The Brief

California bars utilities from cutting off power to customers who fall behind on their bills when it’s dangerously hot outside — a basic safety protection. Losing power in some rural areas can also mean losing water, and in cities, having no way to cool down can be dangerous, even deadly, when hot weather spans several days.

California regulators concluded more than a year ago that rules protecting delinquent customers from power shutoffs during heat waves weren’t strong enough. They ordered the state’s largest utilities to come up with better safeguards.

When the utilities unveiled their plan in December, their proposals barely changed anything, the commission concluded on Thursday, finding their proposal “does not offer sufficient health protections for ratepayers.”

The commission had set a May 1 deadline for the new rules. Utilities missed it, and consumer advocates filed emergency motions to force action.

As another stretch of dangerous heat gripped the state, the California Public Utilities Commission wrote stronger rules itself. In a 4-0 vote, the commission lowered the temperature at which utilities must stop shutting off power to delinquent customers, from 100 to 90 degrees, and ordered utilities to adopt a more protective, region-specific heat standard within six months.

A battle to define extreme heat 

During a record heat wave two years ago — the hottest July in California history — The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group, asked the utilities commission to revisit its definition of extreme heat. The group’s emergency request argued that “heat kills more people directly than any other weather-related hazard.”

The rules already barred electric utilities from disconnecting residential customers for nonpayment if forecasted temperatures soared above 100 degrees within 72 hours.

But a single statewide threshold, the group argued, didn’t account for how differently Californians experience heat depending on where they live.

Regulators declined to treat the request as an emergency, but ordered the utilities to come up with a plan for changing the 100-degree threshold by working with advocates and others.

The utilities proposed using CalHeatScore, a newly created state tool that scores heat by ZIP code – from Level 0 to 4 – using local health data and historical impacts, taking into account data on nearby cooling centers, as well as the number of children and seniors, who can be more susceptible to extreme heat.

The problem: the utilities proposed setting the cutoff threshold at Level 3 — a higher bar than advocates wanted — and keeping 100 degrees as the backstop when the index wasn’t available.

Advocates filed protests seeking a wider safety net, arguing for a lower Level 2 index score and a 90-degree backup threshold.

Utilities said they could not meet the deadline because CalHeatScore’s own data system, run by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, was not yet ready to support them. Advocates countered that the utilities offered little evidence for sticking with the higher 100-degree threshold.

By May, with utilities still behind schedule, The Utility Reform Network joined with the San Diego-based Utility Consumers’ Action Network, the National Consumer Law Center and the Center for Accessible Technology, asking the commission to intervene.

The commission sides with advocates

This week the commission rejected the utilities’ proposal, siding with advocates. The path the utilities were proposing would be “no different” than prior practice. The resolution noted the extreme heat threshold is already below 100 degrees in 41 of California’s 58 counties.

A 90-degree day might be routine in dry, inland cities such as Bakersfield or Fresno, but such temperatures could be atypically dangerous in coastal or mountainous communities where fewer homes have air conditioning and people are less acclimated to the heat.

San Francisco, for instance, defines heat as extreme when temperatures climb above 85 degrees. In the far northwest county of Del Norte, extreme heat means anything above 76.8 degrees, the commission said.

“A single threshold temperature level needs to be more protective of residents in areas of the state that are not accustomed to high temperatures,” the commission wrote in its resolution.

Utilities move to comply 

While the utilities had wanted a narrower safety net for customers, they are now stressing they will comply with the more protective standard.

Last December, the major investor-owned utilities had together argued that extending protections to consumers at lower heat scores would halt disconnections too often, deepen unpaid balances, and add costs without a comparable health benefit. In a January filing, according to a PG&E spokesperson, the utilities argued that the 90-degree threshold was “overbroad.”

The protections would apply only to shutoffs for unpaid bills. They would not prevent outages caused by equipment failures, wildfire-prevention shutoffs, or other emergencies. Nevertheless, advocates say the changes are important.

“When electricity is shut off to a home, it can have a sort of a cascading effect of problems on tenants,” said Jason Zeller, an attorney with the Utility Consumers Action Network. “If tenants don't have electric service, they can be subject to eviction; if they have children, they can lose child custody.”

Reached ahead of the vote, all three utilities said they were prepared to comply with the commission’s new rules. Edison said the resolution would strengthen protections during extreme heat and that it was ready to change its disconnection policies. SDG&E said it supported the added safeguards and would implement the commission’s final requirements.

“Disconnection is a last resort at PG&E, only after multiple attempts to contact customers and offer payment plans and assistance programs,” said PG&E spokesperson Adrienne Moore. The region-specific standard is expected to be implemented within six months.

The commission’s independent Public Advocates Office had pressed for stronger protections throughout the process, formally opposing the utilities’ plan. Director Linda Serizawa the vote would provide consumers with “protection that takes effect when they need it most.”

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

Among the sweeping victories by Democrats on Tuesday were wins in several congressional districts that Republicans had redrawn explicitly to boost their party ahead of the midterms.

Republicans were bracing for some losses this election cycle, so last year President Donald Trump urged his party to take the extraordinary step of engaging in mid-decade redistricting efforts.

As of Tuesday night, many of those efforts had failed.

That included in Florida, where multiple Democrats — Kathy Castor, Pia Dandiya and Jared Moskowitz — won in redrawn districts, according to race calls by the Associated Press.

In North Carolina, Democratic Rep. Don Davis held on to his 1st District seat, even though Republicans in the state redrew it to be more competitive for the GOP. Trump would have won the redrawn 1st by nearly 12 percentage points, according to the Downballot.

Trump would have won by even more in Alabama's redrawn 2nd Congressional District, which Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures held on to, according to the AP race call.

Republicans in Alabama redid the state's congressional map after the U.S. Supreme Court further weakened the Voting Rights Act earlier this year.

And in Texas, which was the first state to redistrict at Trump's urging, a few of the redrawn districts had gone to Democrats.

Republicans redrew their maps with the expectation that the coalition of voters Trump won over in 2024 would support them this cycle. In Texas, Republicans were banking on gains made with Latino voters in new maps.

But many of those voters shifted their support to Democrats this year.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Nationwide election results came at a relentless pace Tuesday night, each more of a Democratic upset than the last. But you may not have known if you were attending the California Republican Party's election night event in Garden Grove.

In the dimly lit Hyatt ballroom where gubernatorial longshot Steve Hilton and his supporters gathered, the news channels were off, the music was turned up and “Don’t Stop Believin’” blasted throughout.

Minutes after the polls closed at 8 p.m., the Associated Press called the governor’s race for Democratic favorite Xavier Becerra.

Around the room, the occasional person glanced at their phone to sneak a peek at the growing GOP carnage. More of the crowd instead looked at each other or toward the empty stage, where a lectern stood in front of a photo of the Golden Gate Bridge at sunset.

Not long after, Hilton took the stage to concede the race — which had always been heavily favored against him in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-to-1.

“Maybe this isn’t the best year to be running for office as a Republican,” Hilton told his supporters, alluding to the election results that would soon lead the Democratic Party to win so big in the House and the Senate that many dubbed it a blue tsunami. “We see what’s going on around the country.”

Hilton knew the odds were long. He’d tried a number of tactics to win over California, including a suggestive advertisement suggesting voters should “Just Try” voting for him. He’d done his best to separate himself from President Donald Trump, who backed his campaign. He also attacked Becerra for staying largely out of the limelight since making it out on top of a chaotic primary.

None of Hilton’s appeals made a significant mark on the result, which trailed at around 36% of the vote as of Wednesday afternoon.

Standing outside the ballroom, Matt Shupe, a spokesperson for the California GOP, conceded it was challenging terrain for Republicans this year across the country — and always in California.

“It’s pretty typical that the party that's not in power gains some seats, so I think that was pretty expected for the most part,” he said. “We'll plan on bringing the fight more intensely than ever in 2028.”

By 9:30 p.m., people were headed to their cars to go home.

Voters in the city of Los Angeles are poised to pass all eight ballot measures put before them this year — six related directly to charter reform and two that are tied to the aftermath of the Palisades Fire in January 2025.

Proponents of city reform welcomed the results.

“Last night was a phenomenal Election Day for charter reform,” said Diego Andrades, who served as a Charter Reform commissioner. Andrades said he wasn’t surprised the amendments passed, tying voter support to the substantial public input in the process long before Election Day.

For example, Andrades said Measure PRK, which doubles the parks department budget, was “purely recommended by the public.”

“That was something we weren't even looking at,” Andrades said. “Everything that we recommended to the City Council was driven by who we were serving.”

Zev Yaroslavsky, the director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, noted that none of the measures saw much coordinated opposition.

The six measures involving amendments to the city charter (the document that functions as the city’s constitution) originated from the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission’s recommendations to the City Council.

There is likely more to come. City Council members voted in June to leave some of the commission’s more controversial recommendations, including proposals to expand the City Council and implement ranked-choice voting, off the November ballots.

Yaroslavsky, a former L.A. County Supervisor and L.A. City Council member, called the amendments on the road to passing “non-controversial, but important.”

Yaroslavsky pointed to the Charter Amendment LA, which, among other changes, allows the City Council to eliminate or change the Department of Public Works, something Yaroslavsky said the City Council tried to do when he was a member more than 30 years ago. Other amendments, such as giving the ethics commission more authority and expanding the parks department budget, are also welcome changes, Yaroslavsky said.

“They were not ideological charter amendments; they were administrative charter amendments," he said, “but they allow the city to do things that they haven't done before.”

Andrades said the success of the charter amendments builds momentum for the City Council to further some of the other recommendations from the charter commission in future elections.

“The charter amendment process is not finished,” Andrades said. “We will see these reforms on the ballot, and when they are ready, I think we will see voters pass them.”

Two other ballot initiatives stem from the 2025 fires. Measures FD and TE, respectively, seek to expand the Fire Department Budget and cancel the so-called “mansion tax” for victims of the Palisades Fire who sell their residential property until 2030.

Like the charter amendments, these proposals didn’t see much pushback, Yaroslavsky said. As ballots continue to be tallied, here’s a look at how Angelenos voted on each measure:

Note: AP estimates about 67% of the vote was in as of Wednesday evening.

Measure EE

What's at stake

In addition to reducing the number of City Council meetings from three per week to one, Charter Amendment EE makes changes to the Los Angeles City Charter that supporters say will help hold city government accountable. Those changes include increasing the penalty for campaign finance violations, increasing the authority of police and fire department oversight offices, increasing the number of signatures required for ballot referendums and barring ethics commissioners from running for local office for five years following their terms.

Measure LA

What’s at stake

At its heart, this wonky amendment changes how the city manages its budget and oversees infrastructure projects. Charter Amendment LA moves the city from a one-year to a two-year budget cycle, allows City Council to eliminate or change the Board of Public Works while giving the director of Public Works more power, and removes restrictions prohibiting the city from engaging in certain commercial activities. The hope is these changes will make it easier for the city to plan for and execute infrastructure projects.

Measure PL

What’s at stake

Charter Amendment PL consolidates Los Angeles’ seven Area Planning Commissions into a single Neighborhood Appeals Commission and streamlines the city’s planning process. In addition to reducing annual costs for commission staffing and other resources, the changes are meant to simplify the process and shrink the timeline for proposed developments.

Measure PRK

What’s at stake

Charter Amendment PRK doubles the L.A. parks department’s minimum budget over the next 10 years. A city-commissioned study last year found that the department’s budget has grown at a slower pace than other city agencies and that department staffing has shrunk while responsible for more park space and facilities.

Measure PRT

What’s at stake

Charter Amendment PRT adds new members to the Board of Airport Commissioners who live in communities near LAX and Van Nuys Airport, updates the rules around leases for the Airports Department, Department of Water and Power and Harbor Department and adds transparency requirements to Harbor Department leases. Supporters say the changes will increase community influence over major infrastructure and help the city attract more investment around airports and the waterfront.

Measure SC

What’s at stake

Los Angeles Unified school board elections follow much of the same campaign finance rules as mayoral elections, but those rules are spelled out in different parts of the city charter and municipal code. Charter Amendment SC removes much of the language specific to LAUSD elections and applies the same rules as those governing mayoral candidates, with a few exceptions. Supporters say the amendment doesn’t substantively change the election rules, but removes duplicative language in the city charter.

Measure FD

What’s at stake

The L.A. firefighters’ union supported this measure to increase the citywide sales tax by 0.5%. The increase will add an estimated $345 million to a new dedicated special fund that must be spent on Fire Department staffing, facilities, equipment and other “core functions.” Measure FD’s supporters say the department has been underfunded and needs thousands more firefighters to keep up with growing call volume.

Measure TE

What’s at stake

Proposition TE cancels the city’s "mansion tax" for victims of the Palisades Fire who decide to sell their residential property in the wake of the disaster. The mansion tax was created by Measure ULA in 2022, supporters of Proposition TE say voters passed that measure to raise money for affordable housing and homelessness prevention programs, not to punish disaster survivors who sell their homes. The exemption applies to properties owned as of Jan. 7, 2025, and sold until Jan. 6, 2030.

Ask us a question