Gov. Gavin Newsom is facing sharp resistance from fellow Democrats over a last-minute wildfire liability proposal that critics say would let utility companies off the hook while shortchanging fire victims, insurers and local governments.
The plan, introduced with only weeks left in the legislative session, would cap payouts to wildfire survivors, restrict insurance companies from recovering wildfire-related costs from utilities, and limit how much cities and counties could recoup for destroyed roads, water systems and other public infrastructure.
Newsom’s office defends the proposal as a way to speed up compensation for fire victims while easing the financial exposure utilities face after major wildfires — exposure that officials warn could otherwise translate into higher electricity bills for ratepayers.
But the response from Sacramento has been anything but warm. Local governments, wildfire survivors, consumer watchdogs and insurance representatives have all voiced strong objections, arguing the governor is rushing through sweeping changes without public bill language or adequate legislative debate.
Tensions boiled over after a report surfaced that utility executives were hinting at unspecified retaliatory steps to protect shareholder interests if lawmakers don’t act to shrink their wildfire liability. State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Pasadena Democrat, didn’t mince words in response, saying the Legislature has no intention of “negotiating with companies that want to act like terrorists.”
“My job is not to ensure that we’re increasing profits for shareholders for these companies,” Pérez said.
Despite the friction, there is some common ground. Lawmakers and the governor’s office agree on curbing bonuses for utility executives following destructive fires, increasing penalties for safety violations, and capping legal fees for attorneys representing wildfire victims.
Still, with the legislative session winding down, the broader fight over who bears the financial burden of California’s wildfire crisis — ratepayers, utility shareholders, insurers or taxpayers — remains far from settled.
In other Sacramento news this week, state lawmakers are racing against the clock to protect health coverage for transgender youth on Medi-Cal. Beginning Oct. 13, roughly 1,500 transgender and gender-nonconforming children could lose access to puberty blockers, hormone therapy and related care after the Trump administration barred federal reimbursement for gender-affirming treatment for minors.
To bridge the gap, legislators are pushing for $10 million in emergency funding intended to buy time while the state develops a new funding mechanism outside of federal Medicaid dollars. But LGBTQ advocacy groups say they feel blindsided — many believed the state budget passed in June already included protections for this population, only to discover it did not.
“It’s been very frustrating to see California say in many words that it’s supportive of trans people, and be so unprepared for something we all knew was about to happen,” said Arne Johnson, an organizer with Rainbow Families Action.
Meanwhile, CalMatters continues its ongoing investigation into California’s DUI laws, which reporters have found to be among the weakest in the nation, often allowing repeat offenders to remain behind the wheel with minimal consequences. The news organization is now gathering accounts from residents affected by crashes involving drivers who were not prosecuted, as part of a broader look at what happens after serious collisions.
Original source: CalMatters
