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.”

LACC Swap Meet has been running in Los Angeles City College’s parking lot for nearly 30 years, but one of its owners says city officials are trying to destroy the business to support street vendors.

The owners are suing the city of L.A. for allegedly interfering with business and contractual relations at the swap meet. They claim the problems stem from Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez, who they say blocked sidewalk vending enforcement and other requests for help from the owners.

If they succeed with the lawsuit, which was filed in L.A. County Superior Court last week, they are asking for more than $30 million in damages.

Soto-Martinez told LAist he wants a solution for street vendors and the swap meet.

L.A. City Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to LAist’s requests for comment.

Why the lawsuit is happening

According to the lawsuit, the swap meet owners claim that Soto-Martinez has a “personal vendetta” against the swap meet’s co-owner, Phillip Dane, and is trying to get him removed from managing the swap meet.

They allege that Soto-Martinez used his influence to allow the vendors to keep working outside the venue even though city law prohibits them from doing so near swap meets.

“The vendors were encouraged to do this and were even assisted in doing this, by the City and its officials, including City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez,” the lawsuit reads.

It also says Dane called the Los Angeles Police Department multiple times to respond to problems with the street vendors, but his requests were blocked. His applications for temporary parking restrictions were denied as well.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several vendors left the then-closed swap meet to set up on the sidewalk. As LAist reported, many didn’t return to the swap meet after it reopened, choosing to stay outside the college.

Some claimed Dane harassed them for doing so.

Sidewalk vending near L.A. City College has grown since then. Dane told LAist vendors are now on Marathon and Monroe streets, as well as Madison and Vermont avenues — too close to the college, he said.

Dane has asked the city to make the vendors move, which has upset some residents in the community. Since taking over, he’s faced allegations of being a gentrifier against street vendors.

Dane disagrees.

“Show me. How am I anti-street vending? By asking a vendor to please not set up right in front of the swap meet because you’re hurting your friends?” he told LAist.

The lawsuit claims that street vendors, led by Soto-Martinez, have left trash on the property and caused other problems creating “several million dollars” in damages each year.

The excessive foot traffic and cars drew away business, according to the lawsuit, lowering profits for the swap meet. It also says the owners have paid lower rent as a result, which Dane said has been happening for three years. Their rent is an unfixed amount based on profits.

The councilmember’s reaction

Nick Barnes-Batista, a spokesperson for Soto-Martinez, said his office wasn’t aware of the lawsuit until LAist reached out Friday.

The councilmember didn’t respond to specific claims in the suit but told LAist in a statement that as a son of street vendors, he understands the role they play in culture and the economy.

“It’s essential to bring together residents, vendors from inside and outside the swap meet, and LACC to build a system that supports safe vending while respecting the needs of the local community and the swap meet itself,” he said.

No court dates have yet been scheduled.

Members of a University of Southern California program are developing an AI program meant to help law enforcement agencies improve their interactions with the communities they serve.

The Everyday Respect Project partnered with the Los Angeles Police Department to analyze body camera footage of 1,000 random traffic stops. Now, they are using what they have found to train an AI model to look through countless hours of videos for critical elements of good policing — respect and de-escalation.

Benjamin Graham is an associate professor of political science at USC and helps to manage the project, which is being conducted by a team of professors, students and members of the community.

 ”LAPD conducts, give or take, a thousand stops a day,” Graham told LAist. He said those stops lead to thousands upon thousands of hours of body camera footage.

In most cases, Graham said, the body camera videos are uploaded to the cloud and never seen. He said only an automated program could sort through this rich source of data, analyze it and reveal the stories it holds.

With AI able to look through this data, Graham said police and sheriffs departments across the country could identify officers who are best able to communicate respectfully during traffic stops to be given promotions or training positions. They also could find the best techniques for officers to bring down the temperature in high-stress situations.

Georgetown University, the University of California, Riverside, and the University of Texas at Austin also are working with USC on the project.

What they’ve found so far

Graham told LAist researchers spoke with a wide range of community stakeholders, including community organizations that are critical of law enforcement and working police officers, to understand different perspectives of what separates a good traffic stop from a bad one.

They heard from thousands of Angelenos through surveys and interviews, reviewed LAPD training materials and rode along with officers on the streets. Graham said they focused on those diverse community perspectives throughout the project.

“ We have former law enforcement officers who are annotating this data,” he told LAist. “We have individuals who have been arrested before, and we have a lot of Angelenos from ... a range of ages, races, genders, professional backgrounds.”

Graham presented some of the Everyday Respect Project’s findings to the L.A. Board of Police Commissioners on Dec. 16.

He said researchers involved in the project analyzed 500 traffic stops in which LAPD officers conducted searches of the drivers they pulled over and another 500 stops in which there were no searches.

They found in cases when no search was conducted, some drivers were treated differently by officers based on their perceived race and wealth.

Researchers found that Black drivers were treated with more respect than Hispanic drivers. White drivers were pulled over least often, and the researchers did not find a significant difference between how white and non-white drivers were treated.

Of drivers who were stopped by police but weren’t searched, the researchers found those who were perceived as more wealthy also were treated with more respect by officers.

They did not find significant differences in how drivers were treated due to perceived race or wealth in stops in which searches were conducted.

Across all stops, the researchers found the more respect they perceived an officer showing to a driver they pulled over, the more legitimate the researchers would tend to rate the stop overall.

The LAPD has not responded to LAist’s request to comment on these findings.

Training AI to tell good traffic stops from bad

After analyzing and manually taking detailed notes on the first 1,000 traffic stops, Graham said the researchers are using what they’ve found to build an AI tool that can do the same thing — but is able to cover vastly more data and is accessible free of charge for any law enforcement agency.

To do this, Graham said team members use their notes as training data for the AI model.

By having humans label a number of things that happened or didn’t happen in videos of traffic stops, Graham told LAist, the AI model they are developing can learn to predict what humans will say about other videos.

“You're trying to train a model to do the same job that a human being does when it watches the video,” he said.

These notes include things like whether a search happened and at what time, whether officers explained the reason for the stop, if the driver complied with requests from the officer and any efforts by officers to de-escalate tense situations.

Graham said other companies have been working on AI tools to sell to departments, as well, but that the Everyday Respect Project is unique in its effort to build community perspectives into the program that will be fully open-source and open-science.

That means anyone can see exactly how the program works and the research behind it.

What could be coming next?

Graham said the Everyday Respect Project will be working through the winter and spring to improve the AI model and use it to analyze more LAPD bodycam videos. Then they will present their new findings to the police commissioners and release their AI model to the public.

It still is uncertain whether LAPD will use the Everyday Respect Project’s AI program once it is completed, but Captain Shannon White of LAPD’s Strategic Planning and Policies Division told the police commission Dec. 16 that the department looks forward to using the group’s research to spark “actionable change within the department.”

The LAPD has not responded to LAist’s questions about whether or how it will use the AI program once it is made available.

Graham told LAist other departments have shown interest in continuing to work with the Everyday Respect Project and the program in the future.

He said they may soon be working with the Rochester Police Department in New York on a trial to find the most effective de-escalation techniques for officers.

“ That's an incredible piece of learning that we can bring to improve policing, to improve officer safety, community safety, the whole nine yards,” Graham told LAist.

As of January, California is the first state in the country to partner with a nonprofit to develop, produce and sell its own insulin as a solution to the widespread unaffordability of the life-saving hormone that helps the body process or store blood sugar from food.

The nonprofit Civica will develop a CalRx Insulin Glargine pen – referred to as “biosimilar insulin,” meaning it references a U.S. Food & Drug Administration-approved product and has no “clinically meaningful differences from their reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency.”

This CalRx pen can be substituted for Lantus and other branded insulin glargine, according to a spokesperson from the state’s Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI).

“California didn’t wait for the pharmaceutical industry to do the right thing — we took matters into our own hands,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in an October news release about the CalRx insulin. “No Californian should ever have to ration insulin or go into debt to stay alive — and I won’t stop until health care costs are crushed for everyone.”

CalRx aims to be another competitor in the field by introducing a lower-cost alternative — and possibly put “pressure on other manufacturers to lower their prices as well.”

According to the state and Civica, the suggested retail price is:

• No more than $30 for a 10mL vial of insulin
• No more than $55 for a 5-pack of 3 mL pens

According to the HCAI spokesperson in an email to KQED, the “out-of-pocket cost may be lower, depending on insurance coverage.”

Advocates for people with diabetes see the production as a win.

“We look forward to the rollout of CalRx® insulin in January,” said Christine Fallabel, director of state government affairs at the American Diabetes Association, in an email to KQED. “Any meaningful step to improve insulin affordability and provide additional options is a win for people with diabetes.”

Fallabel also pointed to the recent passage of Senate Bill 40 — which prohibits high copayments for a month’s supply of insulin — as another state decision that helps with accessibility.

The initiative could provide major financial relief for nearly 3.5 million Californians who have been diagnosed with diabetes, a majority of whom have Type II diabetes – where the body cannot use insulin correctly. Type 1 is when the body produces little to no insulin.

Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes can impact energy levels and organ functions. Insulin shots – or, in some cases, diabetes pills – help with major body functions. The National Diabetes Statistics Report found that 38.4 million people have diabetes – almost 12% of the country’s population.

Read on to learn more about changes to the price of insulin in California, how prescriptions will work and where to find more resources.

What is the predicted price of CalRx Insulin?

Difficulty accessing affordable insulin — specifically buying it — in America is a well-documented and widespread issue due to a market dominated by three major companies.

Insulin is seven to 10 times more expensive in the United States compared to other countries, despite being affordable to produce, according to a 2023 article by the Yale School of Medicine. In fact, it explains that “the same vial of insulin that cost $21 in the U.S. in 1996 now costs upward of $250.”

What should I do if I am paying more than $55?

According to the HCAI spokesperson, “CalRx and Civica cannot mandate the final price to the consumer as this would conflict with antitrust and competition law.”

But the spokesperson stated in the email that Civica is planning to include a QR code on the side of the boxes, so consumers can report if they have paid more than $55 for the product.

“At which point Civica would contact the pharmacy for remediation,” the spokesperson said.

Where can I get CalRx insulin? Do I need a prescription?

You do not need to apply to access the new insulin, and there are no eligibility requirements. You do not need insurance.

“Broad wholesale distribution will allow any California pharmacy to order CalRx insulin glargine,” the state explained in the email. Mail-order pharmacy outreach is still ongoing.

People interested in the CalRx insulin can “ask their pharmacist or doctor if they can switch their prescription to CalRx insulin glargine,” continued the HCAI spokesperson. Since the CalRx insulin is interchangeable with other brand names, you would not need a new doctor’s prescription.

“Health plans will be responsible for communicating about CalRx insulin glargine with their provider and patient networks,” said HCAI.

Can people in other states access it?

According to the HCAI spokesperson, “Yes, Civica Rx’s glargine insulin will be available in other states under Civica Rx’s label.”

Where can I learn more information?

• CalRx website
• CalRx fact sheet
• American Diabetes Association’s Center for Information
• Insulin Basics for Diabetes
• Civica Insulin
• T1International

KQED’s April Dembosky contributed to this report.

The Department of Homeland Security is pausing the immigration applications from an additional 20 countries after an expansion of travel restrictions took effect Jan. 1.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, in a memo released Thursday, said it would pause the review of all pending applications for visas, green cards, citizenship or asylum from immigrants from the additional countries. The memo also outlines plans to re-review applications of immigrants from these countries as far back as 2021.

The list, which is composed mostly of countries in Africa, includes Angola, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

Last month, the Trump administration expanded the list of countries with travel restrictions to the U.S. from 19 to 39, plus the Palestinian Authority. The move comes as the administration is bringing sharper scrutiny of those who have followed legal steps to seek permanent status in the U.S.

"USCIS remains dedicated to ensuring aliens from high-risk countries of concern who have entered the United States do not pose risks to national security or public safety," the memo states as rational for the pause and reviews. "To faithfully uphold United States immigration law, the flow of aliens from countries with high overstay rates, significant fraud, or both must stop."

There are some exceptions outlined in the memo, including athletes and members of their teams competing in the World Cup and 2026 Olympics, both hosted by the U.S. this year.

The administration first suggested it would expand the restrictions after the arrest of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting of two National Guard troops over Thanksgiving weekend.

Towards the end of 2025, DHS began taking steps to further pause and review these legal avenues of migration. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that oversees processing of applications including for visas, naturalizations and asylum, announced it would re-review the status of everyone who had been admitted into the U.S. as a refugee under the Biden administration, essentially reopening those cases.

The agency also previously announced an indefinite pause in all processing of asylum applications while it works through its backlog.

Copyright 2026 NPR