@mmglhaes.bsky.social
Reposted
End/ Overall, the piece is not scholarly, rigorous, or transparent. It arrives at fantastical conclusions through extreme assumptions and makes policy recommendations without considering their costs. It shouldn’t be taken seriously by any policymaker, journalist, or citizen.
June 23, 2025 at 2:36 PM
End/ Overall, the piece is not scholarly, rigorous, or transparent. It arrives at fantastical conclusions through extreme assumptions and makes policy recommendations without considering their costs. It shouldn’t be taken seriously by any policymaker, journalist, or citizen.
Reposted
5/ The piece ends with Mische giving policy recommendations without any sort of sober cost-benefit analysis of what he’s proposing. For example, he proposes the state give the refiners an operating subsidy. This is a very, very bad idea!
June 23, 2025 at 2:36 PM
5/ The piece ends with Mische giving policy recommendations without any sort of sober cost-benefit analysis of what he’s proposing. For example, he proposes the state give the refiners an operating subsidy. This is a very, very bad idea!
Reposted
4/ Then there’s the factual errors, such as the claim that CA has never faced a 20% reduction in gasoline supply. This is, um, not true! Refining capacity shrank by ~1/3rd b/n 1982 and 1995, while demand increased by 25%!
June 23, 2025 at 2:35 PM
4/ Then there’s the factual errors, such as the claim that CA has never faced a 20% reduction in gasoline supply. This is, um, not true! Refining capacity shrank by ~1/3rd b/n 1982 and 1995, while demand increased by 25%!
Reposted
3/ Mische (the author) gives very limited details about the “models” he uses to get his results (which is not standard scholarly practice). The few details he does give, however, reveals extreme assumptions that are not grounded in any theory or empirics.
June 23, 2025 at 2:35 PM
3/ Mische (the author) gives very limited details about the “models” he uses to get his results (which is not standard scholarly practice). The few details he does give, however, reveals extreme assumptions that are not grounded in any theory or empirics.
Reposted
2/ The post is by a consultant and Professor of Practice at USC Marshall. The main, and crucial, conceptual error the post makes is not understanding that because CA is already a net importer of gasoline, the margin at which prices are set doesn’t change with additional refinery closures.
June 23, 2025 at 2:34 PM
2/ The post is by a consultant and Professor of Practice at USC Marshall. The main, and crucial, conceptual error the post makes is not understanding that because CA is already a net importer of gasoline, the margin at which prices are set doesn’t change with additional refinery closures.
Reposted
1/6 Two refineries in CA will close by 2026. And you might have heard about a “study” which says CA could have $8/gal gas prices when that happens. I looked at the underlying analysis and found it riddled with conceptual and factual errors. #EnergySky ryanmgcummings.substack.com/p/the-post-w...
The Post Which Claims California Will Have $8/gallon Gasoline is Factually Incorrect and Betrays a Fundamental Lack of Understanding of Energy Markets.
And it's actively harmful to the policy debate about how we responsibly wind down fossil fuel infrastructure
ryanmgcummings.substack.com
June 23, 2025 at 2:33 PM
1/6 Two refineries in CA will close by 2026. And you might have heard about a “study” which says CA could have $8/gal gas prices when that happens. I looked at the underlying analysis and found it riddled with conceptual and factual errors. #EnergySky ryanmgcummings.substack.com/p/the-post-w...