The Brief

The California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, issued a proposed decision on the state’s programs to increase community solar, but a diverse coalition of groups say the decision would only further hinder efforts to scale up clean energy and bill savings for renters and low- to middle-income households.

Instead, the proposed decision supports a plan put forth by investor-owned utility Southern California Edison that largely keeps the status quo, expanding existing community solar programs. Those programs have been in place for more than a decade, but have failed to take off.

It’s why these groups — from ratepayers advocates to solar companies to environmental justice organizations — say the decision falls far short of what’s needed.

Why does community solar matter? 

Community solar refers to moderately large solar projects — not “utility-scale,” like those massive solar fields in the desert, but also not rooftop solar. Customers can then subscribe to or jointly own these projects.

Unlike rooftop solar, community solar programs don’t necessarily involve a direct connection from your home to the solar power site. That’s why it can significantly expand solar access to renters who don’t own their own roofs, as well as lower- to moderate-income folks who may not be able to afford rooftop solar.  

If placed strategically, community solar can also dramatically reduce the need to fire up gas-powered “peaker plants” that help keep the lights and A/C on when demand is extremely high, particularly during increasingly hot summer evenings.

Those plants were going to be shut down to align with California’s clean energy goals, but the escalating impacts of the climate crisis led to the state spending more than $1 billion to extend their use.

Proponents of community solar say if the state spent the money to set up a viable community solar program instead, the need for gas-fired peaker plants could be offset by more than 60%.

“By not doing things that make sense, that are cost effective, you don't keep rates down. Instead, you have to take emergency actions to keep the lights on that are neither clean nor cheap,” said Brandon Smithwood, the director of policy at Dimension Renewable Energy, a solar developer.

Community solar can also be developed far more quickly than it’s taking to connect cities to distant solar plants out in the desert.

“These are the kind of projects you can actually bring online today,” Smithwood said. “We don't want to do projects today because they might cost something, but that's going to cost us a lot more in the not-distant future.”

What the proposed decision says

The proposed decision primarily expands existing programs with few changes to make these programs more financially viable for solar developers. It also expands access to a new community solar program regardless of income, though 51% of the projects must be for low-income homes. And troublingly to solar advocates, it asserts that the virtual billing method proposed by the coalition groups — including the California Environmental Justice Alliance, ratepayer advocate group the Utility Reform Network, and a community solar trade association — is illegal under federal law. It also makes battery storage optional, not required, when proposing projects. Battery storage is an essential piece to maintaining A/C and lights during the aforementioned hot summer evenings, when power shutoffs are most likely.

That’s why the coalition of community solar proponents are pushing back against the proposed decision, laid out in a letter to CPUC.

Last year, they were hopeful a new law would help rectify the situation. Assemblymember Chris Ward, who co-authored that law, said in a statement posted to X that the proposed decision was “a step in the wrong direction.”

What’s next

The next round of comments for the proposed decision on community solar is due by March 25. You can follow the proceeding here and submit public comments here.

Go deeper 

Read our previous in-depth reporting on community solar here.

LAX officials are considering a proposal Tuesday to increase the fees rideshare companies are charged to access the airport.

Currently, rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft generally pass a $4 to $5 airport fee along to their customers. You might see this listed as a line item on your receipt as an “LAX Airport Surcharge.”

But the Los Angeles World Airports Board of Commissioners could vote to increase that fee by as much as $2 to $8 depending on where the rideshare picks you up or drops you off.

The idea behind the proposal is to encourage the use of the long-awaited, much-delayed and over-budget Automated People Mover once it opens and decrease congestion in the central terminal area, the area of the airport that’s also known as the horseshoe.

David Reich, a deputy executive director for the city agency that manages the airport, told LAist that if the proposal is approved, LAX doesn’t plan on increasing the fee until after the Automated People Mover opens, which could be later this year.

The proposed increases

When the Automated People Mover opens, there will be new curb space for drop-off and pick-up. Known as the “ground transport center,” this new curb space will be a 4-minute trip from the terminal area via the Automated People Mover, according to Reich.

LAX-it will shut down as a rideshare and taxi lot once the train opens, Reich said.

If the proposal is approved, getting an Uber or Lyft to and from the ground transport center will come with a $6 airport fee.

Even once the Automated People Mover opens, you will still be able to get rides directly to and from the curbs along the horseshoe, but they will come with a $12 fee.

The proposed increases would also apply to taxi and limousine services, which currently operate under a slightly different fee structure than rideshare companies.

The increased fees are expected to generate as much as $100 million in the first year the Automated People Mover is usable, according to a report to the board.

Why the different fees for the different locations?

In a report to the board, Reich said the Automated People Mover represents a "significant investment” that aims to “fundamentally reshape how vehicles move through the airport.”

The idea behind having a higher fee for direct access to the curbs along the horseshoe is to encourage “use of new, high-capacity infrastructure” and preserve central terminal access for trips “that most require it.”

Uber is trying to fight the increases

Uber is trying to mobilize the public to fight the proposed fee increases.

“Raising the LAX rideshare fee from $5 to $12 at the curb would punish travelers, working families, and seniors who depend on affordable, reliable transportation,” Danielle Lam, the head of local California policy for Uber, said in a statement.

On Monday, Uber sent an email to passengers who recently used the rideshare service, urging them to write to city officials to “stop this massive fee hike.”

Lyft has not responded to a request for comment.

Ten state lawmakers who are members of the L.A. County delegation sent a letter on Monday to the board expressing their “strong opposition” to the proposed increases.

“Many Angelenos rely on a mix of options, including rideshare services and friends or family dropping off loved ones,” the legislators wrote in the letter. “Managing congestion cannot realistically rely on steep fee increases for certain transportation options.”

Eight of the 10 legislators who signed the letter have received campaign contributions from Uber or Lyft, according to an LAist analysis of state campaign contribution data.

Other ways to access the airport

Now is probably a good time to remind folks that there are other ways to get to the airport that don’t involve rideshares, taxis or even lifts from families and friends.

The FlyAway bus offers regularly scheduled rides from the airport to Union Station in downtown L.A. and Van Nuys. You can see the schedules here. 

Last year, the countywide transportation agency unveiled the LAX/Metro Transit center, which is accessible from the C and K rail lines and several bus routes. For now, an LAX shuttle is bringing travelers from the station to the airport. It will be one of the stops on the Automated People Mover once it opens.

The Newport Beach City Council is considering demolishing part of its quirky, beloved sculpture garden in Civic Center Park to make way for a new police station.

The city has been trying to figure out how to replace its aging police headquarters for years. It bought a property in 2022 with that intent. But an ad hoc City Council committee decided, controversially, it might be better to instead build a new station on the parkland next to city hall.

What’s so great about the sculpture garden?

The sculpture garden is a “museum without walls” treasured by art and nature lovers alike. It houses the quirky and once-controversial “Bunnyhenge,” included on the popular Atlas Obscura travel guide. Opponents of putting a new police headquarters on park grounds say it would compromise the environment, and decimate the sculpture garden.

What do supporters of the new station idea say?

Supporters say the current police station, built in 1973, is long overdue for an upgrade, and that the police force needs more space for things like servers to store digital evidence. The council ad hoc committee that studied the issue says the Civic Center parkland makes the most sense for a new building because the city already owns the land, and it would consolidate the city’s main services in one place.

Is it a done deal?

Far from it. The City Council is holding a study session Tuesday to present the plan publicly and gather input. If the council decides to go forward, the next step would be to hire a consultant to design the building and get started on an environmental impact report.

Here’s how to learn more and weigh in:

A new exhibit in L.A. — Vehicles of Expression: The Craft of the Skateboard — arrives this weekend, highlighting the cultural impact, history and artistry of handmade skateboards.

It’s the latest exhibit at Craft in America Center, a museum and library that highlights handcrafted artwork.

Todd Huber, skateboard historian and founder of the Skateboarding Hall of Fame, said before 1962, it wasn’t possible to buy a skateboard in a store.

“Skateboarding started as a craft,” Huber said on AirTalk, LAst 89.3’s daily news program. “Somewhere in the 50s until 1962, if you wanted to sidewalk surf, as they called it, you had to make your own out of roller skates.”

What to expect

Emily Zaiden, the director and lead curator of the Craft in America Center based in Los Angeles, told LAist’s AirTalk the exhibit was tricky to curate.

“What we wanted to do was focus on both the history and then expand into how this has been an object that people have interpreted in so many different ways since the very beginning,” Zaiden said.

Artists who craft skateboards not only think of design, but also of the features that give riders the ability to do tricks, such as wheelies and kickflips.

“The ways that people have constructed boards, engineered boards, design boards … people are really renegade, which I think is really the spirit of skateboarding overall,” Zaiden said. “This very independent, out-of-the-box approach and making boards that allow them to do all kinds of wacky tricks and do all kinds of things that no one imagined possible physically with their body, but through the object of the board.”

Know before you go

The exhibit at Craft in America Center opens to the public on Saturday. Admission is free. The museum is open from noon to 6 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday.