The people of Orange Cove in Fresno County could soon be an unwilling part of an experiment in dangerous, expensive utility boondoggles. And if California’s gas companies get their way, families statewide will be forced to pay higher energy bills, breathe more indoor air pollution and bear greater safety risks.

Southern California Gas Co. wants to use Orange Cove to test blending hydrogen with natural gas in its pipeline network. This might sound futuristic and clean because it would reduce fossil fuel use, but it would waste $64 million in SoCalGas customer money and threaten this community’s health and safety — without actually fighting climate change.

Worse yet, SoCalGas and two other utilities just petitioned state regulators to skip pilot projects altogether. If approved, they could then request to pump a 5% hydrogen blend across California without demonstrating safety.

The problem is blending hydrogen into pipelines and appliances designed for gas. Hydrogen is leakier and more flammable, and it burns hotter and faster than gas. It can’t be smelled or seen, and burning it increases asthma-causing air pollution in homes and risks damaging appliances. Forcing consumers to burn hydrogen worsens fire, explosion and health risks in our homes, where we should feel most safe

The truth is gas utilities’ hydrogen blending proposals intend to keep customers hooked on pipelines. Utilities earn huge profits on infrastructure investment — over 10% for SoCalGas. The wiser approach for Californians would be to switch from gas to electric appliances, protecting customers from volatile gas prices and toxic indoor air. But that would hurt gas utility profits.

In my state of Colorado, our largest utility, Xcel Energy, proposed mixing hydrogen into the natural gas system serving a Denver suburb. When the community learned Xcel was forcing residents into a dangerous, expensive gas alternative disguised as climate action, they pushed back with enough time to force Xcel to pause its effort.

This story is playing out across the country and the world. In Eugene, Ore., backlash from residents made NW Natural cancel its hydrogen blending pilot. In Massachusetts, state regulators prevented utilities from pursuing similar plans. In the United Kingdom, residents of Whitby and Redcar protected themselves from even larger proposals.

Orange Cove is the next flare-up. SoCalGas began campaigning to blend hydrogen in 2022, but residents recently uncovered the truth and are speaking out accordingly. State regulators are expected to act by June, and their decision will have far-reaching consequences.

SoCalGas’ proposal stems from state policy to slash climate pollution from gas utility systems — a good idea, but a threat to utility profits. In theory, replacing natural gas with hydrogen can help gas utilities cut emissions while still investing in pipelines, because hydrogen can be produced and burned without emitting greenhouse gases.

But that’s where hydrogen’s advantages end.

Let’s air out the proposal’s dirty laundry: SoCalGas’ proposal to blend less than 5% hydrogen into Orange Cove’s system — which serves about 2,000 customer gas meters — would cost $64 million over 18 months. That’s comparable to removing the tailpipe pollution of 100 cars for one year.

That same $64 million could permanently remove the pollution of 12 times as many gasoline cars if used to purchase new electric vehicles. It’s also worth around $32,000 per customer gas meter in Orange Cove — more than enough for the community to install electric heat pumps, heat pump water heaters and induction stoves, zeroing out gas use.

Using that $64 million to fund incentives for cleaner, efficient electric appliances could help tens of thousands of Californians eliminate indoor air pollution and climate emissions.

This price tag is ludicrous for an 18-month experiment. Clean hydrogen is an extremely expensive way to heat homes. Current prices are 10 to 25 times higher than that of natural gas, and even the most optimistic forecasts expect it to remain much more expensive for decades.

Gas utilities claim Orange Cove will “inform the feasibility of developing a hydrogen injection standard” to decarbonize their broader systems, but that hides the truth: Hydrogen blending is a dead end that at best would reduce gas utility climate emissions by less than 7%. California’s gas system was not designed to safely handle more than a small share of hydrogen, so this pilot project couldn’t meaningfully scale up without the wholesale replacement of all gas pipelines and appliances.

Pilot projects seem small in the grand scheme of things, but they lend legitimacy to a bad idea debunked as a climate solution and wisely rejected by other communities time and time again. It would be even worse to ditch pilot tests and skip right to harming Californians with statewide blending.

Hydrogen is not categorically a “false solution” for climate. We need it to clean up things like fertilizer, chemicals and aviation fuel — products without cheaper clean alternatives that are made in specialized industrial complexes overseen by trained technicians.

But California doesn’t need hydrogen to clean up its buildings. Families are already choosing electric appliances for higher-quality, fully clean service. Hydrogen can’t save our gas networks; it can only waste money and delay California’s work to stop climate change.

Forcing communities to use hydrogen also reduces consumer choice. People have the freedom to install electric appliances when they’re ready, using government and utility incentives. With hydrogen blending, homes and businesses would have to use a lower-quality gas whether they want it or not, safety and health risks be damned.

The California Public Utilities Commission plays a critical role protecting customers from utility investments that lock in unjustifiable rate increases. Ultimately, the Orange Cove pilot is nothing more than an expensive waste of customer money with no near-term benefit and minuscule contribution toward California’s climate efforts.

The mountain of scientific literature against hydrogen blending, lessons learned by other regulators and communities rejecting similar pilots, and the voices of Orange Cove residents should be enough to slam the door on this would-be boondoggle.

Dan Esposito is a manager in the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation’s fuels and chemicals program.

Activist investor Ancora Holdings Group is calling on the Warner Bros. Discovery board to consider a revised bid from Paramount Skydance and negotiate with the David Ellison-led company, or it says it will vote no on the proposed deal between Warner Bros. and Netflix.

The Cleveland-based investment management firm released a presentation Wednesday detailing why it believes Paramount’s latest offer could be a superior bid compared with the Netflix transaction.

Ancora said its stake in Warner Bros. Discovery is worth about $200 million, which would make its ownership less than 1% given the company’s $69.4-billion market cap.

Ancora cited uncertainty around the equity value and final debt allocation for the planned spinoff of Warner’s cable channels into a separate company as a factor that could change share valuation. The spinoff is still set to happen under the agreement with Netflix, as the streamer does not intend to buy the cable channels. Paramount has proposed buying the entire company.

The backing of David Ellison’s father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, was a sign of the Paramount bid’s “credibility and executability,” Ancora said, adding that it had concerns about the regulatory hurdles Netflix could face.

Senators grilled Netflix Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos last week about potential antitrust issues related to its agreement to buy Warner Bros. Sarandos has said 80% of HBO Max subscribers in the U.S. also subscribe to Netflix and contended that a deal between the two would give the combined company 20% of the U.S. television streaming market, below the 30% threshold for a monopoly.

The investment management firm noted that Paramount is “reportedly viewed as the current administration’s ‘favored’ bidder — suggesting stronger political support,” a nod to the Ellison family’s friendly relationship with President Trump.

Trump has vacillated in his public statements on the deal. In December, he said he “would be involved” in his administration’s decision to approve any agreement, but last week, he said he “decided I shouldn’t be involved” and would leave it up to the Justice Department.

“Paramount’s latest offer has opened the door,” Ancora wrote in its presentation. “There is still a clear and immediately actionable path for the Hollywood ending that all [Warner] shareholders deserve.”

Ancora said it intends to vote no on the Netflix deal and that it also could seek to elect directors at the upcoming Warner shareholders meeting.

Warner said in a statement that its board and management team “have a proven track record of acting in the best interests of the Company and shareholders” and that they “remain resolute in our commitment to maximize value for shareholders.”

Ancora’s presentation does highlight “two primary questions as shareholders approach this deal,” said Alicia Reese, senior vice president of equity research for media and entertainment at Wedbush.

“The biggest question mark is what is Discovery Global worth?” she asked. “The second is how likely is Netflix to pass regulatory scrutiny?”

The firm’s opposition doesn’t necessarily mean the Warner board will change course, but if other significant shareholders take a similar stance, the board likely would need to “meaningfully and proactively engage further to seek more money,” said Corey Martin, a managing partner at the law firm Granderson Des Rochers.

“If I were Paramount … I would view this as a tea leaf that there might be a little bit of an opening here, to the extent we were to be aggressive,” he said. But, “if Paramount wants this company, it’s going to have to blow the Netflix bid out of the water so that there’s no question to the shareholders which bid represents the most value.”

Chipotle Mexican Grill, the Newport Beach-based chain known for its bursting burritos and lunch bowls, just finished its worst year ever.

Its same-store sales declined last year for the first time since going public two decades ago. The downturn reflects what analysts say is a broader slowdown in fast casual chains — considered a step above fast food but below full-service restaurants.

In a K-shaped economy where the few with money are still spending while everyone else is anxious about rising prices and keeping their jobs, Chipotle is stuck in a sour spot. It isn’t a destination for the rich. Instead, it is a skippable splurge for those looking to save.

“Our guests [are] placing heightened focus on value and quality and pulling back on overall restaurant spending,” Chipotle Chief Executive Scott Boatwright said last week after announcing earnings.

In an uncertain economy muddied by tariffs and an immigration crackdown, consumers are cutting back on discretionary spending and increasingly seeking the best value on essentials such as lunch and dinner.

Chipotle has boomed in popularity since opening in Denver in 1993. It moved its headquarters to California in 2018.

The burrito staple opened 334 new locations last year, bringing its total to roughly 4,000. The company’s net income was $1.5 billion in 2025, virtually flat compared to the year prior. Its comparable sales lost steam with a roughly 2% decline in 2025 following a 7.4% increase in 2024.

In an earnings call earlier this month, executives estimated that same-store sales would be about flat in 2026, with 350 to 370 new restaurants slated to open.

“As we move into 2026, the consumer landscape is shifting,” Boatwright said.

He tried to suggest that Chipotle customers are from the upward-sloping part of the K in the K-shaped economy, so it will not be planning big price cuts to attract new customers. Boatwright said on the earnings call that 60% of Chipotle’s core customers make more than $100,000 per year.

“We’ve learned the guest skews younger, a little more higher income, and we’re gonna lean into that,” Boatwright said.

The company’s suggestion that it doesn’t plan to do much more for cost-conscious consumers sparked an online debate that the burrito giant is no longer for regular people.

McDonald’s demonstrated the value of offering more value these days. It announced this week that its sales surged after the launch of its $5 meal deal last year, part of broader value wars among fast-food establishments.

Chipotle has tried to offer value by not raising its prices as much as inflation would require, reviving a rewards program, testing a “happier hour” with lower prices and offering smaller portions at lower prices.

Chipotle came under fire in 2024 for dishing out inconsistent portion sizes, but has since recommitted to giving every customer a “generous” helping.

Late last year, Chipotle launched a high-protein menu that includes inexpensive options like a cup of chicken or steak for around $4. Protein has been trending as the rise of GLP-1s have many Americans eating less and focused on getting the most out of their meals.

“This is going to be a marquee year for Chipotle to get back on track,” said Jim Salera, a restaurant analyst at Stephens. “Chipotle has traditionally been much more resilient through ebbs and flows of the consumer, but nobody’s immune.”

The company has weathered other challenges in the past. Its business took a hit when it served tainted food that sickened more than 1,100 people in the U.S. from 2015 to 2018. The company paid a $25 million fine to resolve criminal charges connected with the outbreaks.

Some full-service restaurants are also lowering prices to levels that compete with Chipotle, analysts said. A Chipotle burrito or bowl plus a drink costs around $15, while the value-focused full-service restaurant Chili’s offers a multi-course meal for under $11.

“The pricing advantage that fast casual has relative to other segments has eroded significantly” said Aneurin Canham-Clyne, who covers restaurants for the trade publication Restaurant Dive.

Middle- and upper-income consumers aged 25 to 30 make up a significant share of Chipotle’s business, but many are looking for cheaper ways to get their meals. Fast casual chains have to rely on consumers with a range of incomes, not just the top 20% of households, Canham-Clyne said.

“White collar workers making in the low six figures in major cities who are feeling the heat from services inflation or feeling insecure in their jobs as a result of AI, they’re going to be saving a little bit more money,” he said.

Chipotle shares have fallen more than 37% over the past year, and they are not the only fast casual company to struggle in the stock market. Sweetgreen, headquartered in Los Angeles and catering to a health-conscious Southern California consumer, has seen its shares plummet 80% over the past year. The Mediterranean bowl spot Cava saw shares fall more than 50% over the same time period.

Chipotle shares closed Thursday at $35.84, down 4% for the day.

Canham-Clyne said Chipotle is not yet in dire straits. The brand has proven itself consistent and appealing to those looking for high-quality meals at a lower price than most sit-down restaurants.

“They sell a lot of burritos, they have a lot of stores,” Canham-Clyne said. “They can survive a bit of a downturn and continue to grow.”