The Brief

Oil companies had their hackles up this year after Sen. Scott Wiener introduced a controversial bill that would allow victims of wildfires and other climate disasters to sue them for causing climate change.

Facing potentially billions of dollars in losses, Big Oil had a lot to lose.

But oil companies took a back seat last week when it came time to persuade environmentally friendly lawmakers to kill the legislation.

Instead, Big Oil’s most influential allies in California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature – the unions that represent oil industry workers – led the opposition. They successfully persuaded a committee made up of pro-labor Democrats to kill the measure, which had support from nearly every California environmental organization.

Despite California’s reputation for taking the lead on climate change, the death of Senate Bill 222 is the latest example of how environmentalists’ most aggressive policies regularly fizzle out when Big Labor works on behalf of Big Oil.

“That’s how the oil companies breach the machine in Sacramento,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, one of the groups that supported the legislation.

A spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Association, which typically represents oil company interests in Sacramento, declined to comment on why the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California took the lead in killing the legislation.

Chris Hannan, the trades council’s president, said union members feared SB 222 would have a “chilling effect on our economy, setting gas prices through the roof, with absolutely no environmental benefits.”

“This bill’s terrible, terrible policy,” he said. “And it puts our jobs in jeopardy and puts our state in jeopardy.”

Big money turns out to oppose climate bill

At last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, argued his proposal was urgent after January’s massive wildfires tore through Los Angeles County, destroying thousands of homes and exacerbating the state’s housing and insurance crises.

“We’re not supposed to have destructive wildfires in the middle of winter,” he told the committee. “And yet that is the new normal in California. And right now, who is paying for these climate disasters? Who’s paying for them? We’re paying for them.”

Wiener’s measure would have allowed victims to sue oil companies for damages, but they would have to prove in court that climate change was specifically to blame for their losses, which is not easy. While scientists have documented the connection between climate change and fossil fuels, the evidence is less definitive linking fossil fuels to specific extreme weather events such as floods, droughts or wildfires.

State Sen. Scott Wiener on the Senate floor at the state Capitol in Sacramento on April 29, 2024.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

Two witnesses Wiener brought to testify in support of SB 222 had lost their homes to wildfires. They argued that it’s time for the fossil fuel companies to pay their fair share.

“Disasters like this are going to keep happening, but you can make the financial burden less awful for all of us,” Moira Morel, whose home burned in the Eaton Fire, told the committee.

After they spoke, representatives of more than 20 environmental and consumer attorney groups walked up the microphone urging the committee to pass the measure.

The California Federation of Teachers, which has given at least $2.5 million to legislators since 2015, was the only major political donor supporting it, according to the Digital Democracy database.

But that paled in comparison to what its opponents have spent on politics: at least $22.7 million to members of the Legislature since 2015, according to Digital Democracy.

They included major business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the Civil Justice Association of California, whose board of directors includes representatives from major corporations including Amazon, Pfizer, Apple and Meta, which didn’t didn’t directly take positions on the bill. Those two advocacy groups alone have given nearly $2 million to legislators since 2015.

Michael McDonough, a lawyer who spoke on behalf of the business groups, told the committee the bill was likely unconstitutional and “retroactively punishes the legal production of fuel for this state, which has been critical for California’s growth since its founding, and which this Legislature has supported for nearly 150 years.”

Organizations representing fossil fuel companies that opposed the bill but gave no testimony during last week’s hearing also have donated at least $1.7 million to legislators since 2015.

Democrats find union argument persuasive

But the Legislature’s biggest donors that opposed SB 222 are the trade unions. The State Building and Construction Trades Council, the California State Association Of Electrical Workers and the California State Pipe Trades Council and their affiliate unions have given at least $12 million since 2015, according to Digital Democracy.

“SB 222 unfairly targets one industry, while ignoring the broader systematic factors that contribute to climate change,” the trade unions’ lobbyist, Keith Dunn, told the committee.

Dozens of rank-and-file union members – pipefitters, boiler makers, painters, iron workers and others – took the mic after Dunn to urge lawmakers to spike SB 222. Many of them looked fresh off the jobsite, wearing safety glasses and T-shirts emblazoned with their union logos. It was a striking contrast in the Capitol, where business wear tends to be the standard attire.

The measure needed seven votes to advance out of the Senate Judiciary Committee; it failed with just five votes in favor and eight recorded votes opposed. Yet only one Democrat on the committee actually voted “no.” The rest didn’t vote at all, which counts the same as a no vote. As CalMatters has reported, the widespread practice of dodging tough votes allows legislators to avoid accountability.

There are few groups more influential in state politics than unions in California, despite only representing one-sixth of the state’s workforce.

As CalMatters reported, labor groups regularly get their way on bills at higher rates than other prolific lobbying groups, due in part to their massive political donations. Around a quarter of the members of the current Legislature are current or former union members.

One of them is Sen. María Elena Durazo, a Democrat from Los Angeles and a member of the committee who didn’t vote on the measure. The long-time former labor activist told the committee that companies that cause climate change should be held accountable, but not at the expense of workers.

“I don’t want to let anyone off the hook, but I don’t want to let working people be on the hook for everything that happens,” Durazo told the committee.

Vapor is released into the sky at an oil refinery in Wilmington, California.

(

Bret Hartman

/

Reuters

)

Her office didn’t respond to an interview request to ask why, if she opposed the measure, she didn’t cast a firm “no” vote. The four other Democrats on the committee who also didn’t vote for SB 222 – Aisha Wahab, Angelique Ashby, Tom Umberg and Jesse Arreguín – declined CalMatters requests to explain in an interview why they didn’t vote.

Sen. Anna Caballero, who represents Merced, was the one Democrat who voted “no.” Like Durazo, she found the union members’ arguments persuasive. She said the costs of the measure would be too high. She urged the Legislature to focus on promoting climate-friendly technologies such as “hydrogen, carbon capture, biogas, biomass.”

“Those are the kinds of jobs that will create a livable wage and also give us the opportunity to meet our climate goals,” Caballero told the committee. “And I think we’re all interested in the same goal ... but we’re not going to get that through this litigation.”

Sen. Henry Stern, a Democrat who lost his home in the 2018 Woolsey Fire, addressed the union workers directly before he voted to support the legislation.

He said the bill was about making multinational corporations accountable. He said the oil companies had been threatening “their workers that they’re going to fire them” if the Legislature passed SB 222.

“This is targeting those shareholders and those boardroom folks who are making the big decisions back at some corporate headquarters out in Houston or somewhere else, but not you,” he told the committee.

Wiener said in an interview that he wasn’t surprised the trades unions “are fighting to keep those jobs.”

“But it continues to surprise me that the California Legislature doesn't pass the oil accountability bills, with only a few exceptions,” he said. “I hope that the Legislature will start taking a much more proactive stance to hold the oil companies accountable for the huge harm that they have done and are doing to California and to the planet.”

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

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.