LOS ANGELES (KABC) — A new California law aims to ease the financial burden during some of life’s biggest transitions and challenges.

This year, paid family leave and disability benefits increased to historic levels.

“Previously, most workers would only receive 60% of their income,” explained Katherine Wutchiett, a senior staff attorney at the nonprofit organization, Legal Aid At Work.

“The dream of being able to take care of your baby, newborn baby, or being able to take care of a family member that’s ill, you couldn’t do it,” said California Sen. María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles.)

What’s the new California parental leave law?

Under the new law authored by Durazo, eligible California workers can now receive between 70% and 90% up to a cap.

“As a mom of two who just recently had a baby, I think increasing it to 90% is really important,” said Savannah Powell, who also stressed parental leave should be available for a longer period of time. “Families need that to stay afloat.”

Under the new law, those who make about 70% of the state’s average weekly wage — about $63,000 or less annually — will receive 90% of their income.

“Folks who make more than that will receive 70% to 90% of their income,” said Wutchiett.

The benefits apply to eligible workers filing for state disability insurance, or paid family leave. That includes those who may be navigating military deployment, adoption or caring for a seriously ill family member.

“We’ve got, in California, 1.3 million individuals that are caregivers,” said Gloria Crockett, the regional vice president and executive director for the California, Southland chapter of the Alzheimer’s Association.

The organization did not take a position on the bill.

Part of what the law does is remove a cap that allowed higher income earners to stop contributing to the fund for these state benefits.

“These are all inequities that we identified and we said, ‘We have to fix this,’” said Durazo.

Legal Aid At Work is one of the organizations that co-sponsored the bill.

Wutchiett explained that while the increase applies only to claims filed beginning in 2025, there are some options.

“If, for instance, somebody hasn’t applied yet, and maybe they started taking time off from work in the last week of December, they could make the decision to date their claim just starting in January,” she said.

California water officials reported a good start to the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada but are also saying more snow is needed through the rest of winter to stay on track.

In the first snow survey of the year at the Phillips Station, the California Department of Water Resources said the area currently sits at 91 percent of its average. The survey revealed a snow depth of 24 inches and nine inches of snow water.

Looking statewide, the DWR says California is at 108 percent of average for early January. Electronic readings revealed a snow water equivalent of nearly 11 inches.

A year ago, the DWR said the state was at 28 percent. 

The strong start to the season comes after record-breaking heat from the summer carried into the fall. Things started to change when an atmospheric river broke multiple rainfall records in Northern California and a series of storms in December added to those totals. 

Despite the near-average numbers, officials are saying more snow is needed throughout the winter. 

“While our snowpack looks good now, we have a long way until April when our water supply picture will be more complete,” said DWR director Karla Nemeth. “Extreme shifts between dry and wet conditions are continuing this winter and if the past several years are any indication, anything could happen between now and April and we need to be prepared.”

Back in 2022, Janurary’s snowpack was well above average but the state dried out for the rest of the winter, erasing those early totals. 

But California’s reservoirs are sitting at a healthy spot after two consecutive years with above average snowfall. Statewide, reservoirs are at 121 perfect of average, the DWR says. 

California’s largest reservoir, Shasta Lake, is 130 percent above the historical average while the state’s second-largest reservoir, Lake Oroville, is 126 percent above the historical average. 

The DWR conducts monthly snow surveys at the Phillips Station from January through April, sometimes in May. The next survey is scheduled for Feb. 3.

These proposals include reforming the program that will pay homeowners $8.5 billion this year for solar panel energy, phasing out funding of non-energy related social programs such as “food deserts” assistance from energy budgets, and reducing capital expenditures. 

Under current regulations, utilities’ profits are capped relative to the value of their capital investments, which the report says incentivizes utilities to spend and borrow as much money as possible to increase their profit allowance – at ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ expense. 

According to the California Public Utilities Commission’s latest electricity rate report, rates for the state’s three largest utilities have increased by an average of 96% since January 2014 and 42% since January 2021.

“California’s electricity rates have surged beyond inflation, straining households and businesses hindering decarbonization efforts,” wrote the CPUC. “Wildfire mitigation measures, costly infrastructure investments, and rooftop solar subsidies all contribute to rising costs. Without changes in how utilities recover expenses, rates will continue to climb.”

The governor’s order put significant constraints on the CPUC’s scope of recommendations, requiring the recommendations “reduce costs to electric ratepayers without compromising public health and safety, electric grid reliability, or the achievement of the State’s 2045 clean electricity goal and the State’s 2045 economywide carbon neutrality goal.”

Within these constraints, the CPUC made four recommendations on how to reduce rates by 4-5% within the first year, with future rate reductions growing over time.

First, CPUC recommended minimizing “expensive construction projects,” explaining how current regulations encourage utilities to choose expensive options that allow them to raise their CPUC-regulated profit allowance. 

“There is a profit motive for utilities to pursue capital-intensive projects, as they earn a ‘return on equity’ on these investments which increases overall costs for ratepayers,” wrote the CPUC, which must approve utility projects. “Without proper oversight, this profit motive can lead to prioritizing expensive projects over more efficient alternatives.”

In addition to recommending choosing lower cost options, the CPUC also suggested securitizing some higher cost projects, which would require bonds to be issued, and paid back by ratepayers — which would not come with ROE provisions. CPUC estimates this change on just undergrounding of power lines could save customers $41 million per year in 2025, and $310 million per year by 2026. 

CPUC suggests significantly reforming the rooftop solar subsidy plan that will issue $8.5 billion per year by the end of 2024 — up from $3.5 billion per year in 2021 — to energy customers with solar panels installed.

Under the existing plan, solar-equipped customers “receive payments at retail electricity rates for their exported energy, often exceeding its actual market value.” 

Utilities often must pay other operators to take excess solar energy, on top of paying solar customers the retail rate for the negative-value solar energy, leaving non-solar customers with the bill. 

“These growing subsidies, paid for by non-rooftop solar customers, contribute to higher electricity rates and result in a higher cost burden to non-[solar] customers,” wrote the CPUC. “Additionally, rooftop solar customers do not contribute their fair share of fixed grid costs, such as maintaining power lines and ensuring grid reliability.” 

An earlier CPUC report found 15% of non-solar customers’ energy bills went towards payments to solar customers. 

The CPUC recommends reducing the solar compensation rates and transitioning buyers of property with high-reimbursement agreements to the current lower rate. 

CPUC further recommended that utilities “phase out non-cost-effective programs from electricity rates,” that it says often have “very little to do with reducing energy consumption,” which means “funding them through customers’ energy bills effectively acts as a regressive tax.” 

The CPUC said “programs addressing food deserts or supporting high school and community college courses, while socially beneficial, are better suited for taxpayer funding than ratepayer funding.” 

It also pointed to a “state-administered grant program for school infrastructure improvements,” and energy efficiency programs, finding, “Despite increasing investment, many of the programs funded today are not cost-effective and do not primarily focus on cutting energy use.”

The recommendations align with concerns raised by some state lawmakers — especially Republicans, about inequitable energy costs.

“It’s no secret that the benefits of wind and solar energy are not equally enjoyed in some communities,” said California Senate Utility, Energy and Communications Vice Chair Brian Dahle, R-Bieber, in an earlier interview with The Center Square on solar payments. “It’s time for energy resources, renewable or not, to stand independently without offsetting costs by adding more fees and relying heavily on taxpayers’ support.”