regulations

Verstappen’s dissatisfaction with F1 is focused on the degree of energy management required of the new engines.

They need to be recharged several times a lap, and that is leading to drivers losing speed on the approach to corners at the end of long straights as the engine runs out of battery power and starts to recharge.

It is also generating a form of racing that has proved attractive to fans and many in the sport, with places swapping and swapping back again.

But Verstappen does not like the way this happens as a result of different stages of battery charge between two drivers racing.

Discussing his attempts to pass Alpine’s Pierre Gasly for seventh place, Verstappen said: “You can pass around here, but then you have no battery for the next straight.

“So I tried once just to have a look, but then of course Pierre immediately got by me again on the main straight and I think that was basically the story of today. You can pass, but then you get re-passed. That was basically it.”

Commenting further on his thoughts about his future, Verstappen said: “I see it like this: You hear it from a lot of sports people when you speak to them about how are you successful. It all starts with actually enjoying what you’re doing before you can actually commit to it 100%.

“Now I think I’m committing 100% and I’m still trying, but the way that I am telling myself to give it 100% I think is not very healthy at the moment because I am not enjoying what I’m doing.

“And now people can easily say, ‘Yeah, well, you’ve won so many championships and races and now just because the car is not good you are complaining.’ Maybe you can see it like that, but I see it different.”

He added that one option would be to go and race in sports cars – he is already planning to take part in the Nurburgring 24 Hours this year.

“I have a lot of other projects anyway that I have a lot of passion about,” he said. “The GT3 racing. Not only racing it myself but also the team. It’s really nice and fun to build that. And I really want to build that out further in the coming years.

“It’s not like if I would stop here that I’m not going to do anything. I’m always going to have fun. And also I will have fun in a lot of other things in my life.

“But it’s a bit sad to be honest that we’re even talking about this. It is what it is. You don’t need to feel sorry for me. I’ll be fine.”

Referring to the bosses of F1 and his potential loss from the paddock, he implied that a change of the rules would make a difference to his decision.

“They know what to do,” Verstappen said.

F1 bosses are due to meet in the four-week gap between Japan and the next race in Miami to discuss changes to the rules to allow drivers to push flat-out in qualifying.

The need to manage energy over one ultimate lap and the effect this having on driving is unanimously regarded in F1 as an issue that needs fixing.

SACRAMENTO — As gas prices surge in California and nationally due to the war in Iran, two Democrats running for California governor are calling for the state to temporarily suspend its fuel tax or ease refinery regulations in an effort to lower costs.

Standing in front of a gas pump in a video posted to social media, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said the costs are “becoming an emergency for working families, and I think we ought to act like it.”

The moderate Democrat called on state lawmakers to suspend California’s gas tax, which at 61 cents per gallon is the highest in the nation.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also called for an “immediate moratorium” on regulations that he blamed for “overburdening” California refineries and working families.

“These failed policies are not only hurting tens of millions of Californians, they are terrible for the environment because they have forced California to depend on imported foreign oil from the Middle East,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

The cost of living in California, including the price at the pump, remains a pivotal issue for voters in the state, and has become central to the moderate-leaning campaigns of Mahan and Villaraigosa as they attempt to distinguish themselves in the tightly contested race for governor.

According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in California on Monday was $5.52, the highest in the nation and more than 50 cents higher than any other state. The national average was $3.71, up from the previous month’s average of $2.92.

Gasoline prices in California are often among the highest in the country for a number of reasons, including environmental rules that require a unique blend of cleaner-burning fuel.

The state also relies mostly on crude oil imported from other countries including Brazil, Iraq and Guyana and processed at in-state refineries. In 2025, 61% of oil processed at California refineries was imported, compared with 23% that was produced in the state, according to data from the California Energy Commission.

A greater reliance on foreign oil has made California more susceptible to price spikes during global conflicts and other disruptions.

Republicans have long supported suspending the gas tax and cutting regulations in order to lower prices at the pump.

Steve Hilton, a GOP candidate for governor and former Fox News host, outlined a plan to lower California gas prices to $3 per gallon by slashing regulations including the low-carbon fuel standard, the rule that requires cleaner-burning gas in order to reduce tailpipe emissions.

The other major Republican in the race, Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, supports suspending the gas tax, according to his website.

The current price spike echoes 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and disrupted global oil markets.

As prices eventually fell around the rest of the country that year, they remained high for months in California, leading Gov. Gavin Newsom to wage war against oil and gas companies. He accused them of price-gouging drivers and backed laws requiring companies to report their profit margins and keep a supply of fuel on hand to prevent shortages and price spikes.

The governor backed off his battle with the oil companies last year after two refineries announced plans to close. In September, he signed legislation to permit 2,000 new oil wells in Kern County, reflecting an acknowledgement that his war on oil companies threatened to send California’s gas market spiraling.

Republican state lawmakers in 2022 pushed for a temporary suspension of California’s excise tax on gasoline, arguing that it would provide immediate relief to California drivers. That effort was rebuffed by Newsom and Democratic lawmakers, but they later approved $9.5 billion in tax refunds to Californians, providing as much as $1,050 to families as financial relief from record-high gasoline prices and other rising costs.

In 2017, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed Senate Bill 1, which then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law, levying the state’s first gas tax increase in 23 years to fix California’s roads and bridges in disrepair. Under the law, the tax increases each year on July 1 based on the growth in the California Consumer Price Index.

California voters remain conflicted on the state’s regulation of the oil industry, according to an August survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. It found that more than 60% of adults support goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate electricity from renewable energy sources.

But majorities also said the costs of gasoline and utility bills is a major problem for them personally, according to the poll.

Mahan and Villaraigosa are the only two Democrats who have publicly called to roll back regulations on the state’s oil and gas market, illustrating the political murkiness at the nexus of California’s climate and affordability challenges.

Still, Democratic lawmakers – who hold supermajorities in the state Senate and Assembly – continue to shut down proposals to pause the gas tax, arguing that the state would lose out on much-needed money for roads.

“If anyone has a proposal about how to backfill (transportation) revenues, I’m up for that conversation, but so far, it’s just a bulls— political talking point,” said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine).

Petrie-Norris chairs the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee and has helped lead legislative efforts to stabilize California’s fuels market without retreating from goals to achieve carbon neutrality.

”When I ask people, ‘Do you want affordable gas, clean air or safe roads?’ they say yes. So they want us to do all three of these things,” she said. “We’ve got to be honest with Californians about trade-offs so that we can have real conversations.”

Mahan pushed back on the importance of collecting gas tax revenue.

“The truth is we have the highest taxes in the country and a $350-billion budget, and we ought to be able to pave our roads and enable working families to put food on the table,” he said in an interview. “I just reject the notion that the sky is going to fall if we provide temporary relief to working families who are being pushed to the brink by a war that they didn’t ask for.”

The San José mayor said the state should suspend the fuel tax “for the duration of the war” in Iran “or as long as gas prices are over $5 a gallon” in the state. He also called for “massive regulatory overhaul that brings down costs across the board,” including rules on refineries.

If elected governor, Villaraigosa said he would “reform and overhaul” the California Air Resources Board, which enacts many of the state’s environmental laws — including the low carbon fuel standard and cap-and-invest program.

“We can no longer allow bureaucrats who live in a bubble — with no accountability for the harm they are causing our economy and our people — to have so much power over the lives of every Californian,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

March 9 (Asia Today) — Guest commentary contributed to Asia Today by Park Ki-soon, Professor, Graduate School of Chinese Studies, Sungkyunkwan University.

Debate over platform regulation has been intensifying in South Korea. A prominent example is the proposed Online Platform Act (OPA). The bill includes provisions such as commission caps, a prior designation system, collective bargaining rights and class-action lawsuits – all framed as measures to protect merchants and ensure fair competition.

The intention itself is not necessarily misguided. Information asymmetry and unequal bargaining power do exist within the platform ecosystem. However, before deciding what to regulate, policymakers must carefully consider how regulation should be implemented. Good intentions do not always produce good outcomes.

The European Union (EU) enacted the Digital Markets Act (DMA) in 2022 and designated six companies – including Alphabet, Apple and Meta – as “gatekeepers,” subjecting them to strict ex-ante regulations. The law was introduced with the stated goal of promoting competition and protecting consumers.

Yet less than three years later, research is suggesting outcomes quite different from what policymakers expected.

A study examining 3,500 consumers in seven Central and Eastern European countries found that user behavior on Google and Facebook remained largely unchanged after the DMA took effect. Competition did not increase, while the complexity of online tasks rose by 39%.

Another study analyzing 4.1 million apps in the Google Play Store estimated that after the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was implemented, one-third of all apps disappeared, the number of new apps was cut in half and consumer surplus declined by roughly one-third. Venture investment and startup formation also slowed significantly.

Commission caps have produced similarly disappointing results. After Apple lowered App Store fees in the EU, only 9% of apps reduced prices for consumers. Meanwhile, more than 86% of the fee savings flowed to developers outside the EU.

Rather than effectively restraining large corporations, platform regulations have often increased barriers to entry for smaller firms. In other words, regulations intended to curb market dominance may ironically end up protecting incumbent giants by making it harder for new competitors to enter.

South Korea faces an even more delicate situation than the EU.

In the search engine market, Naver and Google dominate, while KakaoTalk has become the country’s national messaging platform. Korean cultural content spreads globally through platforms such as YouTube and Netflix, and cosmetics exports reached $11.4 billion in 2025.

Except for China – which restricts foreign platforms – South Korea is often considered the world’s most platform-independent digital ecosystem. At the same time, this ecosystem is deeply interconnected with global platforms.

Under these circumstances, poorly designed regulations could also affect foreign investment by companies such as Netflix and Amazon Web Services (AWS) in Korea.

There are also diplomatic risks. The United States has expressed concern that the OPA’s prior designation system could disproportionately target American companies and potentially violate the non-discrimination principle under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

Washington has already criticized the EU’s DMA as a non-tariff barrier targeting U.S. Big Tech and has hinted at possible retaliatory measures. A similar dispute could arise if Korea adopts comparable regulatory frameworks.

Another concern is that excessive regulation could inadvertently benefit Chinese platforms.

Chinese e-commerce services such as AliExpress and Temu are already rapidly expanding their presence in the Korean shopping app market. If both domestic and global platforms are tightly constrained while Chinese platforms remain largely unaffected, the result would be the exact opposite of what regulators intend.

South Korea has previously fallen behind China in areas such as online banking due to a “regulate first, innovate later” approach. That experience should serve as a cautionary lesson.

Platform policy must be approached with prudence. Regulations designed without sufficient consideration of market dynamics risk doing more harm than good – weakening innovation, discouraging investment and ultimately undermining the very ecosystem they aim to protect.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260309010002423

F1’s technical changes pose challenges for drivers and engineers alike while raising concerns about the quality of racing.

Formula One’s new era ⁠starts at this weekend’s season-opening ⁠Australian Grand Prix, where teams will leap into the unknown and grapple with sweeping technical changes under race conditions for the first time.

F1 has simultaneously overhauled chassis and power unit regulations for the first time ⁠in decades, posing a challenge for drivers and engineers while raising concerns about the quality of racing.

With near-parity between electrical and combustion engines and cars running on 100 percent advanced sustainable fuel, drivers gained some insight into the changes during winter testing. But all ⁠are in the dark about how the reset will play out when going wheel-to-wheel on race day.

“I’m certainly more comfortable now than I was a couple of months ago with how to drive these cars and how to try and get the most out of them,” McLaren’s Oscar Piastri told reporters on Wednesday.

“But I think there’s still the saying of ‘You don’t know what you don’t know.’”

Australian Piastri said McLaren ‌thought they had the cars worked out two months ago, only to find they had “a whole bunch of stuff” they did not understand during winter testing.

With more power generated by electricity than last year’s engines, there is more emphasis on drivers needing to be tactical with energy deployment and regeneration.

The old drag reduction system has been replaced by a new overtake mode, giving extra power for overtaking.

Four-time world champion Max Verstappen described the changes as “like Formula E on steroids” and “anti-racing”.

Formula One Chief Executive Stefano Domenicali defended them and assured fans there will still be plenty of thrills.

The changes may have different effects at ⁠different circuits, leaving all teams to learn on the fly, week by week.

Piastri said Sunday’s race ⁠at Albert Park, a suburb of Melbourne, would probably showcase the more “unnatural” parts of driving.

“You know, a lot more lift and coast, a lot more kind of just driving to maximise the power unit,” he said.

“You’ve got power units that are reducing in power down the straights at different points. And there’s a lot of unknowns, ⁠a lot of challenges in there.”

The new regulations raised hopes of a more open championship and the prospect of a disruptor team emerging to force change at the top. But preseason testing in ⁠Bahrain hinted at a familiar top four, with Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and ⁠McLaren all performing well.

Audi team principal Jonathan Wheatley said the gap between the “best and the rest” might only widen.

“I think it’s going to be a very different year in terms of the competitiveness in the sport,” he told the Reuters news agency. “We’re already seeing the gap between the fastest teams and the slowest teams but larger than it’s been ‌in the last few years.”

Whatever the pecking order, F1 race tracks will be more crowded with the addition of the new Cadillac team although there may be more breathing room at Albert Park, given Aston Martin’s preseason troubles.

Despite the technical guidance of Adrian ‌Newey, ‌who joined from Red Bull, the Honda-powered team completed few laps during winter testing and have reliability problems.

The AMR26 cars will be in Australia – something of a relief for F1 management – but may only race for a few laps before retiring.