The Brief

Standing in his front yard in Wilmington, Jose Ulloa can’t get a sentence out without coughing. Heavy-duty trucks, headed to and from the Port of Los Angeles, pass in front of his home all day, their engines roaring and their exhaust spewing into the air.

Ulloa, who was diagnosed with asthma a few years ago, suffers frequent breathing problems and was hospitalized after one attack. The truck traffic is likely a trigger, since health officials say diesel exhaust is known to cause asthma attacks and other respiratory problems, including lung cancer.

The parade of big rigs in his neighborhood started four years ago, after a series of traffic pattern changes altered their route.

Imelda, his wife, sweeps the yard and cleans the home nonstop, but black dust still collects on every surface of their home within hours.

“If you blow your nose, black dust will come out,” she said. “It’s a terrible life living here.”

In Oakland, Mashhoor Alammari, who runs a small fleet of drayage trucks that haul cargo to and from the port, wants to do his part to help clean the air of dangerous diesel exhaust.

His company, The Crew Transportation, Inc., bought two new zero-emission big rigs at a cost of more than $900,000. But the trucks, powered by hydrogen fuel cells, are expensive to operate and there are few if any fueling stations along their routes. The new trucks have been sitting in the parking lot most of the time since he bought them.

“I don’t want to put myself into a financial hole,” he said.

The experiences of the Wilmington family and the Oakland truck company illustrate the frustrations and obstacles that Californians face as state officials pursue an aggressive and controversial mandate to clean the air by phasing out diesel-powered big rigs and other trucks.

California’s mandate, approved by the Air Resources Board last year, is the first in the world to ban new diesel trucks and require a switch to zero-emission vehicles, which are powered by electricity or hydrogen.

Companies face varying deadlines for ending their use of diesel, which for decades has been an efficient powerhouse fueling the economy and transport of goods. Starting in 2036, no new fossil-fueled medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks can be sold in California, and by 2042, large companies must convert their trucks to zero-emission models.

The trucking industry says the regulation is unreasonable and will wreak havoc on the economy, making it difficult to make long-haul shipments. The California Trucking Association and a collective of 17 states, including Nebraska, Alabama and New Mexico, have sued the state, alleging the rule oversteps state power.

Diesel trucks carrying cargo to and from the Port of Los Angeles pass by a warehouse in the Wilmington area. Diesel exhaust is a main source of smog and soot in the region. Photo by Carlin Stiehl for CalMatters

(

Carlin Stiehl

/

CalMatters

)

From big rigs to garbage trucks and delivery vans, the rules will dramatically change the 1.8 million commercial trucks driven on California’s roads over the next two decades. Sales already are accelerating even though no deadlines have kicked in yet. Last year, one out of every six trucks sold in the state — more than 18,000 — were zero emissions.

California’s mandate is in flux because the state still needs a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency before it can start enforcing them. President-elect Donald Trump has criticized California’s electric car mandates and in the past tried to revoke the state’s authority to set its own vehicle standards.

One deadline already has passed: All new drayage trucks, which are used to haul containers from ports, were supposed to be zero emissions by last October. But that deadline is not yet being enforced.

Truck companies like Alammari’s that took a risk to be early adopters of clean trucks are now in limbo, swallowing high operating costs and competing with cheaper diesel-only companies in an already struggling industry.

In the meantime, California’s most vulnerable residents who live near roads with heavy diesel truck traffic may have to wait longer for a solution.

The dangers of diesel

Diesel trucks are among the state’s biggest sources of microscopic particles of soot, which can damage lungs and trigger asthma attacks and heart attacks. They also play an outsized role in California’s smog: While they make up just 6% of all vehicles on California’s roads, they are responsible for 72% of nitrogen oxides, a key ingredient of smog, emitted by on-road vehicles, according to the air board.

In addition, health officials declared diesel exhaust, which contains dozens of toxic gases, a human carcinogen several decades ago because of studies linking it to lung cancer.

First: Khari Burton of IMC Logistics demonstrates how to charge a zero-emissions big rig. Last: A hydrogen-powered truck at IMC headquarters in Compton.

(

Carlin Stiehl for CalMatters

/

CalMatters

)

In the Los Angeles basin, diesel exhaust is responsible for more than two-thirds of the cancer risk posed by air pollution, according to a risk analysis by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

The biggest dangers from diesels are in communities near high-traffic corridors. People near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, downtown Los Angeles and parts of the Inland Empire are at risk of 350 to 500 cancer cases per million people because of diesel fumes, according to the analysis. That risk has dropped substantially in recent years as trucks get cleaner.

Diesel exhaust raises cancer risk in the L.A. basin

In some areas of the LA basin, especially around freeways, diesel exhaust poses a risk of causing 300 cancer cases per million people exposed. The exhaust, which contains many toxic gases and fine particles, is known to cause lung cancer.

California’s clean truck rule is expected through 2050 to save $26.5 billion in statewide health costs and save fleet owners $48 billion through reduced fuel and maintenance costs, according to the air board.

“The health benefits from eliminating the pollution (from diesel trucks) far exceed any cost the industry will bear,” said Adrian Martinez, an attorney for environmental group Earthjustice. “Trucking lobbyists and other folks are super loud and they’re going to focus on the difficulties of the transition. But millions of Californians affected by pollution from the freight industry is not acceptable.”

Lots of obstacles for emissions-free trucking

But a lack of fast, reliable charging stations and the vehicles’ limited ranges makes it difficult, even impossible, for trucks to transport goods long distances.

Electric heavy-duty trucks have ranges up to 250 miles, while hydrogen-powered ones can drive about 500 miles on a full tank. They can use the same public fast chargers as cars, but that’s impractical because they take up too much space and charging can take up to six hours. For hydrogen, only 22 fueling stations for large trucks are operating or in development statewide, according to the California Energy Commission.

Battery-powered trucks also are heavy, which means they can carry less cargo. As a result, companies have to charge more, which shippers aren’t usually willing to pay.

The industry also points to the substantial investment that is needed to expand the electric grid’s capacity to eventually charge thousands of battery-powered trucks.

“No one’s opposed” to cleaner air, said Matt Schrap head of the Harbor Trucking Association, which represents drayage truck companies. “It is about practical application and implementation of these rules. We have nowhere near enough infrastructure.”

The air board’s mandate “is the epitome of ready, fire, aim,” he said.

Air board officials stress that truck companies have time and flexible options to comply, and the state is working to help them understand and comply with the complex rules.

“People are worried, I get it. But (the deadline) is not tomorrow,” said Bruce Tuter, who oversees compliance and outreach at the air board. “Charging times, charging speeds, all of that needs to start building up where it gets quicker to charge a truck and where it’s more accessible to charge when you’re traveling long distances.”

Alammari, the truck company owner from Oakland, said he bought his two hydrogen trucks because he had interest from a shipping company that wanted to work with zero-emission vehicles. The profits Alammari would have made working with that company would have justified the added costs of operating a hydrogen fuel cell truck, he said.

At the last minute, however, the company chose to work with someone else. Without any customers willing to pay more to ship with his hydrogen trucks, he can’t use them. He’s doing his best to transition his entire fleet to zero-emission vehicles. He had even ordered three more.

But even with help from state grants, Alammari said it’s not enough to help him operate the zero-emission vehicles or buy more of them. He pays substantially more for insuring them, and it costs twice as much to fully fuel them with hydrogen compared to a diesel, he said.

Without companies willing to ship goods with zero-emission vehicles, early adopters of the technology, like his company, The Crew Transportation, Inc., are at a disadvantage until the mandate makes everyone comply.

“If I don’t get customers to use these trucks, The Crew Transportation is not going to move forward to get the three remaining hydrogen trucks we ordered,” he said.

Air board officials created the most stringent deadlines for drayage trucks partly because they travel near the most vulnerable communities — the low-income communities of color around the ports. They also tend to make shorter trips compared to other heavy-duty trucks, and ports are equipped with some fueling and charging stations, air board officials said.

Some companies that operate drayage trucks near disadvantaged communities may qualify for state grants of up to $336,000 toward the cost of a new hydrogen or electric truck. Under the regulation, they are able to keep their diesel trucks until they reach 800,000 miles or 18 years, whichever is earlier.

But, based on how many miles are already on his trucks, Alammari expects them to be unusable by 2028 under the mandate. As he sees it, the future of the company he’s worked so hard to build is at risk.

In the Los Angeles area, Sandra Espinioza, a truck driver for IMC Logistics, drives seven miles between Lomita and Torrance several times a day before powering up at the WattEV charging station in Long Beach. It’s a short and easy work route that makes it easy for a battery-powered truck.

“They’re really quiet, and a really smooth drive,” she said. “You don’t smell the fumes. When it’s (charged) 100%, you’re gonna be able to go through your day.”

Most of the state’s truck fleets are considered “high priority” — federal fleets, such as the post office, and companies with at least one vehicle in California and $50 million or more in gross annual revenue or 50 or more vehicles.

These large operators have two ways to comply. Most are choosing a phase-in option. Under that option, smaller vehicles, such as UPS or Amazon delivery vans and box trucks, must be 100% zero emissions by 2035. But long-distance, heavy-duty trucks get more time to comply: 10% must be zero emissions by 2030 and 100% by 2042.

Jim Gillis, president of Compton-based IMC Logistics’ Pacific region, said the air board’s deadlines are so aggressive that it poses challenges to even large companies like his. His company has 319 diesel trucks, 50 hydrogen fuel cell trucks and six electric trucks in California. Installing a handful of charging stations at its headquarters was an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Gillis said trucking companies essentially are conducting research and development with these zero- emission technologies. The new trucks have frequent recalls and can make hauls more expensive. Battery powered trucks have to be used for shorter trips because of their limited range.

Gillis said the federal government’s delay in approving a waiver for California’s truck rule doesn’t help his company, since it already bought the clean trucks and has to compete with other companies. But he said IMC is large enough that it can absorb the costs without much consequence.

Electric and hydrogen trucks are the future, Gillis said, adding that large companies like his have a responsibility to show the way.

“We have to do it now,” Gillis said. “The more we try to delay this, it’s just going to be more painful down the road. Every mile that I put on a hydrogen truck today is going to benefit somebody down the road.”

"A literal case of life and death" in communities

As fleet owners struggle with the transition to clean fuels, families near freeways and ports throughout California suffer the consequences of inhaling toxic fumes.

Ulloa looks out of his bedroom window toward Drumm Avenue in Wilmington and sees diesel trucks hauling cargo from the Port of Los Angeles lined up on his street. To feel any relief, he confines himself in this room.

When he’s at work in Costa Mesa, his asthma symptoms don’t bother him. But he said his coughing starts as soon as he’s home. Last year, during Thanksgiving dinner, he was hospitalized for three days before his asthma could be stabilized.

“As soon as I get home from work the smell of diesel fumes and the dirt makes me cough,” Jose said. “I have to lock myself in my room with my air purifier and humidifier on. As soon as I go outside, I start coughing.”

Jose Ulloa, who has asthma, inhales from a vaporizer at his home in Wilmington near the Port of Los Angeles. Diesel fumes from trucks passing through his neighborhood aggravate his symptoms. Dec. 2, 2024. Photo by Carlin Stiehl for CalMatters

(

Carlin Stiehl

/

CalMatters

)

The family has lived there for almost 30 years, long before the trucks serving the port started coming through their neighborhood. Antonio Ulloa, Jose and Imelda’s son, remembers being a child and playing with other kids in the street. They’d play tag, skateboard and shoot basketballs into a hoop set up on the street, without any fear.

Now, at 31, Antonio sees no kids outside. Families keep their children indoors and shut all the windows to keep the pollution and noise out.

When Antonio’s nephew visits the family home, just a few hours playing in the front yard will give him nosebleeds. “It’s depressing,” he said.

Wilmington has long been known as one of the areas most affected by the air pollution. Community members report allergies, nosebleeds and the need for supplemental oxygen. About 12% of children in Wilmington have been diagnosed with asthma as of 2023, according to data from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

People living near the ports of LA and Long Beach breathe the highest concentrations of diesel exhaust in the Los Angeles basin, which raises their risk of lung cancer. Out of every million people chronically exposed to diesel fumes in West Long Beach, more than 350 people could contract cancer, according to South Coast Air Quality Management District analysis.

“It’s a literal case of life and death for a lot of our community members and our loved ones,” said Paola Vargas, a Carson resident and organizer with nonprofit East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice.

“Every day matters. Every day we don’t have those (truck emissions) rules and they aren’t passed is a day wasted and a day of harmful impacts for us.”

First: Diesel trucks pass in front of homes on Drumm Avenue in Wilmington. Last: A sign under Jose Ulloa’s window in Wilmington protests the truck traffic.

(

Carlin Stiehl

/

for CalMatters

)

UC Irvine researchers reported last year that even considering new vehicle technology and the state mandate, heavy-duty drayage trucks will still cause an estimated 2,142 asthma attacks and 106 premature deaths and $1.31 billion in health costs in 2035. That is a dramatic improvement, though, as trucks have gotten cleaner under air board rules: In 2012, they caused an estimated 15,468 asthma attacks, 483 premature deaths and $5.59 billion in health costs.

Most of the asthma cases and deaths will be in disadvantaged communities along highway routes between the ports and Inland Empire warehouses, according to the study. The researchers concluded that it is worth paying truck companies more than a billion dollars to replace diesels expected to be on the road in 2035 because of the health effects.

“The problem is not going to solve itself,” said Jean-Daniel Saphores, chair of UC Irvine’s department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and an author of the study. “These trucks are still doing a lot of harm and they’re disproportionately harming disadvantaged groups, even with all the regulation.”

The harm to disadvantaged communities extends to the Inland Empire, where an abundance of land is spurring warehouse development that draws more truck traffic.

San Bernardino County’s nearly 2,500 warehouses, for instance, generate 362,000 truck trips a day, according to data by Warehouse CITY, a tool created in collaboration with Pitzer College and research agency Radical Research. In Los Angeles County, 16,600 warehouses generate 267,000 daily truck trips.

MaCarmen Gonzalez, a San Bernardino resident, said she noticed that many young children in her community carry inhalers. After learning about the impacts of diesel pollution, she became an activist for clean air, including the state’s zero-emissions truck rule.

“You can’t see (the exhaust), but it’s killing you,” she said.

Parents struggle to find places for their children to play outdoors in neighborhoods near the Port of LA. On a recent sunny afternoon, Brittany Guevarra played with her three-year-old son at the Wilmington Waterfront Park playground.

In the background, on Harry Bridges Boulevard, a long line of diesel trucks passed by. The strong smell of diesel exhaust occasionally wafted through the park as children played to the rumble of traffic.

Guevarra used to live in San Pedro, but the cost of housing was too high. She was drawn to Wilmington by cheaper rent. At the time, the trucks and port pollution didn’t cross her mind. Now, it’s inescapable.

“Afterward I thought about it and I was like, ‘dang,’” Guevarra said. “I do worry. That’s why I keep (my son) inside. I know it’s bad.”

As the seemingly endless stream of trucks kept coming, Guevarra walked her son home after playing in the park. She doesn’t think she’ll ever return.

It's not your mother's podcast — or your father's, or anyone else's. The Washington Post's new offering, "Your Personal Podcast," uses artificial intelligence to customize podcasts for its users, blending the algorithm you might find in a news feed with the convenience of portable audio.

The podcast is "personalized automatically based on your reading history" of Post articles, the newspaper says on its help page. Listeners also have some control: At the click of a button, they can alter their podcast's topic mix — or even swap its computer-generated "hosts."

The AI podcast immediately made headlines — and drew criticisms from people questioning its accuracy, and the motives behind it.

Nicholas Quah, a critic and staff writer for Vulture and New York magazine who writes a newsletter about podcasts, says the AI podcast is an example of the Post's wide-ranging digital experiments — but one that didn't go quite right.

"This is one of many technologically, digitally oriented experiments that they're doing" that is aimed at "getting more audience, breaking into new demographics," he says. Those broader efforts range from a generative AI tool for readers to a digital publishing platform. But in this case, Quah adds, "It feels like it's compromising the core idea of what the news product is."

On that help page, the newspaper stresses that the podcast is in its early beta phase and "is not a traditional editorial podcast."

Bailey Kattleman, head of product and design at the Post, calls it "an AI-powered audio briefing experience" — and one that will soon let listeners talk back to it.

"In an upcoming release, they'll be able to actually interact and ask follow up questions to dig in deeper to what they've just heard," Kattleman says in an interview with NPR.

As technically sophisticated as that sounds, there are many questions about the new podcast's accuracy — even its ability to correctly pronounce the names of Post journalists it cites. Semafor reported that errors, cited by staffers at the Post, included "misattributing or inventing quotes and inserting commentary, such as interpreting a source's quotes" as the paper's own stance.

In the newspaper's app, a note advises listeners to "verify information" by checking the podcast against its source material.

In a statement, the Washington Post Guild — which represents newsroom employees and other staff — tells NPR, "We are concerned about this new product and its rollout," alleging that it undermines the Post's mission and its journalists' work.

Citing the paper's standing practice of issuing a correction if a story contains an error, the guild added, "why would we support any technology that is held to a different, lower standard?"

So, why is the Post rolling out an AI podcast? And will other news and audio outlets follow its lead?

Here are some questions, and answers:

Isn't AI podcasting already a thing?

"The Post has certainly gone out on a ledge here among U.S. legacy publishers," Andrew Deck tells NPR. But he adds that the newspaper isn't the first to experiment with AI-generated podcasts in the wider news industry.

Deck, who writes about journalism and AI for Harvard University's Nieman Lab, points to examples such as the BBC's My Club Daily, an AI-generated soccer podcast that lets users hear content related to their favorite club. In 2023, he adds, "a Swiss public broadcaster used voice clones of real radio hosts on the air."

News outlets have also long offered an automated feature that converts text articles into computer-generated voices.

Even outside of the news industry, AI tools for creating podcasts and other audio are more accessible than ever. Some promise to streamline the editing process, while others can synthesize documents or websites into what sounds like a podcast conversation.

Why do publishers want to experiment with AI podcasts?

"It's cost-effective," says Gabriel Soto, senior director of research at Edison Research, which tracks the podcast industry. "You cut out many of the resources and people needed to produce a podcast (studios, writers, editors, and the host themselves)."

And if a brand can create a successful AI virtual podcast in today's highly competitive podcasting market, Soto adds, it could become a valuable intellectual property in the future.

Deck says that if the Post's experiment works, the newspaper "may be able to significantly scale up and expand its audio journalism offerings, without investing in the labor that would normally be required to expand."

In an interview, Kattleman stresses the new product isn't meant to replace traditional podcasts: "We think they have a unique and enduring role, and that's not going away at the Post."

What's unique about the Post AI podcast?

For Deck, the level of customization it promises is an innovation. Being able to tailor a podcast specific to one person, he says, "is arguably beyond what any podcast team in journalism right now can produce manually."

In an example the Post published, listeners can choose from voice options with names like "Charlie and Lucy" and "Bert and Ernie."

Kattleman says her team was working from the idea that for an audience, there isn't a "one size fits all" when it comes to AI and journalism.

"Some people want that really straight briefing style; some people prefer something more conversational and more voicey," she says.

Quah says that adding an AI podcast is a bid to make stories accessible to a broader audience.

He says that with the podcast, the Post seems to be trying to reach young people who "don't want to read anymore, they just want to listen to the news."

A key goal, Kattleman says, is to make podcasts more flexible, to appeal to younger listeners who are on the go.

Outlining the process behind the Post's AI podcast, Kattleman says, "Everything is based on Washington Post journalism."

An LLM, or large language model, converts a story into a short audio script, she says. A second LLM then vets the script for accuracy. After the final script is stitched together, Kattleman adds, the voice narrates the episode.

Will listeners embrace an AI news podcast?

Soto, of Edison Research, says that 1 in 5 podcast consumers say they've listened to an AI-narrated podcast.

But, he adds that for podcast listeners, "many prefer the human connection, accepting AI tools to assist in creating the content, but not in executing or hosting the podcast."

The new AI podcast reminds Deck a bit of the hyper-personalized choices for users offered by TikTok and other social media.

"There is a level of familiarity
and, arguably, comfort with algorithmic curation among younger audiences," he says.

But while younger audiences tend to be tech savvy, many of them are also thoughtful about authenticity and connection.

"Community is at the core of why people listen to podcasts," Soto says.

Then there's the idea of a host or creator's personality, which drives engagement on TikTok and other platforms.

"These creators have built a relationship with their audience — and maybe even trust — even if they haven't spoken to sources themselves," Deck says. "This type of news content is a far cry from the disembodied banter of AI podcast hosts."

What are the potential downsides of AI podcasts?

One big potential consequence is the loss of jobs — and for companies, the loss of talent.

"The automation of it kind of erases the entire sort of voice performance industry," Quah says. "There are people who do this for a living," he adds, who could "produce higher quality versions of these recordings."

There are also concerns that, if AI chooses a story and controls how it's presented, it might create an echo chamber, omitting context or skepticism that a journalist would likely provide.

"AI-based news personalization tends to land firmly in the camp of delivering audiences what they want to know," Deck says.

Deck says he's willing to give the Post's AI podcast a bit of time to see how it plays out. But Deck does have a chief concern: "I can say point blank, generative AI models hallucinate."

And when AI models are wrong, he says, they're often confidently so.

Blurring boundaries between human and AI voices could also raise questions of trust — a critical factor for a news organization.

As Soto puts it, "What happens when your audience expects content from the real you and ends up finding AI instead?"

Storylines about abortion and conversations about it showed up on television 65 times this year, on prestigious dramas like The Pitt and Call the Midwife, on reality shows such as W.A.G.s to Riches and Love is Blind and on lowbrow animated comedies like Family Guy and South Park. That's about the same as last year. In 2024, TV shows featured 66 such plotlines.

But in the past few years, there's been a significant drop in the number of characters who actually went through with an abortion. 37% obtained an abortion in 2025, a 14% decline since 2023.

That's according to the annual Abortion Onscreen report. It comes from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, a research program on abortion and reproductive health based at the University of California San Francisco.

"I think there still is a lot of stigma, even in allegedly liberal Hollywood," says researcher Steph Herold. She says the report, which has come out for about a decade, reflects a profound lack of accurate representation of abortion use in America. For example, she points to research showing that about 60% of real life Americans who seek an abortion deal with some sort of barrier.

"But only about a third of people who are characters on screen face any kind of barrier to abortion," Herold said. "Whether it was not being able to come up with the cost of the abortion, not having somebody to watch their kids or cover for them at work, having to deal with clinics that are miles away, or in other states having insurance that wouldn't cover the cost." Most TV shows in 2025 depicting women struggling to get abortions focused on legal obstacles in the past and present.

On TV, 80% of characters seeking abortions are upper or middle class, but in real life, most abortion patients struggle to make ends meet. "This [disparity] obscures the role that poverty plays in obstructing access to abortion, and perhaps explains why we so rarely see plotlines in which characters wrestle with financial barriers to abortion access," the study says.

This year, a teenager on The Pitt sought abortion pills to end her pregnancy — one of only three stories depicting medication abortion out of 65 plotlines about abortion this year. That's another disparity between representation on-screen and real-world numbers: research shows that abortion pills account for the majority of abortions in the U.S. Another difference: only 8% of people seeking abortion on TV are parents. In real life, most abortion patients have at least one child.

It is unrealistic, says Herold, to expect TV to perfectly reflect current abortion use in the U.S., but she said she was disappointed by certain trends. Fewer characters this year received emotional support around their abortions, and more shows, she said, including Chicago Med, 1923, Breathless and Secrets We Keep featured plotlines that emphasized shame and stigma around abortions, especially because of religion. These storylines, the report says, "both obscure the diversity of religious observance among people having abortions, portraying religious patients as exclusively Christian, and also only associating religion with prohibiting abortion, instead of being a meaningful or supportive part of someone's abortion decision-making and experience."

But even though abortion has long been a hot-button political issue, Herold says millions of Americans have had some sort of experience with abortions. "Whether it's having one themselves or helping a daughter or a friend," she said, adding that stories that reflect a diversity of abortion experiences will be familiar to many viewers.

One bright spot, she added, was that television is doing a better job of reflecting the racial realities of abortion. A slight majority of characters in abortion plotlines are people of color — and although they are by far the majority of abortion seekers in real life, this marks a notable improvement from a decade ago, when TV shows more often portrayed women seeking abortions as wealthy and white.

Geminids, the strongest meteor shower of the year, hit a peak this weekend, sending over 150 meteors per hour through the night sky tonight and Sunday.

Vanessa Alarcon, an astronomical observer at the Griffith Observatory, says despite being the best and brightest every year, these meteors don’t tend to get many fans.

" It's usually not as heavily attended, I think because it's a lot colder in the winter. So it's definitely a deterrent, but technically, it's more meteors per hour than the Perseids are," Alarcon said.

The Perseids are typically visible between July and August, but this summer, they were mostly drowned out because of light pollution from the full moon.

Alarcon says it will be a different story this weekend.

" The Geminids ... there's about a 25% crescent moon. So it's actually going be even better than the Perseids," Alarcon said.

Where to go for the best view

For the best viewing experience, you'll have to brave the cold of the deserts and mountains at night, but it should be worth the trip.

"You should go to a darker sky," Alarcon said. "And basically, you just want to get away from the city lights — anything away from the city lights is going to be an improvement from trying to watch it at home."

When to best see it

The Geminids are notable for being exceptionally bright, burning like fireballs for several seconds. The meteors can be seen after 8 p.m. tonight, Alarcon said, peaking between 1:20 and 2:20 a.m. and visible until 5:20 a.m.