrooms. What's happening now, though, is different: The President is using government to intimidate news outlets that publish stories he doesn't like. It's a low move in a free country with a free press," it wrote. Zoom out: The settlement comes as the administration ramps up its efforts to target the press. Most recently, President Trump and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have endorsed the idea of prosecuting CNN for its critical coverage of U.S. strikes in Iran and its immigration reporting. President Trump also suggested he could demand journalists reveal their sources in light of the Iran intel leak. In April, the Justice Department repealed protections for journalist-source confidentiality The White House has already banned the AP over its editorial standards. It's also pushing Congress to gut funding for public media. The FCC has launched investigations into Comcast/NBCU and Disney/ABC for their DEI policies. The big picture: The Paramount settlement is the latest in a slew of recent examples that show just how desperate media companies are to survive political and economic pressure. Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount, Gannett and other major media companies have all rolled back diversity, equity and inclusion policies to mirror the administration's new mandate on DEI. The vast majority of America's largest newspapers by circulation are no longer doing presidential endorsements. PBS member WNET cut 90 seconds from a documentary last month, in which the film's subject, author and cartoonist Art Spiegelman criticized Trump, per The Atlantic. ABC News dropped longtime correspondent Terry Moran after he criticized President Trump and top aide Stephen Miller in a since-deleted tweet, drawing swift criticism.
Miami Herald
10 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary bluntly speaks on divorce and stupidity
It is no secret that the emotional reality of divorce is painful. It also has a huge impact on couples regarding the money involved, due to its complex redistribution of assets, obligations, and long-term economic implications. Kevin O'Leary, an investor who appears on ABC's "Shark Tank," offers some blunt words on divorce, plainly stating exactly what he thinks about it from a financial viewpoint. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Divorce often requires the division of property acquired during the marriage, including homes, vehicles, retirement accounts, and investments. Determining equitable distribution can be complicated by varying state laws and the couple's financial circumstances. In addition to asset division, ongoing financial responsibilities such as alimony and child support may be mandated. These can significantly impact one or both parties' budgets, particularly if income disparity exists. Related: Dave Ramsey has blunt words for Americans buying a car Legal fees, mediation costs, and additional expenses related to establishing separate households further strain resources. Both parties may face reduced living standards post-divorce, as the cost of maintaining two separate households tends to exceed that of a shared one. Divorce can also affect long-term financial planning. Retirement savings may be split, and future contributions could be diminished. Investment strategies may need reconfiguration, and insurance policies often require revision. Tax consequences also arise, as filing status changes and some deductions may no longer be available. In cases involving children, education and health care costs must be considered, often requiring ongoing coordination between both parties. O'Leary explains his take on divorce that many people may not want to hear. In a post on Instagram, O'Leary spells out in no uncertain terms how he feels about the decision to get a divorce. "Think of the geometric loss of wealth every time you get divorced," O'Leary said. "You pay the woman that you divorced, or man, and you pay the government a third - often through capital gains liquidation - because you can't separate all the assets without liquidating them sometimes." "So you've got government sitting there, you've got the other spouse sitting there," he continued. "This is the stupidest thing you could ever do." More on personal finance: Dave Ramsey offers urgent thoughts about MedicareJean Chatzky shares major statement on Social SecurityTony Robbins has blunt words on IRAs,401(k)s O'Leary describes his view on the background involved in many divorce cases. "You've spent your whole life to actually create this nest egg," O'Leary explained. "It could be, you know, you're 45, or whatever. You've got a comfortable life and all of a sudden you don't like your wife or husband." "Think about that for a while," he said. "Because you are going to wipe out up to two-thirds of your wealth." Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary warns Americans on 401(k)s O'Leary emphasizes his blunt opinion on one aspect about the decision to get a divorce that many people would seemingly not wish to confront. "You better really like somebody else a lot," he said. "And frankly, sometimes it's not the other person you're divorcing. It's you. You're the problem." "If you're getting married for the third time, you're a guy or a woman, it's not them. It's you," O'Leary continued. "There's something wrong with you. And you should probably not get into another economic union." O'Leary further explains his perception that ending a marriage can be one of the most financially damaging experiences in a person's life. When you marry, you're forming a joint economic venture - every dollar, asset, and liability is shared, he says. That partnership carries high stakes, so selecting a compatible financial partner is vital. O'Leary advises couples to discuss money habits early, align their long-term financial aspirations, and build safeguards to maintain stability. A well-matched union isn't just about love; it's also a strategic alliance, he explains. Without shared financial values, the costs of separation can be devastating. O'Leary suggest that people consider not just the emotional side of commitment, but also the financial blueprint they are crafting together. If you are the type of person that repeatedly faces divorce, he has a frank word of advice. "You should probably just date till you drop dead, because it's stupid," he said. Related: Tony Robbins sends strong message to Americans on 401(k)s, IRAs The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
