The Brief

California’s last nuclear power plant overcame a regulatory hurdle on Thursday when the California Coastal Commission voted to approve keeping the plant open for at least five years.

It was one of the final obstacles the controversial Diablo Canyon Power Plant had to clear to continue operating amid renewed opposition. The decision was conditioned on a plan that would require Pacific Gas & Electric, which owns the plant, to conserve about 4,000 acres of land on its property. That would prevent it from ever being developed for commercial or residential use.

The plant, located along the San Luis Obispo shoreline, now awaits federal approval for a 20-year relicensing permit.

“I don’t think, unfortunately, that anything will be happening to Diablo Canyon soon,” due to the growing energy demands of artificial intelligence, Commissioner Jaime Lee said before voting to approve the permit. Nine of the 12 voting members approved the plan.

The deliberations reignited decades-old concerns about the dangers of nuclear power and its place in the state’s portfolio of renewable energy sources. Diablo Canyon is the state’s single-largest energy source, providing nearly 10% of all California electricity.

Defeated in their earlier attempts to shut the plant, critics of Diablo Canyon used months of Coastal Commission hearings as one of their last opportunities to vocalize their disdain for the facility. Some Democratic lawmakers supported the plant but pushed for PG&E to find more ways to protect the environment.

Sen. John Laird, Democrat of San Luis Obispo County and former secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, said on Thursday he approved of the new plan but pushed the commission to require the utility to conserve even more of its total 12,000 surrounding acres.

“If what comes out of this is the path for preservation for 8,000 acres of land, that is a remarkable victory,” Laird said.

Democratic Assemblymember Dawn Addis, whose district encompasses the plant, had also urged the commission in a letter to approve a permit “once it contains strong mitigation measures that reflect the values and needs of the surrounding tribal and local communities who depend on our coastal regions for environmental health, biodiversity and economic vitality.”

A long history of controversy

Founded in 1985, the plant’s striking concrete domes sit along the Pacific coast 200 miles north of Los Angeles. The facility draws in 2 million gallons of water from the ocean every day to cool its systems

And it has remained shrouded in controversy since its construction 40 years ago. Environmentalists point to the damage it causes to marine life, killing what the Coastal Commission estimates are 2 billion larval fish a year.

The commissioners on Thursday were not deciding whether to allow the plant to stay open but were weighing how best to lessen the environmental impacts of its operation. A 2022 state law forced the plant to stay open for five more years past its planned 2025 closure date, which could have led to significant political blowback against the Coastal Commission if it had rejected the permit.

Gov. Gavin Newsom reversed a 2016 agreement made between environmental groups and worker unions to close the plant after the state faced a series of climate disasters that spurred energy blackouts. Popular sentiment toward nuclear energy has also continued to grow more supportive as states across the country consider revitalizing dormant and aging nuclear plants to fulfill ever-increasing energy demand needs.

The 2022 law authorized a $1.4 billion loan to be paid back with federal loans or profits.

Groups such as the Environmental Defense Center and Mothers for Peace opposed the permit outright, citing concerns about radioactive waste, which can persist for centuries, and its cost to taxpayers.

“We maintain that any extension of Diablo is unnecessary,” and that its continued operations could slow the development of solar and wind energy, Jeremy Frankel, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Center told the commission Thursday.

The California Public Utilities Commission last year approved $723 million in ratepayer funds toward Diablo Canyon’s operating costs this year. It was the first time rate hikes were spread to ratepayers of other utilities such as Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric and was authorized by lawmakers because the plant provides energy to the entire state.

How the plant will be funded has also garnered scrutiny in the years since Newsom worked to keep it open. Last year, the Legislature nearly canceled a $400 million loan to help finance it.

As much as $588 million is unlikely to come back due to insufficient federal funding and projected profits, CalMatters has reported.

Proponents of the plant pointed to its reliability, carbon-free pollution and the thousands of jobs it has created.

Business advocacy groups emphasized their support for the plant as boosting the economy.

“It is an economic lifeline that helps keep our communities strong and competitive,” Dora Westerlund, president of the Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation, said at a November meeting.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

California scored another win against the Trump administration in their battle over how to address the homelessness crisis here and nationwide.

A federal judge this week shot down the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2025 attempt to divert money away from permanent housing and instead fund temporary shelters and programs that require sobriety. But the judge stopped short of banning the Trump administration from making such changes in the future.

“The federal court’s decision to reject the Trump-Vance Administration’s attempt to disrupt essential housing services for people experiencing homelessness, including families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, is both appropriate and just,” Renee Willis, chief executive of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, wrote in a news release.

In November, the Department of Housing and Urban Development said jurisdictions applying for about $4 billion in federal Continuum of Care funding can’t spend more than 30% of it on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that for years has been a cornerstone of the fight against homelessness.

Last year, California communities spent about 90% their share of that money on permanent housing.

A group of states, including California quickly sued. San Francisco, Santa Clara County and a group of national homelessness nonprofits filed a separate lawsuit. In December, a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the changes. In February, Congress ordered HUD to renew grants from 2025 under the old rules.

This week, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy partially granted the plaintiffs’ request for summary judgement in both cases. She ruled that the federal agency did not try to foresee the harm its “breakneck” transition away from the country’s longstanding “housing first” model – which prioritizes getting people into housing without first forcing them to seek treatment – would have on the country’s homeless individuals.

“Overall, the actions undertaken by HUD in attempting to hastily eliminate its housing first approach serve as the hallmark of unreasoned decision making,” McElroy wrote.

HUD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ruling wraps up both cases, unless the Trump administration decides to appeal.

But the fight isn’t over. The Trump administration tried again last month, moving to shift 2026 federal funding away from permanent housing and the housing first framework. Housing advocates tried to challenge that latest shift in the prior lawsuit. The judge rejected that attempt, but welcomed the plaintiffs to file a new lawsuit.

The housing advocates said they are weighing their next steps.

Topline:

Where the greatest risks are: Areas around downtown Los Angeles, the San Gabriel Valley, and northern Orange County may see hazardous air on the evening of July 4 due to particle pollution from fireworks, according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Riverside County and San Bernardino could see hazardous air the next day as the particles from fireworks move east and combine with the region’s elevated levels of air pollution.

Other risks: The Inland Empire and most of Los Angeles and Orange counties — that is, nearly all of SoCal — may see unhealthy air at times throughout the weekend, as they do every year.

Why it’s unhealthy: Exposure to particle pollution can cause chronic coughs in healthy people and flare-ups of symptoms for people with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, according to the American Lung Association. If you’re in an area where people set off personal fireworks, the organization said those can be even more dangerous, since they’re closer to the ground and the air we breathe.

What to do: Stay inside if you can, and avoid physical activity outside. Unlike the recent fire at the Lineage Logistics warehouse in Boyle Heights, air quality officials say running air conditioners in your home will help, as will air purifiers, though they recommend against turning on fans that bring in outside air.

Other issues: Visibility in Orange County and the Inland Empire may be low Saturday night due to a soupy blend of high humidity and particle pollution.

How long the advisory lasts: It’s in place from 5 p.m. July 4 until 3 p.m. July 5.

The U.S. telecasts of this summer's World Cup games are drawing a record number of viewers. Fox Sports, which broadcasts the games in English, reports an average of 5 million viewers per match across 72 group stage matches. And Telemundo says nearly half of all World Cup viewers in the country are watching its Spanish language coverage.

Wednesday night, fans celebrated as the U.S. men's national soccer team knocked out Bosnia Herzegovina's team two-nil during the latest round of the Copa Mundial, as it's known in Spanish.

At Café Brasil in Culver City, California, Giselle Rosas and her mother Graciela Reyes, who were both born in Mexico, cheered for the U.S. team, along with Telemundo's famously exuberant announcer Andrés Cantor.

"That's the best part for everybody," Reyes said, imitating Cantor's long "Goooooool" calls.

Rosas noted the growing popularity of soccer in the U.S. "thanks to immigrants," and she said it's more fun to watch the World Cup in Spanish.

"A million percent. We like the excitement," said Rosas, "the feeling, the sentiment, the ambience, it's a night and day difference."

Giselle Rosas and her mother Graciela Reyes cheered for the U.S. men's national soccer team on Wednesday at Cafe Brasil in Culver City.

(

Mandalit del Barco

/

NPR

)

That kind of passion, to date, has translated to an average of 4.6 million World Cup viewers of Spanish-language sportscasts on Telemundo and Peacock streaming services per match, according to NBCUniversal.

"This is the most watched World Cup ever in Spanish language in this country. The numbers are just mind blowing, really," says Miguel Lorenzo, a senior vice president at Telemundo Deportes.

"Basically, half of the country of the United States is watching the World Cup in Spanish on Telemundo. But we also know that only 20% of the U.S. population is Hispanic," says Lorenzo. "We're seeing audiences that are bilingual, that are Spanish dominant, that speak English enjoying World Cup coverage."

According to Nielsen ratings, 20% of Telemundo's World Cup viewers speak English as their primary language. And overall, Lorenzo says the viewership on its telecasts has increased by 122% since the 2022 World Cup Games.

He says excitement has been highest for the winning matches by Mexico and the U.S., and the network's social media platforms have surpassed a record-breaking one billion views.

"I can't tell you how many comments I've seen where people are saying, 'I don't speak a lick of Spanish, but I want to watch it on Telemundo because it just sounds more exciting. And maybe by the end of the World Cup, I'll learn Spanish,'" Lorenzo says. "Joy and excitement and drama: it's language agnostic, it's universal."

Unlike Fox, which runs commercials during hydration breaks for the players, Telemundo keeps its cameras on the field. That's something very much appreciated by fans like comedian Trevor Noah.

"We're seeing the players on the pitch discussing what's happening. You see which coach is more stressed…This is part of the game," Noah said during one of the World Cup parties he hosts on his YouTube channel. "When you cut to ads, you lose the stress, you lose the joy, the anticipation. So shout out again, Telemundo: Really, really amazing coverage."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Drivers are heading into the Fourth of July weekend with national gas prices at their highest level for the holiday in four years. In California, where prices remain well above the national average, the state’s petroleum watchdog has flagged a separate problem — one that goes beyond the state’s shrinking refinery capacity and isolated fuel market.

The last week of May was the Memorial Day holiday, when the Iran-war price spike was near its peak. Chevron stations in California charged an average of $6.34 a gallon that week — the highest of any brand tracked in the state, and 44 cents above the average unbranded station, those that sell gas without a major oil-company logo.

The finding came from California’s gasoline watchdog, a unit inside the state Energy Commission called the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight, which delivered a presentation to a state Senate committee on June 3.

The presentation showed branded stations charged more than unbranded ones in California — a bigger gap than in the rest of the country — and identified major brands’ grip on the retail market as a driver.

California can now see into its gasoline market as never before. But its laws may be fighting the wrong problem.

The state’s existing gas-price oversight laws, pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom earlier in his term, centered on emergency price hikes, refinery outages and California-specific supply disruptions. Newsom backed away from some of the most aggressive measures last year after two California refineries announced closures. Economists say the harder target is a retail market where prices can be shaped by algorithms, supplier contracts and the buying power of the biggest brands.

As another holiday weekend approaches, and the worst of the Iran-war price spike appears to be subsiding, the debate has moved into court and the Legislature.

A federal class-action lawsuit filed last week in Sacramento accuses Kalibrate, a fuel-pricing software company, and several major gasoline retailers of using algorithms and competitor data to keep California pump prices artificially high, citing a state law that took effect this year barring algorithmic price coordination. Kalibrate has denied the allegations.

The lawsuit names several major retailers, including Marathon, which operates ARCO stations; 7-Eleven; WalMart, including Sam’s Club; Circle K and Albertson’s.

The complaint alleges that even small increases in California’s gas market can make huge differences, with every one cent increase costing drivers $134 million a year. It also cites research that using the software can increase prices by 6 cents per gallon, and up to 30 cents per gallon when many stations in an area are using the software.

The suit taps into a longstanding theory: Severin Borenstein, an energy economist at UC Berkeley, has pointed to what he calls a “mystery gasoline surcharge” — the part of California’s high prices left unexplained after taxes, environmental programs and production costs are accounted for — that shows up after gas leaves the refinery.

“The real question is, do they have evidence that the company or the gas stations are using the company to coordinate their activities?” Borenstein said of the suit. “That would be a major antitrust problem.”

On Monday, two Democratic state senators promoted new legislation that would let California’s attorney general investigate gas price gouging during wartime.

“This is not natural market forces at play,” said Senator Ben Allen, of El Segundo, a co-author of the bill. “That’s what we’re here to correct.”

New evidence points to the retail market

Even if the Iran war explains much of the statewide spike, it doesn’t explain why some California stations charge far more than nearby competitors. At a June 3 hearing, Tai Milder, head of the state’s petroleum watchdog, told senators the spike had exposed a separate problem.

“This is a global supply shock, and so it’s affecting the whole country,” Milder told senators. “As prices go up, it’s revealing what we already know, which is we have a branded gasoline pricing problem.”

His division’s data showed that the highest-price stations it examined were all major brands, not unbranded or hypermart stations, even though all gasoline sold in California meets the same fuel standards.

Chevron also charged the highest premium over nearby competitors, the watchdog showed. Milder’s division has traced that gap to how the fuel is bought and sold.

California has an unusually high share of sales through contracts in which a refiner sells fuel directly to a branded retailer at a price the refiner sets, the division’s analysis found. Those contracts can lock branded operators into paying more than unbranded operators for the same fuel.

Jeremy Martin, director of fuels policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, put it more simply: branded stations don’t get to shop around for the best price; they’re locked into buying from whichever refiner supplies their brand.

Chevron spokesperson Ross Allen said the company’s branded stations “compete in a highly competitive marketplace where consumers have many choices” and that most are independently owned, setting their own prices based on local competition and costs. He blamed California’s energy policies, not Chevron’s pricing, for the state’s high gasoline prices.

The Western States Petroleum Association, the state’s industry lobby, said California has fewer gas stations per capita than the rest of the country and fewer unbranded stations.

“Can you name any consumer good where the branded version does not sell at a premium to a generic alternative?” WSPA spokesman Jim Stanley said. “That’s true whether you’re talking about cereal, snack foods, jeans, you name it.”

The governor has made the wartime framing personal. Newsom singled out Chevron by name, accusing the company on social media of using its brand name to overcharge drivers amid wartime oil profits.

The tools California did not use

While California’s gasoline watchdog is finding weak points in the fuel market, the rest of the state’s price tools remain largely unfinished or unused.

After price spikes, Newsom called two special legislative sessions in 2022 and 2024 and pushed through new powers meant to prevent future shocks. The laws created the state’s petroleum watchdog, which has since found an unexplained gasoline premium of about 41 cents per gallon between 2015 and 2024, costing California drivers an estimated $59 billion.

But the laws also authorized more aggressive steps that have not taken effect: a possible penalty on excessive refinery margins, a requirement that refiners keep more gasoline in storage, and a rule requiring them to line up replacement fuel before shutting down for maintenance.

A key reason: two refineries have shut down over the past year. This spring, average gas prices climbed above $6 a gallon as the Iran-Israel war roiled oil markets, and the administration has been working closely with refineries to ensure supply.

The oil and gas sector, always a major lobbyist in California, spent $10.3 million lobbying Sacramento in the first three months of the year, according to California Secretary of State filings. The Western States Petroleum Association and Chevron made up the most of that spending total, respectively spending $4.3 million and $3.7 million.

The most aggressive of the special session tools — the penalty — would have capped the gap between what refineries paid for crude oil and what they charged wholesalers for gasoline. In August 2025, a majority of Energy Commission members voted to shelve the idea for five years, saying they could not conclude that the benefits to consumers clearly outweighed the costs.

That decision has drawn new criticism as refinery margins climb — from 49 cents per gallon in January to $1.24 per gallon in April, according to Energy Commission data cited by Consumer Watchdog. “The problem is we’ve sat on our hands and didn’t develop the tools — so they weren’t there when we needed them,” Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court said. “That was a big mistake, and it cost consumers a lot of money.”

The Newsom administration argues the unfinished tools wouldn’t have shielded consumers from this year’s spike. In written responses to CalMatters, Energy Commission spokesperson Niki Woodard said no state-level policy could protect against a global oil shock the size of the Iran war, and that California’s price increases this year have tracked national trends.

The Energy Commission said it is actively advancing the resupply rule, but has not moved forward with the reserve requirement. Last year, Newsom pushed a major priority of the oil industry through the state Legislature: a measure aimed at boosting domestic oil production in Kern County.

California mulls different gasoline strategies

The spring spike has revived a more basic question: if California will still need gasoline for years, how does it keep a shrinking fuel system stable, competitive and affordable?

One answer is more supply. The Newsom administration is tracking import infrastructure proposals for signs they could boost supply, including a proposed Phillips 66-Kinder Morgan project called the Western Gateway pipeline, which would move refined gasoline from central U.S. refineries into California and Arizona.

Anthony Martinez, a spokesman for Newsom, called Western Gateway “a promising opportunity to bring additional gasoline supply into the state and bolster resilience.”

Other proposals look at the structure of the retail market. A bill by Sen. Henry Stern, SB 1245, could give California more authority to change its unique gasoline blend, a cleaner-burning formula that is difficult to produce out of state, to make it easier to bring in fuel from elsewhere.

Martin, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the blend made sense at its creation. He said its benefits are smaller now because federal fuel standards and cleaner cars have caught up, and its costs are higher because California has less refining capacity and depends more on imports.

The Western States Petroleum Association opposes the idea, saying refiners already spent heavily to produce the cleaner fuel California required, and should not now be punished for making those investments.

The bill, SB 493, authored by Allen and Senator Josh Becker of Menlo Park, would expand California’s price-gouging law by adding war to the list of emergencies that can trigger the state’s 10% cap on raising prices for gasoline and other essential goods, unless the increase is justified by higher costs.

Becker and Stern have not taken any contributions from WSPA or Chevron, according to campaign filings compiled by CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database. Allen received a donation from Chevron in 2015, and none from WSPA, the database shows.

The oil industry sees that as a return to an old fight. Zach Leary, a lobbyist with the Western States Petroleum Association, said California already debated price-gouging penalties during the 2023 special session, and that the Energy Commission decided the refinery-margin penalty could hurt supply, maintenance and consumers.

Becker rejected that comparison, saying SB 493 targets a wartime emergency, not the regulation of refinery margins.

But even Becker, who is proposing a new way to crack down on the industry, stopped short of calling for California to revisit the most powerful tool it has already set aside. Asked whether the Energy Commission should revisit its decision to delay the refinery-margin penalty, Becker called that “a separate process,” and “a separate decision,” one that is in the hands of the Newsom Administration.