The Brief

California’s drive to run its electric grid entirely on wind, solar and other clean sources of energy just got harder after President Donald Trump signed a sweeping new budget law.

The changes in federal tax incentives could affect the feasibility of new solar and wind projects as the state is counting on them to provide more electricity for Californians. A state law requires 100% of electricity to be powered by renewable, carbon-free sources by 2045, at the same time it’s moving to electrify cars and trucks.

Incentives championed by former President Joe Biden were rolled back, shortening the timeline for the industry to obtain tax credits. Developers of wind and solar projects now face a new, shorter deadline for obtaining tax credits — most now expire at the end of 2027 instead of no sooner than 2032.

In addition, the new federal rules bar companies from accessing tax credits if they rely on major components from China or other “foreign entities of concern.” This restriction could hit California’s solar and wind industry especially hard, experts said.

The changes to tax credits are estimated to save the federal government approximately $499 billion from 2025–2034.

“For too long, the Federal Government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar,” Trump wrote in an executive order last week. “The proliferation of these projects displaces affordable, reliable, dispatchable domestic energy sources, compromises our electric grid, and denigrates the beauty of our Nation’s natural landscape.”

Projects can still be built without tax credits. But it puts more of a financial burden on their investors. In California, 11 solar projects and one onshore wind project now face potential delays or cancellation, according to an analysis of federal data by Atlas Public Policy provided to CalMatters. The projects are spread across the Central Valley, Inland Empire and Northern California.

Sean Gallagher, senior vice president of policy for the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in a statement that the industry was still “assessing what the federal tax bill means for them.” He warned the changes could jeopardize up to 35,700 solar jobs and 25 solar manufacturing facilities in California — including existing positions and factories as well as future projects that may now never materialize.

“The reality is, with or without clean energy tax credits, California’s energy demand is growing at a historic rate, and solar and storage are the fastest and most affordable way to meet that demand,” Gallagher said.

California in recent years has been fast-tracking massive floating offshore wind farms 20 miles off the coasts of Humboldt County and Morro Bay. The federal changes add some uncertainty that could chill investment. But experts say it’s not a death knell for the industry because the projects weren’t set to seek federal permits or generate electricity for at least several years.

“Offshore wind is what we would call a long-lead project. It does take years and years to develop,” said Assemblymember Dawn Addis, former chair of the Assembly’s Offshore Wind Select Committee. “Solar is a little bit shorter of a time frame…but it's also his incredibly erratic behavior when it comes to market stability overall that is also going to affect these projects in a negative way.”

Experts say in the long-run, the federal changes could drive up energy costs.

"Tax credit savings are typically passed onto ratepayers through lower contracting costs. In the long term, the repeal of the tax credits will result in higher future electricity rates for customers," the California Energy Commission told CalMatters.

Rising utility bills are already a major political headache for state leaders and a challenge for clean energy advocates who want the state to lead the way in making electricity cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable.

“The whole point of California's climate policy is not just to reduce California's carbon footprint — because we are less than 1% of global emissions — but to set an example and show that this can be done,” Berkeley economist Severin Borenstein told CalMatters. “There are going to be fewer other states following our example because it's going to be more expensive.”

The new hurdles for solar and wind come as they are scaling up to meet surging electricity demand nationwide, including from energy-hungry data centers fueling the rise of artificial intelligence.

California Energy Commissioner Nancy Skinner, in an interview with CalMatters, said the federal law is a national “job killer” and was short-sighted. “The economics of renewable energy generation speak for themselves....The cost of solar generation now is competitive with natural gas,” she said.

“We're not going to back away from our commitments and our goals,” she added. “Our commitment — whether it is to zero-emission vehicles, or to renewable energy generation — is about cleaning the air as well as addressing the climate crisis…Nobody wants to live in smoggy communities, where the air you're breathing hurts you.”

Solar and wind projects have helped California log key renewable energy milestones in recent years. Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom said nine out of every 10 days so far in 2025 have been powered by non-fossil fuels for at least a part of the day: “The economics of renewable energy generation speak for themselves....The cost of solar generation now is competitive with natural gas."

The state’s grid runs on a mix of renewables — solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, biomass and hydropower — an average of seven hours a day, the governor said, citing new data compiled by the California Energy Commission.

“The fourth largest economy in the world is running on more clean energy than ever before,” Newsom said in a statement. “Trump and Republicans can try all they want to take us back to the days of dirty coal but the future is cheap, abundant clean energy.”

But industry officials say the state isn’t doing enough. They say the state has too many hurdles for building wind and solar projects and needs to offer more funding.

“For years now, too many California leaders have retreated from true clean energy leadership — hopefully the tax bill serves as a wakeup call that their leadership on clean energy is more important now than ever,” Gallagher said.

Trump and Congress did not shorten the tax credit deadlines for nuclear power plants, hydroelectric facilities, battery storage and geothermal plants. Congress also dropped a provision that would have added a new excise tax on wind and solar.

For wind and solar, there's still a possible path to claim tax credits if construction starts within a year or they come online by the end of 2027. Senators added that provision to soften the blow. In theory, those projects could be finished and connected to the grid as late as 2031 and still qualify, but that depends on how the Treasury Department defines what it means to “start construction,” said Kevin Book, an energy analyst based in Washington, D.C.

“In the short-term, it might actually increase or shift earlier expenditure on these kinds of clean energy projects and all else equal,” said David Victor, a professor of public policy at UC San Diego. “California is in a pretty good position to profit from that acceleration.”

But Victor warned that the long-term costs could become “a political nightmare.”

“The long-term incentive, clearly, is to try to slow down investment in solar and wind and electric vehicles,” Victor said.

Solar panels at the Kettleman City Power solar farm on July 25, 2022.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters/CatchLight Local

)

Borenstein took a more measured view about the impact on costs: California’s high electricity prices aren’t mainly about power production — they’re driven by wildfire costs, including past damage payouts and upgrades to prevent future fires. Other drivers include subsidies for low-income customers and the cost shift from rooftop solar, he said.

Some legislators have advocated for the state budget to cover more of these costs, but Borenstein said it’s politically easier to keep charging customers through their electric bills.

Alex Jackson, who leads the industry group American Clean Power California, said the state should use money from its cap-and-trade program to lower bills. Cap and trade is a market system that charges California companies for the greenhouse gas emissions they produce. Jackson said those funds could help pay for grid upgrades so ratepayers don’t have to.

He said the state also could lower clean energy costs by speeding up permitting, easing environmental rules for upgrades to existing projects and reducing costs for turning farmland into solar farms. He also called for expanding regional electricity markets to help California trade power more efficiently — a controversial idea being debated in the Legislature this year. 

“We’ve really aggressively invested in clean energy, and we need to ramp up that investment, and we need to make it easier and faster to get clean energy deployed.”STATE SENATOR SCOTT WIENERThe state Legislature has debated for years exempting some clean energy projects from the state’s landmark environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act, which is often blamed for delays. State Sen. Scott Wiener, of San Francisco, has advocated for such changes.

“California has always been a leader, and we need to step that up significantly,” Wiener told CalMatters. “We’ve really aggressively invested in clean energy, and we need to ramp up that investment, and we need to make it easier and faster to get clean energy deployed.”

In addition to the wind and solar credits, the budget signed by Trump also ends tax credits for purchase of electric cars, rooftop solar panels, home batteries, heat pumps, insulation, energy-efficient windows and doors, and other upgrades. Rooftop solar tax credits end this year. Federal tax credits for hydrogen production end after 2027 — a blow for California, which had positioned itself as a national hydrogen hub. Those changes are estimated to save about $543 billion from 2025–2034.

The state Energy Commission said the elimination of the EV credits beginning on Sept. 30 will mean "lower adoption of electric vehicles" and a "potential short-term spike in ZEV sales" before that date. Rooftop solar projects and heat pump sales also are likely to decrease, the agency said.

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

The Los Angeles City Council decided Tuesday to put off the full effects of a major new state housing law by allowing low-rise apartment buildings in some neighborhoods where such housing has long been banned.

All council members voted in favor of those plans except for Traci Park, who was absent from the meeting.

California’s Senate Bill 79 is set to take effect July 1. The law overrides local limits on housing development by allowing apartment buildings between five and nine stories tall near train stations and rapid bus stops.

However, cities are allowed to postpone those changes until 2030 by developing their own incremental plans for more housing. L.A. elected leaders have chosen to delay. They’re doing so through the city’s new Low-Rise Ordinance, which aims to allow buildings up to four stories tall in 57 neighborhoods near transit lines.

Why it matters

L.A. lawmakers have tried many approaches to bring down L.A.’s high rents. But they have consistently voted to stop apartment developers from encroaching on the nearly three-quarters of city residential land reserved for single-family homes.

Pushed by state lawmakers, city leaders are now having to accept some changes in single-family neighborhoods located near public transit lines.

The reaction

Some local officials and homeowners have expressed frustration over new state limits on their ability to stop development in low-density zones. But advocates for more development said the council’s decision will help address high rents by allowing more housing in areas that have long been off-limits to new apartments.

“The City Council voted to open up high-resource single-family neighborhoods near transit stations,” said Scott Epstein, policy director with Abundant Housing L.A. “This reform is long overdue and will help build a future where Angelenos of all incomes can find homes in the neighborhoods of their choice.”

Where will the projects be allowed?

Officials with the city’s planning department said residents can see whether Low-Rise Ordinance projects will be allowed in their neighborhood by clicking on this interactive map and making two selections from the “layer list” menu: “Opportunity Station Sites Eligible for Low Rise” and “Sites Eligible for Low Rise Outside of Opportunity Station.”

The map shows that some of the areas eligible for new apartment buildings under this plan include Westside neighborhoods within a half-mile of the E Line’s Westwood/Rancho Park station, pockets of the San Fernando Valley near G Line stops, and parts of Eagle Rock along Colorado Boulevard’s planned North Hollywood to Pasadena rapid bus line.

Is this a done deal?

Both plans — the decision to delay full SB 79 implementation, and the new Low-Rise Ordinance — now go to Mayor Karen Bass for final approval. Council members are also considering some tweaks they say would help Low-Rise Ordinance projects get built.

Those changes would include letting developers build denser projects if they reserve more units for low-income renters, as well as rules that would let developers build ground-level parking instead of costlier underground parking. The council’s planning committee voted Tuesday to forward those suggestions to the full City Council for further debate.

There’s a new tool to fight illegal fireworks this Fourth of July: drones.

“A drone’s real-time aerial view can help officers assess situations faster, improve safety, support faster response times and ensure the right resources are sent where they’re needed most,” the Anaheim Police Department stated in an Instagram post.

Anaheim's department is the latest law enforcement agency using the technology to quickly identify illegal fireworks use. The Downey City Council is expected to vote Tuesday night on potential new fines and new rules that would allow local law enforcement to use drones to patrol neighborhoods for illegal fireworks usage.

How it works

Here's how the tech is put to use: Seconds after authorities receive a call reporting illegal fireworks activity, drones can take to the air, hovering above neighborhoods and businesses to find a specific location and an offender. The surveillance devices are equipped with night vision and zoom lenses that allow first responders to record high definition videos right from their Real Time Crime Center at the station.

Then, officers can determine whether to send out a patrol car or issue a citation for the incident.

Why it matters

The city’s drone usage comes as law enforcement agencies across Southern California brace for the annual flood of complaints about illegal firework use at this time of the year. Drones make the most effective use of time and resources, experts say.

“We'll typically see about 2,000 calls and about 300 related to fireworks,” Anaheim’s chief communications officer Mike Lyster explained about the Fourth of July. “It really is a better use of resources on what is always a very, very busy holiday for us.”

Drones allow officials to collect enough evidence to issue these citations. In Anaheim, the punishment starts at $1,000 and climbs to $3,000 by the third offense. But authorities say the goal is to curb illegal fireworks use altogether due to the risk of injury and wildfires.

Lyster hopes that people will think twice about using illegal fireworks this holiday — not just because of the fines — but because of its negative impact on local communities.

“The Palisades fire was ultimately started by illegal fireworks, and sadly, not in our city, but in our neighboring city, a young Anaheim girl died in an illegal fireworks incident last year,” Lyster said.

Where are drones already in use?

More cities are testing this method in order to crack down on illegal firework use. Sacramento, San Bernardino and Riverside are just a few of the other areas that have adopted this technology in recent years.

How do I know what's legal?

If you have any questions about what is legal or not in your community, a quick Google search can help.

Each county goes by different regulations for the types of fireworks you can use — if at all.

For example, parts of Anaheim allow “safe and sane” fireworks to be used only on the Fourth of July between 10 a.m and 10 p.m. This includes non-explosive, non-aerial devices like fountains, sparklers and smoke balls. State-approved fireworks will have a State Fire Marshal seal.

LAist staffer Anjanette Gile also contributed to this report.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

Your neighborhood has a reporter. Have you met them yet?

On Saturday, coffee shops across L.A. are turning into places where you can tell a journalist exactly what’s been bugging you about your block … while drinking amazing coffee.

From Boyle Heights to Silver Lake to Inglewood to Long Beach, local reporters will be set up at neighborhood coffee shops from from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. — to hear what’s on your mind. Got a tip about a pothole that’s been eating tires for years? A landlord the city keeps ignoring? A community hero nobody’s written about? We want to hear it all!

It’s part of Local News Day LA, a pop-up series organized by The LA Local that connects you with your local reporter and give you a chance to become the source instead of just the reader.

LAist has been meeting community members in person through LAist Listens tabling events by popping up at local businesses.

See below for the full list of participating media outlets and coffee shops — The LA Local and our media partners hope you’ll join us:

LAist will be joining The LA Local and other local media partners for Local News Day LA on June 27.

(

The LA Local

)

Where to find a journalist

1. The LA Local – Koreatown, Pico Union, Westlake will be hosted by Open Market
2. The LA Local – Inglewood and South LA will be hosted by Asteroid Vinyl Cafe
3. Boyle Heights Beat will be hosted by Picaresca Cafe
4. CalMatters will be hosted by Yia Caffe 
5. Calo News will be hosted by Cruzita’s Deli and Cafe
6. The Eastsider will be hosted by Rosebud Coffee (Highland Park location)
7. LAist will be hosted by Cafe Calle
8. Los Angeles Radio Collective will be hosted by Spoke Bicycle Cafe
9. LA Sentinel will be hosted by Patria Coffee
10. LA Taco will be hosted by Cafecito Organico (Silverlake location)
11. LA Public Press will be hosted by Holy Grounds Coffee & Tea
12. Long Beach Post will be hosted by Wrigley Coffee
13. Q Voice News will be hosted by Hot Java
14. USC Annenberg Media will be hosted by South LA Cafe (Western location)

Come enjoy a cup of coffee (or tea) with us while supplies last. 

A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down. The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who led the coalition, said in a news release.

The law, called the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was enacted in 2022.

“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” the lawsuit said.

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents companies that import and distribute goods in California, also joined the lawsuit.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, the trade association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

The lawsuit argues the law violates both the U.S. and California constitutions. It asks the court to declare California’s law invalid and unenforceable, and halt its implementation.

The lawsuit names as defendants Zoe Heller, director of California’s recycling agency known as CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit involved with implementing the law.

Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.

The alliance said in a statement that it was aware of the lawsuit and closely monitoring developments while at the same time working to implement the law’s “ambitious goals.”

In a May news release announcing regulations under the law, state officials said the changes would fight plastics pollution while protecting the interests of taxpayers and local governments.

“California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state,” Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement. “This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”

Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit were 16 other states with Republican attorneys general: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.Environmental groups also have sued over the law. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed a complaint over what it said in a news release were “weakened” final regulations for the “landmark” law.