The Brief

The Scattergood Generating Station in Los Angeles is an oceanfront natural-gas-burning relic that sits on the uncertain brink of a clean energy showdown.

On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners will decide whether to advance a plan to shift the plant to futuristic hydrogen-ready turbines. The $800 million-plus retrofit is an anchor in California’s effort to boost hydrogen, a potentially clean fuel that for now remains costly, water-intensive and rarely produced without oil and gas.

But California’s high hopes for hydrogen — and the state’s investments in it as a potential economic driver in the era of clean energy — are at a crossroads.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration canceled $1.2 billion in federal funding for California’s hydrogen hub, a public-private partnership to build a clean hydrogen economy and support projects like Scattergood. The move followed a decision earlier this summer to scale back federal tax credits nationally for hydrogen.

California says it’s pressing ahead with hydrogen projects, including Scattergood, with or without federal support.

“The state remains committed to developing a renewable hydrogen ecosystem,” said Willie Rudman, a spokesman for the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, or GO-Biz, which led the creation of the hydrogen partnership. Clean hydrogen, Rudman added, “holds incredible potential as California continues its transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.”

Critics say that optimism ignores real costs and trade-offs.

A bold investment, an uncertain climate

California politicians have chased hydrogen for decades, seeking environmental and economic benefits. In 2004, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger famously rolled out a hydrogen-powered Hummer and ordered a “Hydrogen Highway” of fueling stations.

The state’s most recent bid — an ambitious hydrogen hub — has been its boldest investment yet.

In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom launched the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, or ARCHES — a partnership led by GO-Biz, the University of California, and the State Building and Construction Trades Council. It now counts more than four hundred public- and private-sector partners, including Chevron and other energy companies.

Most hydrogen today comes from natural gas — a carbon-intensive process that undercuts its climate appeal. Over time, ARCHES hopes to help the industry swap that process for “green” hydrogen made by splitting water with renewable power, an expensive and elusive process.

Newsom has embraced hydrogen as both climate and economic policy.

“Scaling this in California isn't just about addressing the climate crisis — it's also about creating hundreds of thousands of jobs,” Newsom wrote in August 2023. He directed his administration to develop an “all-of-government Hydrogen Market Development Strategy,” similar to what California had done for electric cars.

ARCHES won up to $1.2 billion in federal funding from the Department of Energy as part of a $12.6 billion total statewide hydrogen hub. The award positioned California at the center of the nation’s ambitions for clean hydrogen — until the Trump administration abruptly withdrew funding Oct. 1.

Newsom blasted the move as political and “common sense be damned.” While California lost its funding, several hydrogen hubs in Republican-led states kept theirs. California has appealed the decision. 

State Sen. Anna Caballero, a Democrat from Merced who authored a law speeding approval of hydrogen projects last year, said she expects talks next session on using cap-and-trade funds to keep the hydrogen hub alive. Private and international investors, she added, remain interested in California’s market.

“People in my district are asking for good jobs as we make this transition — and they’re looking for clean air — and hydrogen has the capacity to do all of the above,” Caballero said. “We have the opportunity, and I’d like to see us explore it.”

Not everyone was disappointed by the loss of the California funding. Some environmental groups, concerned about encouraging fossil fuels and the potential for explosions, welcomed the federal cancellation. Nevertheless, Los Angeles is pressing ahead with Scattergood — one of several projects that were part of the original statewide hydrogen push.

Why LA is betting on hydrogen 

Until a few weeks ago, ARCHES, the state’s hydrogen hub, was expected to contribute at least $100 million to the Scattergood retrofit.

“Our understanding is that the federal dollars are not coming in,” said Jason Rondou, assistant general manager of power planning and operations for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. “We don't know yet if there will be another mechanism to make up that $100 million.”

Still, the largest municipal utility in the country is seeking approval from its board for the Scattergood conversion, calling it a step toward the city’s goal of fossil-free power by 2035 and the state’s similar goal, with a deadline a decade later.

Utility officials say the Scattergood upgrade is necessary because its aging gas turbines are inefficient, dirty and cooled with seawater — a process now banned under state policy because of its impact on marine life. The plan is to replace the old turbines with a new combined-cycle unit designed to burn a blend of hydrogen and natural gas.

The goal is to make Scattergood more of a “peaker” plant — one that can fire up and cycle down to match demand surges, rather than running around the clock. But environmentalists are concerned about a project that runs on “green” hydrogen when it isn’t readily available at scale. The retrofit would keep the plant running on natural gas, with LADWP reserving the option to blend in as much as 30% hydrogen if the fuel becomes available and affordable.

“You're spending a lot of money on a technology that doesn't currently exist,” said Julia Dowell, a Long Beach-based organizer with the Sierra Club, who’s led opposition to the Scattergood plan. “We don't really know when it will come to fruition — if at all.”

For now, this is a natural gas plant, said Dan Esposito, a hydrogen expert with the clean energy think tank Energy Innovation. “In a place with high local air pollution, in a place that has these high clean energy goals … should we be building a new gas plant if there are other clean technologies that we can invest in that we have more certainty will deliver on those clean energy targets? It’s a very tough question.”

In a recent analysis, the city’s ratepayer advocate said the financial setback “doesn’t close the door on clean hydrogen” but nevertheless raises questions about who ultimately pays for the project — and how the utility will balance its clean-energy goals with affordability.

The risks ahead 

LA’s water and power commissioners are likely to approve Scattergood’s modernization on Tuesday. The vote won’t start construction, but it will clear the way for the city’s department of water and power to seek builders and finalize designs.

The decision also points up a tough question for California’s hydrogen strategy: without federal support, are public agencies investing scarce climate dollars in the right places?

Scattergood’s environmental review drew nearly 100 comments from residents, neighboring cities and advocacy groups.

The city of El Segundo warned that emissions and construction traffic could spill across its borders. Business groups backed the plan as a source of jobs and grid reliability. Meanwhile environmental groups warned of harms both locally and beyond.

Building even one major hydrogen project like Scattergood means committing to an entire network of pipelines, storage and supply.

“An investment in hydrogen comes with an opportunity cost,” said Alex Jasset, director of energy justice at Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, who opposes the project. “We're dumping a lot of our very limited resources for addressing the climate crisis into an inefficient, expensive option when we could be instead investing in cheaper, more scalable, more immediate benefits.”

Jasset said that the infrastructure for hydrogen projects will mostly be paid for by Californians – through taxes, utility bills, or state business fees. And if those projects fall short, they risk prolonging fossil-fuel infrastructure in neighborhoods already burdened by pollution.

Esposito, the analyst at Energy Innovation, says the Trump Administration’s cancellation of the hydrogen hub award, and the loss of federal credits, might offer a silver lining.

“There was so much money for hydrogen, and so much excitement, that we were frankly at risk of making a lot of bad decisions,” Esposito said. “There were all these proposals that were coming out that were not on solid financial ground — and needed these big subsidies — and then a lot of this money dried up overnight.”

As Los Angeles considers its major project, Esposito added, the state’s hydrogen boosters are getting something essential: a reality check. The challenge now is whether that clarity can guide smarter investments — and a more sustainable path forward.

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.

First, find your neighborhood council:

• Find out which council represents you by searching your address here.
• Sign up to have council agendas sent to your inbox here.
• Find information on when and where your council meets here.
• Check out all Community Impact Statements your council submitted since 2008 here.
• Want to get paid to attend and document public meetings? Learn how to become an LA Documenter here.

1. Your neighborhood council is one of the easiest ways to get involved in L.A. government

If you’ve ever complained about something happening on your block, wondered why a project was approved or wanted your neighborhood to get funding for an event, a neighborhood council meeting is a place to start.

The Neighborhood Council system, established in 1999, is made up of volunteer-led councils that give residents a direct way to weigh in on hyper-local issues, proposed projects and neighborhood programs. 

There are 99 neighborhood councils across L.A., each serving about 40,000 residents.  That gives residents a more local forum for raising concerns than the city’s 15 City Council districts, which each represent nearly 260,000 people. 

So what can a neighborhood council actually do? 

Neighborhood councils don’t make city laws or set city policy. But they do have a couple of ways to make their voices heard. They can approve Neighborhood Purpose Grants of up to $5,000 for nonprofits and schools, helping pay for neighborhood events and programs. 

They can also draft Community Impact Statements (CIS) that tell the mayor or City Council whether the neighborhood council supports, opposes or wants changes to a proposed policy or project. And meetings are a chance to hear directly from city, county and state representatives about what their offices are working on.

2. You don’t have to be a neighborhood council member to participate

Neighborhood Council meetings are generally open to anyone who lives, works, studies or runs a business within the council’s boundaries. And you don’t have to sit on the board to speak during public comment. 

What to expect at your first meeting: Every neighborhood council is a little different, but most include updates, agenda items and public comment. If you want to speak, check the meeting instructions or ask how to sign up. And it’s OK to just listen the first time.

3. Check the agenda before you go

This is the part that can save you from showing up to a two-hour meeting only to find that the issue you care about has been moved to another meeting — or that the meeting itself has been canceled at the last minute.

The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, also known as EmpowerLA, maintains a database of neighborhood councils, including their members, meeting frequency and locations. 

Meeting schedules are also available through the LA Documenters public meetings database  under the “Meetings” tab. 

Some councils also maintain their own websites and social media pages with meeting dates, locations and agendas. Before you head out, check at least one of those sources — and ideally the council’s own website or social media — to make sure the meeting time, location and agenda haven’t changed.

This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

Authorities evacuated approximately 20 homes on the Long Beach Peninsula Monday evening after punishing tides and pounding waves may have damaged their foundations, according to the Long Beach Fire Department.

The seaside homes have endured days of high surf slamming into the boardwalk, which is just outside their doors. Waves were powerful enough to breach a protective seawall and send water and sand pouring into the neighborhood. The surf has been unusually strong because of the remnants of Hurricane Marie churning through the Pacific Ocean hundreds of miles away.

Crews were clearing away sand and pumping out water throughout the day Monday, and some residents were cleaning out their garages and porches that had been inundated. Then, while surveying for damage, first responders spotted alarming cracks around some homes, Long Beach Fire Department Capt. Jack Crabtree said.

Concrete slabs between the homes had started to crack or buckle, with some of the fissures running all the way up to or under homes’ walls. Unable to tell if the buildings’ foundations were compromised, city officials decided to issue evacuation orders “out of abundance of caution,” Crabtree said.

All the evacuated homes are along the beachside boardwalk, called Seaside Walk, between 63rd and 67th places, Crabtree said. High surf hits that area particularly hard because waves coming in at the correct angle pass through a gap between the Alamitos Bay jetty and the breakwater that protects the rest of the city.

City employees replace wooden slats along the boardwalk after a sand berm and section of the boardwalk’s wooden boards were washed out along the Peninsula in Long Beach on Wednesday, July 29, 2026.

(

Thomas R. Cordova

/

Long Beach Post

)

Building inspectors are on their way to determine if the houses are safe or at risk of collapsing.

Many streets along the Peninsula were also still closed as crews continued to try to clean up.

They were still being inundated during the most recent high tide on Monday evening, Crabtree said.

This isn’t the first time the Peninsula has dealt with high tides and hurricane-driven waves this year — and more could be coming. An exceptionally strong El Niño this year is expected to give the coastal neighborhood a glimpse of what rising sea levels could mean.

Nearly 86,000 of California’s children ages 0 to 3 — more than 5% of the state’s infants and toddlers — are estimated to have experienced homelessness in 2023-24, according to new data analysis by SchoolHouse Connection and Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan.

This is a 15% jump from about 74,000 young children in the year prior.

Only about 12,000 of those children in 2023-24 were enrolled in early learning programs. It is often in early learning programs where staff members are able to identify children experiencing homelessness and provide critical services for their development.

That just 14% of the youngest children experiencing homelessness are in these programs is potentially a troubling sign, experts say. It may indicate the state is not set up to accurately identify and reach most of these children.

“We just don’t have the full picture,” said Erin Patterson, a senior director at SchoolHouse Connection. “Data reporting infrastructure everywhere is lacking when it comes to infants and toddlers experiencing homelessness. There is no singular federal agency or program that captures everything.”

This is after years of sustained efforts by child homelessness experts that have led to heightened attention and short-term funding for students experiencing homelessness and the significant barriers K-12 schools face in identifying them. That focus has not always included the youngest Californians — infants and toddlers — in part because the state’s early learning system is far more fragmented.

This data from SchoolHouse Connection, an organization that advocates for homeless students, and Poverty Solutions, a University of Michigan initiative to prevent and alleviate poverty, was shared with EdSource ahead of the Sept. 23 release of their third annual report on the prevalence of homelessness among children 0 to 3 nationwide.

The nearly 86,000 homeless infants and toddlers were 5.19% of about 1.6 million children ages 0 to 3 in 2023-24. The number is an estimate, taken by looking at the percentage of first grade students who were identified as homeless during the 2023-24 year and applying it to the census age group percentages for children ages 0 to 3.

To get to the number of children accessing early childhood programs, the researchers looked at enrollment data from Early Head Start, home visiting programs and local educational agencies, which are required to identify younger children experiencing homelessness if they receive federal funding.

Some children might have been identified and are simply not reflected in the estimate, in part because data access is extremely limited and fragmented across multiple public agencies, say the researchers.

Student homelessness across the K-12 system has risen 4% in the most recent data available. In years prior, it rose by up to 15%, according to state data.

Child homelessness experts contend the rise in student homelessness reflects several factors, including California’s skyrocketing cost of living and the end of pandemic-era housing protections.

At the same time, they point to short-term infusions of funding that have helped schools improve data collection systems and identification practices that allowed them to begin supporting more students.

Homeless liaisons have attributed many of those gains to a 2021 historic federal allocation of $800 million for schools nationwide, of which California received $98.76 million. The one-time pandemic-era funding was dedicated entirely to identifying and supporting students experiencing homelessness.

Child homelessness experts say data shows the funding worked: after what appeared as a significant dip in student homelessness rates at the peak of the pandemic, there was a sharp increase once schools reopened. They attribute this dramatic shift to the identification efforts by liaisons, who by then had the funding to hire staff to make phone calls to families they knew were struggling, distribute gas cards to help families get their children to school, pay for emergency temporary housing for evicted families and more.

The closest California has come to matching those pandemic-era dollars is a one-time $116 million grant approved by the state Legislature this year. It will support identification efforts, though it remains unclear how the state will distribute the funding.

“The state’s really going to have to be targeted about where this money goes, and I think a set-aside amount for identifying our youngest learners makes a ton of sense because that $116 million is not going to reach everybody,” said Joseph Bishop, executive director and co-founder of the UCLA Center for the Transformation of Schools.

But experts warn that without long-term funding to maintain those efforts in the TK-12 system, it will be even more difficult to build similar identification capacity in the early learning space to ensure children 0-3 can also be connected to services they need as their families find permanent housing. At the same time, they foresee that more children are likely to be in need in coming years.

“Given what we know about worsening economic conditions, we can certainly surmise that families with children, in particular, have been impacted by housing instability and homelessness,” said Patterson. “The tricky part, though, is pandemic funds are gone, and that means the capacity to identify has dwindled in many places, so we might be entering a phase where we see homelessness increasing, but identification is scaling back because of limited capacity, both in early childhood programs and among local educational agencies.”

Why counting homeless infants and toddlers is tough — and why it matters

Not only is the data from SchoolHouse Connection and Poverty Solutions likely an undercount, but there are other factors that affect the ability to identify students. The early childhood services system in the state is more fractured than K-12, say researchers. And, there may be limited knowledge of the responsibility of local education agencies to identify and support homeless students.

Knowledge of how the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act applies to early learning programs is also less widespread. The law requires local education agencies, such as school districts and certain preschools, to identify and support homeless students, including those younger than 4, which is the age for entering transitional kindergarten.

How does the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act help?

When McKinney-Vento was enacted decades ago, it established a broader definition of homelessness for students. For example, the law considers a student homeless if they are staying with relatives or in temporary housing due to economic hardship, loss of housing or a similar reason.

The law can apply to preschools under specific circumstances, including when a program is funded by a local education agency, like a school district. This flowchart provides some detail into whether an early learning program might be a McKinney-Vento preschool.

And if a homeless liaison identifies a homeless student with an infant or toddler sibling, the federal act requires them to refer the young child to early learning programs.

Even when McKinney-Vento does not directly apply, many early learning programs have adopted its broader definition of homelessness and require certain exceptions be made for homeless families. This could include allowing a child to begin attending the program while providing a grace period for families to produce enrollment documentation or giving priority enrollment to homeless families.

An apparent disconnect between early learning and the TK-12 school system

Child education experts have noted a disconnect between early learning programs and the TK-12 school system, where homeless liaisons are already stretched thin.

“There’s a major flaw in not having those systems in place, and I think it can make the work of districts potentially more effective if we had earlier identification,” said Bishop of UCLA. “We don’t know or have the continuity across systems to know where kids are coming from, even sometimes within districts, let alone before TK.”

Bishop’s team published a report last week finding that nearly 300,000 homeless students were enrolled in California’s TK-12 public school system in the 2024-25 school year. This is an additional nearly 30,000 more students than what they estimated prior to the pandemic in 2018-19.

While the report did not include children experiencing homelessness who were enrolled in early learning programs — Bishop said his team wanted to include them but faced challenges obtaining the data — it found that many of the highest counts of homeless students were in elementary school districts.

Anticipating “where the need is coming from” via better identification and data collection could help districts better support their students.

“We’re sometimes shocked when students are struggling academically” once they reach elementary school, said Bishop. “That’s the ripple effect of not having the early warning systems.”

As fights about data centers erupt nationwide, California lawmakers have approved a pair of bills to make data center developers disclose how much water they really use.

The bills are a new test of whether California will set limits on an industry that’s becoming a flashpoint over water, electricity and the environmental consequences of artificial intelligence.

Lawmakers on Monday cleared Assembly Bill 2469 by Assemblymember Diane Papan, a Democrat from San Mateo. The bill bars local governments from approving new or expanded data centers unless the developer discloses its water plans and covers the full cost of any new water pipes, treatment or storage for the facility. 

This bill will now join Papan’s Assembly Bill 2619 on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

California senators last week, in a decisive 30 to 9 vote, approved the measure requiring data center operators to report their estimated or actual water sources and use — under penalty of perjury — when seeking and renewing a business license or permit.

It’s almost identical to a bill Papan authored last year, which Newsom vetoed amid pressure from the tech industry.

Newsom said at the time he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements … without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology.”

Papan said she’s often asked whether she thinks her do-over will survive Newsom’s desk, this time.

“To which I say, the opportunity for leadership has not gone away. If anything, it has been amplified,” Papan told CalMatters.

Since Newsom’s veto last year, public sentiment has shifted, with bipartisan backlash building against facilities that have become the ganglia of artificial intelligence.

A Public Policy Institute of California survey found that a majority of residents oppose construction of data centers in their areas, and are concerned about the environmental impacts.

“We currently are seeing a phase of heightened concern because of the rapid evolution of the industry — and the lack of transparency,” said Iris Stewart-Frey, an environmental science professor at Santa Clara University who led a study this year highlighting how rarely data center developers disclose their water use.

“I think that's where these bills can really make some progress in getting the sides back to the table and conversation,” Stewart-Frey said, “and also recreate some of this public trust.”

Lack of oversight, local bans

Opacity around data centers’ environmental impact is fueling fights around the state, from the desert and parched Imperial County to cities and farm towns.

With little oversight and even less state direction, local governments are saying no to data centers, citing concerns about environmental issues, electricity rates, and often, water.

Monterey Park, in the San Gabriel Valley, led the way when voters approved a permanent ban in June. The Coachella City Council approved its own ban last week to public applause. Others including the Tulare County Board of Supervisors are pausing as they weigh more permanent moratoriums.

Nationally, New York State has enacted a yearlong moratorium, and 70% of Americans told a Gallup poll that they oppose the facilities.

A fight over a data center in the city of Gilroy, in Santa Clara County, recently made national news, which Stewart-Frey attributed to growing public awareness and distrust of the secretive industry.

“It's also emblematic of the fact that the data center industry in California has not been releasing actual water use data, right?” said Stewart-Frey. “This lack of transparency is also biting them in the back here.”

Papan said that’s the point of her bills.

“I don't think we should be eliminating anything without sufficient knowledge about what their needs are, and then how can we meet those needs,” Papan said. “Help us help you,” she said, to data center developers, “because if you go into an area that doesn't have sufficient water supply for you, it's not going to work.”

The usual suspects, and new wildcards

The usual coalitions have lined up. Environmental and community groups back the bills, seeking more transparency over how much water these facilities really use. On the other side are the heavy-hitting and big-spending tech industry and business groups.

Khara Boender, a Western government affairs director for the Data Center Coalition, said the trade association is concerned that these bills single out data centers from other non-agricultural water users.

Reporting tied to receiving a business license or permit “should apply to other similar commercial and industrial users, as that would provide context and a holistic view of water demands,” Boender told CalMatters.

A few wildcards have also entered the fight. As of mid-August, the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the Rural County Representatives of California opposed Papan’s bill requiring developers to disclose water plans and pay for upgrades.

In a July letter the groups said the measure — which would bar local governments from approving data centers that fail to disclose required information about their water plans — “undermines local governments’ ability to protect and represent their communities through established permitting mechanisms and community engagement processes.”

Water agencies have mostly stayed quiet, raising only technical issues, with one exception: Santa Clara Valley Water District, a water wholesaler in a data center hotspot, supported both bills.

“Despite local efforts to mitigate the impact of data center water demand, more information on water use could help local water agencies, such as Valley Water, plan for actual needs,” Joshua Golka, head of state government relations for Valley Water, said in a letter to Papan Friday.

Necessary but not sufficient 

Michael Kiparsky, director of the Wheeler Water Institute at the UC Berkeley Center for Law, Energy, & the Environment, called Papan’s bills “necessary, but not sufficient.”

He expects that even with more data, small communities with limited resources and staff will still struggle to assess the benefits and risks. The version of AB 2619 that senators approved last week cut an earlier provision requiring California agencies to develop guidance for local governments.

Papan said that guidance would have been nice to have, but that there were state costs associated with developing it. An Assembly analysis estimated that developing water-use and emerging technology guidelines would cost $2 million the first year, and $1 million annually after that.

“The main goal has been transparency. Let me give you the data, and let's go from there,” Papan told CalMatters. “I just didn't want anything to divert from that main goal.”

Kiparsky called for the state to establish a strike team to help small communities analyze the data that would be produced under the legislation. He also thinks the state should post this information in one place so officials and academics can assess the impacts of data centers and the policies regulating them.

“To be really clear, data centers are not bad or good … we use them every day for just about everything we do involving technology,” Kiparsky said.

The real question, he said, is whether a given community — and its specific mix of land, water, and energy resources — is the right spot for one.

“You can’t answer those questions just with what’s required from this bill — you need to have the understanding that comes from experts looking at it,” Kiparsky said. “The state, in my opinion, can and should provide that.”

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