Connect with us

California

Fuel, energy prices raise the pressure as California officials take next steps on climate

Published

on

Fuel, energy prices raise the pressure as California officials take next steps on climate


As California regulators prepare for a massive update of the state’s signature climate program, they face mounting pushback from lawmakers and oil industry groups who warn it could drive up already-high energy costs.

Lawmakers voted last year to reauthorize the cap-and-invest program — formerly known as cap-and-trade — through 2045. The program progressively lowers the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed in the state, and lets emitters buy and sell unused pollution credits, or allowances. It is key to California’s climate strategy and generates billions in revenue for the state each year.

Although the program was always designed to ratchet down on emitters, some legislators who supported the extension say the draft unveiled by the California Air Resources Board could hit consumers and the energy sector hard at the wrong time.

Among the proposed updates, the plan would tighten the cap on carbon dioxide emissions by 118 million tons by 2030. It would also adjust the state’s system of free allowances, which have historically been given to oil refineries and other industrial facilities in the hope of keeping them in California. It would shift more of those free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities.

Advertisement

A wave of public comments from lawmakers, oil companies, environmental advocates and consumers flooded the state Air Resources Board in advance of this week’s deadline, and the agency will have until May to revise the plan and put it to a final vote.

Among the most notable critics are Democratic lawmakers who voted to extend the program last year. Some are concerned the plan would raise costs for refineries, driving more of them out of California and leaving the state more dependent on imported refined fuels. Others are worried the plan doesn’t do enough to address high electricity costs.

In a letter to the state Air Resources Board, a coalition of 15 Democratic Assembly members, including Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), warned that the plan moves too fast for emitters to keep up, which they said will destabilize California’s complex network of fuel, gas and energy resources and push more refiners to leave the state. Phillips 66 and Valero have already announced plans to shutter major refineries in Los Angeles and Benicia.

“This proposed regulatory update would further burden an already struggling energy market across multiple sectors and compound stress on the very infrastructure that has punished California consumers with the highest energy prices in the nation,” the lawmakers wrote.

Oil industry groups raised similar concerns. The Western States Petroleum Assn. which represents refiners, warned that their costs could rise $1.5 billion annually by 2035.

Advertisement

Chevron executive Andy Walz said the added costs could translate to roughly $1.70 more per gallon of gasoline by that year.

“Affordability is a top concern for California residents and Chevron, and these proposed amendments would only exacerbate the high cost of living in the state,” Walz said.

But how much regulations contribute to gasoline costs in California is disputed. Officials with the state Air Resources Board said the proposal largely maintains the status quo for refineries. It includes “flexibilities that support doing business in California and help ensure liquid fuel supply remains reliable, affordable, and resilient throughout the transition to carbon neutrality,” spokeswoman Lindsay Buckley said in an email.

The updated program would also deliver $180.7 billion in statewide benefits, including $123 billion in avoided health costs thanks to cleaner air, and up to $485 billion in global savings due to avoided climate damage, Buckley said.

“The cap-and-invest program is the most cost-effective way for California to achieve its statutorily mandated climate goals,” she said.

Advertisement

At the same time, some lawmakers and advocates say the proposal disproportionately burdens the electricity sector at a moment when utility bills are soaring.

Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), who wrote legislation extending the program last year, led a separate letter from more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers urging the air officials to speed up free allowances for electric utility companies in order to “meaningfully address electricity affordability in the near-term.”

They were also concerned the plan would result in lower climate credits for consumers — twice-yearly rebates that appear directly on people’s electric bills.

Policy analysts agreed the current plan burdens electric utilities, which could translate into higher bills.

Still, the proposal is a “strong starting point” that can be fine-tuned to better balance emissions cuts with affordability, said Clayton Munnings, executive director of Clean and Prosperous California, an environmental economics nonprofit focused on the cap-and-invest program.

Advertisement

The California Air Resources Board “had a very strong first start, but I think there’s a clear pattern in stakeholder feedback,” he said. “The intent here was to lower utility bills, and we should make good on that promise.”

On the fuel side, Munnings said the program was designed with refineries in mind, and regulators still have plenty of tools to address their concerns if needed. What’s more, he said the carbon market largely shrugged at the proposed removal of 118 million credits, and the cost of releasing one ton of carbon pollution went down — indicating that even tighter reductions could be warranted.

Indeed, an analysis by the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund and the modeling firm Greenline Insights found that the state Air Resources Board could remove as many as 180 million allowances from the market and still preserve household affordability benefits.

Ensuring the program delivers on its promised emission cuts is crucial, said the Environmental Defense Fund’s California state director Katelyn Roedner Sutter. The state is not on track to meet its targets, including a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and at least 85% by 2045.

“Cap-and-invest is so important because it helps reduce emissions, it generates desperately needed revenue, and it is the most cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gas pollution that we have,” she said.

Advertisement

The debate is unfolding as global oil prices soar amid the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, which has disrupted shipping and production in the Middle East. Crude prices briefly surged beyond $119 a barrel this week.

National gasoline prices averaged $3.60 a gallon Thursday, according to AAA, up from $2.94 one month ago. In California, gas averaged $5.37 a gallon, up from $4.55 a month ago.

But according to the California Energy Commission, only about 6% of the price of retail gasoline in the state is attributable to the cap-and-invest program, while nearly 37% comes from the cost of crude oil.

That’s precisely why the state should stay the course, Roedner Sutter said.

“The best thing California can do is lean on its cost-effective climate policy, which is cap-and-invest, and continue moving the state away from dependence on fossil fuels,” she said. “In the long run, that is what is going to protect Californians most — not being dependent on this volatile industry.”

Advertisement

The state Air Resources Board is expected to revise the proposal in the coming weeks before bringing it to a vote in May.



Source link

California

The US$4.25 trillion question: who will face off for California governor?

Published

on

The US.25 trillion question: who will face off for California governor?


The race for California governor in November will be a battle between a Democrat promising to cement the state’s status as a stronghold of liberal policies and a Republican pledging to dramatically reverse course in America’s most populous state.

Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator backed by President Donald Trump, has won enough votes to advance to the general election, Associated Press determined on Tuesday. He will face Democrat Xavier Becerra, a former state attorney general and health secretary under President Joe Biden.

The winner will succeed Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom to lead the state that is home to roughly 39 million people, Hollywood, a booming tech industry and a vast farming region that helps feed the nation. By itself, California represents one of the largest economies in the world at US$4.25 trillion.

Newsom, one of his party’s top foils against the Trump administration, was widely seen as eyeing a run for president himself in 2028.

Advertisement

The next governor will have to take on stubborn issues including a high cost of living, housing shortages and homelessness.

Hilton is banking his campaign on voters being frustrated enough to do something they have not done in two decades: elect a Republican to statewide office. The last time that happened was when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won a second term in 2006. Hilton has campaigned as an outsider who would bring change after more than 15 years of one-party rule.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California insurance commissioner race is set: Kim vs. Allen

Published

on

California insurance commissioner race is set: Kim vs. Allen


By Levi Sumagaysay, CalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

For the first time since California insurance commissioner became an elected position, two Democrats will vie for the job in November.

Advertisement

The top two vote-getters in the June primary were former San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Jane Kim and state Sen. Ben Allen, who received about 27% and 20% of the vote, respectively. One of them will succeed Ricardo Lara, the former Democratic lawmaker who has served two terms as insurance commissioner. Lara has presided over the Insurance Department in the past eight years, during which the state saw its deadliest and most devastating fires. 

Kim or Allen will be taking on complicated, enormous challenges that have implications for local communities, people’s ability to buy homes and start businesses, and the state’s economy. 

In the past few years, insurance companies stopped writing new policies or renewing old ones, especially in high-risk areas, citing increasing wildfire risk from climate change and inflation that followed the COVID-19 pandemic. This caused homeowners to turn to the last-resort FAIR Plan, which is mandated by law to provide fire insurance. The plan, run by an alliance of insurers, has grown to more than 684,000 policies in force as of March, an increase of 152% since September 2022. It has warned about its ability to keep paying claims after major disasters.

Proposition 103, a law approved by voters in 1988, means that among many other things, the elected commissioner has the power to approve rate increases. It has kept the state’s rates from rising too much over the years — Californians’ homeowners insurance premiums have hovered around the middle of the pack nationwide — but that could change. Last year, the commissioner put in place regulations that include new factors insurers can use when setting their premiums, such as catastrophe modeling and reinsurance costs. Some companies have applied for and received approval to raise their rates, so they’re starting to write policies again.

Keeping insurance available but affordable will be the most pressing issue for either Kim or Allen, whose responsibilities will also include regulating auto, pet and some aspects of health insurance, plus workers’ compensation. 

Advertisement

Another problem that will need plenty of attention: making sure insurance companies pay their claims in a timely manner that helps communities to rebuild. The L.A.-area fires shed a light on insurer practices that delay and deny claims, as well as underinsurance and the lack of standards for smoke damage, which have held up recovery. Pending legislation — such as those authored by Allen, whose district was hit by the fires last year — and lawsuits will address some of those issues. Well-organized fire survivors who called for Lara’s resignation over his department’s response to their concerns will surely keep up the pressure on his successor.

Here’s a look at each candidate’s record and how she or he would approach the job, based on their interviews with CalMatters and what they have said publicly, including at candidate forums.

Jane Kim

Kim’s proposal to create “natural disaster insurance for all,” inspired by a program in New Zealand, has gotten a lot of attention. She plans to fund such a system with a portion of policyholder premiums that insurance companies would collect and divert to the state. The state would then guarantee fire and flood coverage, while insurance companies would continue to cover other risks.

Naysayers, including consumer advocates, wonder why she hasn’t released any specifics about how much capital such a fund would require. Kim told CalMatters that it would need to be studied, but that at its core her proposal would generate revenue. 

Opponents of her proposal also say it’s a bad idea to shift catastrophic burden onto the state, pointing to what they say is the failure of splitting off earthquake insurance from homeowner insurance — most California homeowners now have no insurance coverage.

Advertisement

“We (taxpayers) already are on the hook,” Kim said. “When insurers and utilities refuse to pay, they just pass it on to us anyway. Sharing the risk is important.” 

Kim also told CalMatters that an idea Merritt Farren, a Republican candidate for commissioner, proposed — that the state create a reinsurance authority to encourage insurers to write policies in the state — “may turn out to be a more efficient model.” 

Among Kim’s shorter-term priorities if she wins: 

  • Create public dashboards to show how insurance companies are spending policyholder premiums, and that show their record on claims.
  • Expand eligibility for a program that provides low-cost insurance to drivers who make less than $38,000 a year. 
  • Tie a company’s ability to sell auto insurance in the state to its willingness to write homeowner policies.
  • Make the FAIR Plan more transparent by requiring that its list of board members be public, and that its board meetings be public.
  • Freeze rates when policyholders file claims.

The former San Francisco elected official, an attorney, touts among her accomplishments free community college for the city’s residents; the first $15 minimum wage ordinance in the state; and a tenant-protection ordinance to avoid unjust evictions. She worked as the California director for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2020 U.S. presidential campaign and most recently as California Director for the Working Families Party.

Kim has a long list of endorsers, including many unions such as SEIU California. Besides Sanders, another U.S. lawmaker, Rep. Ro Khanna of Silicon Valley, has also endorsed her.

Ben Allen

The state senator, who will be termed out of the Legislature, wants to bring together the state, insurers, builders, local governments and firefighters to work on risk-reduction strategies.

Advertisement

“I think that’s ultimately going to be the way that we get ourselves out of this mess,” he told CalMatters.

What he calls a comprehensive approach includes thinking about where people live and build: “We shouldn’t be building new construction that is irresponsible in high-risk areas. We should be looking for ways to carefully and sensitively encourage people to pull back from high-risk areas.”

If he wins, Allen’s other plans include:

  • Create a consumer advocate position within the insurance department, and increase staff to handle customer service. 
  • Require insurers to explain claim denials and provide real-time reports of delays and outstanding claims after a disaster.
  • Increase oversight of the FAIR Plan and make sure it complies with commissioner orders.
  • Ban the insurance commissioner and staff from working for the industry immediately after they leave the department.

Allen has played up his experience as a legislator, including writing and passing bills related to holding insurance companies accountable. For example, a law he wrote now requires insurers to pay 60% of policyholders’ contents coverage without a detailed inventory, and gives consumers more time to provide that inventory. He also touts writing Proposition 4, the bond measure approved by the state’s voters in 2024 “for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention and protecting communities and natural lands from climate risks.”

Other pending bills authored by him include one that would require insurers to give homeowners 90 days notice before they intend not to renew their policies, along with a clear explanation. Another would penalize insurance companies that fail to correct their practices after the insurance department finds that they have violated laws and regulations.

Allen also has many endorsements, including the two leaders of the state Legislature, Senate Pro Tem Monique Limon and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, both from California, unions and the Consumer Federation of California also endorse him.

Advertisement

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Fresno-Madera homeless count rises 9.2% as California sees overall decline

Published

on

Fresno-Madera homeless count rises 9.2% as California sees overall decline


FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) — The homeless population in Fresno and Madera counties saw a modest increase in the latest Point-in-Time count, even as overall numbers declined across California and the nation.

The Fresno-Madera Continuum of Care reported Monday that its 2025 Point-in-Time homelessness count showed a 9.2% increase compared with 2023. A total of 4,905 people were reported homeless on the night of the count.

Among those counted, 29% cited a substance use disorder and 31% reported a serious mental illness. Five percent were younger than 18.

Officials also reported more than 4,000 beds available year-round for people experiencing homelessness across the two counties, with 84% occupied on the night of the count.

Advertisement

The results have been highly anticipated, though county officials cautioned that the figures may not reflect current conditions.

They attributed that concern to delays from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which took more than a year to validate the submission.

According to the department’s 2025 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report, California was among five states to report a decrease in homelessness last year, with a 2.8% drop – the state’s first decline since 2016. Nationwide, homelessness fell 3.3%.

The continuum of care also released initial, unvalidated data from its most recent count, which used a new survey-based method rather than relying solely on visual tallies.

“Not only will we have a count of people that are experiencing homelessness, we’re also going to get that information from them about how they got here, what happened that caused this situation in their life,” Laura said.

Advertisement

The updated approach included trained volunteers asking questions about demographics, disabilities and causes of homelessness.

Preliminary figures from the new method show 1,619 people experiencing unsheltered homelessness and 1,635 reported as sheltered.

Officials noted that unsheltered individuals who declined to complete the survey will not be included in the 2026 count.

County officials said the new system is intended to provide more detailed insights into homelessness in the region, while future validated counts will offer a clearer picture of trends over time.

For news updates, follow Vincent Camarillo on Instagram.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2026 KFSN-TV. All Rights Reserved.





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending