The Brief

California legislative leaders in the wee hours of Wednesday morning reached an agreement with Gov. Gavin Newsom to extend the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction program, known as cap and trade, through 2045 — a contentious expansion that for weeks stewed in backroom discussions, held up other critical legislation and roiled insiders.

Democratic leaders in the Assembly and Senate also struck compromises on bills to increase domestic oil production in California through new drilling permits and rehabilitating a defunct offshore pipeline; establish a state fund to monitor pollution mitigation in disadvantaged communities; re-up the state’s wildfire liability fund by $18 billion; and join neighboring states’ utilities to create a shared electricity market to sell California’s excess clean power.

The mountain of deals comes after a chaotic scramble of last-minute closed-door negotiations among Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, which frustrated lobbyists and angered rank-and-file members, some of whom said they felt iced out of the conversations.

Because the agreements landed so late in the final week of the legislative session, lawmakers will have to waive rules so they can extend what was supposed to be their last day of session, Friday, to vote Saturday on the climate and energy package. California voters approved a constitutional amendment that requires legislation to be public for at least 72 hours before a vote.

Newsom even made an after-hours visit to the Capitol Tuesday night, where he, Rivas and McGuire huddled in a Senate office for close to 90 minutes.

Despite the tense, high-stakes haggling, the three leaders on Wednesday triumphantly celebrated what they declared a historic agreement that they said gives Californians the best of both worlds — stable gas and electricity prices as well as progress toward the state’s ambitious climate goals.

“We took the time to get it right because real change, reduced prices and protecting homeowners is essential,” Rivas said in the joint statement.

The governor’s desire to keep lower gas prices — a crucial headline as he courts a national audience ahead of 2028 — also dovetailed neatly with Rivas’s early commitment to make 2025 the Legislature’s “year of affordability.” Critics often parroted that lofty goal to challenge legislation that they argued would raise costs for consumers.

But while Newsom and Rivas were largely aligned on tempering the state’s ambitious climate goals amid the reality of rising costs, McGuire and his staff were wary of handing wins to polluting industries without extracting victories for environmental and social justice causes.

Bickering over cap and trade

At the heart of the negotiations was disagreement over how to renew cap and trade, which the governor’s office has rebranded as “cap and invest.” The program is a key source of revenue for the state’s environmental, climate and other priorities in the midst of a challenging budget year marked by a $12 billion budget deficit. The Trump administration has also sought to block funding for key priorities such as clean energy, high-speed rail and electric cars.

The extension seeks to align the program with the state’s aggressive push to wean itself from fossil fuels by 2045.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference before signing the Election Rigging Response Act at the Capitol Annex Swing Space in Sacramento on Aug. 21, 2025.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

State Sen. President Pro Tem Mike McGuire during a floor session on April 24, 2025.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas during a floor session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on May 23, 2025.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Cap-and-trade is a policy that puts a price on carbon emissions. The government sets a hard limit on emissions and issues a fixed number of pollution permits. Companies must hold permits for every ton they emit — but if they pollute less, they can sell their spare permits for profit, turning cutting carbon into a market incentive.

Although the program wasn’t set to expire until 2030, proponents of reauthorization argued that buyers of these credits — industry polluters — needed certainty that the program would continue to exist to keep bringing in revenues needed to fund the state’s transition to clean energy. A group pushing for an extension, Clean and Prosperous California, estimated that uncertainty over the program had resulted in a loss of nearly $3 billion in auction revenues over a year.

Earlier this summer, Newsom proposed reupping the program without any substantive changes, much to the chagrin of environmental advocates. That was an early sign of his warming relationships with the state’s oil and gas industry as companies announced they would cease operations in California, and more threatened to yank operations due to high costs of doing business.

Ultimately, each chamber will carry a separate piece of the deal.

Assembly Bill 1207 reauthorizes the program and makes slight changes to how the California Air Resources Board distributes free “allowances” — or pollution permits — to various types of polluters.

Meanwhile, Senate Bill 840 provides a blueprint for how the state should spend revenues from the program, reshaping it starting in 2026 to guarantee $1 billion a year for high-speed rail and $1 billion a year for lawmakers to direct through the budget, while continuing to support housing, transit, clean-air programs, wildfire prevention and safe drinking water.

The bill also requires the air resources board to revisit its rules on “offsets” – which let companies cover their emissions by paying for pollution cuts somewhere else — with a study due in 2026.

Individual consumers will continue to reap a benefit from the program. The deal keeps a twice-yearly climate credit, tweaking it so that a break on utility bills shows up during months when bills are the highest.

Other climate bills delayed before deal

Caught up in the negotiations were several other proposals that now can also move forward.

One is a multi-pronged plan to aid oil refineries by boosting the state’s domestic crude oil production. A key part of the measure waives the state’s landmark environmental review law for new oil wells in Kern County and clears the way for drilling projects to receive permits that were tied up in nearly a decade of litigation. The plan also makes it more difficult to rehabilitate defunct oil pipelines and requires extra layers of environmental assessment.

Also part of the deal were various Democrats’ strategies for reining in Californians’ utilities bills, including a Newsom-backed measure to create a Western regional energy market.

Proponents, including mainstream environmental groups and the powerful statewide electrical workers’ union, say such a market is important for the state to meet its carbon-free goals and lower electricity rates for consumers.

The package also contains measures for Democrats who want to further regulate utilities to lower costs.

Senate Bill 254 would set up a public financing system to fund the construction of new transmission lines, which are largely owned by the major utilities. Transmission costs are a significant factor in utility bills. Consumer advocates believe some public ownership of new transmission lines would reduce costs because developers could take advantage of low-interest bonds to pay for them. Funding would need to be approved through the budget process.

Utilities would also be barred from profiting on the first $6 billion in costs the three major investor-owned power companies incur after this year from making their infrastructure more fire-safe. This builds on a similar 2019 law excluding the first $5 billion from profit-making.

The sun sets behind a row of transmission towers as temperatures rose to a scorching 114 degrees in Fresno County on Sept. 6, 2022.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters/CatchLight Local

)

“They were kicking and screaming on that,” Sen. Josh Becker, a Menlo Park Democrat and author of several of the energy proposals, said of the utilities.

SB 254 also includes a Newsom priority to add $18 billion to the state’s wildfire fund, which was created in 2019 to pay wildfire victims in disasters caused by utilities to avoid bankrupting utilities. The utility companies had pushed hard to replenish the fund as it was running dry from claims after the January Eaton Fire in Altadena, which sparked near Southern California Edison equipment.

Contributions to the fund would be split equally among the shareholders and ratepayers of Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Do Democrats have the votes for cap and trade?

Despite the last-minute scramble, it’s unclear whether Newsom and Democrats have the necessary support to clear the two-thirds majority required in both chambers for tax-related measures like cap and trade. Lobbyists and advocates were reading the new language Wednesday and evaluating whether to support the measures.

The last time the program was reauthorized, then-Gov. Jerry Brown swayed some Republicans and won the support of both the oil and gas industry and CalChamber.

While Republicans have not outright denounced the proposals, Democrats shouldn’t necessarily count on their allyship.

Sen. Shannon Grove, a Republican from Bakersfield who for years has warned against overregulating the oil and gas industry, said she was scrambling to assess the details of a plan that was completely secret until just a few hours earlier.

Although Grove said she was pleased the proposal would unlock more oil drilling in Kern County, she was concerned there isn’t a strong enough provision in the deal to keep refineries from closing. Without refineries, there’s no in-state destination for the crude oil produced in her district.

“It’s a multibillion-dollar piece of legislation, and I don’t know what’s in it, so I can’t tell you,” Grove said when asked if she would support the bills. “We have to nail the refinery piece.”

The business community, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the powerful Western States Petroleum Association, strongly opposed the changes even before the final wording was released, staging an all-out lobbying effort this week as lawmakers returned to the Capitol.

“WSPA strongly opposes this rushed attempt to reauthorize the state’s Cap-and-Trade program behind closed doors in the remaining days of the legislative session,” the association said in a statement Monday night. Neither the Chamber or WSPA commented on the public cap and trade proposals Wednesday.

Assemblymembers on the Assembly floor at the state Capitol in Sacramento on June 30, 2025.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

Meanwhile, environmental justice advocates — who advocate for low-income and disadvantaged communities that often live closer to polluting industries — and other environmental advocates said the proposal doesn’t go far enough. The coalition was primarily disappointed that the bill to mandate a pollution monitoring program for disadvantaged communities did not include the specific areas and neighborhoods that they outlined in previous legislation.

The group wrote in a joint statement Wednesday that key parts of their proposals had been rejected and said the legislation continues to make “communities into sacrifice zones for the benefit of industry profit.”

“There's a lot of money left on the table,” said Ryan Schleeter, a spokesman for the Climate Center. “There could have been more done to shore up that revenue for future years, and there's a lot of money that's still flowing to oil and gas corporations through the cap-and-trade program.”

CalMatters reporters Malena Carollo and Alexei Koseff contributed to this story.

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.