The Brief

With only six days left in the legislative session, lawmakers refuse to back several of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s controversial proposals for reducing how much for-profit utility companies must pay after causing a wildfire.

Assembly and Senate lawmakers oppose the governor’s proposals to limit survivors’ compensation for pain and suffering, curb reimbursements to insurance companies for massive payouts to homeowners when power lines spark a fire and limit how much local governments can recoup for incinerated infrastructure, according to legislative sources and internal memos obtained by CalMatters.

Those are among the most contentious parts of a high-stakes package of wildfire policies Newsom has been negotiating behind closed doors at the end of his final legislative session as governor.

Neither the governor’s office nor leaders in the Senate and Assembly have released the text of the proposals they are negotiating, setting the stage for them to potentially push through a complex package of policies with little public hearing in the final days of the session that ends Aug. 31.

Newsom’s office has not responded to inquiries about lawmakers’ opposition to parts of his proposal. If they can’t reach an agreement by Friday, the legislative deadline to publish bills before they get a vote, they would punt the issue of rising utility liabilities to the next governor.

At a press conference last week, Newsom said he’s open to amending his proposal but insisted some reforms must be made.

“I feel very strongly that we need to move on this,” he said.

Newsom is concerned, his staff says, with ensuring fire victims’ damage claims get paid faster while freeing utilities from other lawsuits that could shake investors’ confidence in the companies’ financial standing and lead to higher power bills for customers. But opponents, including local governments, wildfire survivors, consumer advocates and insurance companies, argue the plan helps utilities escape accountability.

Though any changes they make would apply only to future wildfires, the negotiations have stoked the anger of a group of Eaton Fire survivors who traveled to Sacramento this week to protest the proposals. Earlier this month, state and Los Angeles fire officials found investor-owned utility Southern California Edison responsible for the January 2025 fire, which ignited under a decades-old decommissioned Edison transmission tower. The blaze claimed 19 lives and destroyed 9,400 structures.

“My job is not to ensure that we’re increasing profits for shareholders for these companies,” Sen. Sasha Renee Perez, a Democrat who represents Altadena, said at a rally with the group on Tuesday. “And we certainly, as a Legislature, are not going to negotiate with companies that want to act like terrorists.”

Lawmakers diverge

Perez was referring to a report that executives of Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison have told Wall Street analysts the companies plan to take unspecified actions to protect their shareholders if lawmakers do not pass laws this year helping them reduce their financial responsibility after fires.

Newsom and Democratic lawmakers agree on a proposal that would curb utility CEO bonuses after a destructive fire and increase fines for utilities with safety violations. Sources familiar with the negotiations said a Senate proposal would go further, targeting utility profits by directing regulators to scrutinize company spending and to consider limiting rate increases in line with inflation.

Lawmakers also agree with Newsom on improving community wildfire mitigation projects and using future insurance taxes to pay for home hardening. And they generally agree on limiting fees for attorneys who represent victims and other plaintiffs in suing utilities for damages after a fire, though the Senate plan would also curb fees for the utilities’ attorneys.

But neither Senate nor Assembly leaders agree with Newsom on eliminating subrogation — the right of insurance companies to recoup their costs for claims from utilities or other corporations responsible for a fire — according to memos of the Assembly’s counterproposals and Senate sources familiar with the negotiations.

The insurance industry has been vocal about the possible effects, arguing it would increase insurers’ costs and lead them to raise their rates.

 ‘A massive new strain’

Sen. Ben Allen, a candidate for insurance commissioner and Democrat whose district includes the Pacific Palisades, which also experienced a deadly fire last January, said killing subrogation to try to address one problem (high electricity rates) could create another problem (even higher insurance rates).

“I fear we will create a massive new strain on the insurance system that could break basic questions of affordability for Californians,” Allen told CalMatters. It could also exacerbate problems in the state’s already challenging insurance market, he said.

Lawmakers are aligned with the governor on limiting the number of middlemen who are entitled to benefit or profit after a disaster, or at least capping how much they can get. Lawmakers in both chambers want to bar insurers from selling their claims and subrogation rights to hedge funds. The Senate plan would still allow it if insurers get approval from the insurance commissioner, which smaller insurers might seek if they need cash quickly to pay claims after a fire.

Assembly leaders also are pushing back on Newsom’s proposal to reduce the amount local governments can recover from utilities after a wildfire by limiting claims to the depreciated value of burned infrastructure, rather than the full cost of rebuilding it. The proposal had sparked outrage from the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities and groups representing school districts.

Under pressure from the powerful California Professional Firefighters union, Newsom appears to be backing away from that effort.

On Monday, the union wrote Newsom a letter supporting his overall package and thanking him for “adjustments to ensure that local governments are not unduly impacted by this proposal.” Newsom spokesperson Anthony Martinez did not respond to an inquiry about that proposal.

A fraught proposal

Newsom’s office, lawmakers and the utilities (via their Wildfire Victims First campaign, which includes few fire victims) say their motivation is ensuring fire survivors’ damages are prioritized over other plaintiffs. That means determining which survivors are most deserving, which is among the most emotional and fraught of Newsom’s proposals.

The governor would limit survivors’ damages for pain and suffering to those who lost a family member or suffered an injury. Other survivors would only get to make a non-economic damages claim if they were in the burn perimeter and had to flee, with a cap of $150,000 per person to avoid overdrawing from the state’s wildfire fund, which is paid for by utility customers and shareholders.

Gayle Nicholls Ali, an Eaton Fire survivor, protests outside the Governor’s Mansion in Sacramento on Aug. 24, 2026.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

In response to survivors’ objections, the Assembly’s proposal would expand eligibility for those non-economic damages without caps, while the Senate plan would not limit eligibility and instead raise the legal bar for survivors outside the perimeter to prove the fire caused their trauma.

But a month of protests by Eaton Fire survivors opposing Newsom’s plan shows choosing how to prioritize victims remains complicated. Their group, Every Fire Survivors Network, objects to anything seeking to differentiate among fire victims.

“We are the real wildfire survivors,” a few dozen of them chanted outside the governor’s mansion Monday night, where Newsom was hosting state lawmakers for an end-of-session reception.

Gayle Nicholls-Ali’s house in Altadena burned down, and she is starting to rebuild. Her son’s home, around the corner, was not destroyed but has smoke damage. He and his wife have been living in a donated RV on the property, waiting for his insurance company to approve his claims so they can begin repairs.

Under Newsom’s proposal, she’s not sure whether her son would qualify for non-economic damages because he is a survivor who evacuated but was not physically hurt and did not lose his home.

“The mental stress alone” has been immense, she said. A retired public school teacher, Nicholls-Ali and her husband have lived in Altadena for more than 30 years, and it was her son’s dream to buy a home in the same city.

“He wanted to live near home,” she said.

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

An all-ages play about the life of Dolores Huerta and other under-told stories of the farmworker labor movement is back on tour in Los Angeles.

The show's extension had been announced prior to the news that Huerta died Wednesday, Oct. 28., at her Bakersfield home. She was 96 years old.

“There's this perception that farm work was only done by men,” said playwright Eliana Pipes. “There were women on the fields, there were women on the picket lines, and there were women in leadership in the United Farm Workers movement.”

Center Theatre Group commissioned ¡Sí Se Puede! from Pipes in March 2025 and it debuted in L.A. this spring.

The next free, family-friendly shows are:

• Wednesday, Nov. 4, 6:30 p.m., at the Ketchum-Downtown YMCA: 401 S. Hope St. Los Angeles
• Saturday, Nov. 7, 2 p.m., at Christine Emerson Reed Park: 1133 7th St., Santa Monica
• Saturday, Nov. 14, 2:30 p.m., at the East L.A. Civic Center: 4801 E. 3rd St., Los Angeles
• Sunday, Nov. 15, 4 p.m.,  at Latino Health Access: 450 W. 4th St., Santa Ana

Right around the year 2000, there was a club night in Hollywood called Clockwork Orange. Fans of The Smiths, Depeche Mode, Bauhaus and other bands came for the DJ’s mix of their favorite songs but also for a vibe that welcomed people regardless of race, ethnicity or sexual and gender identity.

“I was a pretty shy person, and so that was a place where I could sort of be myself and express myself,” said Azalea Camacho, a regular there in those days.

She had just graduated from Workman High School in the City of Industry and was also clubbing at rockabilly music nights in Rosemead and goth club nights in downtown L.A.

Camacho said there was lots of memorabilia from those times, such as photos taken in and outside the clubs, ticket stubs and promotional fliers. They're the physical remnants of those supportive communities built around music and enjoyment, but many of them languish in shoeboxes and storage units, at risk of being lost — along with the memories attached to them.

Cal State LA has hosted Sounds of the Underground Archive for the last four years. It's an opportunity for people to donate their underground music scene memorabilia.

(

Courtesy Special Collections and Archives, University Library, California State University, Los Angeles

)

“I think the danger is maybe those stories are not being told, or people don't know about the story,” she said.

Keeping stories alive

More than two decades later, Camacho is now in a position to make sure those stories are kept alive. She’s head of special collections and archives at the university library at California State University, Los Angeles.

Four years ago, she and library staff created an annual day for area residents to donate or digitize memorabilia for their Sounds of the Underground Archive. This year it's on Thursday, Nov. 5. They’ll accept physical donations, but they’ll also have a scanner to digitize printed material, so people can keep items that are precious to them.

Camacho is hoping this year will bring in a bumper amount of memorabilia. It's taken time to get the word out, she said.

“From the actual community archiving day [we’ve collected] maybe 100 or less than 100 items. … It's not a lot,” she said.

She said they're on the lookout for a wide range of mementos, including:

• Fliers
• Handbills
• Zines
• Newsletters
• Posters
• Set lists
• Photographs (prints, negatives or digital files)
• Cassette tapes, CDs, or vinyl records
• Ticket stubs
• Wristbands
• Band merchandise (stickers, buttons, patches, T-shirts)
• DIY press kits or liner notes and correspondence (letters, emails, messages related to music scenes)
• Venue or collective ephemera (membership cards, schedules, announcements and more)
  

Los Angeles has handily broken its record for most days of coastal flooding in a year. And that’s without including October in the tally and with a wet El Niño winter ahead — a worrying sign for coastal homes and infrastructure.

Researchers can’t yet project how many more days of flooding we’ll have in 2026 — but we’re already well ahead of what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s models had forecast up to this point.

NOAA oceanographer Karen Kavanaugh said models had predicted three to six flood days between May 2026 and April 2027. Those models took El Niño and sea level rise into account. She said that there have already been nine flood days in that window and added that the 12 flood days so far in the calendar year are “abnormally high.”

The number of days of coastal flooding observed at NOAA’s tide gauge in San Pedro is the highest recorded since observations started being taken in 1923. The previous record was set at nine in 1983, during another El Niño event.

When might we see more flooding?

Kavanaugh couldn’t say with certainty when flooding might occur, but noted that high-risk times ahead coincide with Thanksgiving and Christmas. Around then, the moon will be at its closest point to the Earth. The stronger gravitational pull from the moon causes what are commonly known as king tides, a nonscientific term for the highest predicted tides of the year.

In addition to these factors, the wide range of events affecting our tides this year, including storms, climate change, El Niño and related Kelvin waves, could very well cause other flooding events or cause the existing ones to become stronger.

Kavanaugh said a combination of factors — specifically Kelvin waves and astronomical high tides — was exactly what was responsible for the flooding seen this week.

“That could happen, perhaps, again in November and December if we have another pulse of a Kelvin wave,” Kavanaugh said.

Flooding inundated coastal communities around Southern California this week, including Orange County's Sunset Beach.

(

Robert Gauthier

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

How high will the tides be?

Unfortunately, Kavanaugh said, there’s no way to predict the severity of upcoming king tide events at this moment in time.

“But as we move closer to an event, there are good models that the National Weather Service uses to forecast flooding,” she added. “But they need it to be within seven days, sometimes shorter timelines.”

How to prepare for high tide conditions

Kavanaugh recommended keeping an eye on National Weather Service reports for the latest information and predictions. (There are separate pages for Los Angeles and Orange counties.)

Kavanaugh stressed that, given this year's unpredictability so far, people should be as prepared as possible.

“It's an unusual type of phenomenon to plan for for some communities,” she said. “We're used to planning for a big storm, maybe, and flooding from that, but not planning for, ‘Oh, it's gonna be beautiful sunny weather, and also you might have flooding on the roads.’”

Kavanaugh also recommended paying close attention to local emergency officials’ guidance and being mindful not to park cars in low-lying areas that could end up being inundated.

“If [local officials are] asking you to get sandbags or things like that, keep those sandbags because you might need them again in a few weeks,” she said.

The federal government must pull three taxpayer-funded Trump administration ads that appear to have been made for political or propaganda purposes, including one touting the president’s claim that every American will get $5,000 if Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming election, a judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, in ordering the government to take down the advertisements titled “$5,000 to Americans,” “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips,” and “Cost of Socialism.” She declined to pull several other ads.

She said the three ads must be taken off official government websites, including social media sites such as YouTube, Instagram and the like. Rochon also ordered the cancellation of any plans for the airing or distribution of the ads through authorized third parties, including by President Donald Trump’s flagship super PAC, MAGA Inc.

Rochon was nominated to the court by then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and once served as a law clerk for Trump’s sister, the late Maryanne Trump Barry, a longtime federal appeals court judge.

Responding to the ruling, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said: “This Biden-appointed activist judge issued a lawless order to stop the administration from sharing patriotic videos.”

Rochon ruled during a hearing in which she considered expanding a temporary restraining order she issued two weeks ago, when she banned a series of ads that glorify Trump and echo his political messaging going into the midterms.

The plaintiffs sought the removal of at least 13 ads, but Rochon only ordered that the three be pulled, at least for now. She noted that the Government Accountability Office has observed that there are instances when the president’s office is entitled to inform the public of its policies, justify its policies and respond to attacks on its policies.

Rochon said the plaintiffs were seeking to restrict the office in ways that were “broad and far reaching” and she found herself concluding that the government will ultimately prevail legally with regard to many of the ads.

The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have made to promote various policies. But the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements because they don’t try to help the public benefit from specific government programs, according to the plaintiffs.

After Rochon issued the order, she noted that she was doing so on a Friday afternoon and that the government would have no excuse to delay taking them down immediately.

A government lawyer acknowledged that he would be able to immediately notify relevant individuals responsible for taking down the ads.

“Everyone is here. Everyone can hear my order. No one is at the theater,” the judge quipped in a reference to excuses offered by government lawyers when her recent order, issued over a weekend, wasn’t immediately obeyed.

Rochon said irreparable harm could result to the plaintiffs if she didn’t ban the ads while the court case proceeds, though she noted that she could reverse herself and restore the ads or ban additional ads after hearing more evidence in the coming weeks.

“This court can neither postpone an election nor turn back the clock,” Rochon said after concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims regarding the ads and would suffer harm if they were not taken down.

“This temporary restraining order will stop the administration’s wanton disregard for the law while the court hears the full case,” said Bradley Girard, a lawyer with Democracy Forward. “Congress has made clear that partisan ads cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars, and we are proud to work with this coalition to earn today’s result.”

In court papers, the coalition’s lawyers wrote that Congress did not appropriate funds to the president’s office “to run a PR shop to help the President’s allies and attack his perceived ideological opponents.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher wrote in response to the plaintiffs that there was nothing wrong with White House staff compiling advertisements to “inform the public about his policies and to rebut attacks on those policies and his Administration.”

___

Associated Press writer Michael R. Sisak contributed to this report.