Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to call a special session this fall as Democratic lawmakers wobbled on a package of energy bills that he wants to pass this week before the Legislature adjourns for the year, according to sources involved in the negotiations at the Capitol.

The governor delivered the last-minute ultimatum in private discussions with Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) this week as tension among Democrats escalated under a Saturday deadline to pass legislation.

The threat is intended to counter the pressure oil interests are putting on lawmakers to reject Newsom’s proposal to require petroleum refiners to maintain a stable inventory in order to prevent fuel shortages and price spikes when equipment is taken offline for maintenance.

The bill is part of a package on energy costs that the governor’s office has been negotiating with the Legislature. The governor is calling for legislation that would offer a customer credit for electricity and gas bills, accelerate environmental reviews for clean energy projects and require oil refiners to maintain reserves, among other proposals. Some environmentalists criticized the plan because of the push to expedite environmental reviews.

Mary Creasman, chief executive of California Environmental Voters, said the state must accelerate the development of clean energy and clean energy infrastructure, but needs to do so in a way that protects biodiversity and offers enough time for community engagement.

“Year after year trying to jam solutions to this through at the last minute is not how we tackle the toughest issues our state is facing in a powerful and effective way,” Creasman said.

A special session could force lawmakers to return to Sacramento this fall, instead of in January when the regular session begins, and shorten the time they have to spend with their families or to campaign for the election in their respective districts.

Sources involved in the discussions said Assembly Democrats in particular are concerned that adopting new requirements on oil refiners might ultimately increase the cost of gasoline. Rivas shared those reservations with Newsom, which prompted the threat of a special session to give lawmakers more time to weigh the proposal. The Assembly is prepared to embark on a special session if necessary, sources said.

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) said she and her colleagues are concerned about gas prices, but “we haven’t really had time to digest the problem.”

“The special session is a good opportunity to talk about it,” Wilson said outside the Assembly chamber. “We either have to accept policy as is or craft the new policy together. I think it’s a good thing.”

Other legislators seemed more neutral.

“It’s a coin flip,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park). “I’m ambivalent. I understand the argument to get it done now and that some others want to slow the process down a little bit.”

The threat is not necessarily idle from a governor who called a special session two years ago to penalize oil companies for excessive profits as gasoline prices spiked during his war with Big Oil.

Lawmakers were ultimately reluctant to adopt a penalty in the last special session and Newsom refined his request to instead demand more transparency from the industry.

Instead of enacting a cap and penalty on oil refinery profits, Newsom and lawmakers gave state regulators the ability to do so in the future. Consumer advocates and the governor celebrated the resulting law as a groundbreaking tool that could keep gas prices from escalating.

The law established the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight within the California Energy Commission, and gave it the authority to gather new data from the industry in order to investigate price spikes. Earlier this year, the division wrote a letter recommending the state impose minimum inventory and resupply requirements for refiners based on its findings so far, arguing that the oil companies did not maintain enough refined gasoline to backfill production shortfalls or protect against the impact of unplanned maintenance.

Newsom continued his fight with oil last week when he announced that he wants lawmakers to give regulators the ability to mandate the new supply requirements for oil refiners.

“Price spikes at the pump are profit spikes for Big Oil,” Newsom said in a statement at the time. “Refiners should be required to plan ahead and backfill supplies to keep prices stable, instead of playing games to earn even more profits. By making refiners act responsibly and maintain a gas reserve, Californians would save money at the pump every year.”

As Newsom goes harder on refiners, he’s also sought to delay parts of an existing law in order to give the industry more time to submit plans for leak detection and response on existing wells. The proposed changes do not affect a prohibition on new permits for oil wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, parks and hospitals, which is the main thrust of the original law that took effect after oil interests agreed this year to remove a referendum on Senate Bill 1137 from the 2024 ballot.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, said the Newsom administration asked lawmakers to delay the new leak-detection plans to give the state more time to implement that part of the law. Current staffing levels, he said, “are insufficient to make rapid progress on the implementation of SB 1137.”

A budget trailer bill was published on Tuesday evening that could reflect a compromise between the governor, lawmakers and environmentalists on the delay.

The governor’s office and the Assembly Speaker’s Office declined to comment about the possibility of a special session. A spokesperson for McGuire did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Staff writer Anabel Sosa contributed to this report.

Longtime multi-generational California resident Faith Lersey, her husband and four kids packed up and moved to South Carolina to become first-time home buyers in May. The cost of owning a home in California was unattainable, so they set their sights elsewhere.

Now, the Golden State’s progressive legislature is advancing a bill that would give illegal immigrants up to $150,000 in first-time homeownership loans — a bill that, if passed and signed into law, would give first-time homebuyers up to 20% of a home’s value or up to $150,000 as down payment assistance.

“That just, that just seems asinine to me,” Lersey, who moved from Los Angeles County, told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

CALIFORNIA CLOSE TO APPROVING $150K LOANS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO HELP PURCHASE HOMES

“Why would you assist a population that is undocumented to attain homeownership in a place where citizens who, like me, had been in an area for a long time, a generational history, they are having enough trouble achieving that milestone,” Lersey said. “It just that really makes me want to question where is the motive coming from for that, whose interest is at heart there, and what is the long-term play?”

Lersey added her current home in South Carolina is three times less expensive than the homes she and her husband were contemplating in California. 

CALIFORNIA WOMAN HEAD NEARLY $500K WORTH OF STOLEN GOOD FROM DRUG STORES: POLICE

A view of the California state capitol building in Sacramento on March 13. (Arturo Holmes/Getty Images for National Urban League)

The bill, AB 1840, would require the California Housing Finance Authority’s home purchase assistance program, or California Dream for All Program, to include illegal immigrants’ applications.

The bill cleared the state Senate on Tuesday.

The California Dream for All program passed despite funds running out just 11 days after being instituted in June, which awarded 1,700 first-time homebuyers at the time. Finding more funding for the program was the prime concern in floor debate this week.

Meanwhile, California remains in billions of dollars of debt, and droves of residents have left the state in the last four years, citing a high cost of living.

5 CALIFORNIA TAXES KAMALA HARRIS COULD USE TO CRUSH THE MIDDLE CLASS

A mover moving boxes. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)

A spokesman for California’s Department of Finance confirmed to KCRA 3 on Tuesday that the California Dream for All has no money left to supply the program.

The measure comes amid the backdrop of a national election in which immigration has taken center stage, the report notes, with the Trump campaign attempting to tie Vice President Kamala Harris to Biden administration border policies that have proven unpopular with voters.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been one of President Biden’s and now Harris’ top surrogates on the campaign trail, has not said whether he will sign the bill into law if it clears the legislature before the Aug. 31 deadline.

Fox News Digital’s Jasmine Baehr and Michael Lee contributed to this report. 

Performers union SAG-AFTRA is celebrating a key victory this week: the passage of a bill that would regulate the use of artificial intelligence in the local entertainment industry.

The California Senate on Tuesday passed Assembly Bill 2602, a measure that would forbid employers from using AI-generated digital replicas in lieu of human performers under certain circumstances.

If the bill is signed into law, employers would not be allowed to use an AI version of a performer’s voice or likeness if such usage replaces work that the performer could have done in person; if the contract of employment doesn’t specify how the digital replica will be used (provided that usage deviates from already agreed upon terms); and if the performer did not have legal or union representation when the deal was made.

The bill, approved 37-1 by the Senate, is now headed to the governor’s office, where Gavin Newsom will decide whether to sign it into law.

“We are thrilled that one of our top legislative priorities, bill AB 2602 has passed in the State of California,” said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, national executive director and chief negotiator of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.

“The bill which protects not only SAG-AFTRA performers but all performers, is a huge step forward. Voice and likeness rights, in an age of digital replication, must have strong guardrails around licensing to protect from abuse, this bill provides those guardrails.”

AB 2602 is one of three bills SAG-AFTRA has helped draft in an effort to codify AI protections for performers into law. Some tech companies have pushed back on the legislation, urging caution against overregulation.

The union’s fight for AI restrictions extended this week to the picket lines, where striking video game actors continued to pressure developers to meet their demands.

Performers doing voice-over and motion-capture work in the video game industry participated in a demonstration on Wednesday outside of the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank as part of their ongoing contract campaign.

AI also emerged as a major sticking point during last year’s writers’ and actors’ strikes.

“SAG-AFTRA is striking this contract so that members working in interactive media (video games) can continue earning a living doing the job they love,” the union said in a statement.

“Our members’ work and likenesses are being exploited by artificial intelligence, and video game companies have refused to offer a fair deal that addresses this existential threat.”

The video game companies have expressed disappointment in the union’s decision to call a strike when the two parties were “so close to a deal,” maintaining that they are “prepared to resume negotiations.”

“We have worked hard to deliver proposals with reasonable terms that protect the rights of performers while ensuring we can continue to use the most advanced technology to create great entertainment experiences for fans,” Audrey Cooling, a spokesperson for the game companies, said in a statement Wednesday.

Times staff writer Wendy Lee contributed to this report.