
The Issue: California Style Fuel Bans in Minnesota
Politicians in St. Paul are once again trying to mandate a costly California-style ban on the fuels and vehicles that Minnesota families, small businesses, and farmers rely on. Even if it fails to pass, the legislature has shown no signs of stopping in the coming years.
Make no mistake—the cost of such legislation would be staggering, including higher fuel costs and job losses.
By calling this legislation the “clean transportation standard” (CTS), politicians are trying to hide the fact that it is the most radical fuel mandate in the nation. It not only takes away your choices but also bans ALL liquid fuels like gasoline, diesel, ethanol, and even Minnesota’s homegrown biofuels.
Minnesota is not California, but if this type of legislation were to pass, Minnesota families could see the same astronomical fuel costs. If legislators mimic another one of California's costly energy policies, our state will soon compete with the Golden State for the nation’s highest fuel prices.
What Would a California-Style Fuel Ban Mean for Minnesota Families?
If implemented, a “CTS” would immediately raise prices on all fuel in Minnesota and threaten thousands of agricultural jobs and family farms across the state. It would also force Minnesotans to subsidize electric vehicles and expensive fuels produced in other states.
The Minnesota Clean Transportation Standard, if implemented, would:
Completely ban liquid fuels by 2050—including Minnesota-produced fuels, such as biofuels.
Increase prices at the pump—for both gas and diesel—for all Minnesotans in the near term. A study from Stillwater Associates found that such a severely limited energy policy in Minnesota would be responsible for raising gas prices by as much as $0.94 per gallon by 2030 and up to $1.05 per gallon by 2040. Diesel prices under the policy could rise by $3.61 per gallon by 2030 and over $4.00 per gallon by 2040.
Create a massive new government division to oversee and implement the complex program, costing taxpayers millions of dollars in new and unnecessary government spending.
It is impossible to support Minnesota fuel producers, including workers in the state’s biofuels and agricultural sectors, while also embracing policies that price these fuels out of the market. It is further impossible to stand with Minnesota families while pushing policies that will hit them in their pocketbooks and upend their daily lives.

Who’s Trying to Ban Fuels & Vehicles?
Some lawmakers in St. Paul have been pushing to adopt a California-style fuel mandate for years, but their efforts have largely failed due to the unacceptably high cost it would impose on Minnesota families.
At the end of its 2023 session, however, the Minnesota Legislature quietly created a “Work Group” to study a CTS and provide recommendations for its implementation. The Work Group was tasked with an extremely narrow scope, focusing exclusively on how the state could go about implementing the policy. It has not examined larger, more substantive questions about how quickly this CTS becomes a fuel ban, how much a fuel ban will cost consumers, what impact it will have on Minnesota’s existing fuel industry, or if such a policy is even feasible in Minnesota to begin with.
The Work Group’s own analysis shows that simply sticking with current Minnesota policies—which would impose no additional costs on Minnesota families—would achieve a 30 percent reduction in the state’s transportation sector emissions. However, if the fuel mandate policy does move forward, Minnesota families could be forced to pay hundreds of dollars more yearly in fuel costs to subsidize electric vehicles and fuels produced in other states.
The Work Group submitted its report to the legislature on February 1, 2024. Ahead of a vote on the fuel ban, lawmakers faced widespread outrage from engaged constituents and various groups in key sectors, many of them members of the No Fuel Ban Coalition. To the relief of all Minnesotans, efforts to enact a fuel ban were ultimately defeated.
While lawmakers chose not to move forward with a fuel ban during last year’s session, that did not stop them from trying again this year. There is grave concern among Minnesotans that proponents will try to push similar, misguided legislation next year and beyond until they win.

Has a CTS Been Tried Before?
If Minnesota moves ahead with the fuel ban, it would be the fifth state to implement the policy, joining California, Oregon, Washington, and soon, New Mexico. All three states who have implemented this ban boast the highest gas prices in the nation.
Washington’s policy increased fuel prices by as much as 50 TIMES MORE than advocates said it would. Before implementing the restrictive energy policy, the state’s Department of Ecology predicted it would impact fuel prices by less than $0.01 in 2023. Instead, consumers ended up paying far more. While prices fluctuated throughout the year, residents paid up to $0.50 more per gallon when fuel costs peaked, according to the Oil Price Information Service.
California’s policy has contributed to California having the highest fuel prices in the nation while having minimal impact on the environment. The Work Group’s own analysis shows that under existing policies, Minnesota will lower transportation emissions by 30 percent.
Despite suffering significant harms, California recently strengthened its fuel mandate policies, and many of the changes are similar to what Minnesota lawmakers are considering. According to the California Air Resources Board, the Minnesota-style change may increase gas prices by an additional $0.37 per gallon in the immediate term. Later in the program’s life, the fuel mandate could add more than $1.50 per gallon. Similarly, the policy would cause diesel prices to rise by roughly $0.50 per gallon in the first few years, with the longer-term impact being well over $2.00 per gallon.
These fuel mandate polices do more than just inflate fuel prices for everyone. They ripple through the economy and kneecap entire job markets. In California, these policies have forced seven oil refineries to shutter. This translates to thousands of jobs lost for Californians who just want to provide for their families, and even Governor Gavin Newsom himself is worried about the looming consequences. Minnesota has only two refineries, so out-of-touch fuel mandates passed down from St. Paul could easily decimate our ability to make fuels at all and would swiftly lead to thousands of Minnesotans out of work.
California has chosen to go down the path of higher prices and fewer options. If fuel ban proponents in Minnesota get their way, families, small businesses, and working people will be devastated.
The choice is clear: Politicians can support Minnesota families or fuel ban policies—not both.
Questions to Consider
Inflation has already placed a burden on countless Minnesotans. How much more will bans on fuels and vehicles cost families?
Minnesota—along with our farmers, employers, and workers—has heavily invested in biofuels, liquid fuel production, and agriculture. How many of these jobs will a California-style fuel ban destroy?
Minnesota’s winters and terrain pose challenges that states like California do not experience, including harsh winters and heavy farm equipment. Are fuel and vehicle bans feasible in Minnesota?
Proponents of electric vehicles act as if the cost of “fueling” them is more affordable and efficient, but European nations have seen their charging rates skyrocket. States like California have had to prohibit drivers from plugging vehicles in at certain times of day to avoid blackouts. Existing infrastructure is simply not designed to support a huge influx of charging stations, and upgrading it would be expensive. Is the potential for such burdens worth the cost and safety of Minnesotans?

A Commonsense Approach in Minnesota
The No Fuel Ban Coalition supports maintaining a high quality of life in Minnesota.
We support an all-of-the-above approach to energy. This includes energy policies that, for example, focus on clean and available biofuels that support thousands of jobs across Minnesota. It includes supporting consumer choice – not allowing government to force consumers into choosing vehicles through bans, mandates, or inefficient subsidies.
Our coalition brings together Minnesota’s agricultural leaders, labor voices, and supply chain stakeholders to ensure that any legislative or rulemaking activity on a Clean Transportation Standard program doesn’t jeopardize the advancement of an all-of-the-above energy portfolio for the state.
Unfortunately, the Minnesota Legislature remains interested in entertaining these detrimental bans. It’s important that policymakers and Minnesotans understand the significance of this policy and conduct an appropriate fact-based analysis of the costs and benefits before passing California-style policy. California policies will produce California results. In this case, that means much higher fuel prices and little else.
While the No Fuel Ban Coalition does not call for the election or defeat of any candidate for any office, we believe citizens should know where their elected officials and candidates for office stand on these critical issues.