The Brief

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level.

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Some state Republican lawmakers are warning the changes could produce unintended results, such as weakening incentives to conserve electricity or raising costs for customers using solar energy.

But the utility companies say the measure would reduce electricity bills for the lowest income customers. Those residents would save about $300 per year, utilities estimate.

California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal from utility companies.

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024. The proposals come at a time when many moderate and low-income families are being priced out of California by rising housing costs.

Who wants to change the fee structure?

Lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill last summer that mandates restructuring electricity pricing.

The Legislature passed the measure in a “trailer-bill” process that limited deliberation. Included in the 21,000-word law are a few sentences requiring the public utilities commission to establish a “fixed monthly fee” based on each customer’s household income.

A similar idea was first proposed in 2021 by researchers at UC Berkeley and the nonprofit thinktank Next 10. Their main recommendation was to split utility costs into two buckets. Fixed charges, which everyone has to pay just to be connected to the energy grid, would be based on income levels. Variable charges would depend on how much electricity you use.

Utilities say that part of customers’ bills still will be based on usage, but the other portion will reduce costs for lower- and middle-income customers, who “pay a greater percentage of their income towards their electricity bill relative to higher income customers,” the utilities argued in a recent filing.

They said the current billing system is unjust, regressive and fails to recognize differences in energy usage among households,

“When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as energy, housing and food,” Caroline Winn, CEO of San Diego Gas & Electric in a statement.

The utilities say in their proposal that the changes likely would not reduce or increase their revenues.

James Sallee, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, said the utilities’ prior system of billing customers mostly by measuring their electric use to pay for what are essentially fixed costs for power is inefficient and regressive.

The proposed changes “will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households,” he said.

What would the proposed fixed-charge fees pay for?

Revenues from the fixed charges would help cover utilities’ costs to provide customer service, including meters, poles, wildfire preparedness, operations and maintenance, according to the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates private utilities.

The fixed charge would not be the only portion of a customer’s bill. Customers would still be able to lower the portion of their energy bills that is based on usage by doing such things as investing in solar panels or strategically running appliances during non-peak times.

Why is this proposal controversial?

Supporters say it will help lower costs for low-income customers, but critics counter it is unfair to those who have been trying to conserve energy.

Some state Senate Republicans say the proposed utility billing changes would make living in California less affordable and could discourage energy conservation. If energy bills are based on someone’s income and not on how much electricity they use, customers would little incentive to turn off the air conditioner during peak hours, they argue.

Del Mar resident Rosanna Alvarado Martin said she and her husband are both budget and environmentally conscious, so they recently signed contracts to install solar panels on both their Del Mar and University City residential properties.

Now Martin worries her electricity bills will go up no matter how much energy she saves with solar.

“This was really a kick in the gut. The whole thing is just really frustrating,” she said. “We’re looking to retire soon. So we’re looking to have some control over what our expenses are going to be in retirement, and this solar, to me, was one way we could do that.”

On the other hand, Leah Jacobson, a sociology grad student at UCLA, said she’s in favor of the proposed changes because they might bring stability to her monthly bills. A few times her bill has shot up to more than $400 a month, she said.

“There have been a couple times in the last year where our bill has jumped up a couple hundred dollars and we haven’t been able to figure out why,” Jacobson said.

“Thankfully, we were in a position where the amount is usually affordable when it doesn’t jump up like that. But I would hate to think about people who are not using their air conditioning or fans during the summer because they can’t afford it. That’s no way to live.”

Another major issue: data collection. To implement the changes, the state will have to categorize approximately 14 million households into income brackets, and a third-party administrator probably will have to verify their incomes, state and utilities officials say.

Because California’s Employment Development Department and the state’s long-time debit card contractor Bank of America have been plagued by cases of fraud, some critics worry the state won’t be able to keep people’s financial information confidential.

“The proposed fixed charges, without clarity on how Californians’ income will be verified, are not only questionable but also raise concerns about data privacy,” Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a Republican from El Cajon, told CalMatters. The utilities “are not set up to do income verification, nor should they be, as this is a major privacy concern.”

So far Democrats, who passed the bill with the fee-structure changes, have not spoken in a unified way about the proposed changes.

Why are California energy rates so high in the first place?

California’s average retail electricity price is nearly double the national average.

While the state has been at the tip of the spear of the green energy movement with early adoption of wind and solar, it lags behind other states in replacing aging and failing power lines, according to a 2022 audit report to the California Legislature.

And because the state is so spread out geographically, it costs more to build and connect its infrastructure for energy generation, maintenance, distribution and wildfire mitigation. Those costs don’t vary by how much electricity customers use, but they are driven up by climate change as California becomes hotter and drier.

Nevertheless, all three utility companies showed gross profit gains last year. PG&E reported a 3% bump to $16.8 billion in gross profits, which subtract the costs of production from revenues. Similarly, Edison’s $10.9 billion in gross profits was 15% better than the prior year, and SDG&E parent Sempra’s profit, at $9.9 billion, was a 3% improvement. Once all other expenses are accounted for, including such things as lawsuits, depreciation and taxes, both PG&E’s and Edison’s net incomes shrank for 2021.

As more Californians replace their gas-powered vehicles with electric ones, consumption of electricity is expected to increase. Under new state regulations, 35% of new 2026 car models must be zero-emissions, ramping up to 100% in 2035. State officials say the 12.5 million electric vehicles expected on California’s roads in 2035 will not strain the grid.

Are there other proposals?

Among several alternatives, one comes from the Utility Reform Network (TURN), a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization headquartered in San Francisco.

Its proposal, filed with the regulatory agency, also calls for an income-based fixed charge, but at fixed fees much lower than what the utilities want.

The group says the utilities already profit enough from customer fees.

“The (utility commission) has to work out all those details and the devil is in the details,” said TURN’s Executive Director Mark Toney.

The public will have a chance to weigh-in on the proposals by submitting comments online or attending a commission meeting.

Though the state set a 2024 deadline for the commission to establish fixed monthly fees based on customers’ incomes, an administrative judge in the proceedings wrote in a recent filing that the earliest the change could be implemented is the end of 2026.

How much would customers pay?

In the power companies’ joint submission to the California Public Utilities Commission, they suggest these fixed fees for each customer’s income range.

• Households with incomes earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a $15 monthly fee in the Edison and PG&E service territories and a $24 monthly fee in SDG&E service territory. 
• Households earning $28,000 to $69,000 a year would pay $20 to Edison, $30 to PG&E or $34 to SDG&E each month. 
• Households earning $69,000 to $180,000 would pay $51 to Edison or PG&E, or $73 to SDG&E.
• Households earning more than $180,000 would pay $85 to Edison, $92 to PG&E or $128 to SDG&E.

A criminal investigation is underway Tuesday at the burned Lineage Logistics warehouse in Boyle Heights.

Agents with California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control Criminal Investigations Bureau, a law-enforcement unit that investigates potential violations of the state’s hazardous-waste laws, are serving a search warrant at the site. Surveillance video showed law enforcement arriving around 7:30 a.m., and some remained on scene as of midday Tuesday.

An agent with the department confirmed that the Office of Criminal Investigations is the lead agency but declined to comment further. Several investigators with badges from the LA County District Attorney’s office were also present. The office later confirmed it assisted DTSC in serving the search warrant and is supporting the department’s ongoing investigation.

In a statement, Lineage — which operates cold-storage facilities around the world — said that it works collaboratively with various regulatory agencies.

“To be clear, we do not store hazardous chemicals or products in this facility. We store food. Further, the facility’s ammonia refrigeration system was safely pumped out shortly after the fire began and before the fire reached the refrigeration system. The ammonia was subsequently removed from the site. The Los Angeles Fire Department reported no ammonia was detected during its response, and subsequent environmental monitoring has consistently shown results within normal levels for the neighborhood and no ammonia concentrations above health-based action levels. We have shared relevant testing and monitoring information on our website and with regulatory agencies and will continue to do so,” the statement said.

In the weeks after the fire, community testing as well as data from Lineage and the South Coast Air Quality Management District showed elevated levels of ammonia near the warehouse. Community members found the results alarming, though Lineage and regulators stressed the levels didn’t meet the threshold to take action to protect public health.

Last week, Eastside Padres held a press conference outside the warehouse,calling on the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office to open a criminal investigation of the warehouse fire after the Los Angeles Fire Department reported that the cause of the fire could not be determined.

A person who works at the facility said the operation started earlier Tuesday morning. Employees initially believed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were involved, but soon found they were not.

Anna Rivas works at Ciclon Pallets across the street from the Lineage parking lot where agents served the search warrant. A man driving a truck and a large trailer had to expertly back into her garage to pick up a load of pallets, dodging the law enforcement vehicles parked nearby.

The business’s surveillance cameras captured a police vehicle with lights and siren pulling up to the facility at about 7:30 a.m., with about 20 unmarked vehicles approaching soon after and entering the parking lot or stopping to block the entrance.

Rivas said the pallet company had to shut down for about a month and a half around the time of the fire, citing respiratory problems for workers and a loss of business.

“We thought we finally had our space back to do our work,” Rivas said. “But no, here we go again.”

She said the police did not question her or her colleagues, and she added she hopes the neighborhood gets the justice it deserves after months of disruption related to the fire.

In a statement, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said she welcomed the investigation “as a positive step toward the transparency and answers Boyle Heights residents deserve.”

“This community has lived with the consequences of the Lineage warehouse fire for months. Residents deserve to know what happened, what risks remain, and who must be held accountable.”

“Investigators must be able to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and their findings should help give residents the information they need about their health, safety, and the future of this site. I will continue pushing for those answers, a safe and complete cleanup, and accountability for any violations uncovered. Boyle Heights should not be left to shoulder the consequences of this disaster.”

The office of Mayor Karen Bass also acknowledged the investigation, stating:

“The residents of Boyle Heights and East L.A. deserve environmental justice and corporate accountability. Mayor Bass has been working with many agencies to protect this community. In her emergency executive order, Mayor Bass called for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to investigate and pursue enforcement action at the Lineage warehouse.”

The fire at the cold storage warehouse broke out on June 17 and burned for eight days. The fire and cleanup of millions of pounds of rotting food caused a flood of issues for residents living in Boyle Heights, East LA and surrounding communities, including an infestation of flies and pests, nausea and headaches, higher utility bills and other health concerns.

The Los Angeles Fire Department could not determine the cause of the fire but said solar panels could not be ruled out as an ignition and fuel source.

Boyle Heights Beat reporter Laura Anaya-Morga contributed to this report.

Eva Marie Saint, the pale, willowy actor who won an Academy Award for her first movie, “On the Waterfront,” and starred opposite Cary Grant in the Alfred Hitchcock thriller “North by Northwest,” has died. She was 102.

Saint, whose acting work lasted well into her 90s, died at her home in Los Angeles on Tuesday, confirmed family representative Jeff Sanderson.

Saint had one of the most spectacular debuts in Hollywood history, as the love interest of Marlon Brando’s tormented Terry Malloy in “On the Waterfront,” and her first trip to the Academy Awards was memorable too. Pregnant with her first child, Saint accepted her Oscar from Frank Sinatra and smilingly murmured a unique winner’s speech: “I think I may have the baby right here.” (Her son, Darrell, was born two days later.)

The award for the 1954 classic made her an instant star, but she soon astonished Hollywood with a firm independence that would mark her career. She refused offers of studio contracts and declined chances to follow up on her great success, explaining that she was taking time off to become acquainted with her new son. (A daughter, Laurette, was born in 1958.)

A curated career

In her first decade in Hollywood, Saint appeared in a mere seven films. She declined such top-level productions as “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit” with Gregory Peck, “Summer and Smoke” with Laurence Harvey and “The Rainmaker” with Burt Lancaster. She credited her husband, TV and stage director Jeffrey Hayden, with persuading her to star in Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest,” the classic 1959 thriller in which Saint plays a spy who seduces Grant, but ends up falling for him.

“I vividly remember him saying, ‘Honey, I think you should find a quiet spot. I’ll take care of the children and I want you to really think about this and reread this script,’” she told Vanity Fair in 2014. “He was so right. And that’s what husbands are for.”

Instead of being put off by her selectivity, studios continued offering her starring roles in such films as “Exodus” (with Newman), “Raintree County” (Elizabeth Taylor, Montgomery Clift) and “All Fall Down,” with Warren Beatty.

She turned more to television in the 1970s and enjoyed renewed popularity in the 1980s as the mother of Cybill Shepherd in the hit sitcom “Moonlighting” and as Tom Hanks’ mother in the film comedy “Nothing in Common.” She won an Emmy for the 1990 miniseries “People Like Us,” and had roles in such 21st century movies as “Because of Winn-Dixie,” “Superman Returns” and “Winter’s Tale,” adapted from Mark Helprin’s novel of the same name. In 2021, she played Marisa Tomei’s aunt in the brief audio play “The Bus Ride,” part of “The Pack Podcast.”

Saint was married to Hayden for 55 years, until his death in 2016.

That was her real name

When Saint emerged in the public consciousness, many believed her theatrical-sounding name must have been invented. She was born with it on July 4, 1924, in Newark, New Jersey. The family moved to Delmar, a small town near Albany, New York, where her father was a Goodrich Rubber Co. manager. Eva’s goal was to become a third-grade teacher like her mother, but at Bowling Green State University in Ohio she tried out for a play and won the leading role.

After graduation she lived with her parents in Flushing, Long Island, and began hunting for acting jobs in Manhattan. After a fruitless year, she landed a two-line role as a telephone operator on a radio drama and soon was working steadily on soap operas and nighttime dramas, appearing for two years as Claudia on “One Man’s Family.” Network television was booming in the early 1950s, and her looks and dramatic sense made her a favorite with casting people and producers.

She credited Lee Strasberg with helping her overcome shyness

A critical turn in Saint’s career came when she auditioned before Elia Kazan and was accepted into the Actors Studio, which shaped a generation of method-actor stars. She credited acting coach Lee Strasberg with helping her overcome her shyness.

“Lee Strasberg, when he got to know me a little bit, gave me a scene to do where I had to cry in front of my peers,” she told The Santa Barbara Independent in 2009. “I worried about it, I worked on it, I tried to use what I was learning at the studio. I finally did the scene, and I cried, and my peers were crying with me. It was just an incredible moment for me.”

Saint was rejected for the single female role in the play “Mister Roberts,” but was hired to understudy the actor chosen, Jocelyn Brando, Marlon’s sister. In six frustrating months Saint never got to substitute for Brando. She finally made it to Broadway in “A Trip to Bountiful,” which she had played on television.

Kazan invited her to try out for the female lead in “On the Waterfront” by improvising a scene with Brando. She was told to try to stop a young man from entering her apartment. She told the Los Angeles Times in 2001: “All I know is that Marlon got in the door and turned on the music. We started dancing. He flicked my skirt. Kazan saw the sparks fly, and that’s how I got the part.”

Thomas, a former Associated Press Hollywood correspondent who died in 2014, was the primary writer of this obituary.

California’s school finance watchdog agency has found the Los Angeles Unified School District is at high risk of financial insolvency.

The Financial Crisis and Management Assistance Team presented its analysis at Tuesday’s school board meeting.

A July assessment from the Los Angeles County Office of Education found LAUSD was at risk of becoming insolvent, which triggered FCMAT’s evaluation.

“FCMAT’s role is not to determine which programs the district should preserve, which reductions it should make or what agreements it should reach with the labor [unions],” Jennifer Noga, an intervention specialist with the agency, told the board. “That is 100% a local decision. Our goal is to help identify the fiscal risk and help the district understand what needs to be addressed to restore fiscal stability.”

The analysis found that LAUSD's deficit spending, declining enrollment and increasing costs of employee salaries and special education put the district at risk of exhausting its reserves by the end of next school year.

United Teachers Los Angeles, the union that represents LAUSD educators, said in a memo to the board and in public comments that FCMAT’s analysis penalized the district for paying teachers more and overstated financial risk.

“There are different ways to tell a story with numbers and statistics and data, and we just think that FCMAT is presenting the most austere version of that and we have to fight back against that,” said Julie Van Winkle, the union's vice president. “There is declining enrollment in the district, and who is going to want to put their kids in schools if we keep cutting programs because of austerity?"

The district has a plan to cut spending, which includes eliminating thousands of jobs and funding for high-needs schools. The district must also bargain with employee unions before implementing furlough days planned for the 2027-28 school year.

More than 100 cannabis businesses in L.A. that were expected to lose their licenses at the end of the year may be able to stay open after a City Council vote Tuesday.

A city ordinance that took effect in August would only have allowed cannabis businesses to renew their licenses if they owed less than $1 million in unpaid city taxes and had been delinquent on their taxes for less than four years.

The limits were set to get more strict each year until 2030, when businesses would need to owe less than $100,000 in unpaid taxes.

The City Council voted to delay the restrictions for one year because a separate program intended to provide an exception to businesses who agreed to follow a tax payment plan could not begin on time.

There are more than 1,000 licensed cannabis businesses in the city of L.A., according to the Department of Cannabis Regulation, and 125 of those would not have been eligible to renew their licenses had Tuesday’s vote not passed.

In October 2025, City Treasurer Diana Mangioglu reported that 500 cannabis businesses owed a total of $500 million in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. Of those businesses, 48 owed more than $2 million.

Owners of many cannabis retailers, manufacturers and distributors have asked local government leaders for help as they face higher taxes than most industries and strong competition from unlicensed businesses — which pay no taxes and typically sell at a lower price in the illicit market.

Evelyn Scott gave public comment during the City Council meeting and said these challenges led her business to close.

“Losing our license will make it even harder to reopen, generate revenue, create jobs and meet our obligations to the city,” Scott said.

What is the tax amnesty program?

When the city enacted licensing restrictions based on cannabis businesses’ unpaid taxes, local officials also intended to make a pathway for delinquent businesses to come back into compliance.

The cannabis tax amnesty program allowed for some businesses that would otherwise be prevented from renewing their licenses to agree to a payment plan that could last up to five years. If the businesses kept to the agreement, they could continue to renew their licenses, would have penalties and interest on unpaid taxes forgiven and wouldn’t face criminal charges for not paying those taxes on time.

Could the agreements help the city?

L.A.’s Office of Finance, which is in charge of the program, estimates it could bring in $10 million in city tax revenue in the first year.

But it wasn’t possible to start the program for 2027 licenses, according to Matthew Crawford, assistant director of the finance office.

He told LAist in an email that the office wouldn’t be able to begin the program in time without exposing the city to “unacceptable levels of risk to both [a tax administration] system replacement project and the integrity of the amnesty program.”

Crawford said the finance office still expects the city to receive the same amount of revenue once the program begins.