The Brief

Weldon Kennedy and his wife make it their business to keep up with California’s fast-changing clean energy landscape. So when the climate-conscious couple began planning to add a solar system to the roof of their Oakland home, they took their time to talk to installers and shop around for the best deal.

But then, last spring, he heard that a neighbor had decided to accelerate their solar project. Other homeowners in the area were rushing to get in line, too.

“I don’t think I fully understood the scope of it, but I had people telling me, ‘You better get going, get your solar now,’ ” Kennedy said. “It seemed like a bunch of tomfoolery was coming down.”

Kennedy’s neighbors and other consumers were reacting to a profound policy shift in California: The state Public Utilities Commission in late 2022 slashed by about 75% the rate that utilities pay homeowners with new solar panels when they sell surplus power to the grid. The rate structure went into effect for solar applicants beginning last April.

The state’s decision has caused consumer demand for residential solar to plummet since the new rate took effect. Solar companies say they’ve been shoved to the edge of a cliff, forcing them to lay off workers or even shut down.

Experts worry that the steep decline could stall the state’s battle against climate change. Solar power is critical to meeting California’s ambitious requirement to switch to 90% carbon-free electricity in 2035 and 100% in 2045. Large-scale and rooftop solar is projected to provide more than half of the grid’s power by 2045.

The imminent change in payments to customers drove a three-month surge in homeowners applying for solar connections leading up to the deadline. But then came a 90% decline last May compared to May of 2022, according to state data for areas served by Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric.

In all, about 82% fewer customers applied for solar connections from May through November of last year compared to a year earlier. Fewer than 4,000 customers applied in November, the last month with available data.

Now California’s utilities and solar companies have to wait to see if these declines are short-term or permanent.

Deepak Rajagopal, an energy economist at UCLA’s Institute of Environment and Sustainability, said it’s no surprise that consumers balked at going solar after the reimbursement rate changed from what he called the “generous” system. He said the higher payments were a burden on people who don’t have solar.

“It is a given, demand is going to slow down. The overall effect will be a slowdown in the rate that people will demand rooftop solar. Over time it may come back up, but it’s hard to tell,” he said.

Questions about the impacts remain: How will California meet its climate change goals without a healthy and growing residential solar market?

And can Gov. Gavin Newsom’s vision of making clean energy affordable to disadvantaged communities become a reality with fewer companies and lower reimbursements?

“The state is betting so strongly on power from rooftop solar. They will have to recalibrate,” Rajagopal said.

Rajagopal intended to install a solar system at his newly purchased house. But like many Californians, he missed the April deadline to get in on the higher payments.

“I just had very few months to decide, and now I’m cursing myself that I didn’t find the time to quickly sign up,” he said, adding that he will wait to see what happens before installing solar.

The new rule’s impact on the solar industry has been immediate. As many as 17,000 solar workers in California might have lost their jobs by the end of last year, according to industry estimates.

“The market is in the gutter,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association, an industry group. “It should be no surprise to anybody. If you are a business and your market took a 80% nosedive, with great pain you have to lay off. Some companies shut their doors.

“We are talking about the largest solar market in the country,” she said. “This was the most impactful energy decision, easily, for this century so far.”

The utility commission rule was hotly debated and ultimately passed by unanimous vote. Part of the agency’s rationale was about equity: Because solar customers, largely middle class or wealthy, are being paid near-retail prices for their excess power, they are not paying their fair share of fixed costs to maintain the state’s grid, saddling other ratepayers with higher bills. That burden, regulators said, disproportionately falls on low-income households that can’t afford solar panels.

The utilities commission said the high rates paid to solar customers amounted to a subsidy, and that state incentive programs for installing battery storage systems alongside rooftop solar would provide better, longer-term value for ratepayers.

Solar panels on a home in Ladera Heights, a community southeast of Los Angeles.

(

Lauren Justice

/

CalMatters

)

The new rates only apply to new solar installations and only for the customers of PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric.

It’s not just homes: The utilities commission in November voted to expand the lower payment rates to commercial businesses and multi-family homes that install solar panels.

A spokesperson for the Public Utilities Commission did not answer CalMatters’ questions about the impact of the recent steep declines in solar projects or the job losses in the industry, and declined to make anyone available for an interview.

Instead, in a statement, the agency said residential solar installations have increased 16% a year over the last five years, and that 2022 saw an increase because solar customers and companies were rushing to beat the changes in rates.

More than 255,000 applications for new residential solar projects were reported in PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric areas last year.

“California leads the nation in supporting the solar industry, and has provided billions in rebates and incentives since 2006,” the commission said in its statement.

PG&E, the state’s largest utility, said in an email response to CalMatters’ questions that it received a record number of solar connection applications in 2023, a 20% increase from the previous year and “unprecedented volume” in the four months before the rate change. The company spokesperson did not answer questions about the downturn.

‘This is 100% a job killer'

’Solar industry executives say California’s rate changes are affecting low and middle income homeowners, where rooftop solar had begun to gain inroads. The Berkeley Lab reported that in 2022 about 45% of solar adopters nationwide were below a threshold used to define low and moderate income. In California, household incomes between $50,000 and 100,000 are the largest segment of solar customers, the report found.

As the solar market has matured, costs have come down, allowing homeowners of modest means to adopt solar systems and lower their utility bills.

“Rooftop solar is not just the wealthy homeowners anymore,” said State Sen. Josh Becker, a San Mateo Democrat. “Central Valley people are suffering from extreme heat. The industry has been making great strides in low-income communities. This (utilities commission decision) makes it harder.”

The utilities commission has $280 million in an “equity fund” to assist low-income consumers. None of the money has been spent yet; the agency said it would soon release a plan for operating the program.

Solar can still make financial sense for homeowners who can afford the upfront costs and wait out the return on their investment. Federal tax credits can cover 30% of the installation cost. And as their use of power from the grid declines and they get paid for excess power, customers generally expect to have their new solar system paid off in six to eight years, according to the utilities commission. It's faster for installations that include battery storage.

Some solar company owners said the new rules extend the payback period to 10 years or more. One installer said some of his customers would go from being paid 30 cents a watt for selling excess power to 4 or 5 cents a watt.

The job losses are being acutely felt in the small communities where careers in clean energy are a pathway into good-paying jobs for women and people of color. The average salary for a solar installer in California is $70,000, Del Chiaro said.

“These jobs have been a foot in the door for people who have been in the justice system, their lives have changed,” said Adewale OgunBadejo, vice president of workforce development for the Oakland-based non-profit Grid Alternatives, which focuses on underserved communities for clean energy projects.

“This is 100% a job killer.”

Solar energy gave Ken Wells a second chance. Wells was raised amid gangs and few options in South Los Angeles. When his friend was killed by a rival gang, the 15-year-old Wells got a gun, carjacked a vehicle and led authorities on a high-speed chase. He was tried as an adult, found guilty and served six years in prison.

Carrying the indelible tag of a felon, Wells worked his way through bootstrapping programs to gain training in something that might help disadvantaged communities: bringing clean energy and low utility bills to his neighbors.

By 2017, Wells started his own company, O&M Solar Services. He was making a great living and created jobs for 20 employees. They are now all laid off.

“We need to transform our communities not just with clean energy but with these jobs,” said Wells, 35. “When I hear the policies coming out of Sacramento, I am floored. Why? We are talking from both sides of our mouth?

“On the one hand we want to promote clean energy and on the other hand we are shutting it down. We cannot afford years of setting back the solar industry, just cutting it off at the knees with these policies. These policymakers got it wrong.”

Ken Wells of O&M Solar Services in Los Angeles walks outside a home with solar panels in Ladera Heights.

(

Lauren Justice

/

CalMatters

)

Other factors also are at work to stall an industry that had just recovered from COVID-19 shutdowns. Interest rates have made it difficult for small companies to grow and for homeowners to borrow money to pay for systems that can start at $30,000. The extension through 2030 of a federal tax credit, which had been scheduled to be phased out this year, may have removed the urgency for some consumers.

For small companies like Wells’, even small blows land hard. So far his customers are waiting to see if things change.

“I don't know what the future holds,” he said. “Here in South Central, it’s a solar desert. You are not getting the community excited, looking to transition to clean energy. It’s going to get worse.”

Carlos Beccar, marketing manager for Energy Concepts in Fresno, said the company, which has been in business for 30 years, has recently laid off half of its workforce. Beccar said 60% of the firm’s installations in the last five years have been in ZIP codes where the median household income is lower than the market average.

His service area covers neighborhoods that experience extreme heat, where it’s common to see utility bills averaging $800 in the summer months, he said. “This policy was a bat to the knee, not a soft punch to the gut,” he said.

Susan Stephenson, executive director of California Interfaith Power & Light, an Oakland-based organization that advocates for clean-energy adoption in houses of worship, said the new policy “made it difficult (for some churches) to pencil out,” she said.

“Solar can be a solution that eventually pays for itself. Now with this change, they have to look harder and longer.”

Not all congregations can afford the upfront costs or wait years to recoup their investments, Stephenson said. Until recently, tax-exempt religious organizations couldn’t take advantage of federal solar tax credits, making the state’s reduced payments a real blow, she said. That policy has changed, but many nonprofit organizations have yet to navigate the new rules and even the 30% direct payment may not make up for the reduced reimbursements.

“Ironically, it's going to make solar less equitable and less accessible,” Stephenson said. “There are good people who work at the PUC who want to do the right thing. It's unfortunate they made this decision based on information from utilities that perhaps did not give the full picture. We could see the very equity goals they were trying to achieve being harmed. I hope they will reconsider.”

Becker, the state senator, said “where’s the just transition for the laid off solar workers?” noting efforts to create a fund to assist workers in the state’s oil industry who lose their jobs.

Ross Williams has owned HES Solar in San Diego since 2013. After the pricing decision, sales “fell off a cliff,” he said. “We sold 600 deals in the first quarter of the year and in the month of May we made one deal. That’s how dramatic it was, the disruption was so insane.”

LIke many other solar installers, his company now does roofing jobs and is considering expanding into Nevada and Arizona in search of customers.

“We are a small company and we don't have massive cash reserves we can stand on for years,” said Williams, 41. “I used to think we could weather this, that demand will come back. So far nothing I thought was going to happen has happened. My crystal ball is way off.”

Asked what his message is for policymakers, Williams said, “Was that your intent for me, to be a roofer and move to Arizona? Thanks, California.”

Billionaire Leon Black on Wednesday filed a federal defamation lawsuit against California Rep. Robert Garcia for public comments the Democratic congressman made tying him to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The court filing comes less than two months after the House approved a resolution holding Black in contempt of Congress for defying the Oversight Committee’s subpoenas in its investigation into Epstein.

In June, Black appeared for a voluntary interview at the committee during which he denied any knowledge of Epstein’s sex trafficking network.

Weeks later, Garcia said during a TV interview that “Leon Black is at the center of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes” and that Black “was one of the last people to actually interact” with Epstein before he committed suicide in prison.

In addition, Garcia said that he had “talked to survivors that have credibly named Leon Black as someone that was involved in direct abuse of women and was directly involved” with Epstein.

Those statements were false and were made maliciously, Black asserts through his lawyers. The defamation lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeks a jury trial and $7.25 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

“Congressman Garcia’s knowing lies have caused real and significant ongoing harm to Mr. Black. His physical safety has been threatened, he has received a barrage of hateful calls, emails, and social media posts, and his business and philanthropic endeavors have suffered,” the filing states.

Garcia’s office didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit.

In September, Garcia called the contempt resolution against Black “an important step toward justice and accountability.”

Black had refused to respond to subpoenas asking him to appear and to turn over any potential nondisclosure agreements involving the investigation into Epstein.

Black’s lawyers have repeatedly denounced the Oversight Committee’s pursuit of the former head of a private equity firm as an abuse of congressional power. They have maintained he had no knowledge of any of Epstein’s criminal conduct.

Black was among several prominent figures, including Bill Clinton and Bill Gates, who had been asked to appear as part of the Oversight Committee’s long-running probe of Epstein. Survivors of Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse have told personal stories of being young women in a trafficking enterprise organized by Epstein and his colleague Ghislaine Maxwell.

Black co-founded the private equity firm Apollo Global Management and stepped down in 2021 during the fallout over his ties to Epstein.

Lawmakers have alleged that Black paid Epstein $180 million during their yearslong relationship.

A 2021 review commissioned by Apollo found that Black paid Epstein $158 million from 2012 to 2017, after Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The review said the payments were for “bona fide tax, estate planning and other related services.”

Chemical manufacturer 3M will pay up to $7.35 billion to settle lawsuits by people who say they were sickened by groundwater contamination from compounds used in firefighting foam and other consumer products.

The St. Paul, Minnesota-based company announced the settlement Tuesday. It will pay the money over nine years to as many as 120,000 people who say they were harmed by exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known collectively as PFAS. The chemicals contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports and other locations where the foam was used to extinguish fires.

3M did not admit liability for the contamination under the agreement.

Called “forever chemicals” because they don’t degrade naturally in the environment, PFAS have been linked to health problems including liver and immune system damage and some cancers. The chemicals are also used in nonstick, water- and grease-resistant products, including clothing and cookware.

3M chairman William Brown called the settlement a “significant milestone” that substantially reduces uncertainty from the litigation. The company previously reached settlements in other PFAS-related lawsuits, including a $450 million agreement with the state of New Jersey to settle claims of natural resource contamination and a deal to pay more than $10 billion to many U.S. public drinking water systems.

Other manufacturers, including DuPont de Nemours Inc. and spinoffs Chemours Co. and Corteva Inc., have agreed to settlements totaling more than $1 billion to resolve PFAS claims.

Fred Thompson, an attorney with the Motley Rice law firm that helped negotiate the 3M settlement for the plaintiffs, called it welcome news for “the thousands of victims who have sought answers and accountability for nearly a decade.”

He said in a news release that the plaintiffs urgently need help covering mounting medical bills and other costs.

Under the terms of the settlement, the payouts will begin with $50 million this year, followed by yearly payments of more than $1 billion each year from 2028 to 2033.

3M could make additional payments if enough plaintiffs participate. If too few sign on, 3M has the option to cancel the settlement and continue fighting the lawsuit.

Environmental activists say PFAS manufacturers knew about the chemicals’ health risks long before they became public. They noted that the same attributes that make the chemicals so valuable in many uses — resistance to breakdown — also make them hazardous to people.

The Environmental Protection Agency has set strict limits on PFAS in drinking water from public utilities and requires testing, but those rules do not apply to private wells.

A study that would help federal regulators understand which industries dump the forever chemicals with their wastewater has been stalled for two years, awaiting review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Democrats' big wins in these midterm elections couldn't have happened without some massive voter shifts.

Young voters, Latinos and Asian Americans, urban and suburban voters, men and independents all moved heavily to the left.

One of the sharpest turns in this election was by Latinos. And Democrats had their best performance with white voters in years

In 2024, President Trump won a record share of Latino votes for a Republican presidential candidate. But they took a sharp left turn in this election after Trump's promises of lower prices never came to fruition and his administration's harsh deportation tactics backfired.

Latinos swung 21 points toward Democratic House candidates, compared to two years ago.

Asian Americans also sharply diverged from 2024, also going 21 points more in Democrats' favor, from a 22-point advantage to a whopping 43.

Democrats even tied with white voters. To put that in perspective, Democrats haven't won white voters in a presidential election since 1964. Since then, they came closest in 1992 and 1996 when former President Bill Clinton lost them by 2 points both times and then in the 2006 midterms when Republicans won them by just 4.

By age, it was a sharp boomerang, particularly with voters 18 to 29

Democrats won this group of young voters by 48 points, a 34-point swing from two years ago.

To put in context just how dramatic of a margin that is — it's wider than for former President Barack Obama in 2008 when he won the youngest voters by 34 points. The difference in 2008 is they were 18% of the electorate, compared to 11% in this midterm.

Young voters traditionally have the biggest turnout drop from presidential to midterm elections of any group, so there are likely many Republican-leaning 18- to 29-year-olds who simply stayed home.

Democrats also won by huge margins with urban and suburban voters

Urban voters swung by 25 points in their favor, while voters in the suburbs, who had voted narrowly for Trump in 2024, went for Democrats by 19 points.

But Democrats can't win in red states without minimizing losses in small towns and rural areas. Democrats lost them by 16 points this year, a 16-point shift in their favor, compared with 2024, when they lost them by 32.

Democrats won men for the first time since 2008

Women were the fuel for Democrats' wins in these elections. They broke by 19 points for Democrats, 13 points wider than in 2024 and the best mark for the party since Trump's first midterm.

But the shift with men was notable. Democrats won men by 2 points, a 16-point shift from 2024 and the first time the party has won men since 2008. It's only the third time in 34 years that Democrats have won men.

The other time was in 1992 when Bill Clinton won them by 3 points, and that was with a third-party candidate in the race, Ross Perot, who won 19% of the national popular vote.

Republicans saw their worst performance with independents since at least 1998

The number to watch heading into Tuesday night for Republicans was 46%. That was the mark they needed with independents in order to do well. When they have hit that threshold in the Trump era, they have done well, winning the presidency in 2016 and 2024 and making gains in the House in 2022.

But when they were below it, they didn't do well, losing more than 40 seats in the House in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.

In these midterms, they didn't even get close. They only won 38% of independents, their worst mark since at least 1998 when independents viewed the impeachment investigation against Clinton as politically motivated and an overreach.

The only other time that comes close was in 2006 when they only won 39% of independents, and Democrats, like this year, won both the House and Senate.

More graphics from the voter poll

Methodology

2026 data comes from a poll of tens of thousands of voters, conducted by the firm SSRS for a number of news outlets, including the Associated Press. The full sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.6 percentage points. Data may shift as votes and exit poll analysis are finalized.

2018-2024 data comes from exit polls conducted by Edison Research (now Edison Research at SSRS) for a number of news outlets. NPR accessed all data via results posted by CNN and ABC News.

2026 data combines results from in-person exit poll responses and a pre-election survey of voters, while 2018-2024 data combines results from in-person exit poll responses and responses from early and absentee voters.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Longer wait times for graffiti removal and streetlight repair. Fewer police officers per shift. Completely eliminating school crossing guards.

Those are just some of the service cuts the city of South Gate made earlier this year as it stared down a $9.4 million annual budget deficit and a looming fiscal emergency.

But none of that was enough to convince South Gate voters to approve an 8% utility user tax that would have been tacked onto a wide range of utility bills, including electricity, water, cable and phone service. Now, the city is gearing up for more cuts, including closing sports fields and the city pool for the winter months.

South Gate’s utility tax was just one of the many ways Southern California cities asked their residents to give them more money via local tax initiatives this November, with proposed taxes on everything from hotel stays to cannabis businesses.

And those early results suggest South Gate is an outlier: Of the 32 total local tax measures on the ballot in Los Angeles and Orange counties, all but six appear poised to pass, according to early results. (There are still several more days of vote counting to come.)

Eleven transient occupancy tax measures, which tax overnight stays in hotels or short-term rentals, passed in cities from Burbank to Los Alamitos. Most cities sought to increase their existing hotel taxes by anywhere from 1 to 5 percentage points, while Lynwood residents voted to establish a hotel tax for the first time.

Business-related taxes, such as taxes on business licenses or on certain businesses, also mostly passed, as did most parcel taxes in cities including Pasadena and Culver City.

But sales taxes saw more mixed results. Cudahy, San Gabriel, Orange, Santa Ana and Los Angeles all approved sales tax measures, while voters in Diamond Bar, Hermosa Beach and San Clemente all voted down their local sales tax proposals.

Most of those sales taxes focused on maintaining basic city services in communities facing big budget deficits, driven by the rising costs of insurance, maintenance and infrastructure projects, and employee pensions, among other factors. But in San Clemente, the proposed 1% sales tax would have specifically funded sand replenishment and other beach projects, along with wildfire prevention work. That measure appeared to be headed for failure, with just 36% of voters in support as of Wednesday afternoon.

Voters in San Marino approved an extension of their utility tax, and increased it from 5% to 6%. Last year, the tax provided almost $2.2 million in revenue.

City officials in South Gate had hoped for a similar boon, and projected the utility tax would bring in an estimated $10.4 million per year in general fund revenue, while raising total utility costs by about $39 per month for a typical household.

Leading up to the election, the city of South Gate pointed to other neighboring cities that have their own utility taxes, including Downey, Lakewood and Norwalk, where the tax mostly hovers around 5%. “South Gate is the exception, not the rule,” noted one city presentation that pointed to these other taxes in a bid to coax voters to go along.

Voters weren’t convinced. “I’m extremely frustrated that you now want to do electricity, water, sewer, cable, cell phone, gas. ... That hurts us. You’re passing that on to us and that is absolutely not acceptable,” said one resident at a City Council meeting on the measure earlier this year.

LAist has reached out to the city of South Gate about what’s next for the city.