Starting Dec. 18, eligible Californians can apply for a voucher of up to $2,000 toward the purchase of an e-bike as part of a new state incentive program.

The California E-Bike Incentive Project, launched by the California Air Resources Board, was established to help lower cost barriers to transportation methods that aim to replace car trips and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Unlike rebates and tax credits for electric cars, applicants don’t have to first buy the e-bike to get the incentive. The voucher acts as a discount at the point of buying an e-bike.

According to the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, e-bikes can be a suitable alternative to car travel because they can “cover longer distance trips with less effort, relative to traditional pedal bikes.”

E-bike prices range from an average of $2,000 up to $6,000, according to outdoor recreational retailer REI. Experts recommend that consumers avoid extremely low-priced electric bikes, which often come with cheaper parts and overall lower quality, according to Consumer Reports.

Last year, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado found that e-bikes served an unmet transportation need for people who didn’t have access to a car. E-bike riders who did have access to their own vehicle said they preferred the electric bicycle because it was more convenient for trips that were one to four miles in distance, the researchers said.

They also found the benefits of e-bikes included charging and repair costs that are a fraction of such costs associated with cars. E-bike users also have the benefit of a healthy physical activity, free parking, and knowing they are helping reduce traffic.

E-bikes are a transportation method that people can use to get around every day while improving air quality, Steven Cliff, executive officer for the California Air Resources Board, said in a statement.

“Prioritizing equity and access is key as we work to achieve our zero-emissions goals, and this incentive program will support those efforts by helping e-bikes be part of the solution,” Cliff said.

The program will begin with $3 million, with the goal of providing vouchers for the purchase of 1,500 e-bikes. Once the program runs out of vouchers it’s unclear whether the state will add more funding.

The program will start to accept applications at the website ebikeincentives.org at 6 p.m. Pacific on Dec. 18. Applications will be processed in the order received until the vouchers are exhausted.

Who is eligible for the program?

Applicants must be California residents who are 18 years or older with an annual household income at or below 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. That means that a single-person household must make no more than about $45,000 per year and a two-member household must make no more than $61,000 to qualify.

Applicants whose income is at or below 225% of the Federal Poverty Level will receive priority on the application list. This means a single-family household must make no more than about $33,000 and a two-member household income must be no more than $45,000 to get priority.

How are the vouchers used?

Once the application has been submitted online and all of the eligibility requirements are met, the applicant will receive an approval notification with the voucher via email.

Vouchers can be redeemed at retailers who are participating in the program, including 131 retailers in Los Angeles and Orange counties. For an extensive list including a retailer’s contact information, visit the project’s online retailer map.

Victoria Hinks watched her daughter get sucked into the dark sides of social media, and she couldn’t pull her out.

“We tried to take her phone away at night, but it was like taking a drug away from an addict,” Hinks said at a news conference at the Boys & Girls Clubs of San Francisco’s Don Fisher Clubhouse on Monday.

Hinks, whose 16-year-old daughter died by suicide in August, joined California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) in announcing proposed legislation that would require social media companies to warn California users their platforms could pose risks to the mental health and well-being of young people.

The effort to add warning labels is the latest in a series of moves by state lawmakers to bolster online protections for children. Bonta and Bauer-Kahan, who introduced the new legislation, Assembly Bill 56, expect they will face pushback from tech industry groups that have sued to stop new child safety laws from being enforced.

Although supporters acknowledge warning labels wouldn’t be a cure-all, lawmakers and child advocates say the labels would help parents decide whether they should allow their kids to use these popular services. Bonta, Bauer-Kahan and Common Sense Media Chief Executive and founder Jim Steyer compared the proposed labels to putting warnings on cigarette cartons.

“It will raise public awareness and turn the tide in this public health crisis,” Bauer-Kahan said.

The move comes after U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy also called for warning labels on social media this year. In an op-ed published in the New York Times, Murthy said that putting a label on these online services would remind parents and young people about social media’s potential dangers.

Last year, the surgeon general published a report stating that while social media can have some benefits such as connecting young people to family and friends, the platforms also pose potential risks such as depression, anxiety, social comparison and body image issues.

Social media companies have been adding features to give parents more control over their children’s use of social media. Meta Platforms-owned Instagram, a social media app popular among young people, introduced teen accounts this year so parents can limit the content their teens see and who contacts them online.

Google, TikTok, Snap and NetChoice, a trade group backed by major tech companies, didn’t respond to requests for comment. Meta didn’t immediately have a statement about the proposal.

The California attorney general also sued TikTok and Meta over alleged harms to young people.

Efforts to protect kids online have faced several legal roadblocks as tech industry groups sue to block new laws from being enforced, alleging the new laws violate free speech protections under the 1st Amendment.

This year, a federal appeals court partly upheld a lower court’s decision to block a California online child safety law passed in 2022. Known as the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, the law requires online platforms to assess whether the design of their product, service or feature could harm children before they’re released to the public.

Bonta said there’s no 1st Amendment right to harm children and his office will battle it out in court.

“The fact that we might get sued down the road after an important bill that protects our children is passed will not slow us down,” Bonta said.

Hinks echoed Bonta’s comments, noting that adding warning labels is a step in the right direction. Despite using parental controls to limit the amount of time her daughter spent on social media apps, Hinks said her daughter was still served content about eating disorders and self-harm. Convinced she wasn’t pretty enough, the teen used beauty filters offered on various apps to change her appearance, her mom said.

“There is not a bone in my body that doubts social media played a role in leading her to that final, irreversible decision,” Hinks said.

After renovations forced Monique Gomez to move out of her Westside apartment, the tenant of four years was surprised to learn she would have to find another company to sell her renters coverage.

Her insurer, State Farm General, stopped writing new property policies last year, and she was told that even though she was an existing customer and moving into a nearly identical unit at Barrington Plaza, the company wouldn’t cover her.

“Nothing has changed. It’s just me going to a different unit, the same square footage, the exact same square footage,” she said.

Gomez eventually found coverage through her auto insurer, Mercury General, that cost $184 annually, or only $20 more, after it was bundled with her auto insurance and discounted. Still, she remained surprised by the whole experience.

A State Farm General spokesperson said that when an existing California customer moves to a new location, “it is considered new business” that it will not write.

The Wilshire Boulevard apartment complex where Gomez resides is far from the hillsides of Malibu, the San Gabriel Mountains and elsewhere that have experienced large wildfires which have driven some home insurers to stop writing new policies or seek large rate increases. But those troubles have now trickled down to the renters market.

In other words, if you need new renters coverage, it might be harder to come by and cost you more.

State Farm is not the only carrier to have stopped writing new renters policies, at least temporarily. The Hartford stopped writing new renters policies in February, though it renews existing ones. And last month, Liberty Mutual said it would stop writing new Safeco renters policies on Jan. 1 and no longer renew them in 2026.

“During this time of increasing risk and volatility, we are building a sustainable business path forward in California by simplifying our product offerings and investing in the areas where we can win in the long term,” a Liberty Mutual spokesperson said.

Some carriers have raised their rental coverage rates, including American Modern Home Insurance, which got approval in October for a 40% increase. USAA received a 29% raise effective August 2023, and Farmers Insurance, which got a 45% increase that took effect in October 2023, got a nearly 7% bump since then.

“We’re seeing the rates go up significantly,” said Rick Dinger, president of Crescenta Valley Insurance, an independent brokerage in Glendale, who calls the current business environment “the new world order for rental insurance.”

Renters insurance policies, many of which cost less than $200 a year, are typically sold in a package that includes personal property coverage of up to $25,000 to cover the replacement costs of damaged or stolen property, and liability coverage of $100,000 in case a renter is held liable for damaging a unit, perhaps by water or fire. Coverage limits might be higher and usually there are deductibles.

The insurance also can pay for a temporary dwelling while a renter’s unit is repaired, among other coverage options. It does not include flood and earthquake insurance, which must be purchased separately.

While acknowledging some carriers have recently left the market or received rate hikes, the state Department of Insurance maintains that renters coverage is still readily available and relatively inexpensive, with some carriers holding rates steady or even dropping them. The bigger issue, it says, is that not enough renters have the policies, even as the market has grown.

There were 1.08 million renters policies issued in the state in 2009 at an average annual cost of $220. By 2022, 2.96 million policies were issued at an annual average cost of $177, according to the most recently available data from the department. But the state has far more renters.

California has roughly 5.9 million renter households, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition and the second-highest rate of housing units occupied by renters at 45.5%, according to the 2020 U.S. Census.

“More Californians than ever before have renters insurance because it’s an easy, affordable way to protect themselves,” said Michael Soller, spokesman for Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. “Not enough people have renters insurance given its affordability and broad availability.”

In 2021, the average annual cost of rental coverage in California ranked 13th nationwide, well below Mississippi, which had the highest cost at $258, and above the $50 paid in South Dakota, the lowest-cost state, according to the Insurance Information Institute. That data, the latest available, do not take into effect recent changes in the market.

Though renters insurance costs a fraction of homeowners insurance, Larry Gross, executive director of the Los Angeles tenants advocacy group Coalition for Economic Survival, said that with many tenants barely making ends meet, any increase is a squeeze.

“In the L.A. area, we have one of the worst housing crisis in the nation,” he said. “People are already paying unaffordable rent upwards of 50% of their income, so any type of increase is going to impact them significantly.”

He noted that more landlords are now requiring rental insurance in lease terms, though tenants in rent-controlled units have more legal protections in Los Angeles and can’t be forced to pay it.

Dinger said his brokerage used to place renters with about a half dozen or so carriers, but now they rely largely on just two and each has become more selective in who they will cover. Another carrier has allocated the brokerage either one renters or homeowners policy a month. “So we need to save that one for our homeowners policy,” he said.

Derek Ross, president of Kulchin Ross Insurance Services, a Tarzana brokerage, agreed it has become harder to find carriers who will write renters insurance, and that more limitations are being placed into policies. He said he expects carriers to continue to seek rate increases as they seek to better account for risk.

“You have a college kid that rents a little spot anywhere in California, and they’re been essentially paying the same as a hot wildfire area,” he said, though that has been changing.

Farmers Insurance bucked the industry trend when it announced this month that it would increase the number of home policies it writes and resume offering renters and other coverage, citing improvement in the California market. The insurer said it was encouraged by Lara’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy, a package of executive actions aimed at stabilizing the market.

The reforms will allow insurers to use complex computer models to assess the risk of catastrophic fires and to include the cost of reinsurance in their premiums. Insurers buy reinsurance from other insurers to minimize losses from catastrophic events. Lara is expected to release the reinsurance regulations next week.

Though Liberty Mutual said it would no longer sell its Safeco renters and condo insurance in California, it said it will continue to write Safeco home insurance in the state. It too cited Lara’s reforms as a reason for doing so. “We are encouraged by progress on the Department’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy and our investment plans reflect this,” its statement said.