A crew cleans oil from the beach at Refugio State Beach in 2015 north of Goleta.
(
David McNew
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
The California Coastal Commission fined an oil company a record $18 million for repeatedly defying orders to stop work on a corroded pipeline in Santa Barbara County that caused a major oil spill nearly a decade ago.
Why now: Sable Offshore Corp., a Houston-based company, purchased the pipeline from the previous owners, Exxon Mobil, last year, and is seeking to restart the oil operation.
The backstory: The pipeline in Gaviota gushed more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto coastal land and ocean waters, shutting down fisheries, closing beaches and harming marine life and coastal habitats in 2015.
The dispute: The Coastal Commission said Sable has done something no alleged violator has ever done before: ignoring the agency’s multiple cease-and-desist orders and continuing its work. The company argued it can proceed using the pipeline’s original county permit issued in the 1980s. In February, Sable sued the Coastal Commission saying the state is unlawfully halting the company’s repair and maintenance work.
Read on ... for reaction from area residents and business owners.
The California Coastal Commission on Thursday fined an oil company a record $18 million for repeatedly defying orders to stop work on a corroded pipeline in Santa Barbara County that caused a major oil spill nearly a decade ago.
The vote sets the stage for a potentially high-stakes test of the state’s power to police oil development along the coast. The onshore pipeline in Gaviota gushed more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto coastal land and ocean waters, shutting down fisheries, closing beaches and harming marine life and coastal habitats in 2015.
About this article
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Sable Offshore Corp., a Houston-based company, purchased the pipeline from the previous owners, Exxon Mobil, last year, and is seeking to restart the Santa Ynez offshore oil operation.
The Coastal Commission said Sable has done something no alleged violator has ever done before: ignoring the agency’s multiple cease-and-desist orders and continuing its work.
“Our orders were valid and legally issued, and Sable’s refusal to comply is a refusal to follow the law,” said Commissioner Meagan Harmon, who also is a member of the Santa Barbara City Council. “Their refusal, in a very real sense, is a subversion of the will of the people of the state of California.”
I've never taken how special this area is for granted. As a kid, I was traumatized by the '69 oil spill, and in 2015, I had to watch my own kids go through the same trauma.
— Carol Millar, Santa Barbara County resident
The company argued it can proceed using the pipeline’s original county permit issued in the 1980s. In February, Sable sued the Coastal Commission saying the state is unlawfully halting the company’s repair and maintenance work.
At a 5-hour public hearing in Santa Barbara on Thursday, more than 100 speakers lined up, many of them urging the commission to penalize Sable and stop its work. Some invoked memories of the 2015 Refugio OIl Spill as well as the massive 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill caused by a blowout on a Union Oil drilling rig. Public outrage over that spill helped shape the environmental movement, led to the first Earth Day and contributed to the enactment of many national environmental laws.
“I've never taken how special this area is for granted,” said Santa Barbara County resident Carol Millar. “As a kid, I was traumatized by the '69 oil spill, and in 2015, I had to watch my own kids go through the same trauma.”
Steve Rusch, Sable's vice president of environmental and governmental affairs, said the commission was overreaching because of the spill caused by the previous owners.
“We are proud of our good-paying, skilled jobs that our project has brought to the region,” he told commissioners. “It's not about the 2015 Refugio oil spill. It's not about the restart of the pipeline. ... It's not about the future of oil production or fossil fuel in California.”
We are proud of our good-paying, skilled jobs that our project has brought to the region. It's not about the 2015 Refugio oil spill.
Sable had been excavating around the former pipelines and placing cement bags on the seafloor below its oil and water pipelines.
The Coastal Commission’s fine levied against Sable is the highest ever levied against a company, according to a commission spokesperson. The commission voted to lower the $18 million fine to potentially just under $15 million if Sable complies with the state’s orders and applies for a coastal development permit.
Beginning last year, commission staff charged the company with multiple violations of coastal laws, including unpermitted construction and excavation using heavy equipment along the 14-mile oil pipeline on the Gaviota Coast, including in waters offshore.
The enforcement division of the commission said Sable undertook major work at multiple locations without securing the required coastal development permits.
The company dug large pits, cleared vegetation, graded and widened roads, placed cement and sandbags in ocean waters and drained water sources, among other damage, according to a staff presentation. Commission staff said these actions went beyond routine maintenance and amounted to a full rebuild of the pipeline.
Coastal Commission officials emphasized that the work posed serious risks to the environment, including wetlands and other sensitive habitats, potentially harming protected species, including western pond turtles and steelhead.
"The timing of the implemented development is particularly problematic, as much of this development has been during bird nesting season, as well as red-legged frog breeding season and Southern Steelhead migratory spawning season,” said Stephanie Cook, an attorney with the commission. “This work has a high potential to adversely impact these habitat areas.”
The staff said it spent months trying to get Sable to cooperate, but the company provided incomplete or misleading information.
The timing ... is particularly problematic, as much of this development has been during bird nesting season, as well as red-legged frog breeding season and Southern Steelhead migratory spawning season.
— Stephanie Cook, Coastal Commission attorney
Rusch, in a statement issued after the hearing, said the company is conducting routine pipeline repair and maintenance, and said the actions were allowed under old permits issued by Santa Barbara County. The work is taking place in areas already affected by previous construction and use, and the company says the state cannot override the county’s interpretation of its permits.
“Sable is dedicated to restarting project operations in a safe and efficient manner,” Rusch said in the statement. “No California business should be forced to go through a protracted and arbitrary permitting process when it already has valid permits for the work it performed.”
However, the validity of the county permit for the pipeline is in dispute. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in a February vote did not approve transferring the county permit to Sable, the new owner. The vote was 2-2, with one member abstaining because the pipeline runs through her property. County officials are still trying to decide their next step.
One concern of county officials is whether Sable has the financial ability and adequate insurance to handle a major oil spill.
Several workers who said they were affiliated with the company spoke out in support along with others who said the company would boost the local economy.
Evelyn Lynn, director of operations at Aspen Helicopters in Oxnard, said she supported Sable’s efforts because it would give her company a boost.
“If they're not allowed to start their efforts again, this will have huge collateral damage to all of our local businesses, and also to our company in particular, and all of our local people who live here,” Lynn said. “All of our employees are required to live in California. They are all local, and they are all affected.”
The Coastal Commission's permits are not the only step the company has to take to operate the pipeline. Multiple state agencies regulate pipelines, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Oil Spill and Prevention Response and the Office of the State Fire Marshal.
Environmental groups have called for a full environmental review of the pipeline under the California Environmental Quality Act.
National environmental organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity have weighed in, along with local advocates, to support the Coastal Commission. A group born out of the original Santa Barbara oil spill — the Environmental Defense Center — opposes the project and efforts to restart drilling. The Surfrider Foundation also launched a “Don’t Enable Sable” campaign, and several beachgoers spoke out against the project.
People chat together at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Sept. 12, 2025. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters
(
Fred Greaves
/
CalMatters
)
Topline:
California lawmakers spend just a few minutes discussing in public the hundreds of bills they introduce. But these 10 measures had hours of intense debate in 2025.
Why it matters: A handful of controversial proposals broke through the usual rushed process, drawing hours of testimony and intense public lobbying from some of the state’s most powerful organizations that spend millions of dollars to get their way, according to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, which tracks every word spoken in the Legislature.
The backstory: Those long hours are not the norm, compared to the overall 2025 average, which showed lawmakers and advocates spent just 32 minutes publicly talking about each of the 1,657 bills that were discussed in at least one hearing.
Read on ... for details about the 10 bills generating debate.
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Most bills in the California Legislature are barely talked about in public before lawmakers take action, often after secret negotiations with lobbyists.
But a handful of controversial proposals broke through the usual rushed process, drawing hours of testimony and intense public lobbying from some of the state’s most powerful organizations that spend millions of dollars to get their way, according to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, which tracks every word spoken in the Legislature.
That’s compared to the overall 2025 average, which showed lawmakers and advocates spent just 32 minutes publicly talking about each of the 1,657 bills that were discussed in at least one hearing.
These were the 10 most debated bills of the 2025 regular legislative session, according to Digital Democracy.
(Note: Advocacy groups listed below may have changed their positions as the bills were amended.)
Lead author: Democratic assemblymembers Dawn Addis of San Luis Obispo and Rick Zbur of Los Angeles.
Time discussed: 15 hours
Approximate number of speakers: 486
Why it was a talker: California’s Jewish lawmakers made countering antisemitism in schools their top priority this year, but opposing the bill was a coalition of education groups, unions, civil rights advocates and Muslim community organizations who feared censorship of pro-Palestinian voices and infringement on academic freedom. The groups turned out in droves to testify.
Number of groups in support: At least 68, including the Jewish Community Action, the Los Angeles County Business Federation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Number of groups opposed: At least 92, including the California Federation of Teachers, the California Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the California School Boards Association.
Status: Signed into law.
Local governments balk at transit-oriented housing
Lead author: Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco
Time discussed: 6 hours, 40 minutes
Approximate number of speakers: 198
Why it was a talker: Local governments balked at a new state mandate allowing developers to build midrise apartment buildings within walking distance of many major train, light-rail, subway and high-frequency rapid bus stations — even if local zoning restrictions would otherwise ban such dense development.
Number of groups in support: At least 49, including pro home-building groups and the California Apartment Association.
Number of groups opposed: At least 76, including, at one point, the building trades unions, the California Association of Realtors and dozens of municipalities.
Lead authors: Democratic assemblymembers Robert Garcia of Rancho Cucamonga and Al Muratsuchi of Torrance.
Time discussed: 6 hours, 32 minutes
Approximate number of speakers: 491
Why it was a talker: This was the latest legislative effort by California’s powerful teachers unions and their allies to add restrictions and oversight to charter schools. Homeschool families and charter schools opposed the measure, introduced in response to high-profile charter school fraud scandals, saying it would strip millions of dollars in state funding from their programs. The bill added auditing requirements and new fees as well as a proposed new Office of Inspector General inside the Department of Education.
Number of groups in support: At least six, almost all influential unions.
Number of groups opposed: More than 200, many of them charter schools or home school groups.
Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen of Elk Grove
Time discussed: 5 hours, 28 minutes
Approximate number of speakers: 149
Why it was a talker: This bill, originally written by Democratic Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, a former state prosecutor, sought to increase penalties for soliciting teen sex. But the legislation sparked difficult discussions between progressive and moderate members of the Democratic caucus about how hard to crack down on those accused of soliciting sex from minors, based on whether the victims were younger or older teenagers.
Number of groups in support: At least 48, including law enforcement unions and some Native American tribes.
Number of groups opposed: At least 25, including ACLU and various advocates for progressive criminal justice reforms.
Status: Signed into law.
Lots to say about ICE agent masks
U.S. Border Patrol agents march to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building after a show of force outside the Japanese American National Museum, where Gov. Newsom was holding a redistricting press conference in Los Angeles on Aug. 14, 2025.
Lead authors: Democratic Sen. Jessie Arreguín of Berkeley and three other senators
Time discussed: 5 hours
Approximate number of speakers: 100
Why it was a talker: Members of California’s Democratic legislative supermajority aren’t shy about speaking their minds on President Donald Trump and his controversial immigration policies, so it’s no surprise that there was a lot of discussion over California’s first-in-the nation measure to prohibit federal immigration officers and local police from wearing masks in California.
Number of groups in support: At least 45, including non-police unions, public defenders, the ACLU and immigrant rights groups.
Number of groups opposed: At least 16, almost all of them police unions.
Why it was a talker: There were plenty of heated discussions after California Democrats put forward their own gerrymandering plan after Trump pressured Texas to change its congressional maps to make new Republican districts.
Number of groups in support: At least 54, including labor unions and progressive groups.
Number of groups opposed: At least 19, including California Common Cause, Govern for California and conservative groups.
Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally in support of a “Yes” vote on Proposition 50, a congressional redistricting measure in the Nov. 4th special election, at the Los Angeles Convention Center in Los Angeles on Nov. 1, 2025.
Lead authors: Democratic Sen. Josh Becker of Menlo Park and two other lawmakers
Time discussed: 4 hours, 55 minutes
Approximate number of speakers: 119
Why it was a talker: This energy bill created a new public financing system for electric transmission projects and extended a controversial program that shields utilities from some wildfire liability costs, but critics warned it could ultimately drive consumer bills higher. It was part of a package of energy and climate measures the Legislature passed this year.
Number of groups in support: At least 55, including trades unions, the California Democratic Party, the California Chamber of Commerce, environmental groups and the California Municipal Utilities Association.
Number of groups opposed: At least seven, including the California Farm Bureau Federation, Rural County Representatives of California and the California State Association of Counties.
Why it was a talker: For years, veterans advocates have wanted a state law preventing companies from charging exorbitant fees to help veterans file federal disability benefits claims, something they can do for free through the government and certain veterans’ organizations. But the Legislature has repeatedly balked, as companies claim they provide an important service to help veterans get the benefits they need.
Number of groups in support: At least 25, including the California State Association of Counties and the American Legion.
Number of groups opposed: At least nine, including Veterans Guardian, one of the companies that files claims.
Status: The bill did not pass the Senate, although lawmakers announced they had a deal on the legislation and would vote on it in January.
Lead author: Democratic Assemblymember Tina McKinnor of Inglewood
Time discussed: 4 hours, 13 minutes
Approximate number of speakers: 209
Why it was a talker: AT&T has spent millions in lobbying as it tried unsuccessfully to bow out of its legal requirement to provide copper landlines in much of the state. Rural communities and others pushed back, leading to some of the lengthiest discussions in the Legislature this year.
Number of groups in support: At least 145, including AT&T, some tribes and other groups aligned with the telecommunications company.
Number of groups opposed: At least 96, including rural counties, some unions and AARP.
Number of groups in support: At least 59, including nurses and school unions, the California Medical Association and some school districts.
Number of groups opposed: At least 46, including agricultural associations, the American Beverage Association and other business trade groups.
Status: Signed into law.
Digital Democracy’s Foaad Khosmood, Forbes professor of computer engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and Digital Democracy’s Thomas Gerrity contributed to this story.
The electric vehicle industry has taken a pummeling this year. The Trump administration, as expected, reversed a whole suite of federal policies that promoted or encouraged EVs. But sales spiked in August and September.
Changes to EV policies: California's ability to require the sale of EVs: gone. Federal rules about emissions and fuel economy — being rewritten. Federal penalties for car companies that sell too many gas guzzlers: zeroed out. The $7,500 federal tax credit? Kaput. Meanwhile, automakers delayed or canceled a host of unprofitable EV plans.
Sales boost: But during the last weeks that the federal tax credit was available, buyers rushed to take advantage of the expiring opportunity. EVs hit an all-time high of 11.6% of the new vehicle market in September. Then sales crashed by 50% in October. And while automakers are slowing their EV plans down significantly, they're not giving up on them, either. The global market for cars that run on gas or diesel is shrinking, while the market for battery-powered cars is expanding — and China is dominating it.
Read on ... for more on the U.S. and global EV markets.
The electric vehicle industry has taken a pummeling this year. The Trump administration, as expected, reversed a whole suite of federal policies that promoted or encouraged EVs.
California's ability to require the sale of EVs: gone. Federal rules about emissions and fuel economy — being rewritten. Federal penalties for car companies that sell too many gas guzzlers: zeroed out. The $7,500 federal tax credit? Kaput.
Meanwhile, automakers delayed or canceled a host of unprofitable EV plans.
The all-electric Ram 1500 REV was canceled before a single one was built. The all-electric Ford Lightning was discontinued despite some glowing reviews. (Both pickups will be replaced with extended-range electric vehicles, which come with both a big battery and a backup gas tank.)
The buzzy Volkswagen Buzz is still available in other countries, but no longer in the U.S. The GM Brightdrop van is no more. The list goes on.
As for sales? "It's a roller-coaster ride," says Stephanie Valdez Streaty, who monitors EVs for the data and services company Cox Automotive.
Sales spiked in August and September, during the last weeks that the federal tax credit was available, as buyers rushed to take advantage of the expiring opportunity. Cox estimated EVs hit an all-time high of 11.6% of the new vehicle market in September. Then sales crashed by 50% in October.
But here's a twist.
"Among U.S. shoppers who are in [the] market for new vehicles, the interest in electric vehicles actually ticked up a bit after the tax credit went away," says Brent Gruber, who runs the EV practice at consumer insights company J.D. Power.
It's the EV story you might not have heard this year: Despite the political and product planning whiplash, consumer appetite for EVs has been on a very smooth ride.
Overall, about 25% of new car shoppers are very interested in buying an EV, according to J.D. Power surveys. And with minor fluctuations, "it's held pretty consistent," Gruber says, despite what he calls the "turbulence" of this year.
"There's still a tremendous amount of interest," he says. "And from an EV owner perspective, we continue to see high levels of satisfaction once people do get into those products." In fact, EV owners are 94% likely to repurchase another EV for their next vehicle, he says.
BJ Birtwell runs the Electrify Expo, a traveling festival dedicated to EVs. He says EVs have suffered from being politicized, with a lot of right-of-center Americans rejecting them out of hand.
"There's still a cloud of skepticism around EVs across some parts of the country," he says. But put a skeptic behind the wheel of a new EV, he says, "and I'll tell you what I see: Smiles for miles." Test drives reveal the cars are fun to drive, he says, and a little research can show that charging at home is easier and cheaper than they thought.
An American slowdown
Still, while Americans remain interested in EVs, it's undeniable that battery-powered vehicles are taking off more slowly than industry execs expected a few years ago. That's not just because of the policy reversal; it's also because of market realities. For example, while charging might be easy at home, it's a hassle for apartment dwellers who don't have that option. Meanwhile, vehicle prices — a challenge for the entire auto market — are even higher for EVs. Lower fuel and maintenance costs can't always overcome that up-front sticker shock, even for people who are hypothetically interested in buying.
This slowdown will have global consequences for the environment and for human beings: It locks in higher carbon emissions and air pollution for years to come.
The legacy automakers, of course, have lost billions of dollars on the EV designs they've canceled or postponed. But the delay hurts more than just the big-name auto brands. A whole network of suppliers sell parts to the automakers, and they also bear the burden when plans change.
Ken O'Trakoun of RPM Partners works with auto suppliers in distress. "The whiplash," he says, "between demand going up and demand receding, it has impacted a number of suppliers." They made investments in factories to supply automakers for vehicles that either aren't being made, or are being made at much lower volumes. "It's pretty disruptive."
The "ripple effect" from those suppliers "creates impacts on jobs," Valdez-Streaty notes.
Automakers, too, have laid off or reassigned employees away from battery plants and EV production lines as part of their adjusted timelines.
A clear global trend
But while automakers are slowing their EV plans down significantly, they're not giving up on them, either.
Partly that's because of the enduring consumer interest; as long as there's a market, the automakers want to serve it. And partly that's because the automakers are all global companies. They want to be able to sell to the rest of the world, too.
"On a global scale, internal combustion engine cars already peaked back, like, eight or nine years ago," says Huiling Zhou, U.S. EV analyst for the research group BloombergNEF.
That means that the global market for cars that run on gas or diesel is shrinking, while the market for battery-powered cars is expanding — and China is dominating it.
If automakers want to compete around the world, they simply can't afford to get off the EV roller coaster.
Copyright 2025 NPR
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
Community members wait in line for free food next to World Central Kitchen's new Rapid Response Mobile Kitchen truck stationed outside the Eaton Fire burn zone March 14 in Altadena.
(
Mario Tama
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
While California’s emissions have declined, they have kept rising globally, and the climate has worsened. Now, in an effort to build back momentum, advocates are bringing attention to current-day harms driven by climate change. Among those affected by rising temperatures is Amanda Nevarez, who was left homeless by the Eaton Fire in Altadena.
Global warming and displacement: The Eaton fire had several causes, including an unusual lack of rain, a condition blamed on climate change. Using weather data collected since 1950, scientists ran simulations showing the conditions that dried out the foothills were 35% more likely because of global warming. The fire accelerated the decade-long displacement of tenants like Nevarez from Altadena due to rising housing costs.
Affordability and the climate crisis: “You can’t solve the affordability crisis without solving the climate crisis,” said Noel Perry, the founder of Next10, which co-produced a report with UC Berkeley that identified the costs of global warming in everything from homelessness and rent to energy bills and groceries. Rising temperatures, the clearest impact of climate change, are driving up home energy costs. Los Angeles DWP Chief Financial Officer Ann Santilli told NBC Los Angeles that bills “are very much driven by the weather.” Among the state’s most energy burdened communities is Arleta in the San Fernando Valley. Residents of Arleta spend 6% of their monthly income on power and gas, impacting woman-led households the most, according to research by the Gender Equity Policy Institute.
When California adopted a law to regulate greenhouse gases 23 years ago — the first state in the nation to do so — it focused on the future dangers of global warming. But while California’s emissions have declined, they have kept rising globally, and the climate has worsened. Now, in an effort to build back momentum, advocates are bringing attention to current-day harms driven by climate change.
Among those affected by rising temperatures is Amanda Nevarez, who was left homeless by the Eaton Fire, one of two wildfires in Los Angeles County that together destroyed more than 16,000 homes and buildings and killed 31 people last January.
Nevarez now sleeps in a trailer just big enough for a bed, parked at a garage in South Los Angeles, where her friend transforms old cars into electric vehicles. The fire accelerated the decade-long displacement of tenants like her from Altadena due to rising housing costs.
The blaze had several causes, including an unusual lack of rain, a condition blamed on climate change. Using weather data collected since 1950, scientists ran simulations showing the conditions that dried out the foothills were 35% more likely because of global warming.
Nevarez’s life in the tight-knit community was upended after smoke left her rented home uninhabitable. The movie director has relocated more than a dozen times, burned through two cars and had to give up nearly all her possessions. Available work in the film industry has been nearly nonexistent, while local rents remain stubbornly high.
“I’ve always had to adapt,” Nevarez said, recounting challenges like the Hollywood writers’ strike in 2023. Reduced government assistance for food made her life harder. “It’s just a chain reaction of things piling up.”
Her experience shows how climate change is worsening California’s suffocating living costs, a reality frequently glossed over in politics today.
Amanda Nevarez.
(
Aaron Cantú
/
Capital & Main
)
Democrats, who hold a supermajority in California, no longer trumpet policies to fight climate change, an analysis by the Washington Post found. While research shows most Americans are concerned about climate change, a December poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found only 4% of surveyed likely voters said the environment and climate change were the “most important problem” facing the U.S. Elected state officials and those seeking office are emphasizing pocketbook concerns.
Yet there’s a different way to view the issue than as a choice between tackling high prices or fighting climate change.
“You can’t solve the affordability crisis without solving the climate crisis,” said Noel Perry, the founder of Next10, which co-produced a report with UC Berkeley that identified the costs of global warming in everything from homelessness and rent to energy bills and groceries. He and other climate campaigners are trying to recalibrate their messaging to that political reality.
It’s true that California’s policies to discourage fossil fuel use add to costs. Power bills and gasoline are more expensive here than elsewhere in the country, which the state compounds by taxing to pay for grid upgrades in order to wean itself off oil and gas. Oil refineries and power utilities pass those costs on to consumers, widening income inequality, the state has said.
But climate pain is now a fact for many, added to the long list of other crises people face — inflation, mass deportations, housing prices and a frayed government safety net.
Heat, Drought and Floods
Rising temperatures, the clearest impact of climate change, are driving up home energy costs.
California faced its hottest summer on record last year, when Los Angeles broiled in summertime heat exceeding 110°F. Each additional day above 95°F increased the chance that the power to low-income households would be disconnected, as energy bills inch up an additional $20 to $30 a month, according to a 2022 UCLA study. Los Angeles DWP Chief Financial Officer Ann Santilli told NBC Los Angeles that bills “are very much driven by the weather.”
Among the state’s most energy burdened communities is a heavily Latino enclave in the San Fernando Valley, an area often exposed to the hottest temperatures in Los Angeles County. Residents of Arleta spend 6% of their monthly income on power and gas, impacting woman-led households the most, according to research by the Gender Equity Policy Institute.
Sitting among roughly 150 people gathered on a dusty church lot waiting to enter a food pantry in Arleta, a woman named Maria, who gave only her first name as she rushed inside, lamented high living costs and a lack of jobs. “There are rich people who live well, but the poor are now in a very bad state,” she said. A former assembly line worker for an aerospace company, she said she and her adult children now pool together their meager incomes.
Inside the small wood-paneled building, visitors shuffled past a mound of bread piled on a table and trays with potatoes and fruit stacked high. A lanky youth offered a warm smile and wildly varied surplus foods, from lasanga noodles to pickle mayonnaise, while early arrivals scored half cartons of eggs placed carefully in their bags. Lately, more people have started showing up at the pantry, a volunteer said.
Poverty surged when the U.S. did not renew pandemic relief efforts such as unemployment and rent assistance. Driven by high living costs, California has a higher share of residents living in poverty than any state except Louisiana. At the same time, a typical $100 grocery bill in 2019 now costs $130 in the state, partially a result of crop disruptions caused by drought and heat in Florida, California and elsewhere.
The squeeze is tighter for workers lacking permanent legal status, who aren’t eligible for federal public benefits programs and risk being detained when they leave home for work. “I think they’re going to evict us because we can’t afford the rent anymore,” said pantry visitor Guadalupe Salazar, a home health care aide whose husband stopped working as a gardener for fear of being swept up in the federal immigration raids.
Other research shows people hit hard by drought and floods. One study found that during a severe drought in 2015, the poorest residents of Glendale in Los Angeles County, with households earning less than $10,000 a year, spent 6.5% of their income for water, compared to 1.5% for households earning the median income of $52,451.
Further north, in the San Joaquin Valley farmworker town of Planada, where many residents lack permanent legal status, heavy flooding in 2023 left almost a quarter of the residents behind on bills and rent.
After the Flames
Los Angeles fires ranked as the world’s costliest disaster zone in the first six months of 2025 — far worse than Myanmar, where there was a big earthquake, or Brazil, where there was a severe drought. But since 2017 wildfires have frequently caused tens of billions of dollars in property damage, lost wages and health care costs each year.
The fires also drive up power bills. Ratepayers of Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric saw a rise of between $12.97 and $24.42 for a “Wildfire Fund” surcharge. The fund is raising $21 billion to pay out claims to victims of fires sparked by power lines. A new law increases it by an additional $18 billion through 2045, half from ratepayers and the rest from shareholders. Home insurance premiums, too, are shootingup due to rising fire damage.
For now, paying rent and power bills aren’t things that Nevarez needs to worry about. Instead she worries about mold — cleaning it and breathing it from the walls of her trailer. Most of it is now gone, but a damp smell lingers. She runs an air purifier at night.
To use the bathroom, she has to enter the garage, stepping past a yellow Ferrari spilling its wiry guts. The owner of Left Coast EV, Rev. Gregory “Gadget” Abbott, is preparing to install a salvaged battery pack and motor in place of the powertrain engine. The two friends met at the annual Burning Man festival. They enjoy each other’s company, sometimes cooking communal dinners with roommates using vegetables from a rooftop garden.
Nevarez, right, chats with Rev. Gregory “Gadget” Abbott at Left Coast EV.
(
Aaron Cantú
/
Capital & Main
)
“I’m trying my hardest to lay out tracks in front of me to go forward,” said Nevarez, who said she feels like she’s fallen through the cracks. But with help from Abbott, she can work on film projects without the daily grind of just trying to survive. “If it wasn’t for him, I don’t know where I’d be today.”
Amid converging affordability crises, some advocates are looking to energy and insurance companies to foot a big chunk of the climate bill.
Climate groups want to compel oil and gas companies, whose products heat the planet, to deliver reparations, including cash payments for those who’ve suffered from climate change. Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit that fights for consumer rights, sent a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom urging the state to pull wildfire compensation dollars from utility shareholders instead of ratepayers and force insurers to expand fire coverage.
But it’s an uphill climb. Legislation known as the Climate Superfund Act, a potential first step for making polluters pay for climate damage, stalled in Sacramento last summer before being shelved. While politicians, including some Democrats, take a step back, global temperatures continue to rise, upending lives in ways that continue to multiply.
By Rebecca Egan McCarthy, Anita Hofschneider, & Tik Root | Grist
Published December 29, 2025 7:00 AM
President Donald Trump speaks during a Mexican Border Defense Medal presentation in the Oval Office of the White House.
(
Alex Brandon
/
AP
)
Topline:
President Donald Trump spent most of 2025 hacking away at large parts of the federal government. One tiny corner of regulation, however, has actually grown under Trump: the critical minerals list.
What are critical minerals?: The concept dates back to the first half of the 20th century, especially World War II, when Congress passed legislation aimed at stockpiling materials vital to the United States’ well being. In November, the U.S. Geological Survey quietly expanded the list from 50 to 60 items, adding copper, silver, uranium, and even metallurgical coal to the list. President Donald Trump established the critical minerals list in 2018, with the defining criteria being that any mineral included be “essential to the economic and national security of the United States” and have a supply chain that is “vulnerable to disruption.” A mineral’s presence on the list can convey a slew of benefits to anyone trying to extract or produce that mineral in the U.S., including faster permitting for extraction, tax incentives, or federal funding.
The backstory: In March, Trump signed an executive order meant to jumpstart critical mineral production. That was just the first step in a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to strengthen U.S. control over existing supply chains for copper, lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and dozens of other critical minerals and to galvanize new mines. The Trump administration has sought to accomplish these goals by both reducing the regulatory barriers to production and by investing in the companies poised to do it.
Critical minerals and the military: It must also be stressed that the Trump administration’s rapid push to shore up the U.S.’s control over critical minerals isn’t about transitioning the country away from fossil fuels. Instead, the whole effort seems to mostly be geared toward military uses. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” allocated $7.5 billion for critical minerals, $2 billion of which will go directly to the national defense stockpile. Another $5 billion was allocated for the department of defense to invest in critical mineral supply chains.
President Donald Trump spent most of 2025 hacking away at large parts of the federal government. His administration fired, bought out, or otherwise ousted hundreds of thousands of federal employees. Entire agencies were gutted. By so many metrics, this year in politics has been defined more by what has been cut away than by what’s been added on.
One tiny corner of regulation, however, has actually grown under Trump: the critical minerals list. Most people likely hadn’t heard of “critical minerals” until early this year when the president repeatedly inserted the phrase into his statements, turning the once obscure policy realm into a household phrase. In November, the U.S. Geological Survey quietly expanded the list from 50 to 60 items, adding copper, silver, uranium, and even metallurgical coal to the list. On Monday, South Korean metal processor Korea Zinc announced that the federal government is investing in a new $7.4 billion zinc refinery in Tennessee, in which the Department of Defense will hold a stake.
But what even is a critical mineral?
The concept dates back to the first half of the 20th century, especially World War II, when Congress passed legislation aimed at stockpiling materials vital to the United States’ well being. President Trump established the critical minerals list in 2018, with the defining criteria being that any mineral included be “essential to the economic and national security of the United States” and have a supply chain that is “vulnerable to disruption.” A mineral’s presence on the list can convey a slew of benefits to anyone trying to extract or produce that mineral in the U.S., including faster permitting for extraction, tax incentives, or federal funding.
As Grist explored in its recent mining issue, critical minerals are shaping everything from geopolitics to water supplies, oceans, and recycling systems. If there is to be a true clean energy transition, these elements are key to it. Metals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel form the backbone of the batteries that power electric vehicles. Silicon is the primary component of solar cells, and rare earth magnets help wind turbines function. Not to mention computers, microchips, and the multitude of other things that depend on critical minerals.
Currently, the vast majority of critical minerals used in the United States come from China — some 80 percent. In his first term, Trump tried to increase domestic production of these minerals. “The United States must not remain reliant on foreign competitors like Russia and China for the critical minerals needed to keep our economy strong and our country safe,” he said in 2017. Securing a domestic supply was also a cornerstone of former president Joe Biden’s landmark climate bills, the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Now, as Trump has taken office again, he’s made critical minerals an ever more central part of his policy platform. We’re here to demystify why this has been a blockbuster year for critical minerals in the United States — and where the industry may go in the future.
A highly unusual strategy
In March, Trump issued an executive order meant to jumpstart critical mineral production. “It is imperative for our national security that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent,” he said. The executive order was just the first step in a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to strengthen U.S. control over existing supply chains for copper, lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and dozens of other critical minerals and to galvanize new mines, regardless of concerns raised by Indigenous peoples. The Trump administration has sought to accomplish these goals by both reducing the regulatory barriers to production and by investing in the companies poised to do it.
Since then, Trump has signed agreements with multiple countries to increase investments in critical minerals and strengthen supply chains. Most recently, the U.S. made a deal with the Democratic Republic of Congo, which holds more than 70 percent of the world’s cobalt. He has pushed federal agencies to make it easier for mining companies to apply for federal funding, and is inviting companies to apply to pursue seabed mining in the deep waters around American Samoa, near Guam and the Northern Marianas, around the Cook Islands, and in international waters south of Hawaiʻi — prompting global outrage and opposition from Native Hawaiian, Samoan, and Chamorro/CHamoru peoples. At the same time, Trump’s volatile tariff policies have made it harder for American companies to source minerals, and cuts to federal funding have harmed mining workforce training programs and research into critical minerals.
While the Biden administration provided grants and loans to various mining companies, Trump is deploying a highly unusual strategy of buying stakes in private companies, tying the financial interests of the U.S. government with the interests and success of these commercial mining operations. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has spent more than a billion dollars in public money to buy minority stakes in private companies like MP Materials, ReElement Technologies, and Vulcan Elements. In Alaska, that strategy has involved investing more than $35 million in Trilogy Metals to buy a 10 percent stake in the company, which is a major backer of a copper and cobalt mining project in Alaska.
In September, the Trump administration finalized another deal with the Canadian company Lithium Americas behind Thacker Pass in Nevada, which is expected to be the largest lithium mine in the U.S. The Biden administration approved a $2.23 billion loan to Lithium Americas in October 2024; the Trump administration then restructured the loan and obtained a 5 percent stake in the project and another 5 percent stake in Lithium Americas itself. (A top Interior Department official has since been reported to have benefited financially from the project.) That’s despite allegations that the mine violates the rights of neighboring tribal nations and is proceeding without their consent, which Lithium Americas has denied.
The outlook for critical minerals
Historically, the federal government has only taken equity stakes in struggling companies, such as through the Troubled Asset Relief Program that sought to stabilize the auto industry and U.S. banks during the 2008 financial crisis. “What we’re talking about here is something very different, which is an industry that has not yet launched,” said Beia Spiller, who leads critical minerals work at the nonprofit research group Resources for the Future.
“Whether that’s going to work, I think is unlikely,” Spiller continued. “The best way to get an industry up and running is to have policies that raise the tide for everyone, not just choosing winners.”
In reference to Lithium Americas, Spiller said, “If you actually look at the cost fundamentals, it’s not a very competitive company.” Lithium Americas mines metal from clay, an old process that requires a lot of land, open pit mines, and heavy machinery — whereas some newer operations use direct lithium extraction, which is more cost effective in the long term. “So we just took an equity stake in a company that is going to face headwinds in terms of costs — now the American public faces that downside.”
It must also be stressed that the Trump administration’s rapid push to shore up the U.S.’s control over critical minerals isn’t about transitioning the country away from fossil fuels. Instead, the whole effort seems to mostly be geared toward military uses. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” allocated $7.5 billion for critical minerals, $2 billion of which will go directly to the national defense stockpile. Another $5 billion was allocated for the department of defense to invest in critical mineral supply chains.
In October, a former official at the defense department told the Financial Times that the agency is “incredibly focused on the stockpile.”
“They’re definitely looking for more, and they’re doing it in a deliberate and expansive way, and looking for new sources of different ores needed for defense products,” the unnamed official said.
Last week the administration announced that it plans to take equity stakes in more mining companies next year. It’s possible, Spiller said, these investments could extend to outfits that are piloting deep-sea mining. That carries a new set of risks, as many banks refuse to insure deep-sea mining operations, it’s unclear whether seabed mining operations will be able to even get off the ground before the end of Trump’s term, and the legal repercussions associated with undermining the Law of the Sea could fracture the stability among global powers — and make global climate action that much harder.
Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the name of MP Materials.
