California · individual fact

California prices and inflation

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.

All-items price level2024: 110.798.5106.3114.1California, 2014: 109.9California, 2015: 110.7California, 2016: 110California, 2017: 111California, 2018: 111.9California, 2019: 111.1California, 2020: 111.9California, 2021: 111.9California, 2022: 112.6California, 2023: 112.2California, 2024: 110.7201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 30National context · Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupt fuel supplies · 2005-08-29Katrina / RitaNational context · Global food and energy price surge · 2008-07-15Food / energy surgeNational context · Great Financial Crisis and Great Recession · 2008-09-15Great Financial CrisisNational context · Fed cuts rates near zero during the crisis · 2008-12-16Fed near-zero ratesNational context · American Recovery and Reinvestment Act · 2009-02-17Recovery ActNational context · Renewed global food and oil price pressures · 2011-04-11Commodity pressuresNational context · U.S. drought damages crops and raises food costs · 2012-08-10U.S. droughtNational context · Oil-price collapse lowers energy inflation · 2014-11-27Oil-price collapseNational context · Fed raises rates after the near-zero period · 2015-12-16Fed rate liftoffNational context · Hurricanes Harvey and Irma disrupt fuel markets · 2017-08-25Harvey / IrmaNational context · U.S.–China tariff escalation · 2018-07-06U.S.–China tariffsNational context · Fed cuts rates amid muted inflation · 2019-07-31Fed cuts rates in 2019National context · COVID-19 pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Fed emergency rate cut and asset purchases · 2020-03-15Fed emergency easingNational context · CARES Act pandemic relief · 2020-03-27CARES Act reliefNational context · American Rescue Plan expands pandemic support · 2021-03-11American Rescue PlanNational context · Reopening demand meets supply and chip shortages · 2021-07-09Reopening / shortagesNational context · Avian influenza disrupts egg supplies · 2022-02-09Bird flu / egg supplyNational context · Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine · 2022-02-24Russia invades UkraineNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2022 rate increases · 2022-03-16Fed rate increases beginNational context · Banking stress raises credit and inflation uncertainty · 2023-03-22Banking stressNational context · Supply recovery and slower rent growth ease inflation pressures · 2023-08-25Supply / rent easingNational context · Red Sea shipping disruption raises supply risks · 2024-02-22Red Sea shippingNational context · Federal Reserve cuts rates in September 2024 · 2024-09-18Fed rate cutCalifornia · California issues conditional rebuilding relief after the Los Angeles fires · 2025-01-12Conditional rebuilding reliefNational context · Broad U.S. tariff announcement · 2025-04-02U.S. tariff announcementNational context · Federal shutdown interrupts CPI collection · 2025-10-01Shutdown / CPI data gapCalifornia · California signs tenant and consumer-protection laws · 2025-10-06Tenant and consumer lawsCalifornia · California extends specified Los Angeles price-gouging protections · 2026-01-06Price-gouging extensionNational context · Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz energy disruption · 2026-02-28Iran / Hormuz shock● California Legislature · 155● U.S. Congress · California delegation · 2◆ Governor · 3■ California agencies · 12005-08-012026-06-30

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.

View observations and export data
California All-items price level · source units
PeriodCaliforniaRankU.S. benchmark
2024110.7#1 of 50100
2023112.2#1 of 50100
2022112.6#1 of 50100
2021111.9#2 of 50100
2020111.9#2 of 50100
2019111.1#3 of 50100
2018111.9#1 of 50100
2017111#1 of 50100
2016110#2 of 50100
2015110.7#2 of 50100
2014109.9#2 of 50100
How major events are selected

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
All-items price level history in California98.1106.3114.520142024
2024 · California: 110.7 · Rank #1 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
California All-items price level history
PeriodCaliforniaCompare
2014109.9
2015110.7
2016110
2017111
2018111.9
2019111.1
2020111.9
2021111.9
2022112.6
2023112.2
2024110.7

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California · your comparison110.7—
#2Hawaii110—
#3New Jersey108.8—
#4New York107.9—
#5Washington107—
#6Massachusetts105.8—
#7Maryland105—
#8New Hampshire104.2—
#9Connecticut103.6—
#10Florida103.4—
#11Oregon103.4—
#12Colorado103.1—
#13Alaska102.4—
#14Rhode Island102.3—
#15Virginia101.1—
#16Arizona100.7—
#17Nevada100—
#18Illinois100—
#19Delaware99.8—
#20Utah98.9—
#21Minnesota98.6—
#22Vermont98—
#23Pennsylvania97.6—
#24Texas97.1—
#25Maine97.1—
#26Georgia96.3—
#27Michigan96.2—
#28Idaho95.5—
#29Montana94.6—
#30North Carolina94.3—
#31Wisconsin94.1—
#32South Carolina93.7—
#33Indiana93.3—
#34Ohio92.8—
#35Wyoming92.7—
#36New Mexico92.2—
#37Tennessee91.9—
#38Missouri90.8—
#39Kentucky90.2—
#40Nebraska90.1—
#41Kansas90.1—
#42West Virginia89.5—
#43North Dakota89—
#44Alabama88.8—
#45South Dakota88.6—
#46Louisiana88.2—
#47Oklahoma87.8—
#48Iowa87.8—
#49Mississippi87—
#50Arkansas86.9—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

California · state comparison

How much have prices changed?

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
Annual change in regional price deflator history in California-0.9%3.7%8.2%20152024
2024 · California: 1.3% · Rank #48 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 2.6% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
California Annual change in regional price deflator history
PeriodCaliforniaCompare
20150.9%
20160.3%
20172.7%
20182.9%
20190.8%
20201.9%
20214.1%
20227.2%
20233.4%
20241.3%

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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Montana6.7%—
#2Idaho6.2%—
#3Utah6%—
#4Nevada4.8%—
#5Michigan4.7%—
#6New Mexico4%—
#7Indiana4%—
#8Wyoming3.9%—
#9Illinois3.9%—
#10Colorado3.8%—
#11Delaware3.7%—
#12Ohio3.6%—
#13Wisconsin3.6%—
#14North Dakota3.5%—
#15Vermont3.5%—
#16South Dakota3.1%—
#17Maryland3%—
#18Minnesota3%—
#19Kentucky2.9%—
#20South Carolina2.9%—
#21Hawaii2.9%—
#22Rhode Island2.8%—
#23Mississippi2.8%—
#24Kansas2.8%—
#25Pennsylvania2.8%—
#26Arkansas2.8%—
#27New York2.7%—
#28Arizona2.6%—
#29North Carolina2.5%—
#30Texas2.5%—
#31New Jersey2.5%—
#32West Virginia2.5%—
#33Nebraska2.4%—
#34Georgia2.4%—
#35Florida2.4%—
#36Virginia2.4%—
#37Tennessee2.4%—
#38Alabama2.3%—
#39Missouri2.3%—
#40Louisiana2%—
#41Connecticut2%—
#42Alaska1.7%—
#43Maine1.7%—
#44Oklahoma1.6%—
#45Iowa1.5%—
#46New Hampshire1.4%—
#47Washington1.3%—
#48California · your comparison1.3%—
#49Oregon1.2%—
#50Massachusetts0.8%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

California · state comparison

Are incomes keeping up with prices?

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
Real personal income per person history in California$45.09K$55.42K$65.76K20142024
2024 · California: $63,028 · Rank #12 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
California Real personal income per person history
PeriodCaliforniaCompare
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
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Wyoming$75,501—
#2Connecticut$74,254—
#3Massachusetts$71,629—
#4South Dakota$69,153—
#5Nebraska$65,297—
#6North Dakota$65,271—
#7Colorado$65,223—
#8New Hampshire$64,632—
#9Washington$64,421—
#10New York$64,153—
#11New Jersey$63,142—
#12California · your comparison$63,028—
#13Minnesota$62,039—
#14Virginia$61,914—
#15Maryland$61,111—
#16Illinois$60,333—
#17Alaska$60,272—
#18Iowa$60,144—
#19Montana$59,203—
#20Kansas$59,172—
#21Vermont$58,893—
#22Oklahoma$58,692—
#23Pennsylvania$58,620—
#24Tennessee$58,582—
#25Wisconsin$58,273—
#26Texas$58,219—
#27Missouri$57,850—
#28Maine$57,480—
#29Florida$57,131—
#30Louisiana$56,789—
#31Nevada$56,503—
#32North Carolina$56,310—
#33Ohio$56,232—
#34Rhode Island$55,878—
#35Indiana$55,562—
#36Oregon$55,451—
#37Arkansas$55,219—
#38Delaware$55,185—
#39Utah$55,116—
#40Michigan$53,569—
#41Georgia$52,952—
#42Arizona$52,890—
#43Idaho$52,816—
#44South Carolina$52,463—
#45Kentucky$52,290—
#46Hawaii$52,272—
#47Alabama$52,216—
#48New Mexico$51,121—
#49West Virginia$50,051—
#50Mississippi$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.

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

Shannon Grove

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

Meet Shannon - Shannon Grove ↗

2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 2 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Sally J. Lieber

1 statement

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

Board of Equalization Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗

2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 4 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Denis Bilodeau

1 statement

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

Board of Equalization Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 16
How statements are selected

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 proposal
View proposals from Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry
California 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Asm. Cottie Petrie-Norris

California State Assembly · District 73 · D–CA

1 proposal
View proposals from Asm. Cottie Petrie-Norris
California 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Asm. Damon Connolly

California State Assembly · District 12 · D–CA

1 proposal
View proposals from Asm. Damon Connolly
California 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Asm. David A. Alvarez

California State Assembly · District 80 · D–CA

1 proposal
View proposals from Asm. David A. Alvarez
California 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Asm. Dr. LaShae Sharp-Collins

California State Assembly · District 79 · D–CA

1 proposal
View proposals from Asm. Dr. LaShae Sharp-Collins
California 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
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Asm. Gregg Hart

California State Assembly · District 37 · D–CA

1 proposal
View proposals from Asm. Gregg Hart
California 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.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

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.