California Governor Gavin Newsom will not be the next president of the United States.
But the pile of bills on his desk in Sacramento may help determine the fate of human civilization.
Lawmakers passed bold legislation focused on climate change, energy, water and human health that could set a precedent for other states and the world depending on whether Governor Newsom signs or vetoes the bill.
Today, I’ll be highlighting 13 major bills. This is not a comprehensive list, so I apologize if your favorite bill isn’t featured. My time is limited, and so is the patience of my editors.
Governor Newsom has until September 30th to act on the bill.
Yes, let’s get started.
1. Senate Bill 1374: Expanding rooftop solar power
context: To phase out gas-fired power plants, which produce more than a third of California’s electricity, the state will need a lot of solar power, as well as lots of electricity from rooftops and other small-scale solar installations, experts say. Neither would be enough on its own.
Unfortunately, Governor Newsom-appointed commissioners on the Public Utilities Commission cut the subsidies based on the argument that they would lead to higher electric rates across California. They cut rooftop solar incentives for Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, and San Diego Gas & Electric customers and created a “community solar” program to encourage small solar fields.
This bill would: A bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) would reverse some of the damage.
Thanks to the Public Utilities Commission, schools and apartment buildings served by Edison, PG&E, and SDG&E now pay the full retail price for the energy they consume, even during hours when their solar panels are producing electricity. That means they pay the utility company the full price for the electricity they generate.
SB 1374 would give schools and apartment buildings with solar power systems the same “self-consumption” rights as single-family homes, allowing them to reduce or waive utility payments when the sun is out.
It seems like an easy decision for a governor who describes himself as a climate change champion.
But Newsom didn’t stop his appointees from setting up this terrible system in the first place, and Becker told me that, based on rumors he’d heard, he thought there was a “high chance” Newsom would veto the bill.
Why would the Governor do this? Probably for the same reasons as before: opposition from powerful utility companies who shortsightedly believe the technology doesn’t fit their business models, and powerful utility unions who aren’t happy that most rooftop solar installers are non-union.
Supporters of SB 1374 include: Environment California, Los Angeles Unified School District, Solar Rights Alliance
The opponents are: California Electrical Contractors Association, PG&E, SDG&E, SoCal Edison
2. Eliminate gas from your home
context: Greenhouse gas emissions from commercial and residential buildings (mainly from heating, hot water, and cooking) contribute to California’s climate pollution, which means we urgently need to replace our gas-fired heaters and stoves with electric heat pumps and induction cooktops to stop global warming and become a model for other states and countries.
There is also mounting scientific evidence that gas stove emissions, like secondhand smoke, are linked to premature death, childhood asthma and cancer risks.
This bill would: A bill introduced by state Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz) would borrow from anti-tobacco textbooks and require health warning labels on gas stoves.
The backers are: American Lung Association of California, Environmental Working Group, Sierra Club
The opponents are: California Building Industry Association, California Chamber of Commerce, Southern California Gas
Another invoice: A proposal from Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine) would take a more specialized approach to electrification.
According to Canary Media’s Jeff St. John, the bill would make it easier for utility companies to switch entire communities from gas heating and cooking to electric appliances, especially in areas where it would avoid the need to replace expensive gas pipelines and save ratepayers money.
We’re talking about a few pilot projects at best. Still, progress is progress.
So, assuming Newsom doesn’t listen to the Treasury Department, which makes the flimsy case that implementation would cost the Public Works Commission $1.7 million not currently budgeted, is an easy excuse to repeal pretty much any climate change measure that someone, somewhere doesn’t like.
The backers are: Building a Decarbonization Coalition, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council
The opponents are: California Department of Finance, California Pool & Spa Association, Pool & Hot Tub Federation
3. Decline in oil and gas drilling
context: California produces more oil and natural gas than any other state in the United States, and it’s the state that produces the most oil and natural gas. Fossil fuel executives often say that if we extract less oil and natural gas here, we’ll be forced to import more oil and natural gas from other parts of the world. That argument may be true in the short term, but it will be untrue over time if they implement the policies that the executives are trying to block. And those policies ignore the health damage caused by oil and gas drilling.
Yes, California’s air is much cleaner than it used to be, but it’s still dirty, and researchers continue to find that low-income people of color are more susceptible to contamination from oil and gas wells that release harmful chemicals.
This bill would: The bill introduced by Assemblywoman Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) is simple: It gives cities and counties the clear right to ban new drilling and phase out existing wells. This is crucial for Los Angeles: The Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted in 2022 to end all oil and gas production within 20 years, but as my LA Times colleague Dakota Smith reported, a ruling is not expected until this month.
If Governor Newsom signs AB 3233, the judge’s ruling will likely become moot.
The bill also paves the way for Monterey County to implement and continue its own plan to phase out fossil fuel extraction, again subject to Governor Newsom’s signature, which would also help Monterey County, where a referendum was recently passed by the State Supreme Court to block some drilling.
Who is opposed to this bill?
Most of them are oil and gas companies, and Newsom’s Treasury Department again said the bill would mean the state would have to spend billions of dollars defending itself against lawsuits by the industry if it becomes law.
Supporters include: Center for Biological Diversity, California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Sunrise Movement LA, Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles
The opponents are: California Building and Construction Labor Council, Western States Petroleum Association.
Two more bills: The bill, introduced by Rep. Greg Hart (D-Santa Barbara), would require oil and gas producers, especially big drilling companies like the giants born out of , to plug more idle wells. As the Times reports, California’s 100,000 unplugged oil and gas wells are known to leak greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals.
The backers are: Breast Cancer Action, California Medical Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility (Los Angeles)
The opponents are: California Department of Finance, Independent Petroleum Association of California, Kern County
The bill, introduced by state Assemblyman Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), would almost certainly lead to the closure of the Inglewood oil field, which consists of about 1,000 oil wells spread across Culver City and Ladera Heights.
The bill would require the oil field’s operator, Sentinel Peak Resources, to pay steep penalties of $10,000 per month for each underproducing well if it fails to plug its past its prime by 2030.
Though the fossil fuel industry has publicly opposed the bill, Bryan agreed to introduce it in Englewood — originally a statewide measure targeting all low-producing wells near homes and schools — to help persuade the industry to drop a ballot measure that would have rolled back other restrictions.
Supporters include: Consumer Watchdog, City of Los Angeles, Food and Water Watchdog, Fossil Fuel Free California
The opponents are: California Department of Finance, Sentinel Peak Resources, Valley Industry and Commerce Association.
4. Smarter water consumption
context: Rising temperatures meant Californians were using more water than the state’s natural ecosystems could sustain, even though many rivers and streams are fed by underground aquifers.
Now, the climate crisis is putting further strain on the highly engineered delivery systems that support our cities and farms, including our agriculture and fisheries.
This bill would: A bill introduced by State Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer Kahan (D-Orinda) would increase fines for those who steal water from rivers and streams to $10,000 a day. Now, as my colleague Ian James reports, most water thieves, including farmers and ranchers who illegally pumped water for eight days in 2022 in violation of rules meant to protect salmon, aren’t paying the fines.
Supporters include: Trout Unlimited, Audubon California, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Heal the Bay
The opponents are: None (at least on record)
Another invoice: The bill, introduced by Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), would establish a “zero net loss” policy for wetlands across the state. Scientists say protecting California’s few wetlands that haven’t been destroyed by development and restoring others where possible is crucial because these ecosystems provide habitat for birds and absorb carbon that warms the atmosphere.
Again, from Ian James of The Times (scroll down).
Supporters include: Bolsa Chica Land Trust, California Native Plant Society, Ducks Unlimited
The opponents are: Again nobody
5. The Age of Environmental Justice
context: The worst effects of fossil fuel pollution are often felt by society’s most vulnerable: In cities like Los Angeles, highways often stagnate, spewing choking exhaust fumes from their tailpipes; low-income families stagnate, putting them at increased risk of illness during heatwaves, even though air conditioning is their best tool for staying safe.
That’s why climate and clean energy solutions need to prioritize marginalized communities.
This bill would: A bill introduced by Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) would make it easier for farmworkers to file workers’ compensation claims for heatstroke. The workers say the state isn’t properly enforcing rules that require employers to protect them by providing water, shade, and breaks when it’s sweltering outside. The employers say there’s no problem and everything’s fine.
Supporters include: Central California Environmental Justice Network, Centro Binacional para el Desarrollo Indigenous Oaxaqueño, Pesticide Action Network, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council.
The opponents are: California Agriculture Council, California Chamber of Commerce, California Agriculture Department, California Pear Growers Association, California Strawberry Commission, California Family Winemakers Association, Pacific Egg and Poultry Association.
Two more bills: The bill, introduced by Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), would have initially banned the use of paraquat, an herbicide that has been linked to Parkinson’s disease and to which California farmworkers and low-income Latinos are disproportionately exposed.
But as my colleague Haley Smith reports, the bill that reached Governor Newsom’s desk only requires regulators to reevaluate the herbicides by Jan. 1, 2029, and determine what, if any, action to take about them.
Even this watered-down bill faces fierce opposition from the agriculture industry.
Supporters include: Nurses League for Healthy Environments, American Bird Conservancy, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
The opponents are: Almond Board of California, California Apple Commission, California Blueberry Board, California Livestock Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Cherry Commission, California Walnut Commission, California Olive Growers Council
The bill, introduced by state Reps. Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale) and Eloise Gomez Reyes (D-Colton), would block construction of additional warehouses within a few hundred feet of homes and schools in Southern California’s Inland Empire, an already highly polluted logistics corridor, reports The Times’ Rebecca Previn.
But some activists say the bill would still allow warehouses and truck traffic to get closer together in ways that are dangerous to human health. As a result, opposition to the bill includes an unusual combination of business interests and environmental justice groups.
The backers are: the California Federation of Labor, the AFL-CIO, the California Nurses Association, and the California Teachers Association.
The opponents are: California Business Roundtable, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Association, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, Central California Asthma Collaborative, Communities for a Better Environment
6. Go to the grocery store
context: The food we consume, and how we source it, has a huge impact on the climate. Meat and dairy production emit greenhouse gases. Food waste is also destructive: it releases methane gas as it decomposes in landfills, trapping more methane gas per pound than carbon dioxide.
Same goes for plastics, which means that plastics not only help sustain the oil industry, they help sustain the oil industry.
This bill would: A bill introduced by Sen. Katherine Breakspear (D-Encinitas) would eliminate plastic bags at grocery store checkouts in California. As my colleague Susan Last reports, there’s no more “paper or plastic.” Say goodbye to those heavy, supposedly reusable plastic bags that almost no one actually reuses.
Let’s assume Newsom signs the bill.
The backers are: Azul, California Interfaith Power & Light, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Oceana, Plastic Free Future
The opponents are: American Forestry and Paper Association, Plastics Recycling Association, Western Plastics Council
Another invoice: A bill introduced by Rep. Jackie Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) would ban food retailers from using the term “sell by” on food packaging and require them to switch to “use by” or “best before” dates. The aim is to stop Californians from throwing out food that is still edible and prevent unnecessary methane emissions from landfills. I welcome this bill, as I have been perplexed by “sell by” dates many times.
The backers are: Californians Against Waste, Active San Gabriel Valley, California Compost Coalition, Dr. Bronner’s
The opponents are: none
Well, just a little bit more…
Climate change challenge
The Times’ special feature on global warming, “Our Climate Challenge,” was published in print on Sunday. You can read the full article online or order a print copy. It’s full of interesting stuff.
Here are some highlights since our last Boiling Point.
- “Perhaps we need to recapture some of the spirit that harkens back to the days of the moonshot.” I found Haley Smith’s story about older Americans taking responsibility and fighting for climate action entertaining.
- “Living sustainably costs money” Young people in particular want to use less plastic, but companies like Amazon are making it cheaper and easier to do so, reports Susan Last.
- There are reasons for hope in the fight against litter and waste – and no, recycling is not one of them. Special section editor Alice Short talks to author Edward Humes.
- I also liked the growing number of climate change-themed board games designed to teach people to work together to solve difficult (but not insurmountable) problems.
And as we said last week, The Times will be hosting “California Climate Live” at the Colburn School in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday, Sept. 26, at 9 a.m. My colleagues and I will be hosting some great panels.
If you’re interested, please go ahead.
2 more
Remember when I said we were covering 13 bills on today’s Boiling Point?
Yes, my colleague, Lila Seidman.
One of those bills, from Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), would require cities and counties to protect wildlife habitat in their land-use planning. The bill has the backing of environmental groups and is unopposed.
Friedman’s proposal would expand regulation of certain rodenticides to save animals, such as mountain lions and owls, that sometimes eat poisoned rats. Environmental groups support the proposal, but the Household and Commercial Products Association and numerous agriculture trade groups oppose it.
Governor Newsom has less than two weeks to make a decision. We will continue to keep you posted.
This is the latest issue of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Or open the newsletter in your web browser .
For more climate and environment news, About X.
