Connect with us

Politics

Anger builds over sweeping change in the way most Californians will pay for electricity

Published

on

Anger builds over sweeping change in the way most Californians will pay for electricity

With little debate two years ago, state lawmakers passed a complex energy bill that enabled a sweeping change in how most Californians are billed for electricity.

The legislation was what Pacific Gas & Electric had asked for from the state public utilities commission three months before: a transformation of electric rates so that households would pay a fixed charge each month in exchange for lower rates for each kilowatt hour they used.

Gov. Gavin Newsom submitted the bill as part of a massive 2022 budget revision. In four days, it was passed out of an Assembly committee hearing without discussion, approved by the full Assembly and Senate and signed by Newsom.

The state’s three largest investor-owned power companies that pushed for the change say it will encourage Californians to ditch cars and appliances that run on planet-warming fossil fuels and replace them with vehicles, stoves and heaters that operate on electricity from solar panels and wind turbines. They also say the new monthly fee would allow them to more evenly allocate fixed costs among customers.

But opponents say the legislation was a financial gift to PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, and will cause millions of Californians who live in small homes or apartments that use little electricity to pay more, while residents in large homes that use a lot of electricity will save money.

Advertisement

“If you wanted to design a policy that would send the signal that conservation doesn’t count, this would be it,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.

Now, as governor-appointed members of the California Public Utilities Commission prepare to approve a $24 monthly charge at a May 9 meeting, some lawmakers who voted for the original legislation are trying to reverse it. A coalition of more than 250 environmental and community groups are also protesting the law, claiming that its approval smacks of an all too cozy relationship between utility companies, regulators and think tank researchers.

Opponents complain that the new law eliminates a $10 cap on fixed charges that had been in place since 2013, and that there is now nothing to prevent the utilities from raising it higher and higher.

“There is a trend nationwide of utilities trying to move more of the payments they extract from ratepayers into fixed fees because they get that money no matter what,” said Cook. “This is easy money.”

Terrie Prosper, the CPUC’s director of strategic communications, said in a statement that the new rate structure “makes going electric more affordable for everyone, regardless of income, geography, or the size of their home.”

Advertisement

Someone who powers all their home appliances and their vehicle with electricity would save an average of $28 to $44 a month compared to the current billing structure, the commission estimates. (The law does not apply to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power or other municipal utilities.)

Prosper said customers would still be encouraged to conserve electricity in the evening hours when the grid is most stressed because the rate per kilowatt hour would be higher. This is similar to how current rates vary by the time of day, she said.

“The flat-rate design will not increase utility revenues,” Prosper said. “The flat rate is not a new fee — it simply reallocates how electricity costs are paid for on bills.”

Alex Stack, a spokesperson for Newsom, said that before the bill’s passage, the idea of the fixed fees had been repeatedly discussed at public meetings and budget hearings “as a potential solution for managing rising electric bills.”

Stack did not answer a question of whether Newsom proposed the bill at the utilities’ request.

Advertisement

And Prosper did not explain why the Newsom administration had introduced the fixed-fee language in a bill just days before the governor had to sign the budget and related legislation.

Already California has the nation’s second-highest electricity rates. Only rates in Hawaii are higher.

Michael Backstrom, SoCal Edison’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said the new fixed charge would ensure “everyone using the grid is paying for its operation and upkeep.”

“There is no additional cost being collected,” he said. “There’s no change to utility profits.”

PG&E and SDGE executives did not respond to several phone calls and emails seeking comment.

Advertisement

The inspiration for the new law came from a 2021 paper written by professors at UC Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas, which is partly funded by utility companies.

The paper detailed how costs for building renewable energy plants, burying power lines to reduce the risk of wildfire ignitions and compensating fire victims have pushed electric rates so high that they were discouraging Californians from buying electric cars and replacing their gas appliances.

The paper also said the rising number of homes with solar panels meant that fewer households were paying for these fast-rising expenses that go into calculating the rate per kilowatt hour charged by utilities.

The professors proposed that the rate per kilowatt hour be reduced while a new fixed charge be added to bills.

Fixed fees are considered to be regressive, since they are harder for lower-income people to pay than the wealthy. For this reason the professors proposed a fixed charge that was progressive and rose according to income.

Advertisement

Since 2018, Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas has received $205,000 from PG&E, $160,000 from Edison and $50,000 from SDGE, according to the institute.

The Solar Rights Alliance — a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of homeowners and businesses that use solar power — said the institute’s work of advising the government while receiving money from the utilities “suggests a serious conflict of interest.”

Severin Borenstein, an economics professor who was the lead author, said no organization is allowed to give more than 2% of the institute’s budget. And he said the electric companies had no influence on the 2021 paper.

“We are not doing the bidding of any of these people,” he said.

The utility companies liked the paper’s recommendations. In a March 2022 filing, PG&E argued for “swift adoption” of a fixed charge similar to what the professors had proposed.The company said legislation was needed “to either raise or ideally eliminate” the $10 cap.

Advertisement

Two months later, on May 13, 2022, Newsom released a 175-page revision to his proposed budget. In a paragraph on Page 63, he said he was proposing legislation “to adjust electricity rates to predetermined fixed charges.” That change, he said, would “enhance widespread electrification efforts.”

The state’s legislative tracking system shows the proposed language to do that first appeared on June 26, 2022. That’s when a measure, Assembly Bill 205, was amended to add pages of proposed energy legislation. Part of the bill allowed the state to buy power from the aging Diablo Canyon nuclear plant and to approve solar and wind farms over the objections of local governments.

It also contained language that eliminated the $10 cap and ordered the utilities commission to establish a fixed charge on an “income-graduated basis.”

AB 205 was what is known in Sacramento as a trailer bill to the state budget. The trailer bills are meant to enact law changes required by the governor’s proposed budget. But politicians have sometimes misused them to get complicated or controversial legislation passed with little public notice.

Lawmakers’ use of the trailer bills surged after voters passed Proposition 25, pushed through by Democrats and public employee unions in 2010, which said the budget and any related legislation would need just a majority vote, rather than two-thirds. Democrats now dominate the state’s legislature.

Advertisement

When AB 205 was introduced, a Democratic lawmaker called it “a crappy trailer bill that was dumped on us on late Sunday night.”

The next day, AB 205 and 28 other trailer bills addressing issues ranging from cannabis regulation to reproductive rights, were presented at a hearing of the Assembly Budget Committee.

According to a transcript, the committee’s leaders limited public discussion to one hour. The fixed electric charge was not mentioned.

“Unfortunately, having this one hearing for one hour mere hours after budget bills materialized is certainly not adequate,” said Assemblymember Vince Fong, a Bakersfield Republican, at the hearing.

The full Assembly and Senate passed the bill two days later. Newsom signed it the next day.

Advertisement

Last year, the three electric companies said that in accordance with AB 205 they were proposing fees as high as $128 a month for households with incomes over $180,000. Those earning $69,000 to $180,000 would pay a fixed monthly fee of as much as $73. Those making less than $69,000 would pay $15 to $34, depending on which company supplied their power.

The three companies said they would seek to increase the fixed charge if there was a “revenue imbalance” of 10%. Such an imbalance might occur if estimates of how much they would collect in fixed charges did not cover what they were losing in the lowered rates per kilowatt hour.

The companies’ proposal outraged some legislators.

A letter to the commission from 18 Democratic members of Congress pointed out that the average electricity consumption of each California resident had stayed nearly flat since the 1970s because of energy efficiency efforts.

“Imposing a high fixed charge may undercut these decades of progress by forcing people to pay their utility company before they even turn on the light switch,” the California representatives wrote.

Advertisement

In January, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, Democrat from Thousand Oaks, proposed a bill named AB 1999 to reverse much of what Newsom’s bill had done.

With criticism growing in late March, the commission said it was proposing a more modest monthly fixed charge of $24.15. Lower-income people would pay either $6 or $12 a month based on their circumstances.

But the commission’s proposal did not stop the complaints from households across the state or the coalition opposed to the new rate structure.

In an analysis conducted for the coalition, Josh Plaisted of Flagstaff Research estimated that households using more than 6,000 kilowatt hours a year would save more as they increased their electricity use. For example, a 2,500-square-foot home with a swimming pool might save more than $300 a year, he said.

“I think this is a surprise to most people,” Plaisted said. “You have low energy users subsidizing current high energy usage.”

Advertisement

The opposition was angered even more when Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and other Assembly leaders stopped debate on Irwin’s bill late last month with a procedural move that shelved it for the legislative session.

Cynthia Moreno, the speaker’s press secretary, disputed claims that the Assembly leaders had killed the bill.

“We are continuing work on the issue this year, including possible amendments to ensure any changes in the fixed charge are revenue neutral for utilities and not a means to increase their profits,” she said.

Moreno said that Rivas appreciated the “legislative scrutiny of the PUC and the governor’s plan, and that oversight will continue.”

Advertisement

Politics

Wyoming Supreme Court rules laws restricting abortion violate state constitution

Published

on

Wyoming Supreme Court rules laws restricting abortion violate state constitution

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a pair of laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution, including the country’s first explicit ban on abortion pills.

The court, in a 4-1 ruling, sided with the state’s only abortion clinic and others who had sued over the abortion bans passed since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, which returned the power to make laws on abortion back to the states.

Despite Wyoming being one of the most conservative states, the ruling handed down by justices who were all appointed by Republican governors upheld every previous lower court ruling that the abortion bans violated the state constitution.

Wellspring Health Access in Casper, the abortion access advocacy group Chelsea’s Fund and four women, including two obstetricians, argued that the laws violated a state constitutional amendment affirming that competent adults have the right to make their own health care decisions.

Advertisement

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that a pair of laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2012 in response to the federal Affordable Care Act, which is also known as Obamacare.

The justices in Wyoming found that the amendment was not written to apply to abortion but noted that it is not their job to “add words” to the state constitution.

“But lawmakers could ask Wyoming voters to consider a constitutional amendment that would more clearly address this issue,” the justices wrote.

Advertisement

Wellspring Health Access President Julie Burkhart said in a statement that the ruling upholds abortion as “essential health care” that should not be met with government interference.

“Our clinic will remain open and ready to provide compassionate reproductive health care, including abortions, and our patients in Wyoming will be able to obtain this care without having to travel out of state,” Burkhart said.

Wellspring Health Access opened as the only clinic in the state to offer surgical abortions in 2023, a year after a firebombing stopped construction and delayed its opening. A woman is serving a five-year prison sentence after she admitted to breaking in and lighting gasoline that she poured over the clinic floors.

Wellspring Health Access opened as the only clinic in the state to offer surgical abortions in 2023, a year after a firebombing stopped construction. (AP)

Attorneys representing the state had argued that abortion cannot violate the Wyoming constitution because it is not a form of health care.

Advertisement

Republican Gov. Mark Gordon expressed disappointment in the ruling and called on state lawmakers meeting later this winter to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion that residents could vote on this fall.

An amendment like that would require a two-thirds vote to be introduced as a nonbudget matter in the monthlong legislative session that will primarily address the state budget, although it would have significant support in the Republican-dominated legislature.

“This ruling may settle, for now, a legal question, but it does not settle the moral one, nor does it reflect where many Wyoming citizens stand, including myself. It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote,” Gordon said in a statement.

APPEALS COURT SIDES WITH TRUMP ON BUDGET PROVISION CUTTING PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDS

Gov. Mark Gordon expressed disappointment in the ruling. (Getty Images)

Advertisement

One of the laws overturned by the state’s high court attempted to ban abortion, but with exceptions in cases where it is needed to protect a pregnant woman’s life or in cases of rape or incest. The other law would have made Wyoming the only state to explicitly ban abortion pills, although other states have implemented de facto bans on abortion medication by broadly restricting abortion.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Abortion has remained legal in the state since Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens blocked the bans while the lawsuit challenging the restrictions moved forward. Owens struck down the laws as unconstitutional in 2024.

Last year, Wyoming passed additional laws requiring abortion clinics to be licensed surgical centers and women to receive ultrasounds before having medication abortions. A judge in a separate lawsuit blocked those laws from taking effect while that case moves forward.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

What Trump’s vow to withhold federal child-care funding means in California

Published

on

What Trump’s vow to withhold federal child-care funding means in California

Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state Democratic leaders accused President Trump of unleashing a political vendetta after he announced plans to freeze roughly $10 billion in federal funding for child care and social services programs in California and four other Democrat-controlled states.

Trump justified the action in comments posted on his social media platform Truth Social, where he accused Newsom of widespread fraud. The governor’s office dismissed the accusation as “deranged.”

Trump’s announcement came amid a broader administration push to target Democratic-led states over alleged fraud in taxpayer-funded programs, following sweeping prosecutions in Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirmed the planned funding freeze, which was first reported by the New York Post.

California officials said they have received no formal notice and argued the president is using unsubstantiated claims to justify a move that could jeopardize child care and social services for low-income families.

Advertisement

How we got here

Trump posted on his social media site Truth Social on Tuesday that under Newsom, California is “more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible???” In the post, Trump used a derogatory nickname for Newsom that has become popular with the governor’s critics, referring to him as “Newscum.”

“The Fraud Investigation of California has begun,” Trump wrote.

The president also retweeted a story by the New York Post that said his Department of Health and Human Services will freeze taxpayer funding from the Child Care Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which is known as CalWORKS in California, and the Social Services Block Grant program. Health and Human Services said the affected states are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York.

“For too long, Democrat-led states and Governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch,” said Andrew Nixon, a department spokesperson. “Under the Trump Administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”

The department announced last month that all 50 states will have to provide additional levels of verification and administrative data before they receive more funding from the Child Care and Development Fund after a series of fraud schemes at Minnesota day-care centers run by Somali residents.

Advertisement

“The Trump Administration is using the moral guise of eliminating ‘fraud and abuse’ to undermine essential programs and punish families and children who depend on these services to survive, many of whom have no other options if this funding disappears,” Kristin McGuire, president of Young Invincibles, a young-adult nonprofit economic advocacy group, said in a statement. “This is yet another ideologically motivated attack on states that treats millions of families as pawns in a political game.”

California pushes back

Newsom’s office brushed off Trump’s post about fraud allegations, calling the president “a deranged, habitual liar whose relationship with reality ended years ago.” Newsom himself said he welcomes federal fraud investigations in the state, adding in an interview on MS NOW that aired Monday night: “Bring it on. … If he has some unique insight and information, I look forward to partnering with him. I can’t stand fraud.”

However, Newsom said cutting off funding hurts hardworking families who rely on the assistance.

“You want to support families? You believe in families? Then you believe in supporting child care and child-care workers in the workforce,” Newsom told MS NOW.

California has not been notified of any changes to federal child-care or social services funding. H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the Department of Finance, said the only indication from Washington that California’s child-care funding could be in jeopardy was the vague 5 a.m. post Tuesday by the president on Truth Social.

Advertisement

“The president tosses these social media missives in the same way Mardi Gras revelers throw beads on Bourbon Street — with zero regard for accuracy or precision,” Palmer said.

In the current state budget, Palmer said, California’s child-care spending is $7.3 billion, of which $2.2 billion is federal dollars. Newsom is set to unveil his budget proposal Friday for the fiscal year that begins July 1, which will mark the governor’s final spending plan before he terms out. Newsom has acknowledged that he is considering a 2028 bid for president, but has repeatedly brushed aside reporters’ questions about it, saying his focus remains on governing California.

Palmer said while details about the potential threat to federal child-care dollars remain unclear, what is known is that federal dollars are not like “a spigot that will be turned off by the end of the week.”

“There is no immediate cutoff that will happen,” Palmer said.

Since Trump took office, California has filed dozens of legal actions to block the president’s policy changes and funding cuts, and the state has prevailed in many of them.

Advertisement

What happened in Minnesota

Federal prosecutors say Minnesota has been hit by some of the largest fraud schemes involving state-run, federally funded programs in the country. Federal prosecutors estimate that as much as half of roughly $18 billion paid to 14 Minnesota programs since 2018 may be fraudulent, with providers accused of billing for services never delivered and diverting money for personal use.

The scale of the fraud has drawn national attention and fueled the Trump administration’s decision to freeze child-care funds while demanding additional safeguards before doling out money, moves that critics say risk harming families who rely on the programs. Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and appointed a director of program integrity. Amid the fallout, Walz announced he will not seek a third term.

Outrage over the fraud reached a fever pitch in the White House after a video posted online by an influencer purported to expose extensive fraud at Somali-run child-care centers in Minnesota. On Monday, that influencer, Nick Shirley, posted on the social media site X, “I ENDED TIM WALZ,” a claim that prompted calls from conservative activists to shift scrutiny to Newsom and California next.

Right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson posted on X that his team will be traveling to California next week to show “how criminal California fraud is robbing our nation blind.”

California officials have acknowledged fraud failures in the past, most notably at the Employment Development Department during the COVID-19 pandemic, when weakened safeguards led to billions of dollars in unemployment payments later deemed potentially fraudulent.

Advertisement

An independent state audit released last month found administrative vulnerabilities in some of California’s social services programs but stopped short of alleging widespread fraud or corruption. The California state auditor added the Department of Social Services to its high-risk list because of persistent errors in calculating CalFresh benefits, which provides food assistance to those in need — a measure of payment accuracy rather than criminal activity — warning that federal law changes could eventually force the state to absorb billions of dollars in additional costs if those errors are not reduced.

What’s at stake in California

The Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal child-care, welfare and social services funding would affect $7.3 billion in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funding, $2.4 billion for child-care subsidies and more than $800 million for social services programs in the five states.

The move was quickly criticized as politically motivated because the targeted states were all Democrat-led.

“Trump is now illegally freezing childcare and other funding for working families, but only in blue states,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said in a statement. “He says it’s because of ‘fraud,’ but it has nothing to do with fraud and everything to do with politics. Florida had the largest Medicaid fraud in U.S. history yet isn’t on this list.”

Added California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister): “It is unconscionable for Trump and Republicans to rip away billions of dollars that support child care and families in need, and this has nothing to do with fraud. California taxpayers pay for these programs — period — and Trump has no right to steal from our hard-working residents. We will continue to fight back.”

Advertisement

Times staff writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Walz Drops Re-Election Bid as Minnesota Fraud Scandal Grows

Published

on

Video: Walz Drops Re-Election Bid as Minnesota Fraud Scandal Grows

new video loaded: Walz Drops Re-Election Bid as Minnesota Fraud Scandal Grows

transcript

transcript

Walz Drops Re-Election Bid as Minnesota Fraud Scandal Grows

Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota abandoned his re-election bid to focus on handling a scandal over fraud in social service programs that grew under his administration.

“I’ve decided to step out of this race, and I’ll let others worry about the election while I focus on the work that’s in front of me for the next year.” “All right, so this is Quality Learing Center — meant to say Quality ‘Learning’ Center.” “Right now we have around 56 kids enrolled. If the children are not here, we mark absence.”

Advertisement
Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota abandoned his re-election bid to focus on handling a scandal over fraud in social service programs that grew under his administration.

By Shawn Paik

January 6, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending