Latest news with #AssemblyAppropriationsCommittee
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Newsom throws support behind housing proposals to ease construction and reform permitting restrictions
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday threw his support behind two bills that would streamline housing development in urban areas, saying it was "time to get serious" about cutting red tape to address the housing crisis. Newsom said his revised state budget proposal, which he announced at a news conference Wednesday, also will include provisions that clear the way for more new housing by reforming the state's landmark California Environmental Quality Act and clearing other impediments. The governor praised Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) for sponsoring bills designed to ease the permitting process for infill projects, or building in urban areas that already have development. Newsom's housing proposal looks to force permit deadlines on the Coastal Commission, allow housing development projects over $100 million to use CEQA streamlining usually available to smaller projects, and create a fund, paid for by developers, to finance affordable housing near public transit. CEQA has long been used by opponents to impede or delay construction, often locking developers into years-long court battles. The law is so vague that it allows "essentially anyone who can hire a lawyer" to challenge developments, Wiener said in a statement. "It's time to accelerate urban infill. It's time to exempt them from CEQA, it's time to focus on judicial streamlining. It's time to get serious about this issue. Period, full stop," Newsom said during the morning budget news conference. "... This is the biggest opportunity to do something big and bold, and the only impediment is us. So we own this, and we have to own the response." Assembly Bill 609, proposed by Wicks, who serves as the Assembly Appropriations Committee chair, would create a sweeping exemption for housing projects that meet local building standards, especially in areas that have already been approved for additional development and reviewed for potential environmental impacts. Read more: California faces an additional $12-billion budget deficit, Newsom says "It's time to refine CEQA for the modern age, and I'm proud to work with the Governor to make these long-overdue changes a reality," Wicks said in a statement. Senate Bill 607, authored by Wiener, who serves as chair of the Senate Housing Committee, focuses the environmental review process and clarifies CEQA exemptions for urban infill housing projects. "By clearing away outdated procedural hurdles, we can address California's outrageous cost of living, grow California's economy, and help the government solve the most pressing problems facing our state. We look forward to working with Governor Newsom and our legislative colleagues to advance these two important bills and to secure an affordable and abundant future for California," Wiener said in a statement. Both bills are pending before the appropriations committees in the Assembly and Senate, respectively. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
15-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom throws support behind housing proposals to ease construction and reform permitting restrictions
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday threw his support behind two bills that would streamline housing development in urban areas, saying it was 'time to get serious' about cutting red tape to address the housing crisis. Newsom said his revised state budget proposal, which he announced at a news conference Wednesday, also will include provisions that clear the way for more new housing by reforming the state's landmark California Environmental Quality Act and clearing other impediments. The governor praised Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) for sponsoring bills designed to ease the permitting process for infill projects, or building in urban areas that already have development. Newsom's housing proposal looks to force permit deadlines on the Coastal Commission, allow housing development projects over $100 million to use CEQA streamlining usually available to smaller projects, and create a fund, paid for by developers, to finance affordable housing near public transit. CEQA has long been used by opponents to impede or delay construction, often locking developers into years-long court battles. The law is so vague that it allows 'essentially anyone who can hire a lawyer' to challenge developments, Wiener said in a statement. 'It's time to accelerate urban infill. It's time to exempt them from CEQA, it's time to focus on judicial streamlining. It's time to get serious about this issue. Period, full stop,' Newsom said during the morning budget news conference. '... This is the biggest opportunity to do something big and bold, and the only impediment is us. So we own this, and we have to own the response.' Assembly Bill 609, proposed by Wicks, who serves as the Assembly Appropriations Committee chair, would create a sweeping exemption for housing projects that meet local building standards, especially in areas that have already been approved for additional development and reviewed for potential environmental impacts. 'It's time to refine CEQA for the modern age, and I'm proud to work with the Governor to make these long-overdue changes a reality,' Wicks said in a statement. Senate Bill 607, authored by Wiener, who serves as chair of the Senate Housing Committee, focuses the environmental review process and clarifies CEQA exemptions for urban infill housing projects. 'By clearing away outdated procedural hurdles, we can address California's outrageous cost of living, grow California's economy, and help the government solve the most pressing problems facing our state. We look forward to working with Governor Newsom and our legislative colleagues to advance these two important bills and to secure an affordable and abundant future for California,' Wiener said in a statement. Both bills are pending before the appropriations committees in the Assembly and Senate, respectively.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Climate
- Yahoo
Lawmakers approve bold new safety net for uninsured homeowners after devastating fires: 'It's time ... to align with the rest of the world'
In January, wildfires raged throughout the Los Angeles area. According to Cal Fire, in 2025 alone there have been 850-plus wildfires, with over 60,000 acres burned and over 16,000 structures destroyed. The California State Assembly Insurance Committee recently approved Assembly Bill 1236. This bill includes provisions to create climate resilience insurance and grant programs to reduce risk. In addition to destroying acres of natural habitats, the fires also had a substantial impact on residential areas, displacing more than 100,000 people. The insurance will address this by providing coverage for events related to natural disasters like the wildfires. It places special emphasis on vulnerable populations who may not have insurance. California has always been prone to wildfires, but they have been exacerbated by rising global temperatures. Wildfire season is typically over the summer, so these powerful January fires were a rare event. "The climate crisis demands action and innovative solutions. It's time for California to align with the rest of the world, which has been developing innovative climate insurance solutions to protect our most vulnerable populations for years now," Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a news release. As Californians recover after the wildfires and adapt to the changing climate, measures such as AB 1236 could be pivotal in preparing for wildfire seasons to come. The bill is under review by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, but its supporters are hopeful that it will become law. Tim Brown, director of the NOAA Western Regional Climate Center, wrote that California's fires result from "the confluence of climate, people, topography, and fuels…the intersection where these meet on the Venn diagram." To reduce the severity of severe natural events including wildfires, humans will need to move away from dirty energy sources that release heat-trapping pollution and invest in renewable energy technologies. Do you think your city has good air quality? Definitely Somewhat Depends on the time of year Not at all Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. If you live in an area that is prone to wildfires, you can take precautions by fireproofing your home or planting fire-resistant plants in your yard — just be sure to research which plants are native to the area and which may be invasive species. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill to slash rooftop solar incentives weakened by Assembly committee
An Assembly committee backed away on Wednesday night from a controversial provision in a proposed bill to end solar credits for 2 million owners of rooftop solar systems, saying it would apply only to those who sold their homes. Assembly Bill 942, introduced by Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), targeted long-standing programs that provide energy credits to Californians who installed solar panels before April 15, 2025. As originally drafted, the bill would have limited the current program's benefits to 10 years — half of the 20-year period the state had told rooftop owners they would receive. The committee nixed that provision, leaving another that would cancel the program for those selling their homes. With the amendment, the bill passed 10 to 5, sending it on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Scores of rooftop solar owners attended the hearing, asking the committee members to vote no. Some said that even with the amendment they believed the measure would reduce the value of their home. "We just put our home up for sale yesterday," said Dwight James, a resident of Simi Valley, who is still making payments on a loan he took out to pay for his solar system. "We didn't expect the state to break its promise to us." Calderon, a former executive at Southern California Edison, said she proposed the bill because the financial credits given to rooftop solar owners for excess electricity they send to the grid are raising electric bills for those who don't own the panels. Edison and the state's two other large for-profit electric companies supported the bill, along with members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Major utilities use unionized labor to build and repair equipment, including the lines connecting distant industrial-scale solar farms in the desert. Companies installing rooftop panels generally don't use union workers. Read more: Former Edison executive Calderon, now a lawmaker, seeks to cut rooftop solar credits The legislation doesn't affect customers served by municipal utilities. Several members of the Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee said at the hearing that their offices have been overwhelmed with calls and emails from solar customers. "I've gotten more opposition to this bill than to any other by eight- to tenfold," said Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo (D-Santa Clarita), who voted no. Before the hearing began, an analyst who reviews legislation for the committee recommended the 10-year sunset provision be removed from the bill. She cited a state requirement that solar owners sign a consumer protection guide that calls the arrangement a "contract" and says the credits are "guaranteed" for 20 years. Keeping that provision, said analyst Laura Shybut, the committee's chief consultant, could pave the way for legal challenges to the legislation. The bill prompted protests this month by owners of the rooftop solar panels, who said they had invested thousands of dollars in the green energy systems based on assurances the incentives would last for 20 years. Also opposing the bill were schools, businesses, apartment owners and others who had installed the rooftop panels. A group of school districts including Los Angeles Unified, San Diego Unified and the Alameda County Office of Education filed a letter to the Assembly committee in opposition to the proposed legislation. "School districts made good faith investments in solar energy technology based on the commitments of the state," the schools wrote. "It is unfair and could raise legal concerns to retroactively change the rules." "The state should be supporting investments in rooftop solar to meet our climate goals and to promote affordability for all customers, not undermining those who heeded its guidance and mandates to make these investments," the schools wrote. Committee members said that with the amendment the schools would no longer be affected. Also opposing the bill were dozens of environmental groups, consumer organizations and the rooftop solar industry, which argued that electric bills are rising because of excessive utility spending — not from credits given to owners of the green energy systems. The value of the credits — provided to panel owners at the retail rate of electricity — has increased rapidly as the state Public Utilities Commission voted to approve rate increases requested by the utility companies. At a news conference on Tuesday, Calderon appeared with members of utility worker unions, saying the credits were shifting billions of dollars in costs to people who did not own the panels, which was especially hurting the poor. 'This is about fairness and equity — nothing more,' she said. Read more: California officials push to cut energy credits to households with rooftop solar panels Rooftop solar advocates have challenged that assertion, citing statistics from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that show 39% of the owners of the rooftop panels in 2023 had household incomes of less than $100,000. About 12% had incomes below $50,000. Several committee members said Wednesday night that they had heard from solar owners of all income levels. "I have to push back on the narrative that these are all high-income people," Schiavo said. Some also questioned whether those without solar panels would actually see a reduction in their electric bills if the measure passed. "How much of this will go back to the consumer?" asked Laurie Davies (D-Laguna Niguel), who voted no. Her question wasn't answered. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
01-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Bill to slash rooftop solar incentives weakened by Assembly committee
An Assembly committee backed away on Wednesday night from a controversial provision in a proposed bill to end solar credits for 2 million owners of rooftop solar systems, saying it would apply only to those who sold their homes. Assembly Bill 942, introduced by Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), targeted long-standing programs that provide energy credits to Californians who installed solar panels before April 15, 2025. As originally drafted, the bill would have limited the current program's benefits to 10 years — half of the 20-year period the state had told rooftop owners they would receive. The committee nixed that provision, leaving another that would cancel the program for those selling their homes. With the amendment, the bill passed 10 to 5, sending it on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Scores of rooftop solar owners attended the hearing, asking the committee members to vote no. Some said that even with the amendment they believed the measure would reduce the value of their home. 'We just put our home up for sale yesterday,' said Dwight James, a resident of Simi Valley, who is still making payments on a loan he took out to pay for his solar system. 'We didn't expect the state to break its promise to us.' Calderon, a former executive at Southern California Edison, said she proposed the bill because the financial credits given to rooftop solar owners for excess electricity they send to the grid are raising electric bills for those who don't own the panels. Edison and the state's two other large for-profit electric companies supported the bill, along with members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Major utilities use unionized labor to build and repair equipment, including the lines connecting distant industrial-scale solar farms in the desert. Companies installing rooftop panels generally don't use union workers. The legislation doesn't affect customers served by municipal utilities. Several members of the Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee said at the hearing that their offices have been overwhelmed with calls and emails from solar customers. 'I've gotten more opposition to this bill than to any other by eight- to tenfold,' said Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo (D-Santa Clarita), who voted no. Before the hearing began, an analyst who reviews legislation for the committee recommended the 10-year sunset provision be removed from the bill. She cited a state requirement that solar owners sign a consumer protection guide that calls the arrangement a 'contract' and says the credits are 'guaranteed' for 20 years. Keeping that provision, said analyst Laura Shybut, the committee's chief consultant, could pave the way for legal challenges to the legislation. The bill prompted protests this month by owners of the rooftop solar panels, who said they had invested thousands of dollars in the green energy systems based on assurances the incentives would last for 20 years. Also opposing the bill were schools, businesses, apartment owners and others who had installed the rooftop panels. A group of school districts including Los Angeles Unified, San Diego Unified and the Alameda County Office of Education filed a letter to the Assembly committee in opposition to the proposed legislation. 'School districts made good faith investments in solar energy technology based on the commitments of the state,' the schools wrote. 'It is unfair and could raise legal concerns to retroactively change the rules.' 'The state should be supporting investments in rooftop solar to meet our climate goals and to promote affordability for all customers, not undermining those who heeded its guidance and mandates to make these investments,' the schools wrote. Committee members said that with the amendment the schools would no longer be affected. Also opposing the bill were dozens of environmental groups, consumer organizations and the rooftop solar industry, which argued that electric bills are rising because of excessive utility spending — not from credits given to owners of the green energy systems. The value of the credits — provided to panel owners at the retail rate of electricity — has increased rapidly as the state Public Utilities Commission voted to approve rate increases requested by the utility companies. At a news conference on Tuesday, Calderon appeared with members of utility worker unions, saying the credits were shifting billions of dollars in costs to people who did not own the panels, which was especially hurting the poor. 'This is about fairness and equity — nothing more,' she said. Rooftop solar advocates have challenged that assertion, citing statistics from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that show 39% of the owners of the rooftop panels in 2023 had household incomes of less than $100,000. About 12% had incomes below $50,000. Several committee members said Wednesday night that they had heard from solar owners of all income levels. 'I have to push back on the narrative that these are all high-income people,' Schiavo said. Some also questioned whether those without solar panels would actually see a reduction in their electric bills if the measure passed. 'How much of this will go back to the consumer?' asked Laurie Davies (D-Laguna Niguel), who voted no. Her question wasn't answered.
