Compare California’s price levels, category costs, and changes in its regional price deflator.
BLS does not publish a statewide California CPI or a complete 50-state CPI cohort. The statewide comparisons here use BEA regional price parities and its implicit regional price deflator. They are explicitly labeled and are not CPI.
All-items price level110.72024 · #1 of 50 · highest first
Goods price level106.12024 · #5 of 50 · highest first
Housing-rent price level154.32024 · #1 of 50 · highest first
California over time
Explore California readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. California officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a California effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a California change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
All-items price level California · source units
CaliforniaPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
21 of 21 reviewed California actions match · 17 date markers shown. 30 major events shown separately.
California · 2024: 110.7 · Rank #1 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100
BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year. Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare California with the published U.S. category value shown. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
California · state comparison
How does California’s cost of living compare?
The U.S. all-items level is 100. Each category uses its own published U.S. benchmark. Compare the same category and year.
California · 2024110.7
California rank#1among all 50 states
U.S. price level100Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
All-items price level
BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year.
Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare California with the published U.S. category value shown.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
California
2024 · California: 110.7 · Rank #1 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
California All-items price level history
Period
California
Compare
2014
109.9
2015
110.7
2016
110
2017
111
2018
111.9
2019
111.1
2020
111.9
2021
111.9
2022
112.6
2023
112.2
2024
110.7
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · 86.9Higher value · 110.7Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
California · 110.72024 · Rank #1 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
All-items price level · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California · your comparison
110.7
—
#2
Hawaii
110
—
#3
New Jersey
108.8
—
#4
New York
107.9
—
#5
Washington
107
—
#6
Massachusetts
105.8
—
#7
Maryland
105
—
#8
New Hampshire
104.2
—
#9
Connecticut
103.6
—
#10
Florida
103.4
—
#11
Oregon
103.4
—
#12
Colorado
103.1
—
#13
Alaska
102.4
—
#14
Rhode Island
102.3
—
#15
Virginia
101.1
—
#16
Arizona
100.7
—
#17
Nevada
100
—
#18
Illinois
100
—
#19
Delaware
99.8
—
#20
Utah
98.9
—
#21
Minnesota
98.6
—
#22
Vermont
98
—
#23
Pennsylvania
97.6
—
#24
Texas
97.1
—
#25
Maine
97.1
—
#26
Georgia
96.3
—
#27
Michigan
96.2
—
#28
Idaho
95.5
—
#29
Montana
94.6
—
#30
North Carolina
94.3
—
#31
Wisconsin
94.1
—
#32
South Carolina
93.7
—
#33
Indiana
93.3
—
#34
Ohio
92.8
—
#35
Wyoming
92.7
—
#36
New Mexico
92.2
—
#37
Tennessee
91.9
—
#38
Missouri
90.8
—
#39
Kentucky
90.2
—
#40
Nebraska
90.1
—
#41
Kansas
90.1
—
#42
West Virginia
89.5
—
#43
North Dakota
89
—
#44
Alabama
88.8
—
#45
South Dakota
88.6
—
#46
Louisiana
88.2
—
#47
Oklahoma
87.8
—
#48
Iowa
87.8
—
#49
Mississippi
87
—
#50
Arkansas
86.9
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
This is BEA’s implicit regional price deflator, derived from regional price parities and the national PCE price index.
California · 20241.3%
California rank#48among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark2.6%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Annual change in regional price deflator
Year-over-year change in the BEA implicit regional price deflator.
An annual regional inflation measure; different from BLS CPI-U. Changes can reflect regional price parity estimates and revisions as well as national inflation.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
California
2024 · California: 1.3% · Rank #48 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 2.6% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
California Annual change in regional price deflator history
Period
California
Compare
2015
0.9%
2016
0.3%
2017
2.7%
2018
2.9%
2019
0.8%
2020
1.9%
2021
4.1%
2022
7.2%
2023
3.4%
2024
1.3%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · 0.8%Higher value · 6.7%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
California · 1.3%2024 · Rank #48 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
Annual change in regional price deflator · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Montana
6.7%
—
#2
Idaho
6.2%
—
#3
Utah
6%
—
#4
Nevada
4.8%
—
#5
Michigan
4.7%
—
#6
New Mexico
4%
—
#7
Indiana
4%
—
#8
Wyoming
3.9%
—
#9
Illinois
3.9%
—
#10
Colorado
3.8%
—
#11
Delaware
3.7%
—
#12
Ohio
3.6%
—
#13
Wisconsin
3.6%
—
#14
North Dakota
3.5%
—
#15
Vermont
3.5%
—
#16
South Dakota
3.1%
—
#17
Maryland
3%
—
#18
Minnesota
3%
—
#19
Kentucky
2.9%
—
#20
South Carolina
2.9%
—
#21
Hawaii
2.9%
—
#22
Rhode Island
2.8%
—
#23
Mississippi
2.8%
—
#24
Kansas
2.8%
—
#25
Pennsylvania
2.8%
—
#26
Arkansas
2.8%
—
#27
New York
2.7%
—
#28
Arizona
2.6%
—
#29
North Carolina
2.5%
—
#30
Texas
2.5%
—
#31
New Jersey
2.5%
—
#32
West Virginia
2.5%
—
#33
Nebraska
2.4%
—
#34
Georgia
2.4%
—
#35
Florida
2.4%
—
#36
Virginia
2.4%
—
#37
Tennessee
2.4%
—
#38
Alabama
2.3%
—
#39
Missouri
2.3%
—
#40
Louisiana
2%
—
#41
Connecticut
2%
—
#42
Alaska
1.7%
—
#43
Maine
1.7%
—
#44
Oklahoma
1.6%
—
#45
Iowa
1.5%
—
#46
New Hampshire
1.4%
—
#47
Washington
1.3%
—
#48
California · your comparison
1.3%
—
#49
Oregon
1.2%
—
#50
Massachusetts
0.8%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Real personal income accounts for national inflation and regional price differences.
California · 2024$63,028
California rank#12among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$59,195Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Real personal income per person
Regional price-adjusted and inflation-adjusted personal income per resident.
Constant 2017 dollars. This differs from household wages, disposable income, and the national real-hourly-earnings measure.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
California
2024 · California: $63,028 · Rank #12 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
California Real personal income per person history
Period
California
Compare
2014
$47,472
2015
$50,054
2016
$51,802
2017
$52,569
2018
$53,523
2019
$55,931
2020
$59,993
2021
$63,373
2022
$59,126
2023
$60,100
2024
$63,028
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · $48.47KHigher value · $75.5KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
California · $63,0282024 · Rank #12 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
Real personal income per person · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Wyoming
$75,501
—
#2
Connecticut
$74,254
—
#3
Massachusetts
$71,629
—
#4
South Dakota
$69,153
—
#5
Nebraska
$65,297
—
#6
North Dakota
$65,271
—
#7
Colorado
$65,223
—
#8
New Hampshire
$64,632
—
#9
Washington
$64,421
—
#10
New York
$64,153
—
#11
New Jersey
$63,142
—
#12
California · your comparison
$63,028
—
#13
Minnesota
$62,039
—
#14
Virginia
$61,914
—
#15
Maryland
$61,111
—
#16
Illinois
$60,333
—
#17
Alaska
$60,272
—
#18
Iowa
$60,144
—
#19
Montana
$59,203
—
#20
Kansas
$59,172
—
#21
Vermont
$58,893
—
#22
Oklahoma
$58,692
—
#23
Pennsylvania
$58,620
—
#24
Tennessee
$58,582
—
#25
Wisconsin
$58,273
—
#26
Texas
$58,219
—
#27
Missouri
$57,850
—
#28
Maine
$57,480
—
#29
Florida
$57,131
—
#30
Louisiana
$56,789
—
#31
Nevada
$56,503
—
#32
North Carolina
$56,310
—
#33
Ohio
$56,232
—
#34
Rhode Island
$55,878
—
#35
Indiana
$55,562
—
#36
Oregon
$55,451
—
#37
Arkansas
$55,219
—
#38
Delaware
$55,185
—
#39
Utah
$55,116
—
#40
Michigan
$53,569
—
#41
Georgia
$52,952
—
#42
Arizona
$52,890
—
#43
Idaho
$52,816
—
#44
South Carolina
$52,463
—
#45
Kentucky
$52,290
—
#46
Hawaii
$52,272
—
#47
Alabama
$52,216
—
#48
New Mexico
$51,121
—
#49
West Virginia
$50,051
—
#50
Mississippi
$48,465
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
21 of 21 reviewed California actions · newest first
Jun 15, 2026 · SB 1245 · Sale of gasoline: petroleum: branded and unbranded: report. · Amended AssemblyCalifornia Legislature · SB 1245
Sale of gasoline: petroleum: branded and unbranded: report.
Jun 15, 2026 · Amended Assembly
Sen. Henry Stern · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, on or before January 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter, to submit an assessment to the Governor and the Legislature that, among other things, identifies methods to ensure a reliable supply of affordable and safe transportation fuels in California and evaluates the price of transportation fuels, including branded and unbranded retail prices, alternate formulations of gasoline with lower carbon impact, and other products suitable for production from refineries in California, as provided.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on June 15, 2026: Amended Assembly.
Why this record is included
The bill expressly requires official analysis of the price difference between branded and unbranded gasoline and barriers to competition in gasoline imports. That is a direct measurement and market-oversight connection, not evidence that the bill affected the current EIA price.
Retained California evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The bill would ... require the report due on or before July 1, 2027, to analyze the price differential between branded and unbranded gasoline sold in California and the market barriers to competition in the gasoline imports market.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 29, 2026 · H.R. 8572 · Gas Prices Relief Act of 2026 · IntroducedU.S. Congress · California delegation · H.R. 8572
Gas Prices Relief Act of 2026
Apr 29, 2026 · Introduced
Rep. Josh Harder · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
H.R. 8572 would set the federal gasoline tax and related underground-storage-tank financing rate to zero from enactment through December 31, 2026, replace trust-fund revenue from the General Fund, and direct that the tax reduction benefit reach consumers.
Introduced on April 29, 2026, and referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Why this record is included
The bill would directly set the federal gasoline excise-tax rate to zero through the end of 2026 and states a policy that the benefit should reach consumers. It was introduced and referred to committee, so the proposal did not itself change the displayed price.
Retained California evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
In the case of gasoline removed, entered, or sold on or after the date of the enactment of this Act and before January 1, 2027 ... the rate of tax ... shall be zero.
H.R. 8252 would withhold 8% of specified federal highway apportionments from a state whose gasoline tax is at least 50 cents per gallon. The California-sponsored bill was introduced and referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Introduced on April 13, 2026, and referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Why this record is included
The federal bill would condition a portion of specified highway funding on a state's gasoline-tax level, directly targeting a tax component of retail gasoline prices. It was introduced and referred to committee, so it did not change California law or explain the displayed price.
Retained California evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The Secretary shall withhold 8 per centum ... in which the tax for gasoline in such State is equal to or greater than $0.50 per gallon.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 7, 2026 · AB 2672 · Transportation fuels: gasoline specifications: air pollution. · Amended AssemblyCalifornia Legislature · AB 2672
Transportation fuels: gasoline specifications: air pollution.
Apr 7, 2026 · Amended Assembly
Asm. Gregg Hart · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and prescribes the commission’s authorities, duties, and responsibilities pertaining to energy matters, including the provision of independent oversight and analysis of the transportation fuels markets for the protection of consumers. Existing law requires the commission to submit an assessment to the Legislature, on or before January 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter, regarding transportation fuels in the state.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on April 7, 2026: Amended Assembly.
Why this record is included
The bill directly addresses alternative gasoline specifications, refinery resupply plans, and consumer price impacts during supply disruptions. Those provisions concern inputs to retail gasoline availability and price, but the pending bill does not establish an effect on the displayed value.
Retained California evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The bill would require those regulations to be adopted and implemented for the purpose of protecting consumers from price impacts associated with supply disruptions.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 24, 2026 · AB 2722 · Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Law: suspension of tax. · Amended AssemblyCalifornia Legislature · AB 2722
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Law: suspension of tax.
Mar 24, 2026 · Amended Assembly
Asm. Stan Ellis · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Law, imposes a tax upon each gallon of motor vehicle fuel removed from a refinery or terminal rack in this state, entered into this state, or sold in this state, at a specified rate per gallon. Existing unfair competition laws establish a statutory cause of action for unfair competition, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising and acts prohibited by false advertisement laws. This bill would suspend the imposition of the tax on motor vehicle fuels for one year.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on March 24, 2026: Amended Assembly.
Why this record is included
The bill would directly remove the state motor-fuel tax component for one year and require intermediaries to pass the savings to end consumers. It remains a proposal in the reviewed official version and therefore did not itself change the August 2026 price.
Retained California evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would suspend the imposition of the tax on motor vehicle fuels for one year.
Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, in cooperation with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before March 1 of each year, that includes a review of the price of gasoline in the state and its impact on state revenues. Existing law authorizes the department to use any information that comes into its possession and to request from any person certain records, as specified.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on March 16, 2026: Amended Assembly.
Why this record is included
The bill directly concerns records used for California's annual review of gasoline prices and state revenues. Its operative change is a higher civil penalty for failing to provide requested records; it does not set pump prices or establish an effect on the current value.
Retained California evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Existing law requires ... a report to the Legislature ... that includes a review of the price of gasoline in the state and its impact on state revenues.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified California officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living from FactVote’s California candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
116 statements from 63 candidates
2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 1 — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement
Republican · Board of Equalization Member District 1 · CA
CPI / inflation mention
Shannon Grove has spent her legislative career fighting to reduce burdensome regulations while increasing government transparency and accountability. As a small business owner, she knows how important it is to protect taxpayer interests and fight for those she serves. While inflation continues to so…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Increase government transparency and accountability
Candidate campaign source
Shannon Grove has spent her legislative career fighting to reduce burdensome regulations while increasing government transparency and accountability. As a small business owner, she knows how important it is to protect taxpayer interests and fight for those she serves. While inflation continues to soar, tax dollars are more precious than ever and cannot be wasted on failed government programs. Shannon Grove believes government should be beholden to the taxpayer, not the other way around.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026
Democratic · Board of Equalization Member District 2 · CA
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context
I am honored to serve as your representative and as Chair of the State Board of Equalization, California’s elected property tax oversight board. On the Board, I have worked to expand access to property tax relief, including tax credits for Veterans and low-income families, increased public informati…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Ensure equitable assessments and taxpayer assistance
Government-published candidate material
I am honored to serve as your representative and as Chair of the State Board of Equalization, California’s elected property tax oversight board. On the Board, I have worked to expand access to property tax relief, including tax credits for Veterans and low-income families, increased public information on Proposition 19, and advanced consumer protections for homeowners’ insurance. I have fought for affordable housing, supported identity theft protections for property owners, and worked to ensure that the Board is efficient, accountable and transparent. I do not accept contributions from corporate PACs and will always insist that wealthy interests pay what they owe. As a member of the Board, I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and California, including Proposition13. Over the next four years, I will continue to work for accurate and equitable property tax assessments, expanded taxpayer assistance, and policies that support housing affordability, rapid disaster recovery, and economic stability for working families. Before election to the Board, I served in local, regional, and state government. In the California State Assembly, I authored legislation to raise the statewide minimum wage, protect our coast and the San Francisco Bay, expand renewable energy, increase CalGrant scholarships, and worked to preserve free community college access statewide. I am endorsed by Teachers, Nurses and Firefighters statewide, by the California Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood California, the Sierra Club California, and over forty congressional, state executive and legislative leaders. I am thankful for the support of more than 1.3 million voters in the primary election. I respectfully ask for your vote. www.sallylieber.org
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026
Republican · Board of Equalization Member District 4 · CA
CPI / inflation mention
Vote Denis Bilodeau for Board of Equalization. I’m running to lower your cost of living. Your electric bill, your gas bill, your water bill. The Board of Equalization assesses the property of California’s regulated utilities, and that assessment directly affects your utility rates. When an assessmen…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Fair assessments and lower utility costs
Government-published candidate material
Vote Denis Bilodeau for Board of Equalization. I’m running to lower your cost of living. Your electric bill, your gas bill, your water bill. The Board of Equalization assesses the property of California’s regulated utilities, and that assessment directly affects your utility rates. When an assessment is wrong, it shows up in your rent and your utility bills. I’m Denis Bilodeau, P.E. • Licensed Civil and Traffic Engineer. • University of California, Irvine graduate. • Taxpayer Association President. • Mayor Pro Tem, City of Orange. • President, Orange County Water District. • Chairman, National Water Research Institute. I’ve spent 25 years fighting for ratepayers. I know how a wrong assessment lands on a working family’s budget. The Board of Equalization also oversees the 58 county assessors. Your property should be assessed fairly, without inflation from errors or special interest loopholes. I signed the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Pledge to Save Proposition 13 and have their endorsement. I’ll oppose the proposed car mileage tax. I’ve led a team that set affordable water rates, protected our watersheds from forever chemicals, balanced budgets every year, invested in our infrastructure, and delivered high-quality drinking water that met the highest safety standards in the country. As a City Councilmember, I’ve worked to keep our neighborhoods safe. I’ll fight so working families can afford a home again with engineering precision and fiscal discipline. An independent voice for taxpayers. I care whether things work, not who gets credit. Please vote Denis Bilodeau for Board of Equalization.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026
This section matches specific inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living terms in retained, attributed source text from published California candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
California incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current California legislators and California’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from California’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
18 matching sponsorships or proposals · 18 California incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry
California State Assembly · District 4 · D–CA
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-CurryCalifornia Legislature · AB 325
Cartwright Act: violations.
Oct 6, 2025 · Enacted
Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry · Sponsored
Reviewed chaptered bill digest
AB 325 changes California’s Cartwright Act. It prohibits using or distributing a common pricing algorithm as part of an agreement, combination or conspiracy restraining trade, and prohibits coercing another person to adopt prices or commercial terms recommended by such an algorithm for the same or similar products or services in California. It also changes antitrust pleading standards: a complaint may allege facts making a restraint-of-trade agreement plausible and need not allege facts tending to rule out independent action. This is not a ban on every pricing algorithm. Governor Newsom’s October 6, 2025 announcement lists AB 325 among the laws he signed. The timeline records that signing milestone; statutory application dates and later implementation are separate. This is price-setting and competition policy context. It does not demonstrate that prices or measured inflation fell.
Signed October 6, 2025; retained official version is chaptered. Full later amendments and current implementation remain separately unverified.
Why this record is included
This is price-setting and competition policy context. It does not demonstrate that prices or measured inflation fell.
Retained California evidence context: cpi · reviewed policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would also make it unlawful for a person to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm as part of a contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce.
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Cottie Petrie-NorrisCalifornia Legislature · AB 2638
Gasoline prices.
Mar 16, 2026 · Amended Assembly
Asm. Cottie Petrie-Norris · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, in cooperation with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before March 1 of each year, that includes a review of the price of gasoline in the state and its impact on state revenues. Existing law authorizes the department to use any information that comes into its possession and to request from any person certain records, as specified.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on March 16, 2026: Amended Assembly.
Why this record is included
The bill directly concerns records used for California's annual review of gasoline prices and state revenues. Its operative change is a higher civil penalty for failing to provide requested records; it does not set pump prices or establish an effect on the current value.
Retained California evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Existing law requires ... a report to the Legislature ... that includes a review of the price of gasoline in the state and its impact on state revenues.
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Damon ConnollyCalifornia Legislature · AB 754
Floating home marinas: rent caps: County of Marin.
Oct 10, 2025 · Enacted
Asm. Damon Connolly · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law, the Floating Home Residency Law, prescribes various terms and conditions on tenancies in floating home marinas, as defined. Existing law, until January 1, 2030, prohibits management of a floating home marina located in the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, or Marin from increasing the gross rental rate for a tenancy for a floating home berth in a floating home marina more than 3% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 5%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for a tenancy at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase.
The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on October 10, 2025: Chaptered.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.
Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would, until January 1, 2038, prohibit management of a floating home marina located in the County of Marin from increasing the above-described rent more than the percent change in the cost of living, as specified, over the course of any 12-month period.
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. David A. AlvarezCalifornia Legislature · AB 30
State Air Resources Board: gasoline specifications: ethanol blends.
Oct 2, 2025 · Enacted
Asm. David A. Alvarez · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt and implement motor vehicle fuel specifications for the control of air contaminants and sources of air pollution. Existing law prohibits the state board from adopting any regulation that establishes a specification for motor vehicle fuel unless that regulation, and a multimedia evaluation conducted by affected agencies and coordinated by the state board, are reviewed by the California Environmental Policy Council.
The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on October 2, 2025: Chaptered.
Why this record is included
The enacted law directly expands the gasoline blends that may be sold in California, addressing a fuel-supply component relevant to retail prices. The official record does not establish how much, if at all, the law changed the August 2026 price displayed on the card.
Retained California evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would ... authorize blends of gasoline containing 10.5% to 15% ethanol by volume to be sold in the state for use as a transportation fuel.
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Dr. LaShae Sharp-CollinsCalifornia Legislature · AB 987
Vehicles: storage and towing.
Oct 6, 2025 · Enacted
Asm. Dr. LaShae Sharp-Collins · Sponsored
Reviewed chaptered bill digest
AB 987 expands the list of vehicle storage and towing fees presumed unreasonable under the provisions described in the digest. The additions include state-holiday storage fees exceeding the posted standard daily rate and specified towing charges when a law-enforcement officer directs removal of a vehicle at the scene of a state or local emergency. The measure modifies specified fee presumptions. It does not abolish all towing or vehicle-storage charges, and the emergency provision is not a general right to free towing. Governor Newsom’s October 6, 2025 announcement lists AB 987 among the laws he signed. The timeline records that signing milestone; statutory application dates and later implementation are separate. This is consumer-fee policy context for towing and vehicle storage. It does not demonstrate a change in a price index or in overall transportation costs.
Signed October 6, 2025; retained official version is chaptered. Full later amendments and current implementation remain separately unverified.
Why this record is included
This is consumer-fee policy context for towing and vehicle storage. It does not demonstrate a change in a price index or in overall transportation costs.
Retained California evidence context: cpi · reviewed policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
storage fees charged for state holidays that exceed the posted standard daily storage rate
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Gregg HartCalifornia Legislature · AB 2672
Transportation fuels: gasoline specifications: air pollution.
Apr 7, 2026 · Amended Assembly
Asm. Gregg Hart · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and prescribes the commission’s authorities, duties, and responsibilities pertaining to energy matters, including the provision of independent oversight and analysis of the transportation fuels markets for the protection of consumers. Existing law requires the commission to submit an assessment to the Legislature, on or before January 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter, regarding transportation fuels in the state.
The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on April 7, 2026: Amended Assembly.
Why this record is included
The bill directly addresses alternative gasoline specifications, refinery resupply plans, and consumer price impacts during supply disruptions. Those provisions concern inputs to retail gasoline availability and price, but the pending bill does not establish an effect on the displayed value.
Retained California evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The bill would require those regulations to be adopted and implemented for the purpose of protecting consumers from price impacts associated with supply disruptions.
Only current California officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a California statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
California snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to California, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.