The Brief

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has allocated $2.7 billion in response to the L.A. wildfires, but some survivors say the agency’s support has fallen short of expectations.

According to an LAist analysis of FEMA data, the agency has covered a smaller portion of damage costs in response to the L.A. fires than was seen at this point after other recent natural disasters.

Assistance to eligible survivors has covered an average of about 7% of the damage costs FEMA assessed to their properties so far, less than one third of the proportion covered after the California fires in 2017 or 2018, or the 2023 Hawaii fires.

Eligible survivors of the L.A. fires have gotten an average of around $4,100 in direct FEMA assistance so far — average damage costs assessed by the agency are over $55,000 for those same survivors.

Experts who spoke to LAist cautioned against comparing disasters, but the complicated application process for receiving FEMA assistance has slowed the response here and frustrated some L.A. residents who are trying to decide whether to rebuild or relocate, often requiring them to make multiple appeals after claims that were denied for procedural reasons.

When Furmencio Quiroz’s Altadena home was destroyed in the Eaton Fire, he expected FEMA to help with some of the rebuilding costs not covered by his family’s insurance. After six months and multiple appeals of his application, Quiroz says he thinks the rebuilding process has gone slower than government officials promised.

" It feels like time is flying, and we're nowhere," Quiroz told LAist.

Rebuilding the family home

Quiroz grew up in the Altadena house before living there with his wife and six children, together with his parents and his brother’s family.

Then the Eaton Fire destroyed everything, Quiroz said.

"At first you're like, wow, like you can't even process it." Quiroz said about losing his family’s home. "Then you just start thinking about every little memory you had."

He said his father is a retired construction worker, and while they had insurance on the house they had never filed a claim until the fire. His father would always take care of any repairs himself.

But the insurance they had wasn’t nearly enough to cover the costs of rebuilding, Quiroz said.

After initially receiving a few thousand dollars from FEMA for essential items and temporary housing, Quiroz said his family applied for help with rebuilding costs.

According to FEMA policy, survivors who apply through the Individuals and Households Program (IHP) can receive up to $43,600 for housing assistance and another $43,600 to go toward other needs like child care, medical expenses, transportation or replacing damaged personal property.

Quiroz thought he would be eligible for housing assistance, but FEMA denied his family’s application. He said FEMA told him he was not eligible because he had already received an insurance payment.

"I've appealed the case about three times, because we're underinsured," Quiroz said. Even getting the maximum insurance payment under his policy still covered less than half of the expected rebuilding costs, he added.

FEMA can not duplicate benefits from insurance or other programs that are provided to applicants for the same purpose, according to federal law, but FEMA updated its policy in 2024 to expand eligibility for survivors whose insurance did not cover the cost of damages to their homes or property.

Quiroz said that on top of the costs of rebuilding he also has to find a permanent place where his family can afford to stay while making mortgage payments on the house that burned down.

In the meantime, he has been commuting from an Airbnb in Pomona to his job as a mechanic in Downey. He said he can’t seem to get straightforward answers about FEMA’s process or why he was denied assistance.

He's been going to a disaster recovery center in Altadena and calling FEMA, but he said he has gotten "a different answer every time" he has asked for clarification.

FEMA representatives did not respond to LAist's request for comment.

Navigating a bureaucratic "labyrinth" 

To get assistance, disaster survivors like Quiroz often have to navigate a complicated process that is fragmented across many agencies and programs, according to Chris Currie, director of homeland security and justice at the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, a non-partisan federal watchdog agency that examines how federal funds are spent.

"None of those programs were ever really designed to work together in concert, which makes for a very frustrating recovery process for survivors," Currie told LAist.

The GAO reports to congress and federal agencies, and keeps a list of programs across the federal government that they assess to be high risk, or most in need of reform.

Delivery of federal disaster assistance was recently added to that list, joining issues like federal oversight of food safety and contract management at the Department of Defense.

"I don't think anyone at FEMA tried to design these programs to be difficult and time consuming," Currie said. But rules put in place over the years to avoid fraud and abuse have inadvertently created a complex "labyrinth" for survivors to navigate, he added.

The GAO has pointed to the need to simplify the process for years, but Currie said that hasn’t translated to system-wide progress that's needed.

The Trump administration created the FEMA Review Council in January, and Currie is optimistic this could spark more significant reform.

"I think everyone is waiting for the results of this FEMA Council to come out, to provide the framework and the instructions on what specifically is gonna change," Currie said.

President Donald Trump threatened to "phase out" the agency last month, but the administration’s stance toward the agency has since softened, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem telling NBC News on Sunday that the president now wants to see the agency "remade."

FEMA’s response to other recent disasters

LAist analyzed public data to see how FEMA’s response to the L.A. wildfires compares with other natural disasters in recent years and found some notable differences.

According to monthly FEMA reports and estimates of total damage costs, overall financial support allocated by the agency in response to the fires has covered a much smaller portion of damage costs than seen six months after hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024.

Currie said there could be a number of reasons for differences in FEMA funding provided after natural disasters, like the types or concentration of damage.

"The scale of the destruction in Helene dwarfs [the L.A. fires], but the concentration of damage in L.A. was horrific. " Currie said. "So the cost you're going to see just to deploy across a massive geographic region in Helene is gonna be way, way higher than L.A."

The largest amount of money from FEMA goes to state and local governments in what the agency calls public assistance for things like repairing public buildings and debris cleanup, Currie told LAist.

Currie said debris cleanup is a key first step toward recovery, and that FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and leaders at state and local levels worked very quickly to clear debris compared to other large-scale natural disasters.

LAist also looked into differences in direct assistance to individuals and found that so far FEMA has covered a much smaller portion of assessed damage costs after the L.A. fires than were covered after the 2024 hurricanes, though the agency assessed that damage costs for L.A. fire survivors were higher.

This gap affects survivors like Quiroz who believe they should be eligible for more assistance and have experienced denial letters or process delays.

Currie told LAist that applications are often denied by FEMA initially for technical reasons, but they may still be eligible when they have completed more of the process.

"It can just be a very long, difficult process that requires a lot of back and forth between a survivor and FEMA or other government agencies," Currie said.

Quiroz, who has missed work from his job and is currently waiting to hear back from FEMA, said his family still plans on rebuilding but isn’t counting on more support from the agency.

"We had hope . . that they were gonna help us out," Quiroz said, "but it seems like it's not gonna be that way."

Long term recovery

Local agencies and organizations have been working to cover some of the gap in support left after insurance and FEMA assistance.

Jorge Anaya, an emergency management coordinator at the L.A. County Office of Emergency Management, told LAist that the county previously provided assistance to disaster victims of up to $18,000 through the Household Relief Grant program and has kept a comprehensive list of other existing resources for residents.

 "As we approach long-term recovery, there is existing aid," Anaya said, "However, it starts becoming a whole-of-community response, not just a whole-of-government response."

He said the county has partnered with the L.A. Region Community Recovery Organization, or LARCRO, to help people get continued assistance.

"It’s important for us to recognize that FEMA is in no way meant to make people whole with their funding," said Jenni Campbell, the executive director of LARCRO. "The community is responsible for recovery in the long term."

LARCRO is a nonprofit that was organized after the Woolsey Fire in 2018. Campbell said they work closely with FEMA and lead the recovery arm of Emergency Network Los Angeles, or ENLA, which includes other nonprofits involved in disaster response like American Red Cross, the Salvation Army and 211 LA County.

She told LAist that direct assistance from FEMA is just one part of what FEMA refers to as "the sequence of delivery," which also includes insurance, loans from the Small Business Administration and long term recovery groups.

LARCRO and ENLA have been organizing long term recovery groups to support the Pacific Palisades, Malibu and Altadena areas, bringing together nonprofit organizations, disaster case managers and community leaders to support survivors who won’t be able to recover on their own.

Those groups will soon start holding weekly meetings, but Campbell said community organizations like hers have been involved in supporting survivors since the beginning of the recovery process.

Quiroz told LAist he has gotten support from local churches to help buy food and from 211 LA County, which provided his family with Airbnbs like the one they're staying in now.

Campbell said LARCRO has connected with more than 5,000 people affected by the fires to coordinate disaster case management, and that disaster victims can learn more on their website.

“40 hours, $2M+ AI credits, solve an open problem.”

So read the splashy announcement for the “Mathathon” at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Dozens of teams would work to solve vexing math problems with the help of artificial intelligence as part of “the first hackathon ever devoted to research level mathematics,” according to the early September post. AI juggernauts Anthropic and OpenAI were set to sponsor the two-day competition.

The backlash came swiftly. Critics objected not only to using AI to tackle open problems, but also to the involvement of AI companies whose models and research practices they have criticized.

Within days, current and former Caltech mathematicians published an open letter calling on the undergraduate organizers to suspend the event. The Mathathon, they argued, would only fuel the creation of “slop mathematics” and serve as public relations for the companies.

Instead of canceling the event, Caltech student organizers responded as any mathematician would — they tried to solve the problem.

The undergraduates redesigned the competition. Instead of trying to solve open mathematical problems, teams will now aim to develop alternative proofs for existing, yet unsatisfying solutions. The November event will also no longer be sponsored by the companies that develop proprietary AI models.

“We came to the decision that we want to put up an event that unites the math community, rather than divides it,” Brian Zhao, one of the Mathathon organizers and a junior studying applied mathematics at Caltech, told EdSource.

The controversy over the Mathathon event laid bare the growing tensions unfolding in the mathematics community over what role AI should play in advancing the field.

AI has already helped to solve elusive math problems. OpenAI announced this month that it used an internal AI model “significantly more capable” than the latest publicly available models to solve one of the remaining six Millennium Prize Problems. But mathematicians have warned about AI’s negative impact on mathematics students, and criticized these companies’ approach to solving high-profile problems.

“To put it bluntly, AI companies are engaging in research misconduct,” wrote the authors of the open letter, which gained the signatures of 2,038 academics as of this week.

‘That’s not the culture of mathematics’

Earlier this summer, Zhao and his roommate came up with their idea of a fun weekend: lock themselves in a basement and try to solve math problems for 40 hours straight. He was inspired by hackathon-style competitions in which programmers and designers compete to build hardware or software under deadline.

The idea of using AI to try to solve open math problems was two-fold. With mathematics undergoing one of the biggest changes in decades because of AI, the Caltech undergrads wanted to organize an event to experiment with AI and better understand how the field may evolve by the time they start graduate school.

Also, the students hoped that advertising the event with flashy statements — like suggesting teams would have access to $2 million in AI credits — would attract high-profile professors as judges and big lab sponsors.

“What is the role of a mathematician when AI can solve conjectures faster?” Mathathon organizers initially asked on the event’s website.

The AI-infused premise of Mathathon drew the ire of current and former Caltech mathematicians.

“I found it pretty outrageous, taking $2 million worth of sponsorships from OpenAI and Anthropic (and) partnering with these companies that have been, in my opinion, and many other mathematicians’ opinion, very disrespectful to our field,” said Yujin Kim, a postdoctoral fellow in Princeton University’s math department.

Kim had been critical of OpenAI’s approach to solving elusive mathematics problems in viral social media videos. The companies’ sponsorship of the event “felt like aligning with the empire,” Kim said.

“I can’t imagine [the Mathathon] would go any way other than just essentially button pressing and prompting,” Kim said. “That’s not the culture of mathematics. That’s not how we operate.”

After the backlash, OpenAI pulled its support from the event.

“We recognize that the rapid progress of AI in mathematics is disruptive,” Dan Roberts, OpenAI’s research lead, said in a social media post after the open letter was published. A spokesperson for Anthropic declined to comment.

The updated Mathathon competition will allow participants to use AI, but highly encourage them to use open-source tools that can be modified by the public instead of proprietary models run by private entities like OpenAI.

“We are proud of all of our students for the passion, drive, and maturity they have shown throughout this development,” Caltech spokesperson Emily Velasco said in a statement. “The spirit of open inquiry is central to the scientific process, and we hope to see a continued exchange of ideas as the math community charts its course forward.”

Zhao said he and his fellow organizers are determined to move forward with hosting the event. He said organizers hope the Mathathon will allow students to discover ways to use the technology responsibly, and build a bridge between AI developers and the math community.

AI can act like a shortcut to solving math problems

AI has conjured much debate in the math community, some of which has been overdue, said Dimitri Shlyakhtenko, a UCLA math professor who has followed Mathathon developments but did not sign the open letter.

From the outside, it may look like AI is upending the field by solving high-profile problems that have stumped mathematicians for decades. But the reality is more nuanced, Shlyakhtenko said.

“It is very rare that some result in mathematics is obtained out of nothing,” he said. “It usually builds on a mountain of other works that happen, and usually there’s a community of people that care about a particular set of problems.”

Mathematics problems aren’t about the destination of finding a solution, he said. Rather, mathematicians develop new techniques and understandings along the journey to solve a problem. He likened it to hiking to a waterfall. The end goal is to see the waterfall, but the things you discover along the journey are also quite interesting and of value.

With AI, he said that “what we’re seeing right now is that it is sometimes possible to take a kind of a direct shortcut.”

Some mathematicians worry that using AI to solve problems robs training opportunities from younger mathematicians.

Training problems provide opportunities for graduate students to learn skills and approaches to mathematics, but “if those just get solved, then the motivation to do it is kind of gone, right?” Shlyakhtenko said.

Over the past several months, as the Mathathon drama unfolded, Zhao said he has learned two important lessons: Be ambitious and be humble.

Maintaining the lofty goal of the event — of trying to help unravel the thorny debate of AI’s role in mathematics — has helped the team persist in the face of challenges, Zhao said. He added that it also developed the event into something more than just a fun, competitive weekend. The conversations with mathematicians around the world about the event have also taught him to be wary of flashy statements.

“If we just present ourselves honestly as undergrads who are curious about AI, we actually attract more sympathy,” Zhao said. “We actually attract more mathematicians who are willing to help us.”

The Orange County Transportation Authority approved $10.5 million for Metrolink services for the second quarter of the fiscal year as the rail service faces a dip in ridership and rising operational costs.

A majority of Metrolink’s budget is funded by Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties’ transportation departments.

The OCTA board’s approval this week follows a previous $14.5 million contribution in June to support Metrolink services for the first quarter of the fiscal year. Funding for the remainder of the year depends on a formal Metrolink budget request, board approval and approval from neighboring transportation authorities.

How did we get here? 

In December, OCTA told Metrolink that its fiscal year 2026-27 contribution would need to remain at no more than $46 million. But in July, Metrolink submitted an operating budget draft that would exceed OCTA’s contribution limit by about $6 million. OCTA tasked Metrolink with coming back with a revised budget that is within its contribution limits.

“Metrolink ridership has suffered since the pandemic began over six years ago,” Andrew Oftelie, OCTA's chief financial officer, said. “Metrolink ridership today is at about two-thirds of what it was prior to the pandemic. Lower ridership combined with higher costs has meant that Metrolink has asked member agencies like OCTA to fund a greater percentage of the service.”

The amount Metrolink asked for from OCTA has almost doubled since pre-COVID, Oftelie added, and OCTA’s contribution has not been a huge budget issue in the last five years because of a “significant amount of one-time” state and federal funds.

“Those one-time funds have all been exhausted at this point, which is why we gave Metrolink a budget target this year,” Oftelie said. “That budget target was commensurate with the amount of ongoing revenues we expect to receive from Metrolink service going forward.”

Why it matters

In a presentation to the OCTA finance and administration committee on Sept. 17, Metrolink CEO Darren Kettle said the Orange County line is the rail’s highest revenue generator.

Ridership has grown slightly over the last two years, he added, but challenges remain. In creating a budget for this fiscal year, Metrolink officials have made $16 million in budget cuts. In April, LA Metro also proposed to reduce its subsidy to Metrolink by 3%.

“The last thing I want to do … is pin this on our member agencies,” Kettle said. “The fact of the matter is we would have a challenging financial situation without those reductions from LA Metro and OCTA.”

What’s next? 

Oftelie told the OCTA board that a revised budget request from Metrolink is expected this week.

Community colleges in California will be required to offer abortion medication through campus health centers starting in 2029, under a law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday.

Through the Community College Student Right to Access Act, California will extend the reproductive health service already required for public universities in the state. No specific dollar amount is mentioned in the new law, only that the implementation of abortion medication at community colleges will rely on the Legislature appropriating funding.

Community colleges were left out of Senate Bill 24, a law that was signed in 2019 and took effect in 2023, requiring University of California and California State University campuses to provide on-campus abortion medication at their health centers. The new law, authored by Assemblymember Catherine Stefani, a Democrat from San Francisco, will require abortion pill access at community college campuses with existing health centers. Today, 92 out of 115 community college campuses have health centers.

“We are closing a critical gap by ensuring that community college students, one of the most diverse and economically vulnerable populations in our state, have the same access to care as their peers at four-year institutions,” Stefani said during the Assembly Health Committee hearing in April.

Students at UC, Cal State and community college campuses on the Pro-Abortion Student Advisory Board supported the bill as part of Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity, a national advocacy and reproductive justice organization. The student board works to expand education outreach for reproductive healthcare across the state.

“The system is clearly moving towards the better,” said Angelica Campos, a San Francisco City College student and advisory board member, in response to the governor’s signature.

Implementing the law

Medication abortion can be taken 10 to 11 weeks after the day of a person’s last period. It accounted for more than half of all U.S. abortions in 2023, according to Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health.

Community college health services leaders were initially concerned about implementation due to the locally controlled model of the community college system. For this reason, community college health centers do not operate in the same way as university health centers.

While the law requires community colleges with health centers to start offering abortion medication, it does not require that it happens on campus, unlike the law for UC and Cal State campuses. Instead, community colleges have multiple options. They can prescribe the medication onsite via a licensed provider on staff or telehealth. The health center can utilize partnerships with an offsite provider who can prescribe abortion medication. Or, they can offer a “warm handoff” directing students to resources off campus, with follow-up care on their campus. Implementation cost will depend on the model community colleges choose to adopt.

Some community colleges, like El Camino College in Torrance, already have a “robust” healthcare system, according to Susan Nilles, faculty coordinator of El Camino College Student Health Services and a nurse practitioner. While the campus doesn’t currently offer abortion medication, Nilles said she does not anticipate challenges to comply with the law.

“We’re fortunate enough to where we can handle something like this. It’s nice to know that legally, we’re backed,” Nilles said.

College of the Redwoods, located in the Northern California coast city of Eureka, is one of the 23 community college campuses in the state without an on-campus health center. That campus relies on telehealth services, community partnerships and referrals to local healthcare organizations. Students can currently access medication abortion services through referrals from their telehealth provider, TimelyCare.

Stephanie Freyermuth, manager of Basic Needs, Housing Insecurity & Wellness at the college, said due to campus size, rural location and lack of medical community resources, she does not believe College of the Redwoods will adopt in-person services, including abortion medication, in the immediate future.

Dr. Rosafel A. Nogra, who serves as director of De Anza College's Student Health Services in Cupertino, said the law is an opportunity to expand their health center’s reproductive healthcare. The campus doesn’t offer abortion medication onsite currently. Instead, it offers services through the Family Planning, Access, Care and Treatment Program provider that offers confidential reproductive health services at no cost to students who meet certain requirements.

Service costs may vary among colleges

The previous law requiring medication abortion services at public universities established the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund with private funds, which provided a $200,000 grant to each campus student health center to implement services. Community colleges were left out of that law because there was not enough capacity to extend funding to them all, Connie Leyva, a former Democratic state senator from Chino and the author of that bill, told CalMatters in a phone interview.

The cost for abortion medication at UC and Cal State campuses varies. Some Cal State campuses give it to students for free. For UC students, medication costs are covered by the required on-campus UC Student Health Insurance Plan.

Cal Poly Humboldt's costs are free due to grant funding from the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, while Sonoma State covers the cost with mandatory student health fees and part of the implementation funding. Cal State San Marcos charges students $20 to $28 for the prescription.

Sonoma State listed their cost as $50 on their health center website but Tim Grace, director of the student health center, told CalMatters in an email it was free. After CalMatters asked about the cost, the college confirmed the medication is free and the website was updated.

The cost for abortion medication at community colleges will depend on how much the Legislature appropriates in the state budget for 2029 and may vary among campuses.

Bringing awareness to students

The law will require all campuses, both community colleges and universities, to inform students that abortion medication services are offered at their health centers. This was another component left out of the previous law.

Four years after she left office, Leyva said that she still receives calls from people frustrated by the lack of advertising about reproductive health services on campuses.

“That part of the bill is tangible and I think that can make a big difference for a lot of young women,” said Leyva, who is now the executive director for KVCR public media in San Bernardino.

The new law will require all campuses to post about medication abortion availability on their websites. Currently, all UC campuses have abortion medication listed on their websites. All Cal State campuses have it on their websites except Chico State, which does not explicitly mention abortion medication and instead highlights birth control and “comprehensive care tailored to specific gender-related health needs” for men and women. Chico State Media Relations Coordinator Michael Drummond said the school will comply with the awareness requirements outlined in the law.

Cal Poly Humboldt student Kaylee Luna works as the Sex, Health and Body Educator at the Women’s Resource Center at her university. Luna connects students to sexual health and reproductive resources on campus. While she was aware abortion medication was provided on campus, she didn’t know it was free until she researched it for her job. From her personal perspective, she feels abortion medication and reproductive resources aren't talked about enough.

“I don't think that students on campus are really aware of that. I mean, no one's really talking about it or, you know, making (social media) posts or flyers,” Luna said. “I feel like it is still a touchy subject for some folks but I don't think there's much awareness and I think there should be.”

Faith Chinnapong says in her work alongside college students as a California-based organizer for Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity, she sees the knowledge gap across campuses.

“It's common to meet a student who is completely unaware of the services on her own campus," Chinnapong said. “When campuses especially are in these rural areas, it makes it more difficult for these young people to be able to go and seek these services, especially when they're working multiple jobs and taking care of their family.”

Students like Campos working on the Pro-Abortion Student Advisory Board have heard student concerns first-hand. According to her, access can make all the difference, and going offsite can be a deterrent for some seeking care.

“Comfort is really important, and I think students sometimes feel more safe going to somewhere they're more familiar with, and oftentimes that's campus,” Campos said.

Moving forward 

The new law won’t take effect for more than two years, and only upon appropriation of funds by the state Legislature.

“Even if we’re not gonna see the changes potentially overnight, it’s really good that we’re here doing the foundational work,” Campos said.

Now, groups like Pro-Abortion Student Advisory Board will work towards bringing more awareness about the law to students and campus health centers.

“Students should have the option to whatever they choose to decide on how to care for their bodies and having that access would just make it all the better on campus,” said Vanetta Godinez, a San Diego City College student and board member.

Noelle Doblado and Skylar Stock are contributors with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

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

Throwaway vapes will be illegal in California under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed this week that’s aimed to reduce the risk of battery fires at landfills and recycling centers.

Retailers and distributors found breaking the law would be fined $500 for the first violation and as much as $2,000 for subsequent violations.

Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, a Thousand Oaks Democrat, introduced the bill to curb the proliferation of hazardous waste — particularly the highly flammable lithium batteries inside e-cigarettes, which can ignite at trash facilities and put workers at risk.

The batteries “cannot easily be removed, so they pose costly and hazardous safety issues at every point in the waste stream,” she said during a June hearing. “We do not throw away our phones or our laptops after one week of use, and we should not treat other lithium devices any differently?”

About 12 million disposable vapes are sold nationally every month, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2016, a lithium battery started a fire in a San Mateo County recycling facility, costing it $8.5 million and driving up its annual insurance cost by almost $3 million. In addition to anti-smoking and healthcare groups, waste management authorities and environmental advocacy organizations supported the measure.

“The growing vape crisis is posing an existential threat to our waste and recycling system,” said Nick Lapis of Californians Against Waste, a co-sponsor of the bill. “Even if managed responsibly, this is a staggering waste of the finite natural resources that go into making them.”

Residents also end up absorbing the cost of the fires e-cigarettes cause in garbage facilities, through higher garbage rates and taxpayer-funded cleanups, Lapis said.

Law enforcement groups, business groups including the California Business Roundtable and the California Chamber Of Commerce and an industry group representing convenience stores and gas stations opposed the measure.

Referring to a June report from Zurich Insurance UK, an insurance company, that found that fires originating from vapes are still rising in the United Kingdom despite a 2025 ban on disposable vapes, Alessandra Brichetto of the California Fuels & Convenience Alliance said that disposable vapes that are already illegal are the source of most of the litter and fires the measure attempts to curb.

Banning the limited number of legal disposable devices would also push consumers to buy illicit vape products, said Brichetto.

“That’s the fundamental flaw in this bill,” she said. “It assumes eliminating the legal market eliminates the problem. It doesn’t.”

Most Republican lawmakers also voted against the bill. In her opposition to the bill, state Sen. Shannon Grove said that the true issue is burning batteries, like the 2025 fire at the Moss Landing battery storage facility, which “cause catastrophic health impacts to communities.”

“We need to start to make a real difference in the issue of climate change, contamination in our air,” said the Bakersfield Republican during an August floor vote. "So let's take on real challenges, colleagues, and not just banning vapes.”

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