The Brief

If you’ve used ChatGPT to write a breakup text or figure out how to not burn the Christmas roast, you might’ve actually helped create jobs and profits in California, where the artificial intelligence tool was born.

Unfortunately you’ve probably also contributed to climate change. Artificial intelligence is an energy hog, and every query to ChatGPT is like running a lightbulb for 20 minutes, a research scientist recently told NPR.

Artificial intelligence is so wasteful, in fact, that its rapid spread could endanger California’s goal of eliminating all carbon emissions by 2045 — even as AI companies may be flooding the state treasury with tax revenue.

The conundrum has legislators considering what was once unthinkable: bringing back nuclear power as a driver of innovation and economic growth, sort of like it was the 1960s all over again.

Some lawmakers are pushing for exemptions to the state’s 49-year-old moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants; they’re also mulling a possible future for the once-left-for-dead Diablo Canyon on the Central Coast, the state’s last operational plant whose operator, Pacific Gas & Electric, says it is prepared for the possibility of the plant staying open longer.

Those are some of the signs of a subtle shift among state legislators and agencies, who just a few years ago seemed assured in their determination to close the book on nuclear power in California. They are being encouraged by a few outside influences: Sweating their own emissions goals, the state’s Big Tech companies have begun national efforts to rejuvenate the carbon-neutral energy source. And last summer, federal lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a bill, signed by President Biden, to accelerate the development of nuclear reactors and new technologies.

“There have been a couple times where there’s been momentum, where people use the word ‘renaissance’” around nuclear energy, said Maureen Zawalick, PG&E vice president of business and technical services. “But nothing like it is now, where there’s bipartisan support, a significant amount of federal funding, programs and incentives.”

Democratic State Sen. Henry Stern, a member of the Senate Energy Committee and an environmental attorney, was mentored by anti-nuclear advocates/environmentalists and has been a critic of Diablo Canyon and PG&E. But he, too, believes “there’s going to be broader and broader bipartisan support to just put this stuff on the table,” he said, referencing certain forms of nuclear energy in the state.

It’s possible artificial intelligence could grow more energy efficient, reducing the need for new power plants. Energy stocks recently sold off after a Chinese company, DeepSeek, unveiled a powerful AI model it said was produced with a fraction of the resources used by its American rivals. The accuracy of those claims, and how DeepSeek might change industry practices, are hotly debated.

Even assuming AI continues to stoke demand for electricity, nuclear power remains anathema to much of the statehouse, which in the last legislative session kept a measure to partially lift the moratorium bottled up in committee. Reactors are consistent sources of energy but also incredibly expensive to build and maintain, requiring stringent regulatory oversight, staffing and upkeep. Disposing of radioactive waste is a time-intensive process with potential environmental harms, and there are always concerns of catastrophic outcomes at nuclear facilities: reactor meltdowns, cyberattacks and other security threats. Building new facilities in the state means lifting the moratorium and clearing not only the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but also a thicket of California agencies like the Public Utilities Commission, Water Resources Control Board and, depending on site location, potentially the Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission.

These are among the reasons nuclear power skeptics are dubious of a comeback. Critics similarly question the merits of an emerging, allegedly safer form of nuclear power known as small modular reactors, and whether tech companies are committed in their push for nuclear, or if they’ll lose interest once they face the inevitable headwinds.

“Nuclear is desperate to seem relevant, new, and improved,” said Sharon Squassoni, a research professor at George Washington University who specializes in the risks posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Of the use of nuclear power to power AI she added that “it’s a marriage that looks good on paper.”

Big Tech's boost

Renewed interest in nuclear hearkens to earlier times. President Richard Nixon once called for the construction of 1,000 nuclear reactors in the United States by the year 2000. That moonshot missed by roughly 900 reactors, and there are approximately 90 commercial reactors today.

Tech companies have signaled that they’d like to boost those numbers — and they’ve already taken steps outside of California to harness nuclear power.

Citing the need to add “carbon-free electricity and capacity in the grids where we operate,” Microsoft signed a deal in late September to eventually get one of the reactors at Three Mile Island in southeastern Pennsylvania, site of a partial meltdown in 1979, back up and running. In mid-October, Amazon and Google separately announced agreements with energy companies — one of which, Kairos Power, is based in California — that are in the business of designing small modular reactors.

“The grid needs new electricity sources to support AI technologies that are powering major scientific advances, improving services for businesses and customers, and driving national competitiveness and economic growth,” Google wrote in a statement about its deal with Kairos Power.

Meta announced in early December that it was seeking proposals from nuclear energy developers who could help in the pursuit of “AI innovation and sustainability objectives.”

Big tech’s ambitions for new plants are especially focused on small modular reactors. The idea behind the reactors is that they’d function as mini-reactors, producing roughly one-third of the energy as a conventional facility, but with factory-designed components that could be shipped to a predetermined location. This would, in theory, cut down costs, allow for more flexible siting and reduce the lengthy construction period typical for larger nuclear reactors. The International Atomic Energy Agency characterized proposed designs as simpler and safer than already-running reactors, and more recently, the Department of Energy accepted applications to help fund the design and development of these smaller reactors.

The problem is that small reactors exist more in the abstract than in reality. “They’re totally unproven. They exist basically on a computer,” said Allison Macfarlane, former chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the Obama administration. “Nuclear reactors aren’t like software or social media products. They’re not fungible in the same way. ... You can’t apply the tech bro mentality to these nuclear facilities, but that is what is happening.”

Squassoni released a study in April 2024 noting that, “Although they are marketed as new and advanced, small modular reactors so far feature few true innovations among the scores of designs. Quite a few are old wine in new bottles.”

Other than Microsoft’s Three Mile Island investment, and a Bill Gates-backed venture in Wyoming, it’s hard to say which other states could someday house the tech industry’s hypothetical nuclear facilities — small reactors or otherwise. California is currently one of the only states that isn’t an option.

In 1976, a California law placed a moratorium on the development of additional nuclear facility sites in the state until the federal government could come up with a permanent nuclear waste disposal plan. The moratorium was largely in response to environmentalist and anti-nuclear groups in California. Almost five decades later, the federal government still has not figured out a permanent disposal method. Nowadays, spent fuel often ends up in dry casks, which are generally considered a solid, but interim, solution for storing radioactive waste. California remains one of nine states with a nuclear energy moratorium, according to the Department of Energy. Four states have repealed their moratoriums since 2016, and Illinois recently carved out an exemption for the construction of small modular reactors.

View of the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in northern San Diego County in March 2011.

(

Mark Ralston

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

In 2013, Southern California Edison announced it would shutter reactors at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San Diego County due to defects in new steam generators. That reduced California’s nuclear energy arsenal to just the two reactors at Diablo Canyon.

The issues at San Onofre, in addition to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, further limited California lawmakers’ appetite for nuclear energy. Diablo Canyon was scheduled to shut down beginning in 2024, but those plans have been postponed a half-decade. The site’s two remaining reactors are a vital part of California’s power grid, even more so because of environmental concerns brought about by climate change, as well as the state’s growing energy needs.

The world’s largest tech companies are racing to train and develop AI tools, which require immense amounts of electricity. The exact metrics, as far as total AI energy consumption is concerned, remain murky, largely because the tech industry has been murky on the subject. It’s clear, though, that tech companies are reliant on big, windowless data centers to power AI, and that these data centers are extremely energy-intensive — and prevalent in California. The Los Angeles Times reported in August that the state has at least 270 data centers, many clustered, perhaps unsurprisingly, in Silicon Valley. Tech companies have eyed dozens more data centers up and down the state, the Times reported.

The legislators trying to spark a chain reaction in the Capitol

Those sorts of statistics are a major concern for California lawmakers.

“Tech is a new part of the equation because of data centers, AI, and all these things,” said Republican Assemblymember Josh Hoover, a proponent of nuclear energy from the Sacramento suburbs. “The reality is that even before all of that, our grid was not nearly prepared for the energy demands of a clean energy future. And so I am a big believer that nuclear energy needs to be part of that conversation.”

Hoover is referring to California’s power grid and the state’s mandatory transition to 100% carbon-free energy by 2045, under a 2018 measure. California has made significant strides toward the target but scores a low D-minus rating for its resilience to extreme weather events and other disruptive threats, according to measurements by the nonprofit Grid Clue. Despite an ongoing shift to renewables, California is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, and its grid is increasingly imperiled by wildfires, heat waves and other weather events linked to climate change.

Diablo Canyon provides roughly 9% of the state’s electricity, which is partly why Gov. Gavin Newsom supported extending the use of its reactors to 2029 and 2030. “That struck me as a courageous decision and the right decision, and I would hope that that’s reflective of his belief to look at all different energy sources,” said Republican Assemblymember Diane Dixon, who represents Newport Beach.

Representatives for PG&E, which owns and operates Diablo Canyon, have typically adopted a defensive posture when asked about their nuclear facility and the cost overruns it routinely incurs. But the utility company is singing a different tune lately.

Zawalick, the PG&E vice president, demurred when asked if she thinks Diablo Canyon will ultimately stay open past the station’s latest deadline. “We have to be asked by the state legislators to go longer than 2030,” she said. “But we will be ready, is what I say. And we’re planning to be.” She told CalMatters she hasn’t had any “formal” conversations with tech companies about Diablo Canyon’s future.

Stern described Diablo Canyon as a “cost-suck” and “old,” adding, “if you were building new nuclear, you would not build it like Diablo Canyon.” But Stern conceded that San Onofre’s shutdown strained the state’s energy grid (it also led to more greenhouse gas production), and he’s come to accept Diablo Canyon’s role, at least for now.

Democratic Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula, who represents Fresno and has co-sponsored nuclear energy legislation, also worries “about what would occur if a member of our energy portfolio was taken offline, how that would increase rates for the rest of us.” Hoover echoed Arambula’s view and said he wants Diablo Canyon to stay open indefinitely.

An opening for small modular reactors

Diablo Canyon is one (complicated) piece of the nuclear puzzle. Then there’s the separate conundrum of whether to roll back all, or some, of the state’s nuclear energy moratorium. As it stands, Republican lawmakers are the political faction that has pushed to change the moratorium. Last year, Dixon was a co-sponsor of Assembly Bill 2092, which would’ve asked the California Public Utilities Commission to conduct a feasibility studies about the possible benefits and effects of small modular reactors by the beginning of 2027. The bill never got a vote on the Assembly floor.

“It’s good to have stretch goals,” Dixon said of the state’s zero emissions target. “But we have to be mindful of the impact on the local economy, on jobs and driving businesses out of California. I want to at least start the process to study this important possible new alternative.”

Another recent proposal, Assembly Bill 65, would have created a moratorium exemption for the development of small modular reactors. Hoover and Arambula were co-sponsors of AB65, and Arambula said he hopes to introduce a similar measure in the 2025-26 legislative session.

In April 2023, the last time lawmakers debated the bill to allow small modular reactors, Arambula was one of few Democratic politicians to publicly back pro-nuclear legislation. Los Angeles Democratic Assemblymember Rick Zbur, for instance, told his colleagues he couldn’t support the measure because, while he “used to be someone who believed that nuclear was part of the solution to a carbon-free future,” he changed his views after the 2011 nuclear power plant disaster in Japan. “I don’t think that the California public supports this,” he continued. “I don’t think that we need this to get to a carbon-free future.” (Zbur confirmed to CalMatters that his stance hasn’t changed.)

Other prominent Democratic politicians are beginning to sound more bullish on nuclear. Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco told CalMatters that he’s noticed “a gradual increased openness among Democrats to nuclear,” and that he thinks nuclear “should certainly be part of the conversation.” Stern, the Senate environment committee member, said he’s interested in giving consideration to some nuclear power bills.

Stern previously authored a law that required the California Energy Commission, in consultation with other state agencies, to write an assessment of commercially feasible energy sources. That assessment, which was released in August 2024, suggested more research and development into small modular reactors, and recommended that the legislature pass a law to exempt such reactors from the state’s nuclear moratorium.

In a statement, Newsom’s office left the door open to the possibility of small modular reactors and a nuclear moratorium exemption in California. “The Governor has always maintained an interest in new, promising technologies, including advancements in emerging nuclear power technologies, that follow strong safety, cost, and environmental considerations,” Newsom’s Deputy Director of Communications Daniel Villaseñor wrote to CalMatters.

State Sen. Josh Becker, the new chair of the Senate Energy Committee, also left the door open to nuclear technologies in California: “Climate change is an urgent crisis demanding a comprehensive and proactive response,” the Silicon Valley Democrat wrote in a statement. “To address it effectively, we must consider every viable solution.”

What happens next?

The 2025-26 legislative session will be instructive in showing state lawmakers’ willingness to embrace nuclear energy. Any policy changes in California — followed by a hypothetical nuclear site selection process — would proceed at a slow, methodical pace, the exact opposite of how tech companies prefer to operate.

In addition to needing a carve out from the state’s nuclear moratorium, and approvals from various state and federal entities, backers could well face lawsuits and other pushback from anti-nuclear groups.

With all those factors in mind, the legislative session will also reveal whether tech companies feel emboldened to push for nuclear energy sites in California, or if they’re satisfied pursuing their energy needs in other states.

After all, just because many key AI companies are based in California doesn’t mean their data centers have to be. The recent failed bills to permit some kind of nuclear power in California were proposed shortly before tech’s fast and furious incursion into the nuclear energy space, and thus weren’t part of the industry’s 2023-24 legislative lobbying efforts. Public support and lobbying for the two bills came from a handful of relatively small pro-nuclear advocacy groups, as well as a handful of labor groups, and the Nuclear Energy Institute, a pro-nuclear trade association.

“It’s too soon to tell how serious these tech firms are about promoting nuclear energy to power their electricity needs,” Squassoni said. “It could be a fad—it could be that once they get a real whiff of the costs and time it takes to build new plants, they may back off a little bit.”

Lawmakers who spoke to CalMatters said they aren’t against tech companies joining in on broader policy debates around California’s energy grid. Hoover said tech’s nascent nuclear interest may “allow for new conversations to happen,” while Wiener characterized the industry’s involvement as a “positive thing,” so long as companies participate in expanded clean energy initiatives that aren’t exclusively nuclear.

Stern, for his part, posited that tech’s interest “certainly doesn’t hurt the zeitgeist around nuclear being a less toxic and scary thing.” He added: “There’s some other incredible tech that in a lot of cases beats nuclear from a cost perspective. But it doesn’t quite make sense to me anymore that we don’t let nuclear compete in that contest.”

A federal judge on Thursday ordered major changes to reported conditions at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in San Bernardino County, granting a preliminary injunction that requires federal immigration officials provide people with clean drinking water and adequate medical care.

U.S. District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes ruled that the detainees who brought the lawsuit “demonstrated they are likely to prevail” on their claims that conditions at the facility violate Fifth Amendment protections against inhumane conditions of confinement. While the case will continue to work its way through the courts, the judge issued the ruling now, finding that people being detained could suffer irreparable harm without court intervention.

The suit came after two deaths at the facility within weeks of each other last fall: Ismael Ayala-Uribe, a 39-year-old former DACA recipient, and 56-year-old Gabriel Garcia-Aviles. Both deaths are still under federal investigation as scrutiny over the conditions inside immigrant detention centers in the Trump administration continues to mount.

In their lawsuit, lawyers for the detainees said Adelanto violated ICE detention guidelines by failing to provide clean drinking water, nutritious meals, sanitation, access to medical care and medicine, as well as medical intake screening upon arrival at the facility. They also alleged violations of rules around recreation time outside, visitation time for family, daily headcount to ensure detainees are alive, and accommodations for people with disabilities.

In response, Sykes ordered 24-hour access to clean drinking water, meals with a sufficient number of calories, and access to soap and hygiene products free of charge. The injunction also requires the facility to be cleansed daily and for mold to be identified and removed. Detainees are to be provided blankets and temperature-appropriate clothing, as well as access to recreational yard time outside for at least four hours every day.

The order prevents Adelanto, which is located about 90 miles northeast of Los Angeles, from limiting family visitation during regular business hours, including removing time restrictions and physical contact, such as hugging or holding hands, with family members. It also says the facility can not cancel a visitation if a family member needs to use the restroom during the visit.

The majority of people being held in immigration detention centers in California have not been accused of committing crimes, only of civil immigration violations.

The court ordered Adelanto to perform at least two headcounts every day, once overnight and once during the day, to ensure detainees are present and not incapacitated. The court also ordered restrictions on sending detainees to isolation, barring a life safety risk to staff or if the detainee requests it.

The ruling requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other named defendants to immediately provide detainees with the condition upgrades the judge ordered.

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the ruling. DHS attorney Pushkal Mishra argued in court last week the federal government couldn’t be held liable for the actions of its contractor, GEO Group, which runs Adelanto and 18 other immigration facilities around the country.

In a motion to dismiss the case, DHS argued that it should not have “to take over the daily management of a federal contract from a private contractor.”

GEO Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Disability access in ICE facilities has been a recurring issue since the Trump administration took office for a second term. According to the complaint, one person described being placed in handcuffs and ankle chains for court appearances despite using a cane. Others alleged people with mobility issues were routinely assigned top bunks. The new court order requires the government to provide people with disabilities with reasonable accommodations.

The court has given the federal government 14 days to create a plan to address medical care and disability needs for detainees. The order requires all detainees to be given an intake screening upon arriving for physical or mental illnesses, ensure ongoing treatment and medication, and treat and segregate detainees to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. The order also mandates that every detainee must have access to primary, secondary, and tertiary medical care and be advised of their patient rights.

Sykes ordered that the government must provide two independent monitors for the duration of the lawsuit to ensure compliance with the court orders. Detainees must also be given the opportunity to submit grievances to the monitors in English or Spanish that are contained in a lockbox only accessible to the monitors.

A report by the California attorney general this year found that six people have died in detention facilities in the state since the start of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. Nationwide, 22 people have died this year in immigration detention.

This week, the Mexican federal government called on state attorneys general to criminally investigate cases where Mexican nationals have died in ICE custody.

The White House has released a series of documents that President Donald Trump said in a primetime address reveals "shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure."

Yet Trump, who for years has baselessly claimed the 2020 election was stolen from him, did not detail allegations of widespread illegal votes in that election. Numerous reviews have debunked his claims about that election.

Instead, he focused on allegations that China had accessed voter data and that noncitizens are found on certain states' voter rolls, among his claims.

Yet Trump has often spoken of issues with elections that fall apart under scrutiny. His administration's system for identifying noncitizens on voter rolls has incorrectly flagged citizens, for example.

The remarks came as his war in Iran approaches the five-month mark, some Republican lawmakers want him to focus on the economy, and as his approval rating remains near second-term lows.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The state is often knocked by the rest of the country as being "slow" to count votes. But here's the deal: that's a feature, not a bug, of the election system.

The backstory

Things take a while here largely because California works so hard to expand the ways people can vote. For example:

• Californians in recent years overwhelmingly vote by mail — nearly 90% of votes cast in the 2024 presidential election were mail-in ballots. In that same year's primary the percentage was just as high. Those ballots can be postmarked up to and including Election Day. They're counted as long as the ballot arrives within seven days (for the June primary, that was June 9).
• California offers same-day voter registration at any voting center. These new voters must cast a provisional ballot, which is counted once election officials confirm their eligibility (they are overwhelmingly accepted — for example, Los Angeles County reports that historically between 85% to 90% have been counted.)
• Voters also have the right to cast provisional ballots if there's any problem on Election Day — like if poll workers aren't able to void an outstanding mail-in ballot, or if there’s any issue calling up voter information from e-pollbooks. Again (see above), provisionals take longer to process because eligibility has to be confirmed.
• Vote-by-mail ballots require signature matching. When the one received doesn't match the one on file, county registrars must contact that voter to let them know — and give them the chance to correct it.
• And, with more than 23 million registered voters, we're really, really big. In the 2024 general election more than 16 million Californians voted (down from nearly 18 million in the 2020 presidential election). Either way, that’s more people than the total populations of all but three other states.

Why things have sped up, some

But things have sped up considerably in the 30 counties that have adopted a 2016 law called the Voter's Choice Act, including L.A., Orange and Riverside counties. In recent elections, the changes associated with that law — like voters not being locked into a designated polling location — drastically cut down the number of provisional ballots cast, which helped move things along faster than they had before.

A closer look at ballot counting times in California where an increasing number of vote-by-mail ballots has slowed ballot counts.

(

Courtesy California Voter Foundation

)

Still, accuracy and a commitment to "expanding the franchise" — translation: allowing more people to vote — means the process is not designed to produce instantaneous results.

L.A. County Office of Education’s letter to Los Angeles Unified School District earlier this month, warning it was at risk of running out of money, has escalated tensions between county overseers and the state’s biggest school district.

LACOE has told the district it must revise its $21 billion budget by mid-August — or risk the appointment of an external advisor with the power to override the LAUSD board and superintendent’s decisions.

The district has already announced the elimination of hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, and approved another plan to cut an estimated $3.6 billion over the next three years through furloughs, layoffs and school consolidations.

But LACOE says it wants a more specific plan with more details, and has assigned a fiscal expert to help.

What does it all mean — for teachers, staff and most importantly, the almost 400,000 students in LAUSD schools? We break it down.

What’s in the letter?

The letter outlines a list of why the County has determined the district will become insolvent.

These include:

• Running out of money: The district's own projection has shown that its operating cash will be $231 million in the red by November 2027. “A district that cannot maintain a positive cash balance is unable to meet payroll and other obligations as they come due,” wrote Debra Duardo, the L.A. County superintendent. 

• New labor agreements with teachers, principals, school support staff and other employees: Recently approved contracts, which the unions say are essential to helping employees weather the region’s increasingly high cost of living, will cost an additional $1 billion in the next school year. These increases outpace the state’s  cost of living increases. 
  
• Declining enrollment and attendance: About 40% fewer students attend LAUSD schools than two decades ago, in part because of lower birthrates and families leaving because of the region’s high cost of living. Over time, this can reduce revenue because state funding is calculated based on how many students show up for class each day. 
  
• Leadership stability: The LAUSD Board appointed Andrés Chait, a longtime district administrator, as superintendent in June, just days after his predecessor resigned amid an ongoing federal investigation. ”This transition occurs at the moment the district must execute substantial corrective actions,” Duardo wrote.

It also includes next steps. We’ll discuss those below.

Why did LACOE send the letter July 2?

The letter is part of a process outlined in California law meant to prevent districts from going bankrupt.

Specifically, LACOE is required to intervene anytime it determines the district may be unable to meet its financial obligations in the current or subsequent two years (California requires districts to budget in three-year blocks.)

Has this happened to LAUSD before?

The requirement to issue this letter is fairly new and tied to a 2021 change in state law.

However, LACOE has intervened in LAUSD’s finances in the past. The agency assigned a fiscal expert team to the district from January 2019 to December 2021 after determining the district was at risk of not meeting its financial obligations.

The team helped analyze staffing, enrollment and make adjustments to the budget, according to a statement provided by Elizabeth Graswich, executive director of LACOE’s public affairs and communications department.

How did LAUSD get to this point?

The shortest explanation is that LAUSD is spending more money than it brings in.

The last three budgets relied on billions of dollars in reserves to offset the deficit.

Some of those reserves were built up when the district was receiving federal pandemic relief money and that funding ended in 2024.

LAUSD, like other districts in the state, also faces increased costs on everything from employee salaries and benefits to providing services for students with disabilities and settlements for decades-old sexual assault claims.

The district’s unions, parents, and several board members have also called for increased scrutiny on how much money the district spends on third-party contracts, including with tech companies.

Is LAUSD making cuts? How will they affect students?

LAUSD has already eliminated hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, earlier this year.

This summer the board approved another plan to cut an estimated $3.6 billion over the next three years.

That plan includes furlough days for all employees, the elimination of thousands more jobs and cuts to the trust that funds retiree health benefits.

Among the cuts is the elimination of $900 million that helps high-needs schools pay for counselors, tutors and other student supports.

Most of these cuts aren’t scheduled to go into effect until the 2027-28 and 2028-29 school years.

The county said in its letter that the district plan needs to be more specific and include how each proposed change will be implemented, when the change will happen and how the outcomes will be measured.

Has there been any push back to the letter’s findings?

The district did not appeal the letter’s findings to the state, according to a district spokesperson.

However, when LAist asked if the district disputed any of the findings, a spokesperson wrote that the district is quote “continuing conversations” with the County, and that a revision to the budget may not be required.

“We will remain in conversation with LACOE to ensure our financial plan remains responsible, transparent, and aligned with our long-term commitments,” the spokesperson wrote.

The teachers union has said the letter unfairly targets the union’s new contracts.

“To me it feels as though the message is, ‘We warned you not to approve these contracts, and yet you did, and now we're going to overstep,’” said Gloria Martinez, president of United Teachers Los Angeles.

Martinez said the overall problem is that California doesn’t adequately fund public education.

We’re about a month away from the start of the next school year. What happens next?

The county has appointed a fiscal expert to help the district revise its budget by mid-August. Otherwise, the county says this advisor could be given the power to override decisions by the board and superintendent.

What happens if the district runs out of money?

Districts that become insolvent can lose the power to govern themselves in an arrangement called receivership. Instead of the elected school board and appointed superintendent making decisions about everything from curriculum to the budget, that power is transferred to an external administrator.

Receivership is a condition of accepting an emergency loan from the state. Only 10 school districts, out of nearly 1,000 statewide, have entered receivership since 1990, including Inglewood Unified.

The impact on students varies from district to district. The process was designed to protect students from sudden school shutdowns, but it comes at a cost. Districts must pay back the emergency loan and community-members lose the ability to elect or recall decision-makers during the receivership.

Contact your school board member

The LAUSD's Board's next meeting is a closed session scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday, Aug.11.