California
California regulator proposes cutting power bills 5% after doubling rates since 2014 – Washington Examiner
(The Center Square) – Following an executive order from California Gov. Gavin Newsom to explore how to reduce energy prices that have doubled since 2014, California’s energy regulator issued proposals it said would cut rates by 4% to 5% in the first year but grow significantly over time.
These proposals include reforming the program that will pay homeowners $8.5 billion this year for solar panel energy, phasing out funding of non-energy related social programs such as “food deserts” assistance from energy budgets, and reducing capital expenditures.
Under current regulations, utilities’ profits are capped relative to the value of their capital investments, which the report says incentivizes utilities to spend and borrow as much money as possible to increase their profit allowance – at ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ expense.
According to the California Public Utilities Commission’s latest electricity rate report, rates for the state’s three largest utilities have increased by an average of 96% since January 2014 and 42% since January 2021.
“California’s electricity rates have surged beyond inflation, straining households and businesses hindering decarbonization efforts,” wrote the CPUC. “Wildfire mitigation measures, costly infrastructure investments, and rooftop solar subsidies all contribute to rising costs. Without changes in how utilities recover expenses, rates will continue to climb.”
The governor’s order put significant constraints on the CPUC’s scope of recommendations, requiring the recommendations “reduce costs to electric ratepayers without compromising public health and safety, electric grid reliability, or the achievement of the State’s 2045 clean electricity goal and the State’s 2045 economywide carbon neutrality goal.”
Within these constraints, the CPUC made four recommendations on how to reduce rates by 4-5% within the first year, with future rate reductions growing over time.
First, CPUC recommended minimizing “expensive construction projects,” explaining how current regulations encourage utilities to choose expensive options that allow them to raise their CPUC-regulated profit allowance.
“There is a profit motive for utilities to pursue capital-intensive projects, as they earn a ‘return on equity’ on these investments which increases overall costs for ratepayers,” wrote the CPUC, which must approve utility projects. “Without proper oversight, this profit motive can lead to prioritizing expensive projects over more efficient alternatives.”
In addition to recommending choosing lower cost options, the CPUC also suggested securitizing some higher cost projects, which would require bonds to be issued, and paid back by ratepayers — which would not come with ROE provisions. CPUC estimates this change on just undergrounding of power lines could save customers $41 million per year in 2025, and $310 million per year by 2026.
CPUC suggests significantly reforming the rooftop solar subsidy plan that will issue $8.5 billion per year by the end of 2024 — up from $3.5 billion per year in 2021 — to energy customers with solar panels installed.
Under the existing plan, solar-equipped customers “receive payments at retail electricity rates for their exported energy, often exceeding its actual market value.”
Utilities often must pay other operators to take excess solar energy, on top of paying solar customers the retail rate for the negative-value solar energy, leaving non-solar customers with the bill.
“These growing subsidies, paid for by non-rooftop solar customers, contribute to higher electricity rates and result in a higher cost burden to non-[solar] customers,” wrote the CPUC. “Additionally, rooftop solar customers do not contribute their fair share of fixed grid costs, such as maintaining power lines and ensuring grid reliability.”
An earlier CPUC report found 15% of non-solar customers’ energy bills went towards payments to solar customers.
The CPUC recommends reducing the solar compensation rates and transitioning buyers of property with high-reimbursement agreements to the current lower rate.
CPUC further recommended that utilities “phase out non-cost-effective programs from electricity rates,” that it says often have “very little to do with reducing energy consumption,” which means “funding them through customers’ energy bills effectively acts as a regressive tax.”
The CPUC said “programs addressing food deserts or supporting high school and community college courses, while socially beneficial, are better suited for taxpayer funding than ratepayer funding.”
It also pointed to a “state-administered grant program for school infrastructure improvements,” and energy efficiency programs, finding, “Despite increasing investment, many of the programs funded today are not cost-effective and do not primarily focus on cutting energy use.”
The recommendations align with concerns raised by some state lawmakers — especially Republicans, about inequitable energy costs.
“It’s no secret that the benefits of wind and solar energy are not equally enjoyed in some communities,” said California Senate Utility, Energy and Communications Vice Chair Brian Dahle, R-Bieber, in an earlier interview with The Center Square on solar payments. “It’s time for energy resources, renewable or not, to stand independently without offsetting costs by adding more fees and relying heavily on taxpayers’ support.”
California
Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students
BAKERSFIELD, Calif.(KBAK/KBFX) — The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that limited when schools could require staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, clearing the way for schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the students’ approval.
Rear view of multiracial students with hands raised in classroom at high school
The decision came after religious parents and educators, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged California school policies aimed at preventing staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the ruling favors parents’ ability to be informed. “The Supreme Court today rules in favor of the claim of parents to be able to know the gender identity and gender pronoun of the children,” Chemerinsky said.
FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)
The decision temporarily blocks a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The Thomas More Society called the decision a major victory for parents, saying the court found California’s policy likely violates constitutional rights.
Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court’s action is an emergency ruling. “This law is now put on hold. So what this means is that schools can require that teachers and other staff inform parents of the gender identity or gender pronouns of children,” he said.
Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said she is concerned about how the ruling could affect students who do not have supportive families.
“I am really concerned about our kids that do come from these non affirming homes, that they know that they’re going to get in trouble, that they’re going to possibly have violence brought against them possibly kicked out of their homes,” Moehlig said.
Moehlig said parents should eventually know, but that the conversation should happen when a student feels safe. “Our students are going to be less inclined to confide in any adults that might be able to help to get them access to mental healthcare, to a support system. They may still tell their peers but they’re certainly not going to tell any other adult,” she said.
Equality California, a LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, shared a statement:
Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court shadow docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding California’s student privacy protections for transgender youth. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this case is deeply disturbing. By stepping in on an emergency basis, the Court has effectively upended California’s student privacy protections without hearing full arguments and before the judicial process has run its course. While not surprising, this move reflects a dangerous willingness to short-circuit the established judicial process to dismantle protections for transgender youth. While this case continues to be litigated, the ruling revives Judge Benitez’s prior decision, which broadly targets numerous California laws protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students — threatening critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear. To be clear: today’s decision does not impact California’s SAFETY Act, which prohibits school districts from adopting policies that forcibly out transgender students. The SAFETY Act remains in full effect, and we will continue defending it. Transgender youth deserve dignity, safety, and the freedom to learn without fear. We will never stop fighting for transgender youth and their families. Equality California will continue working with parents, educators, and advocates to ensure schools remain safe, welcoming, and focused on the success and well-being of every student.
The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will decide whether the California law is constitutional.
California
Rep. Kevin Kiley announces run in California’s redrawn 6th Congressional District
Congressman Kevin Kiley has announced his plan to run in California’s newly redrawn 6th district.
In a statement on Monday, Rep. Kiley revealed he had considered running in the 5th District – which could have set up a possible showdown between two current Republican officeholders.
“It’s true that I was fully prepared to run in the new 5th, having tested the waters and with polls showing a favorable outlook in a “safe” district. But doing what’s easy and what’s right are often not the same,” Kiley stated.
Kiley currently represents California’s 3rd district, which originally comprised counties making up much of the back spine of the state.
As of the Prop. 50 redistricting push, the 3rd district was redrawn for the 2026 midterm election to lean toward the Democratic Party – with those eastern spine of California counties lopped off and more of Sacramento County, including Rancho Cordova, added.
California’s new 6th district is now comprised of Rocklin, Roseville, Citrus Heights, much of North and East Sacramento, and the city of West Sacramento. Democratic Rep. Ami Bera currently represents the district, but will be running for the new 3rd district in 2026.
Other declared candidates for the 6th district include Democrats Lauren Babb Thomlinson, Thien Ho, Richard Pan, Kindra Pring, Tyler Vandenberg, and Republicans Christine Bish, Craig DeLuz, and Raymond Riehle.
Kiley was first elected to the House in 2022 and was reelected in 2024.
California
Preliminary magnitude 3.3 earthquake strikes near San Ramon, USGS says
SAN RAMON, Calif. (KGO) — An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.4 struck near San Ramon at 11:21 p.m. Sunday, the U.S. Geological Survey said.
USGS said the tremor was about 8.4 km in depth.
According to the Geological Survey, people typically report feeling earthquakes larger than about magnitude 2.5.
The closer to the surface an earthquake occurs, the more ground shaking and potential damage it will cause.
No injuries have been reported.
This is the latest quake in San Ramon, which has seen multiple strings of tremors in the past several months.
Bay City News contributed to this report.
MAP: Significant San Francisco Bay Area fault lines and strong earthquakes
Zoom in on the map below and compare where you live to the significant faults and where strong earthquakes have struck in the Bay Area.
Stay with ABC7 News for the latest details on this developing story.
RELATED STORIES & VIDEOS:
Copyright © 2026 KGO-TV. All Rights Reserved.
-
World6 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts6 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO6 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Oregon4 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Florida3 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Technology1 week agoArturia’s FX Collection 6 adds two new effects and a $99 intro version
-
News1 week agoVideo: How Lunar New Year Traditions Take Root Across America