The Brief

A California appeals court this week sided with state utility regulators in a case seen as crucial to the spread of solar panels on the rooftops of California homes.

Three appeals court judges ruled that the California Public Utilities Commission was justified in reducing the rate utilities pay customers for excess energy the customers’ solar panels generate.

Environmental advocates who brought the case say the decision will exacerbate California’s energy affordability crisis. Regulators believe it vindicates a decision they took “to ensure that rooftop solar programs remain fair, sustainable and aligned with California’s clean energy goals,” CPUC spokesperson Terrie Prosper said Tuesday.

The case centered on the state’s “net energy metering” program, which governs how much solar customers are paid for excess power from their panels. Earlier versions of the program guaranteed customers the retail rate, which is how much utilities charge other customers when they resell the energy.

But a 2022 commission decision reduced this payment by about 75%. The commission’s decision backed utilities’ position, which was that those who have rooftop panels don’t pay their fair share of costs such as maintaining the grid, shifting the expenses disproportionately to non-solar customers. The decision resulted in a significant drop in new customers signing up for rooftop solar.

Advocacy groups sued over the decision, including the Center for Biological Diversity, The Protect our Communities Foundation, and the Environmental Working Group. They argued that commissioners didn’t properly take into consideration the benefits to disadvantaged communities and customers of having local energy generation.

The case reached an appeals court, which applied, in a decision siding with commissioners, a legal standard granting them significant deference. The Supreme Court of California then unanimously ruled last August that the lower court should not have applied this standard and must delve more deeply into the substance of the arguments.

Roger Lin, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said this week’s decision is “disappointing” and the groups are “evaluating all of our options.” They can appeal again to the state supreme court.

“The whole reason the utilities created the ‘cost shift’ narrative was to preserve their profits,” Lin said. Under state law, utilities can earn a rate of return on everything they build, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars from ratepayers every year. They can’t earn that return on customers’ rooftop solar.

The decision comes amid renewed attention on California’s energy affordability crisis. Golden State residents pay the second highest rates in the country for energy after Hawaii, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Ratepayers routinely admonish state utility regulators for their high bills at public meetings. And Gov. Gavin Newsom recently announced an upcoming replacement of the head of the utilities commission as part of a move to focus on bill affordability.

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

A forensic audit released by Orange County on Monday found ex-Supervisor Andrew Do and his top aide had a longstanding pattern of misspending public money far beyond the scandal that led to federal corruption charges and landed Do in prison.

The report released Monday was the first phase of a forensic audit the OC Board of Supervisors commissioned last fall into county contracts in the wake of LAist’s investigation of the Do meal money scheme and his corruption conviction. The audit is being conducted by the firm Weaver.

The report details how Do and his chief of staff, Chris Wangsaporn, undermined procedures meant to prevent abuse of county money, while using their influence to steer taxpayer money to friends, family and businesses that quickly donated to his election campaigns — often with little information about the services being provided.

“The pattern of contracts being awarded to vendors that contributed to former Supervisor Do’s political campaigns raises questions and concerns about potential ‘pay-to-play’ schemes,” the report states.

Supervisor Janet Nguyen, who was elected to replace Do in 2024, said in a statement that “Do’s federal bribery conviction was the tip of the iceberg” and called on law enforcement to investigate.

“For years, I have known that Andrew Do was a criminal, acting as the Godfather of Little Saigon — strongarming political opponents and pressuring his minions to do more,” Nguyen said. “Now the county has evidence of all of it, and I’m hoping the federal DOJ, FBI, state attorney general, the district attorney and the [California Fair Political Practices Commission] investigate.”

[Click here to read the forensic audit report.]

Do’s attorney, Paul Meyer, declined to comment on the audit findings, saying that would be “inappropriate.”

Wangsaporn declined to speak with the auditors, according to the audit report. He has not returned LAist’s multiple requests for comment over the past year and a half, including Monday.

The forensic auditors plan to present their findings at the Board of Supervisors’ public meeting March 24.

More payments to Peter Pham

Among its many findings, the report found Do routed more money than previously reported to companies affiliated with Peter Pham, a central figure in the meal fraud scandal that sent Do to federal prison.

The report notes Do routed money for county events in his district to businesses linked to Pham. One was Aloha Financial Investment — the same company that received most of the diverted meal money in the corruption scheme and paid the down payment on a house for Do’s daughter. The other was Pham’s construction company, Hua Development, which also did business as HD Construction and HD Entertainment.

The findings echo an LAist review of county contract records, which found over $500,000 in county funds were directed to Hua Development and Aloha Financial Investment — largely for events in Do’s district dating back to 2016 and for public service announcements during COVID.

Pham’s construction company, auditors noted, also “appeared to have performed a kitchen remodel of former Supervisor Do’s personal residence in March 2021.” LAist discovered the renovation work in permit records and reported on it last year.

At the time, Do was routing millions of county meal dollars to Pham’s nonprofit, Viet America Society, in the bribery scheme that later led to Do’s criminal conviction. Do admitted in his plea deal that nearly $8 million in meal funds to the nonprofit were diverted, including $385,000 to purchase the home for Do’s daughter.

The new report notes the forensic audit is limited because auditors were not able to make non-county officials and organizations provide documents or answer questions.

More payments to 360 Clinic

Additionally, the auditors found Do authorized an $814,650 county payment to 360 Clinic — the county’s main provider of COVID-19 tests — despite concerns from county staff that the company was double billing. The findings largely echo LAist’s previous reporting on the issue. In all, auditors wrote, the county paid 360 Clinic $3.4 million for uncollectable claims, despite the fact that state and federal law required private insurance or the federal government to fully pay for all coronavirus testing claims at the time.

An internal county report obtained by LAist last year found that 360 Clinic had double- and triple-billed for some testing services. In the report released Monday, auditors found the company submitted more than 4,000 potential duplicate COVID-19 testing claims, with the same patient name and same date of service.

The auditors wrote that they examined documents indicating insurance providers had already paid for some of the claims submitted to the county for repayment. Other claims were for services that weren’t eligible for reimbursement, the auditors wrote.

“While additional review on a claim-by-claim basis would be required to quantify the extent of such denied claims, it is questionable at best as to whether these denied claims should have been invoiced to the county,” they wrote.

‘Not to be questioned’

The audit found Do and Wangsaporn had a pattern of steering contracts and grants to businesses that either employed an immediate family member of Do, contributed to his political campaigns shortly after being awarded a contract, provided a media platform for Do or were involved in the annual Tet and Moon festivals in Do’s district.

Do and Wangsaporn “were very involved in procurement decisions and established a culture where decisions related to District 1 contracts were not to be questioned,” the report states. County procurement staff, it adds, were “concerned that they would receive a phone call” from Do or Wangsaporn “if their requests were not approved.”

Among the decisions Do and his chief of staff impacted were “lump sum advanced payments” to vendors, “directives to pay vendors and contractors for invoices with open issues under review and the selection of vendors and grant recipients.”

Board’s approach obscured money flows

The county’s spending during the COVID-19 pandemic was obscured by the process the Board of Supervisors set up, auditors found.

Contracts were approved without competitive bidding or public approval by the board, which “limited visibility of purchase amounts and vendors selected,” the report states.

During the pandemic, Do and the other county supervisors set up a process where millions in taxpayer spending was directed without the usual public transparency on meeting agendas to show where money was going.

Do used the board-approved closed-door process to quietly direct millions of dollars to the nonprofit at the center of the meal scheme.

The audit also found that the county lacked policies requiring invoices detail what taxpayers were paying for. Do’s office had a common pattern of issuing contracts where payments were made on invoices that had few details about the services provided or itemizations of costs, the report states.

Supervisor cites reforms in the scandal’s wake

“As expected, the most recent audit again exposes criminal Andrew Do for habitually using his position of power to financially reward family, friends and donors through crony capitalist contracts at the expense of Orange County taxpayers,” Supervisor Katrina Foley said in a statement.

Foley said she and other supervisors have implemented reforms to contract policies, “aimed at increasing competitive bidding and [reducing] opportunities for corruption.”

She called on the county to put in place additional safeguards recommended by the auditors to "further protect taxpayers and prevent this type of misconduct from happening again.”

Supervisor Don Wagner said the audit findings show “former Supervisor Do’s corruption goes beyond that for which he is now serving federal prison time,” adding that he’s “deeply disturbed.”

Wagner defended Do at a January 2024 supervisors’ meeting after reports that Do had awarded millions to Viet America Society without disclosing its close ties to his daughter.

“There are no, nor should there be, questions or challenges as to that particular grant of money because there's nothing illegal about what was done,” Wagner said at the time, while blocking a reform proposal to require supervisors to disclose close family connections to groups they award money to.

Do ultimately pleaded guilty to bribery and is serving a five-year prison sentence.

LAist reporter Jill Replogle contributed reporting to this story.

The legal aid organization that was denied a tenant aid contract last year by the Los Angeles city attorney now appears set to receive the contract after all.

On Tuesday, the L.A. City Council voted 12–1 to approve a nearly $107 million eviction defense contract with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, or LAFLA, which oversees the Stay Housed L.A. program.

The vote had been previously scheduled but delayed twice. Last week, council members said they wanted to put off the vote because of a last-minute confidential memorandum sent to council offices by the L.A. City Attorney’s Office.

LAist obtained screenshots of the memo, which show City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto warning the council against awarding the contract to the foundation. The memo argues the city should “reconsider the award of such a large contract to a frequent litigant against the city.”

Sources with knowledge of the contract dispute told LAist that Feldstein Soto opposes LAFLA’s selection in part because the legal aid nonprofit has joined lawsuits in which the city is a defendant. In one case, the city was accused of failing to adequately respond to its homelessness crisis. The city ended up agreeing to a settlement deal requiring nearly 13,000 new shelter and housing beds.

LAFLA leaders said lawsuits against the city are handled independently from the tenant defense work the city has contracted the organization to do.

“There is no conflict of interest here, because Stay Housed L.A. and any affirmative litigation LAFLA brings against the city are entirely separate,” said Barbara Schultz, LAFLA’s director of housing justice. “We do not use Stay Housed L.A. funds for anything except for Stay Housed L.A. services.”

The backstory 

With rents spiking faster than wages for many Angelenos, tenants can quickly find themselves on the brink of homelessness. The city’s elected leaders have tried to stop more renters from becoming unhoused by connecting them with rent relief and free legal defense against eviction.

LAFLA has headed the city-funded program Stay Housed L.A. since 2021. The program brings together legal aid providers to offer attorneys and legal advice to renters facing eviction.

Such legal representation is rare. One study found that 95% of landlords have an attorney in eviction court while the vast majority of tenants do not.

Last summer, the City Council and mayor approved a new five-year contract with LAFLA and its partners. But Feldstein Soto refused to sign it, arguing the contract should have gone through a competitive bidding process.

The city responded by putting out a request for proposals. After reviewing submissions, the city’s Housing Department recommended that eviction defense services continue to be overseen by LAFLA. The council approved that recommendation Tuesday after deliberating in closed session.

In addition to the $107 million award to LAFLA, the council voted in favor of giving $42 million to the Housing Rights Center for emergency rental assistance. The council approved nearly $22 million for the Liberty Hill Foundation to oversee tenant outreach and education.

Another tenant rights organization, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, was approved to receive $6.6 million to strengthen awareness and enforcement of the city’s ordinance against tenant harassment.

Much of the funding comes from Measure ULA, the city’s so-called “mansion tax” on real estate selling for more than $5.3 million.

Calls for more transparency

In a statement emailed to LAist, City Attorney spokesperson Karen Richardson said the amount of funding being awarded exceeds the budget of some city departments.

“The eviction defense program is a City program and is in zero jeopardy,” Richardson said. “What is in question is a $177 million blank check to LAFLA and its partners without the reports and invoice review that is required by law.”

After rejecting the contract last year, the City Attorney’s Office launched an audit of LAFLA. LAist asked for details about the audit’s findings but did not receive a response.

In a statement after last week’s vote was delayed, Schultz said LAFLA has provided the city with ongoing reports about Stay Housed L.A. operations.

She said Stay Housed L.A. “has consistently provided anonymized detailed data on the individual case level to the city, without compromising client identities, along with detailed invoicing.” The program has “never refused to provide any data or invoicing information requested by the Los Angeles Housing Department,” she said.

Stay Housed L.A. leaders said the program currently retains about 160 tenants each month for legal representation and provides legal advice to another 575 tenants per month. They said about 55% of the tenants they’ve represented have remained in their homes and another 40% have settled cases on favorable terms.

During Tuesday’s meeting, some City Council members expressed frustration over how much information the program has reported on its outcomes.

“The transparency requirements in these contracts, when I look at them, does not meet the level of what we as a body should be requiring of organizations that we are giving money to,” said Councilmember John Lee, who cast the lone vote against awarding the contract.

Tuesday’s meeting included voting on a flurry of amendments. Among the amendments that passed, there were calls for new reporting requirements and annual funding renewals to be withheld pending performance reviews.

What it all means for renters

LAFLA is currently overseeing the Stay Housed L.A. program through a temporary contract extension set to expire March 31. If the council hadn’t approved the new contract this week, program leaders said they would have needed to quickly stop offering eviction defense services.

The program already has had to be judicious about taking on new clients, Stay Housed L.A. leaders said. They said they didn’t want to commit to defending tenants in months-long eviction cases if the city could abruptly pull funding.

“When [the previous] contract was disrupted, it did impact our ability to serve more and more vulnerable tenants,” said Joanna Esquivel, Stay Housed L.A.’s program manager at the Legal Aid Foundation. “We are really excited to continue doing this critical work.”

The City Council passed a “right to counsel” program last year, aiming to provide low-income tenants with the right to a free attorney in eviction court. The program does not yet guarantee an attorney to all qualified renters but is trying to expand access in phases by building up the Stay Housed L.A. program.

Not long after Steve Clarke found out there was a push to require voter ID at the polls, he began canvassing for signatures in Sacramento.

Many of the residents he encountered were angry, Clarke said. He began volunteering for Reform California, the group behind the initiative, last year after feeling frustrated with homelessness and the cost of living.

“They want the same things: Integrity back in our elections,” he said.

Clarke and his wife are among the thousands of activists pushing for a Republican-backed voter ID ballot initiative that supporters are working to put on the November ballot. Organizers last week said they’ve submitted more than the nearly 875,000 signatures required to qualify the measure — 1.3 million in all. As officials work to verify the signatures, opponents are organizing a campaign built around President Donald Trump and his push for a similar nationwide proof-of-citizenship voter requirement.

Voting rights groups say voter ID laws unfairly disadvantage poor people and Black and Latino voters who are less likely to have official identification, and that creating more requirements is a way to make it harder for people who typically support Democrats to vote. They also point to the history of poll taxes, a fee that Southern states used to prevent Black and poor white Americans from voting after the Reconstruction era.

Recent polling has found popular support for some voter ID laws nationwide and in California. A 2025 poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Government Studies showed a majority of Californians surveyed support voter ID at the polls — 54% overall approved of showing proof of citizenship each time a vote is cast.

The poll numbers underscore the need for the initiative, supporters say.

“We’ve structured this initiative based on what voters across the political spectrum would want,” said Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a Republican from San Diego who is leading the initiative.

Under the proposal, mail-in voters would be required to provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID, such as a driver’s license number. The initiative would also require the secretary of state and county election offices to verify voters’ registration for each ballot cast.

Currently, voters are only required to provide an ID and Social Security number when they register to vote, but not when they cast a ballot. Most states, however, require or recommend that voters present an ID when voting, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, though only 10 states are considered strict about it.

Experts agree that voting fraud is rare. A 2021 investigation by The Associated Press found fewer than 475 potential cases of voter fraud out of 25.5 million ballots cast in six battleground states in the 2020 presidential election, after Trump touted false claims the election was stolen.

Opponents of the proposed initiative have stressed the rarity of voter fraud.

“California elections are already incredibly secure,” League of Women Voters of California Executive Director Jenny Farrell said. “There is no evidence of widespread noncitizen voting that would justify adding these strict requirements.”

Voting rights groups also claim the initiative would pose needless barriers and suppress voter turnout. League of Women Voters and other organizations plan to form a campaign committee to oppose the initiative.

Labor gears up for voter ID fight

Another potential opponent is organized labor, which is expected to campaign heavily against the initiative. That messaging will also likely focus on Trump’s support for similar legislation currently stalled in Congress that would require voter ID in federal elections.

California Labor Federation President Lorena Gonzalez told CalMatters that unions will argue the measure is unnecessary.

“The California GOP in this situation are just taking Trump talking points,” she said. “I assume that it will be very clear that it’s a Trump fantasy.”

Popular support for some new voter requirements could complicate Democrats’ response to the California measure, said Mike Gatto, a former Democratic assemblymember who authored a failed ballot initiative on homelessness. He said messaging that’s centered on Trump, rather than voter suppression, would likely play better with voters.

“There’s always going to be that inconvenience of somebody, but I don’t know if that will be enough in the minds of voters to counter the positive messaging on this,” Gatto said.

Gonzalez said she could not say how much unions will spend campaigning against the initiative.

“It’s hard to tell because we don’t know what the initiative will look like. But again, this is a priority for us,” Gonzalez said.

A separate union-supported ballot initiative that seeks to tax the state’s billionaires could make it difficult for labor unions to prioritize a campaign against a voter ID initiative.

If voters were to approve it, California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the new voter ID requirements would cost the state and local governments tens of millions of dollars to implement.

Initiative supporters started gathering signatures in September and have raised $10 million from wealthy and small-dollar donors, according to DeMaio. It’s primarily been funded by Julie Luckey, who chairs the initiative committee and is the mother of tech billionaire Palmer Luckey. The committee, Californians for Voter ID, raised $8.8 million in 2025. The committee worked with DeMaio’s political organization, Reform California, one of the state’s biggest grassroots fundraising groups for conservative causes.

Last year, DeMaio unsuccessfully introduced a bill proposing similar voter requirements but it had little chance of success in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

In general, it’s much harder, and more expensive, to pass an initiative than to defeat one in California. Since 1912, voters approved just 35.5% of ballot initiatives, according to the secretary of state’s office.

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