Erin Stone
covers climate and environmental issues in Southern California.
Updated June 6, 2025 3:57 PM
Published June 5, 2025 2:34 PM
Members of the public can offer comment on proposed appliance rules at the South Coast Air Quality Management District headquarters in Diamond Bar on Friday.
(
Andrey Deryabin
/
Getty Images/iStockphoto
)
Topline:
Southern California air regulators will vote today on two proposed regulations to curb smog and lessen pollution that’s heating up the planet. The rules from the South Coast Air Quality Management District would gradually phase out gas-powered water heaters and furnaces in homes and businesses.
Why it matters: These appliances may be small, but add them up across millions of homes and businesses and they’re actually one of the largest contributors to Southern California’s notorious smog, according to air district officials.
The background: The rules have been in the works for nearly two years and faced lots of pushback from SoCal Gas and other industry partners, citing affordability and strains on the power grid. Environmental advocates say the rules don't go far enough to protect public health.
Read on ... for more on the rules and how to make your voice heard.
Southern California air regulators will vote Friday on two proposed regulations to curb smog and lessen pollution that’s heating up the planet.
Listen
0:46
As SoCal air regulators try to phase out polluting appliances, the gas lobby fights back
For nearly two years, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates air quality across much of L.A., Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, has been working to update rules to phase out gas furnaces and water heaters, as well as incentivize replacing them with less polluting electric appliances, such as heat pumps.
These appliances may be small, but add them up across millions of homes and businesses and they’re actually one of the largest contributors to Southern California’s notorious smog, according to air district officials. A recent data analysis by climate think tank Rocky Mountain Institute found that gas-burning equipment in homes and businesses in Greater L.A. produce seven times more smog-forming pollution than the region’s power plants.
And buildings, mostly because they’re hooked up to methane gas pipes and appliances, account for about a quarter of the state’s planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions, according to state air regulators.
The rules have been controversial — and faced heavy pushback from industry stakeholders.
Environmental advocates say the rules have been watered down significantly and should be stricter, while the gas industry and its partners say the rules will strain the power grid and raise costs for consumers.
What the rules say
Heat pump heyday
Heat pumps can heat or cool your home, as well as heat water. Since 2021, heat pumps have outpaced the sale of gas furnaces in the U.S.
Since the rulemaking process began in 2023, industry stakeholders have scored wins: The rules have gone from an outright mandate to install zero-emission furnaces and water heaters in new homes and buildings, to a significantly extended and more flexible timeline to phase out these appliances.
As initially proposed in October 2024, the rules would have required that all furnaces and water heaters installed in new residential and commercial buildings be zero-emission by 2026, while existing homes and mobile homes had a little more time to make the switch.
The amended proposed rules 1111 and 1121 would require manufacturers to gradually start selling more zero-emissions furnaces and water heaters: a 30% sales target by 2027, 50% in 2029 and eventually 90% in 2036.
The rules no longer mandate that these appliances be zero-emission by a specific date. Instead, if passed, traditional gas-powered appliances would still be sold, but manufacturers would have to pay surcharges for those units, a cost they’re likely to pass on to consumers.
Air district officials say the rules are still the second-largest cut to pollutants of any rule in recent decades.
A brief history of regulating home appliances
Regulating pollution from home appliances is actually nothing new, though it may seem like it ever since gas stoves entered the culture wars. Home appliances have been regulated for efficiency and pollution since the 1970s. The rules regulating pollution from furnaces and water heaters here in Southern California were first put in place in 1978.
SoCal Gas and business groups double down
In recent months, affected manufacturers and utilities such as SoCal Gas, have pushed back hard on the amended rules, in some cases continuing to call them a ban on gas furnaces and water heaters.
In late 2024, a campaign by industry stakeholders to oppose the amended rules began in earnest, according to records obtained by the Energy and Policy Institute and shared with LAist. Industry groups emailed politicians and government councils with pre-written opposition letters and talking points to reject the rules.
“This is one of the largest efforts by SoCal Gas and other gas-affiliated organizations to delay a rule,” said Charlie Spatz, a researcher with the watchdog think tank.
“It's a lot of the same tactics, which is trying to delay the process and submit as many opposition comments as possible to intimidate the regulators,” Spatz said.
For example, SoCal Gas employees and consultants from BizFed, a coalition of local business and trade groups, sent a flurry of “urgent” requests to local public officials before an AQMD meeting in December, according to the records Spatz shared with LAist:
Dec. 9: A SoCal Gas employee emailed a member of the Ontario City Council asking her to testify at the meeting, sending along SoCal Gas talking points. The rules are “essentially prohibiting the sale and installation of natural gas appliances,” the SoCal Gas employee wrote. The councilmember did end up testifying.
Dec. 17: a SoCal Gas employee emailed a city of Norco official, asking her to testify or submit a letter opposing the rules. He included a sample letter in the email and city officials replied with the opposition letter he’d sent.
That BizFed consultant also drafted a resolution for cities to pass. It misleadingly referred to the older version of the rules. Chino Hills, La Verne, Loma Linda and the San Bernardino Council of Governments ended up passing those resolutions, which incorrectly called the updated proposed rules a “ban” on natural gas furnaces and water heaters.
South Coast AQMD received more than 14,500 comments about the rules. Citing the misinformation regarding a “ban” in many of the letters, staff put together a “myths versus facts” explainer in response.
“Many that opposed the proposed amended rules because they believe the proposed rules will require them to replace their existing NOx-emitting gas units with electric units, including their stoves,” staff wrote in their report for the district board. (Nitrogen oxides, or NOx, are pollutants that contribute to the formation of smog.) “This is in large part due to misinformation provided by outside groups, implying the proposed rules are still a mandate and consumers will not be able to purchase NOx-emitting gas units.”
Bizfed president David Englin defended the effort.
"The end game is a ban," Englin told LAist. "If the goal is ultimately zero emissions, there are a variety of ways to accomplish that, but it really comes down to who pays. We support an all-of-the-above approach."
Ultimately the lobbying and thousands of comments received about the proposed rules delayed the vote by more than four months.
SoCal Gas says the effort is a normal part of the rule proposal process and that the rules could usurp federal law, which is what industry trade groups have argued in an ongoing lawsuit filed by trade groups against the AQMD about a similar law focused on other gas appliances, such as stoves.
“SoCal Gas’ stakeholder engagement and outreach efforts on this topic are a regular part of any rulemaking process where we share information that could affect Southern California customers,” a spokesperson for the utility wrote in an emailed statement to LAist.
On Thursday afternoon, a federal prosecutor threatened to sue the AQMD if it passed the rules.
"California regulators are on notice: If you pass illegal bans or penalties on gas appliances, we’ll see you in court," U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli wrote in a post on X. "The law is clear — feds set energy policy, not unelected climate bureaucrats."
The board of the AQMD is made up of 10 elected officials plus three members appointed by state elected officials.
Suzanne Levy
is a senior editor on the Explore LA team, where she oversees food, LA Explained and other feature stories.
Published April 21, 2026 5:31 PM
The iconic King Taco sign at the original Cypress Park location, which opened in 1974 and is now being considered for Historic-Cultural Monument designation.
(
Suzanne Levy
/
LAist
)
Topline:
The original King Taco restaurant in Cypress Park will become a Historic-Cultural Monument after the L.A. City Council voted 10-0 on Tuesday. Raul Martinez launched the business in 1974, when it started out as a food truck.
Why it matters: King Taco helped establish the template for the modern L.A. taqueria — shifting the city's understanding of tacos from the hard-shell, Americanized version to soft tortillas filled with carne asada, carnitas and tacos al pastor. It's now one of the few designated restaurant landmarks recognizing Latino culinary contributions.
The backstory: Founder Raul Martinez launched King Taco from a converted ice cream truck in 1974, eventually opening the Cypress Park brick-and-mortar location that became the chain's flagship. The business grew to 24 locations across Southern California.
Adolfo Guzman-Lopez
is an arts and general assignment reporter on LAist's Explore LA team.
Published April 21, 2026 4:49 PM
One of the many "personal delivery devices" bots in cities across the U.S.
(
Courtesy Serve Robotics
)
Topline:
They may be cute, but cities are now deciding how to regulate them — and charge them for their use of public infrastructure. Glendale and Long Beach are in the process of creating new rules and fees for personal delivery devices, as they're called, while L.A. is looking at overhauling existing regulations to increase city revenue.
Why it matters: There’s significant growth projected for companies that create and run delivery bots. City officials see that as a source of revenue and are thinking about how to increase it as the bots become more prevalent, potentially charging a fee per trip rather than a flat fee as is current practice.
Why now: Delivery bots perform an essential service delivering products from Domino’s pizza to Walmart purchases. Companies that create the bots say their tech cuts down on the number of car trips making such deliveries.
What's next: Officials in the cities of L.A., Long Beach and Glendale say staff will submit their recommendations for delivery bot regulations in the next several months.
Companies that create and manufacture personal delivery devices, those cute bots you see on public sidewalks, have been working on growth plans for years.
Cities, on whose public sidewalks the delivery bots travel, are only now catching up to regulating them and charging the companies fees.
That's what's happening in Glendale, where, City Councilman Dan Brotman says, “[The delivery bots] just appeared out of nowhere. The company that operates [them] never reached out and talked to us."
He and other council members, he said, want to know if the delivery devices make it harder for Glendale residents using wheelchairs to use public sidewalks.
“I also am curious who is getting the financial benefit from these,” he said.
Glendale’s City Council asked city staff last month to draft two proposals, one with regulations and fees and the other pausing the operation of delivery bots while the council studies their impact. Brotman said staff may deliver those proposals to him and his colleagues in the months to come.
The two largest cities in LA County, at two different stages
The City of Los Angeles approved rules for personal delivery devices a few years ago, including flat permit fees. The City Council has since asked staff in the Department of Transportation to revaluate those rules and make suggestions.
One idea being considered — charging companies for every bot trip instead of the flat fee.
A delivery robot sits next to the bike path by the beach
“[The companies are] starting to put movie ads or show ads, and if they're generating revenue off that, we want to know what that looks like but also be able to have a fee for them,” Hernandez said.
That report should be presented to the City Council later this year, she said.
She’s also keen to hear from the public about their views on delivery bots.
Tell city officials what you think about delivery bots
L.A. residents can give the city their opinion at this link.
Glendale residents can email: CityCouncil@GlendaleCA.gov
Companies that make the devices argue they’re providing an essential delivery service to residents while cutting down on the number of vehicles on the road making the deliveries.
“We currently pay fees in Los Angeles, Chicago and West Hollywood as part of their permit programs and are open to similar models in other cities,” said Vignesh Ram, vice president of policy at Serve Robotics, by email.
Starship Technologies' delivery robot exits the elevator in the company's office.
(
Meg Kelly
/
NPR
)
The company is now operating in Long Beach; Ram says it notified the city before beginning to operate there.
A City of Long Beach spokesperson told LAist its business licensing, planning and public works teams are currently working on recommendations for regulations. Those should be presented to the City Council early this summer.
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
CSULA receives money to expand social work program
By Laura Anaya-Morga | The LA Local
Published April 21, 2026 4:00 PM
When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.
(
Courtesy CSULA
)
Topline:
A $48 million grant to California State University, Los Angeles, will expand the university’s social work and counseling programs, training 1,000 new students to support youth mental health in Eastside communities and other underserved areas of Los Angeles.
How the money will be used: The five-year investment by the Ballmer Group will significantly grow Cal State LA’s Master of Social Work program. Its one-year MSW program will double in size, the two‑year program will increase by 50%, and the School-Based Family Counseling program will also double. The bulk of the funding will support scholarships, new faculty and the expansion of clinical placements.
Why it matters: The need for more mental health workers comes at a time when many Eastside families are facing more barriers to care. Stigma around mental health combined with fear tied to immigration raids have discouraged some people from seeking services. At the same time, financial challenges are making it harder for students to enter the profession. In January, the U.S. Department of Education updated its definition of a “professional degree” and excluded social work, which will affect graduate students’ eligibility for federal student loans.
When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.
“When you know the difference between East LA and Boyle Heights … they appreciate that on a really fundamental level,” Melero, director of field education at CSULA’s School of Social Work, said. “You feel a sense of safety and being seen when the person reflects what you look like, has a foundational understanding of where you come from.”
Now, a $48 million grant to California State University, Los Angeles, will open new opportunities for students to serve the communities they come from. The funding will expand the university’s social work and counseling programs, training 1,000 new students to support youth mental health in Eastside communities and other underserved areas of Los Angeles.
What will the funding do?
The five-year investment by the Ballmer Group — the largest grant in the university’s history — will significantly grow Cal State LA’s Master of Social Work program.
Its one-year MSW program will double in size, the two‑year program will increase by 50%, and the School-Based Family Counseling program will also double. The bulk of the funding will support scholarships, new faculty and the expansion of clinical placements.
Cal State LA already partners with organizations across the Eastside, including El Centro De Ayuda, AltaMed, Survivor Justice Center and schools across LAUSD. The new funding will allow more students to work directly with these groups, serving families who often lack access to care.
“This speaks to the amazing work our social work and counseling programs are doing within our schools and with LA’s agencies serving youth and families,” said CSULA President Berenecea Johnson Eanes in a statement to Boyle Heights Beat. “With more clinical placements and greater numbers of master’s alumni, we will make real strides in meeting a critical shortage of qualified social workers and counselors.”
In addition to CSULA, CSU Dominguez Hills received $29 million to expand mental health resources in South LA and UCLA will use part of its $33 million grant to develop a minor in youth behavioral health. The three universities have received a total of $110 million.
When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.
(
Courtesy CSULA
)
Why representation matters
For Melero, who was born and raised in East LA, the expansion is personal.
Melero spent 17 years of her professional career as a social worker in her own community and the surrounding areas. She witnessed firsthand how much her patients appreciated it when she spoke to them in Spanish or told them where she grew up.
“You don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t have to explain what it’s like, you know, to grow up here,” she said.
Now as director of field education, she helps place students in organizations, clinics and schools across the region, many of them serving the neighborhood they call home.
Barriers to access
The need for more mental health workers comes at a time when many Eastside families are facing more barriers to care.
Stigma around mental health combined with fear tied to immigration raids have discouraged some people from seeking services, Melero said.
At the same time, financial challenges are making it harder for students to enter the profession.
In January, the U.S. Department of Education updated its definition of a “professional degree” and excluded social work, which will affect graduate students’ eligibility for federal student loans, creating a significant financial barrier, according to the Council on Social Work Education.
Students hope to give back
For students like Silvia Perez, 41, financial assistance would be a great help.
The Cal State LA undergraduate student is pursuing her master’s degree after she graduates in May, all while raising two teenagers and a 23-year-old. Perez has been paying for her education by selling shoes and perfume outside of her home in East LA.
Her decision to pursue a career in social work came after seeing her sister navigate the Department of Children and Family Services system with her children and witnessing how young people in her community struggled with substance abuse and homelessness.
After graduating, Perez hopes to work in East LA to help the people she encounters every day. She believes that level of understanding can create trust with an already vulnerable population.
“I would like to help the people in my community first…I live the daily life that everyone else in my community faces,” she said.
For more information on CSULA’s MSW programs, click here.
Editor’s Note: The LA Local also receives support from the Ballmer Group.
People walk past a homeless encampment near the waterfront in downtown Stockton on March 26.
(
Larry Valenzuela
/
CalMatters
)
Topline:
California for now has prevented the Trump administration from changing priorities in homelessness funding to favor temporary shelters rather than long-term housing.
More details: California scored a legal victory Monday that, for now, undermines the Trump administration’s efforts to drastically cut funding for homeless housing. Changes that would have diverted huge chunks of federal funds away from permanent housing and funneled them instead into temporary shelters and sober living programs will remain suspended after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of an earlier court loss. While the broader case is still being litigated, the new development could provide some reassurance to California counties waiting for the federal funds.
The backstory: In November, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to change the way it doles out money for homeless services via its Continuum of Care program. It decreed that jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that can resolve someone’s homelessness.
Read on... for more on the new development.
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Changes that would have diverted huge chunks of federal funds away from permanent housing and funneled them instead into temporary shelters and sober living programs will remain suspended after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of an earlier court loss. While the broader case is still being litigated, the new development could provide some reassurance to California counties waiting for the federal funds.
“We continue to fight for Californians and the rule of law, and we continue to win,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “People experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness need the federal government’s continued support — not a rollback of assistance.”
In November, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to change the way it doles out money for homeless services via its Continuum of Care program. It decreed that jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that can resolve someone’s homelessness.
Last year, California communities spent about 90% of their federal Continuum of Care funds on permanent housing.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quickly joined 19 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to stop the Trump administration’s changes. In December, a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the changes and ordered HUD to process funding applications under the original rules. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, leaving local governments and homeless service providers unsure of what they would be awarded funding for, and when.
The federal government on Monday dropped its appeal. While the rest of the lawsuit will move forward, and could take months to resolve, counties should be able to access permanent housing funds in the meantime.
Instead of prioritizing permanent housing, as has been the rule in the past, the Trump administration wants to focus more on shelters that get people off the streets quickly and temporarily, and on programs that require residents to be sober. HUD also attempted to ban the use of federal homelessness funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.
A HUD spokesperson said the agency stood by its funding reforms.
“HUD remains committed to reforming the failed ‘Housing First’ approach and restoring the Continuum of Care program to its core objectives; reducing homelessness and promoting self-sufficiency for all vulnerable Americans, ensuring taxpayer dollars are directed towards those goals,” a spokesperson said in a statement.
HUD experienced another legal setback last month when a federal judge in Rhode Island shot down the agency’s attempt to upend another, smaller, source of federal homelessness funding. At issue in that case was a program called the Continuum of Care Builds grant, which funds the construction of new homeless housing. HUD last year made grantees reapply under a very different set of criteria, which seemed to disqualify organizations that support trans clients, use “harm reduction” to prevent drug overdose deaths or operate in a “sanctuary city.”
About $75 million in federal funds had been frozen as that case moved forward.
In March, the court found HUD violated the law through its “slapdash imposition of political whims.”
“This ruling is a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs,” Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, which filed the lawsuit, wrote in a statement. “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means.”
