Latest news with #CarolineMenjivar
Los Angeles Times
07-07-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
California's plan to ‘Make Polluters Pay' for climate change stalls again. Why oil companies are fiercely opposed
California lawmakers have for years vowed to hold fossil fuel companies liable for damages caused by their emissions, including worsening wildfires and floods and mounting costs of climate recovery and adaptation. But the state's so-called Climate Superfund bills have once again stalled in Sacramento amid fierce lobbying and industry pressure — leaving communities to cover the costs. The latest version of this effort, Senate Bill 684 and Assembly Bill 1243 — known as the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act — would require the largest oil and gas companies doing business in the state to pay their fair share of the damages caused by planet-warming greenhouse gases. The fees would be collected into a Superfund that would be put toward projects and programs to help the state mitigate, adapt and respond to climate change. The legislation gained momentum after its introduction by Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City) and Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) in the wake of January's devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, but neither made it out of its house of origin before sputtering out. Officials have confirmed to The Times that the legislation has been put on hold until next year. A similar bill introduced by Menjivar last year also failed to progress, clearing three committees before dying in Senate appropriations. New York and Vermont both passed their own versions of the legislation last year, but climate-conscious California continues to struggle to push its iteration over the finish line as deep-pocketed oil companies rally hard against it — and as the White House ramps up federal directives for more oil and gas. In the first quarter of this year alone, fossil fuel companies, chambers of commerce and other opponents spent at least $10.6 million lobbying against the Climate Superfund Act and other state legislation — more than 10 times the amount spent by environmental groups working to see it passed, according to an analysis of state filings. (Filings list all bills lobbied by an organization but do not break down how much was spent on each individual bill.) 'Any time you go up against Big Oil, it's a huge struggle,' Addis told The Times ahead of the bills' postponement. She said the state's strong climate record has made it a magnet for fossil fuel opposition. 'I really think they've turned everything toward California to try to slow us down.' The Climate Superfund Act is modeled after the federal Superfund law that requires companies to pay for the cleanup of contamination caused by their activities, such as hazardous waste disposal or accidents and spills. The state's proposed climate version would direct the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify responsible parties — defined as oil companies responsible for more than 1 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions globally from 1990 to 2024 — within 90 days of enactment. The agency would have one year to conduct a comprehensive study to apportion damages to each polluter based on their emissions from that time period, which would be assessed as a one-time fee paid into a Superfund in annual installments. The funds collected from these companies would be earmarked for projects such as wildfire recovery, energy efficiency upgrades, community resilience infrastructure and other climate-related efforts. At least 40% of the money would be prioritized for disadvantaged communities, which suffer disproportionately from pollution and other environmental harms. Advocates say it's long overdue. 'This is a really big idea that makes a lot of sense,' said Maggie Coulter, senior attorney with the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. 'When you make a mess, the people who made the mess should be the ones who clean it up. But right now what we're seeing is that taxpayers are the ones paying for all the myriad damages that are being caused by climate change, and by the pollution that's come from the burning of fossil fuels.' Fossil fuels account for about 75% of greenhouse gas emissions — the primary driver of global warming that is contributing to more frequent and destructive disasters such as wildfires, floods, droughts and extreme heat, as well as sea level rise and air pollution, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many other experts. Damages caused by these events include not only property loss but also rising healthcare and insurance costs, reduced productivity, increased emergency disaster response and costly infrastructure repairs, much of which is traditionally borne by the public. 'The consequences of climate change come with a huge price tag that is only increasing,' state Senate officials wrote in their analysis of the legislation. They noted that wildfires in California in 2020 caused economic losses of more than $19 billion. The cost of January's fires in L.A. alone is estimated to be $250 billion. 'With or without this bill, the costs of climate disaster recovery, adaptation, and mitigation will climb and must be paid,' the analysis says. 'The question then is, 'Paid by whom?'' Despite a groundswell of support for the legislation after the L.A. fires, the idea continues to face considerable opposition from oil industry groups, chambers of commerce and building and trade organizations that say it will kill jobs and drive up the cost of oil in the state. Among the top organizations spending against the bill in California were the Western States Petroleum Assn. — a large trade group representing fossil fuel companies — and the California Chamber of Commerce, which reported spending about $3.5 million and $1.2 million, respectively, on lobbying this quarter, state filings show. (Reporting is required for spends of $5,000 or more.) When asked about their concerns about the Climate Superfund Act, both groups deferred to a joint letter sent to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee in March, signed by about two dozen opposition groups. The legislation 'would impose retroactive liability on companies for lawful business activities dating back to 1990 and would introduce significant regulatory uncertainty that threatens California's economic stability and competitiveness,' the letter says. 'The significant financial obligations the bill would impose on alleged 'responsible parties' would likely worsen California's affordability crisis for the state's consumers and businesses as costs are passed down.' Western States Petroleum Assn. spokesman Jim Stanley also pointed to an analysis conducted by the California Center for Jobs & the Economy, which describes the legislation as a 'de facto carbon tax' that would ripple across goods, services and regional economies and create an annual household burden of up to $3,400. Specifically, the analysis says the legislation would contribute directly to a 43% increase in gasoline prices by 2027; eliminate 205,000 jobs statewide due to reduced consumer spending; and result in a $30.5-billion reduction in state GDP each year from 2027 to 2046, among other negative outcomes. Not everyone agreed with their assessment, however. Clair Brown, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley, has studied the Climate Superfund bill extensively and concluded that it would not increase gas prices in the state. That's because California's pump prices are primarily set by the global crude oil market, which is volatile, Brown said. What's more, she said major oil companies would continue to face market competition from smaller oil producers selling gas at branded and unbranded stations in the state, which limits the big companies' ability to raise retail gas prices without losing customers. A California law passed in 2023, Senate Bill X1-2, also prohibits refineries from passing along nonoperational costs — such as the Superfund fee — to consumers, she said. 'The public's been paying for part of the operational cost of refineries and oil and gas for decades, and meanwhile the oil and gas companies lied about the impact of their emissions on global warming,' Brown said. (Evidence has shown that the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change decades before acknowledging it publicly.) 'One of the reasons that economists really like this bill is that it would actually internalize the cost,' Brown said. 'Then we would actually see the real cost of fossil fuel energy — and it would help us transition hopefully faster and with more equity.' As for job loss, she said fossil fuel employment is affected not just by state demand but also by exports, which have been increasing in recent years. And while opponents argue that these companies have already been paying into the state's climate policies through cap-and-trade allowances and low carbon fuel standard credits, 'they don't overlap at all — they're totally different policies taxing different things,' Brown said. The legislation 'makes really good economic sense,' she added. It is not immediately clear to how many companies the Climate Superfund Act would even apply. According to Carbon Majors, a database of historical oil production data, there are about 130 global entities that produced over a billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions during the relevant time frame — only 26 of which operate in the United States. A comprehensive study ordered by the legislation would determine which companies are liable in the state, and for how much. For example, Chevron is associated with about 16.6 billion metric tons of historic global greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, while Marathon is associated with about 2 billion. It is also not immediately clear how much money it would raise. New York's Superfund bill has been valued at $75 billion over 25 years — though some analysts have said the number represents only a small fraction of that state's anticipated costs of climate adaptation in the years ahead, which could be well over $500 billion. California could potentially see an even bigger payout, in part because oil companies conduct so much activity here. But it's a double-edged sword, Brown said, because the heavy presence of those companies in the state is also why they've lobbied so hard against the legislation. Oil and gas made up about 6% of California's gross domestic product last year, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has championed California as a climate leader, has been mum about the bill. His team said the governor doesn't typically comment on pending legislation. 'If the measures reach his desk, the Governor will evaluate them on their merits,' his office said in an email. Meanwhile, Calif. Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has launched a climate liability lawsuit against top oil companies that seeks to establish a fund to finance climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, not unlike the Superfund idea. Assemblymember Addis said pushing the legislation through in California has been an uphill battle. 'The oil industry pulled out all the stops here in California,' she said. Not only have fossil fuel companies spent millions in recent years to oppose oil and gas legislation, but 'they have a president in office now who has literally said 'drill baby drill' and gotten tens of millions of dollars, if not more, in campaign contributions' from the industry. Indeed, Trump received record donations from oil and gas interests during his 2024 presidential campaign, and has taken steps to remove regulations that govern the fossil fuel industry in an effort to 'unleash American energy' and increase oil and gas production. The Trump administration has also filed a lawsuit against New York and Vermont over their Climate Superfund bills, arguing they are unconstitutional. Despite the setbacks, Coulter, of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the legislation continues to maintain support because 'it has that gut instinct appeal, and it's something that there's huge need for — particularly in California,' where worsening climate disasters are meeting with reduced federal funding and a significant budget deficit. 'This is a really big idea that makes a lot of sense,' she said. She and other advocates noted that there is already precedent for the Climate Superfund Act in California. Since the 1990s, the state has implemented a law that assesses fees against producers of lead paint and leaded gas to help treat lead poisoning in children, known as the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act. The state's Department of Public Health collects the fee annually based on each company's market share responsibility for environmental lead contamination. 'It's become very much a part of the way to address these problems,' Coulter said. The concept also remains popular among some local governments, which are increasingly bearing the costs of climate catastrophe. The L.A. City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution in favor of the Climate Superfund Act. 'The City of Los Angeles should support the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 because it proposes to shift the burden of paying for the high costs of climate change recovery from California taxpayers to the businesses that have profited off the fossil fuel industry,' the resolution, introduced by Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, states. Though neither bill will move forward this year, both can be taken up in 2026, the second year of the current legislative session. Addis said she is hopeful that California will see its plan come to light. She recalled visiting constituents whose homes were flooded during 2023's devastating atmospheric rivers, which struck the state almost two years to the day before the L.A. wildfires. 'The real-life implications of these mega-weather events that are caused by the climate crisis, you can't turn your back on,' she said.
Newsweek
26-06-2025
- Health
- Newsweek
Health care Coverage Expanding in California: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California is set to expand access to infertility care and in vitro fertilization (IVF) through a new health coverage law that will be implemented on July 1. The law, Senate Bill 729, requires employers with 100 or more employees and state insurance plans to cover infertility and IVF treatment for all Californians—regardless of their gender expression or identity, sexual orientation or marriage status. Newsweek has contacted Senator Caroline Menjivar, the author of the bill, outside of regular working hours via email for comment. Why It Matters As the bill explicitly includes coverage for all, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, it takes a clear stand on inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in fertility care, meaning that for the first time in the state, these groups are given equal access to the services. According to Senator Menjivar, the bill will "ensure that queer couples no longer have to pay more out of pocket to start families than non-queer families." In the bills comments section, she also wrote the bill is "critical to achieving full-lived equality for LGBTQ+ people, as well as advancing well-rounded and comprehensive health care for all Californians." Other states have also brought similar fertility legislation into effect, but fewer have explicitly sought to include LGBTQ+ groups in the legislation. File photo: gynecologist showing a UV image of baby on a computer screen to a pregnant woman. File photo: gynecologist showing a UV image of baby on a computer screen to a pregnant woman. DragonImages/Getty Images What To Know Previous law had offered some coverage for infertility treatment but had excluded IVF treatment. The new bill will require large and small group health care service plan contracts and disability insurance policies to provide cover for diagnosis and treatment of infertility and fertility services. This includes a maximum of 3 oocyte retrievals—the process where eggs are removed from the ovaries as part of IVF treatment. It also mandates coverage for unlimited embryo transfers in accordance with the guidelines of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). SB 729 is also changing the definition of infertility, so testing and diagnosis of infertility can still be covered for those who have not met the criteria of: not conceiving a child after 12 months for those under 35 and not conceiving a child after six months for those over 35—where miscarriage does not restart the time period to qualify as having infertility. This would mean that earlier intervention can take place for treating and diagnosing infertility. While the law does not however explicitly mention coverage for egg freezing as part of fertility preservation, it is not clear whether some parts of egg freezing may be covered given that oocyte retrievals are covered. Violation of any these provisions by a health care service plan would also be determined a crime in the law, something which the previous law had also stated. What People Are Saying Michele Goodwin, a professor of constitutional law and global health policy at Georgetown Law, Washington D.C, told Newsweek: "SB 729 is important for reproductive health care and family planning for all Californians. Many families experience some form of infertility or other reproductive health challenges." She added: "Assisted reproductive technologies, including IVF have become an important part of family building for gay couples. This law would cushion the economic burden felt by LGBT Californians as they seek health services to grow their families." California Senator Caroline Menjivar, said when Governor Gavin Newsom approved the bill: "Today is a personal and emotional victory. And, it is a triumph for the many Californians who have been denied a path toward family-building because of the financial barriers that come with fertility treatment, their relationship status, or are blatantly discriminated against as a member of the LGBTQ+ community." She added: "When attacks on reproductive rights are occurring across the nation, Governor Newsom stood on the right side of history by expanding coverage for approximately 9 million Californians, including LGBTQ+ folks who were previously withheld equal opportunity to become parents under an archaic law that erased their rights." What Happens Next While fertility coverage will start on July 1 for state-run health insurance plans and large employers, many other plans will adopt the new ruling upon renewal, meaning for some employees, coverage may not be available until later this year and into 2026.
Newsweek
24-06-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
California Laws Changing July 1: From Pet Insurance to Airbnb Cleaning Fees
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Starting July 1, Californians will see sweeping changes in consumer protections, health coverage, rental disclosures, and public service access, as a slate of new state laws go into effect. The new legislation addresses a wide range of everyday concerns—from hidden cleaning fees in rental agreements and the fine print of pet insurance policies to improved access to mental health crisis support for students. Why It Matters These measures are part of an ambitious legislative agenda championed by Governor Gavin Newsom and approved by the state legislature in Sacramento, aiming to boost transparency and health protections while modernizing court systems and educational support services. What To Know One of the most noticeable changes affects short-term rental customers. Under Assembly Bill 2202, platforms like Airbnb must now show all cleaning fees and penalties before a booking is completed. If they don't, they could be fined up to $10,000. The law also targets surprise fees and requires renters to be told about any cleaning tasks expected during their stay. Pet insurance companies must now also clearly explain why premiums go up. Senate Bill 1217 says insurers have to say if rate hikes are due to a pet's age, location, or other reasons. Policies must also spell out waiting periods, medical exam rules and what conditions aren't covered. Another major change affects subscription services. Businesses offering streaming, food delivery, or other subscriptions must now let people cancel just as easily as they signed up. Assembly Bill 2863 enforces a "click-to-cancel" rule and requires annual reminders with pricing and cancellation info. Health insurance in the state is also expanding. Senate Bill 729 requires most plans to cover infertility diagnoses and treatments, including IVF. There are exceptions for religious employers, and public systems like CalPERS won't have to offer the coverage until July 2027. The bill's author, State Senator Caroline Menjivar, has framed it as a win for reproductive rights. California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference on February 01, 2023 in Sacramento, California. California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference on February 01, 2023 in Sacramento, California. Getty Images The state's 5.8 million schoolchildren will see changes come the start of the new school year. Senate Bill 1063 says middle and high school ID cards must show the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Schools can also add QR codes that link to local mental health support. Mental health advocates say this gives students easier access to help. There are new rules for students with special needs. Assembly Bill 438 stipulates that schools must start planning for these students' futures when they start high school, not wait until age 16. The goal is to help them better prepare for college or work. Remote court access, which started during the pandemic, is also being extended. Assembly Bill 170 allows juvenile and civil courts to keep holding virtual hearings through 2027. Courtrooms must meet new tech standards, and judges must report any technical issues during criminal cases. The CARE Act, which lets people request court-ordered mental health treatment, is also changing. Senate Bill 42 now says courts must inform family members and first responders when cases are delayed, dismissed, or updated. The goal is to keep people better informed. Finally, minimum wage will go up in several counties and cities across the state. What Happens Next Starting July 1, businesses and service providers affected by the changes—including Airbnb, insurance companies, subscription platforms, and school districts—must comply immediately or face fines and legal challenges.
Epoch Times
23-04-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
California Lawmakers to Consider Vacancy Tax on Commercial Property
A California state senator is proposing a tax on vacant commercial properties, saying empty buildings and storefronts reduce business vitality, lower tax revenue, and create public nuisances. Democratic state Sen. Caroline Menjivar of San Fernando Valley authored Menjivar sees the measure as a way to spur economic activity. 'Vacant commercial property represents a missed opportunity for community enrichment,' Menjivar said, according to a legislative analysis of the bill. 'Other times they contribute to the neighborhood's blight and can be areas of nuisance and public safety concerns. These underutilized spaces hold potential as storefronts for local entrepreneurs, innovative workspaces for growing businesses, or mixed-use projects combining housing with commercial amenities.' The measure requires all owners of commercial property in the state to register with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) each year, providing detailed information about their properties, including giving a reason why if a property is vacant. Anyone who doesn't file would be required to pay a penalty, according to the bill. Related Stories 4/22/2025 3/20/2025 Menjivar claims that without state oversight, the empty parcels can stay vacant for years and sometimes decades. 'In order to encourage development or penalize blighted vacant buildings, we need data to systematically track commercial vacancies, including their underlying causes like renovation delays, regulatory hurdles, or speculative holding patterns,' she said. The senator says the state would be able to streamline permit approvals if clusters of vacancies were caused by slow permitting, or consider a vacancy tax to incentivize productive use. The bill would also require that the state post on its public website detailed information about each commercial property, including the percentage of commercial properties that were vacant in a calendar year and the reason for the vacancy if the property was vacant for more than 182 days in a year. The state would have to post what percentage of commercial properties are located in a blighted area, among other information. The city and county of San Francisco approved a similar tax with Measure M in November 2022, but the ordinance was ruled unconstitutional. The measure imposed an annual tax of $2,500 to $5,000 per vacant unit, depending on the unit's size. The tax was allowed to increase annually to a maximum of $20,000 if the same owner keeps the unit vacant for multiple consecutive years. However, the San Francisco County Superior Court issued an order Nov. 26, 2024, in favor of taxpayers, finding that the tax violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court also found the tax violated property-owners' constitutional right to privacy under the California Constitution by compelling owners to share their property via application of the tax. The court also held that Measure M violated the California Ellis Act, which prohibits public entities from compelling residential property owners to rent or lease. Other cities have instituted similar vacancy taxes in recent years. Berkeley, east of San Francisco, imposes an empty homes tax on residential units that are vacant for more than 182 days per year. Empty residential units in duplexes, condos, single-family homes, and townhouses are charged $3,000 the first year and $6,000 for each subsequent year. All other empty residential properties pay $6,000 in the first year and $12,000 each year after that. Stacked shipping containers begin to surround People's Park in Berkeley, Calif. on Thursday, Jan. 4, 2024. Brontë Wittpenn/San Francisco Chronicle via AP Oakland also charges an annual tax of $6,000 for residential, nonresidential, and undeveloped properties, and $3,000 a year for condos, duplexes, and townhomes. The tax applies to privately owned properties not occupied more than 50 days per year and has several exemptions. Menjivar's legislation faces tremendous opposition from commercial property owner associations, building owners and managers groups, taxpayer advocates, hotel and lodging associations, mortgage bankers and housing associations, retailers, and multiple chambers of commerce throughout the state. The California Business Properties Association 'Vacancy is largely driven by market forces—not neglect—especially as sectors like retail, office, and industrial continue to recover from the pandemic,' the association wrote in an opposition statement. 'This tax would penalize property owners during economic uncertainty and risk further destabilizing struggling markets. SB 789 would also undermine local property tax revenues, reducing property values and triggering reassessments under Prop. 8—resulting in permanent funding losses for schools, cities, and essential services.' The bill also imposes costly administrative burdens, the association says.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposed law would give relief to residents whose neighborhood is covered in thick layers of grime: 'You could literally taste it'
Sun Valley residents have watched dust settle over their streets, their cars, and even the air they breathe for years. Thick layers of grime coat the neighborhood, kicked up by nearby industrial sites that process and store construction materials like concrete and asphalt. Complaints have piled up just as high as the dust, but little has changed — until now. State Senator Caroline Menjivar has introduced Senate Bill (SB) 526, pushing for stricter regulations on aggregate facilities so that neighborhoods can breathe easier, according to the San Fernando Valley Sun. "With each complaint having gone unresolved, residents have given up on hoping the government addresses their concerns," said Menjivar. "That ends today." These facilities release fine dust particles known as PM10, which can seep into homes, settle on playgrounds, and cause serious respiratory issues. Yet, the regulations meant to keep them in check haven't been updated since 2006. If passed, SB 526 would strengthen oversight and force these businesses to take real steps to control pollution. Facilities would need to install taller fencing to keep dust from escaping, limit the height of storage piles near homes and schools, and set up air quality monitoring systems at their boundaries. If they repeatedly exceed pollution limits, they'd be required to enclose their storage piles and undergo frequent inspections until they comply. Sun Valley is home to 11 aggregate facilities within a three-mile radius, including AMH Recycling, the largest in the San Fernando Valley, which sits directly across from homes, a park, and two elementary schools. Residents say the pollution is impossible to ignore. "Residents' cars were covered in a dust so thick you could literally taste it, and yet neighborhood kids were playing soccer in a park across the street from the facility," said Ian Bertrando, a UCLA law student who did research in the area. According to Mariam Moore, CEO of The Climate Corps Initiative, the "intrusion of industrial facilities" in Sun Valley has worsened the community's public health crisis. Long-term exposure to this type of pollution can lead to asthma, chronic respiratory diseases, and other serious health problems. Menjivar made it clear that the bill isn't about shutting down the industry but about forcing it to operate responsibly. "I'm not trying to get rid of them," she said. "But they need to be top-notch neighbors." The bill is advancing with a window for amendments, and Menjivar's team is focused on rallying support from community members and environmental justice groups. If passed, it could set a precedent for other communities facing similar environmental injustices, proving that residents don't have to accept pollution as an unavoidable part of life. Do you worry about air pollution in your town? All the time Often Only sometimes Never Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. 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.
