Gov. Newsom has good climate bills on his desk. Will he sign?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom won’t be the next president of the United States.

But the bills piled on his desk in Sacramento could help determine the fate of human civilization. No big deal.

Lawmakers passed bold legislation focused on climate change, energy, water and human health that could set a precedent for other states, and the world — depending on whether Newsom signs or vetoes them.

I’ve picked 13 major bills to spotlight today. This is far from a comprehensive list, so if your favorite legislation isn’t featured, please accept my apologies. I’ve got only so much time, and my editor only so much patience.

Newsom has until Sept. 30 to act on the legislation.

OK, here we go.

1. Senate Bill 1374: More rooftop solar

Context: To phase out the gas-fired power plants that generate more than one-third of California’s electricity, the state will need lots of solar power — much of it from large solar fields, experts say, but also large amounts from rooftops and other small solar installations. Neither will be enough on its own.

Alas, Newsom’s appointees at the Public Utilities Commission have undercut small-scale solar again and again, based on the argument that subsidies lead to higher electric rates for all Californians. They’ve cut rooftop solar incentives for customers of Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric, and created a “community solar” program to promote small-scale solar fields that seems designed to fail.

What the bill would do: SB 1374, from Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park), would reverse some of the damage.

Thanks again to the Public Utilities Commission, schools and apartments served by Edison, PG&E and SDG&E now pay full retail rates for their energy consumption — even during times of day when their solar panels are generating power. In essence, they pay the utilities in full for electricity they generate themselves.

SB 1374 would give schools and apartment buildings with solar the same right to “self-consumption” enjoyed by single-family homes, allowing them to lower or cancel out their utility payments when the sun is shining.

Sounds like an easy decision for a governor who calls himself a climate champion.

Then again, Newsom didn’t stop his appointees from setting up this poor system in the first place. And Becker told me he thinks there’s a “good chance” Newsom vetoes the legislation, based on rumors he’s heard.

Why would the governor do that? Presumably for the same reason he’s undermined rooftop solar in the past: It’s opposed by powerful utility companies, which shortsightedly see the technology at odds with their business model, and by powerful utility labor unions, which don’t like that most rooftop solar installers are nonunion.

Solar industry workers and clean energy advocates urge Gov. Gavin Newsom to support rooftop solar at a rally at L.A.’s Grand Park in 2022.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Supporters of SB 1374 include: Environment California, L.A. Unified School District, Solar Rights Alliance

Opponents include: California State Assn. of Electrical Workers, PG&E, SDG&E, SoCal Edison

2. Getting gas out of our homes

Context: Greenhouse gas emissions from commercial and residential buildings — largely space heating, water heating and cooking — account for roughly 10% of California’s climate pollution. That means if we want to stop heating the planet — and set a model for other states and nations — we need to start replacing our gas-fueled heaters and stoves with electric heat pumps and induction cooktops, fast.

There’s also loads of scientific evidence that gas stove emissions are terrible for our health. Studies have linked them to premature death, childhood asthma and cancer risk similar to inhaling secondhand cigarette smoke.

What the bill would do: AB 2513, from Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), would borrow from the anti-tobacco playbook, requiring that gas stoves come with a health warning label, NPR’s Jeff Brady reports.

Supporters include: American Lung Assn. in California, Environmental Working Group, Sierra Club

Opponents include: California Building Industry Assn., California Chamber of Commerce, Southern California Gas

One more bill: SB 1221, from Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine), would take a wonkier approach to electrification.

As Canary Media’s Jeff St. John explains, the legislation would make it easier for utility companies to transition whole neighborhoods from gas heating and cooking to electric appliances — specifically in areas where doing so would save ratepayers money, by negating the need for expensive gas pipeline replacements.

We’re talking a handful of pilot projects at most. Still, progress is progress.

That is, assuming Newsom doesn’t listen to his Department of Finance, which opposes the bill on the flimsy grounds that it would cost the Public Utilities Commission $1.7 million not currently included in the budget to implement — an easy excuse to kill just about any climate measure that somebody, somewhere, doesn’t like.

Supporters include: Building Decarbonization Coalition, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council

Opponents include: California Department of Finance, California Pool & Spa Assn., Pool & Hot Tub Alliance

3. Less oil and gas drilling

The Inglewood Oil Field is home to nearly 1,000 wells.

(Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

Context: California produces the seventh-most oil of any U.S. state, and the 15th-most natural gas. Fossil fuel executives like to say that if we extract less oil and gas here, we’ll be forced to import more from other parts of the world. That claim may be true in the short term, but it’ll become less true over time if we enact the policies those executives are fighting to block — and it ignores the health damage caused by oil and gas drilling.

Indeed, while California’s air is a lot cleaner than it used to be, it’s still filthy — and researchers continue to find that low-income people of color suffer the most from oil and gas wells that release hazardous chemicals.

What the bill would do: AB 3233, from Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), is simple: It would give cities and counties the unequivocal right to ban new drilling and phase out existing wells. That’s crucial for Los Angeles, whose City Council voted unanimously in 2022 to end all oil and gas production within 20 years, only to see a judge strike down the ordinance this month, as my L.A. Times colleague Dakota Smith reported.

If Newsom signs AB 3233, the judge’s ruling would probably be moot.

The bill would also pave the way for Culver City and L.A. County to continue with their own plans to phase out fossil fuel extraction — again, assuming Newsom signs it. The governor’s signature would also help Monterey County, which recently saw a voter initiative to block some drilling thrown out by the state Supreme Court.

Who’s against the legislation?

Oil and gas companies, mostly — and once again Newsom’s Department of Finance, which says it’s concerned about the state spending lots of money defending itself against industry litigation if the bill becomes law.

Supporters include: Center for Biological Diversity, California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Sunrise Movement LA, Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles

Opponents include: State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, Western States Petroleum Assn.

Two more bills: AB 1866, from Assemblymember Gregg Hart (D-Santa Barbara), would require oil and gas producers — especially large drillers, such as the mega-company that resulted from the merger of California Resources Corp. and Aera Energy — to plug more of their idle wells. As The Times has reported previously, California’s 100,000 unplugged oil and gas wells are known to leak heat-trapping gases and toxic chemicals.

Supporters include: Breast Cancer Action, California Medical Assn., Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles

Opponents include: California Department of Finance, California Independent Petroleum Assn., County of Kern

AB 2716, from Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), would almost certainly lead to the closure of the Inglewood Oil Field, a century-old mess of nearly 1,000 wells spread across Culver City and Ladera Heights.

The measure would require the oil field’s operator, Sentinel Peak Resources, to pay $10,000 per low-producing well per month — a prohibitively high fine — if it fails to plug the long-past-their-prime wells by 2030.

Although the fossil fuel industry is on record opposing the bill, Bryan agreed to limit the legislation’s scope to Inglewood — it was originally a statewide measure targeting all low-producing wells near homes and schools — to help convince the industry to drop a ballot measure that would have rolled back other restrictions.

Supporters include: Consumer Watchdog, City of Los Angeles, Food & Water Watch, Fossil Free California

Opponents include: California Department of Finance, Sentinel Peak Resources, Valley Industry & Commerce Assn.

4. Wiser water consumption

The California Aqueduct meanders through Byron, carrying water from north to south.

(Paul Kuroda / For The Times)

Context: Even before rising temperatures started sapping our rivers and streams — many of which are fed by underground aquifers — Californians used more water than the state’s natural ecosystems could sustain.

Now the climate crisis is adding yet more stress to the highly engineered delivery systems that serve cities and farms, including the Colorado River and the California Aqueduct — and hurting freshwater species too.

What the bill would do: AB 460, from Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), would raise fines for people who steal water from rivers to as much as $10,000 per day. Right now, water thieves — such as the farmers and ranchers who illegally siphoned off more than half the Shasta River’s flow for eight days in 2022, violating rules designed to protect salmon, as my colleague Ian James reports — pay hardly anything.

Supporters include: Trout Unlimited, Audubon California, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Heal the Bay

Opponents include: None (at least on record)

One more bill: AB 2875, from Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), would establish a policy of “no net loss” of wetlands statewide. Scientists say protecting California’s few wetlands that haven’t been destroyed by development — and restoring others where possible — is crucial, because these ecosystems provide habitat for birds, buffer coastal communities against rising seas and suck heat-trapping carbon out of the atmosphere.

Once again, more details here from The Times’ Ian James (scroll down).

Supporters include: Bolsa Chica Land Trust, California Native Plant Society, Ducks Unlimited

Opponents include: Once again none

5. Time for environmental justice

Context: The worst harms of fossil fuel pollution are often felt by society’s most vulnerable. In cities such as L.A., for instance, freeways were often bulldozed through Black and brown neighborhoods, bringing choking tailpipe emissions with them. Low-income families often don’t have the money to pay soaring electricity bills, putting them at higher risk of illness during heat waves, when air conditioning is the best way to stay safe.

That’s why climate and clean energy solutions need to put marginalized communities first.

With the temperature well over 100 degrees, a farmworker takes a break in the shade of a peach tree in a Riverside County orchard.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

What the bill would do: SB 1299, from Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San José), would make it easier for farmworkers to make workers’ compensation claims for heat illness. As The Times’ Rebecca Plevin reports, workers say the state has done a poor job enforcing rules requiring employers to protect them when it’s sweltering outside by providing water, shade and breaks. Employers say there’s no problem and everything is going fine.

Supporters include: Central California Environmental Justice Network, Centro Binacional Para El Desarrollo Indigena Oaxaqueño, Pesticide Action Network, United Food and Commercial Workers-Western States Council

Opponents include: Agricultural Council of California, California Chamber of Commerce, California Farm Bureau, California Pear Growers Assn., California Strawberry Commission, Family Winemakers of California, Pacific Egg & Poultry Assn.

Two more bills: AB 1963, from Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), originally would have banned the use of paraquat, a weedkiller associated with Parkinson’s disease and to which California farmworkers and low-income Latino residents are disproportionately exposed, according to the Environmental Working Group.

But as my colleague Hayley Smith reports, the bill that made it to Newsom’s desk was watered down, requiring only that regulators reevaluate the herbicide by Jan. 1, 2029, and determine what, if anything, to do about it.

Even that watered-down legislation faces heavy opposition from the agriculture industry.

Supporters include: Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Bird Conservancy, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Opponents include: Almond Alliance of California, California Apple Commission, California Blueberry Assn., California Cattlemen’s Assn., California Chamber of Commerce, California Cherry Board, California Walnut Commission, Olive Growers Council of California

AB 98, from Assemblymembers Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale) and Eloise Gomez Reyes (D-Colton), would stop more warehouses from being built within several hundred feet of homes and schools in Southern California’s Inland Empire, already a highly polluted logistics corridor. That’s according to this story by The Times’ Rebecca Plevin.

But some activists say the bill would still allow warehouses, and truck traffic, to be too close for human health. As a result, opponents include an unusual combination of business interests and environmental justice groups.

Supporters include: California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, California Nurses Assn., California Teachers Assn.

Opponents include: California Business Roundtable, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Assn., Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, Central California Asthma Collaborative, Communities for a Better Environment

6. Going to the grocery store

A conveyor belt carries mixed plastic at a recycling plant in Vernon.

(Reed Saxon / Associated Press)

Context: The food we consume — and the delivery methods for that food — have a big effect on the climate. Meat and dairy production are huge sources of heat-trapping emissions. Food waste is destructive too: When it decomposes in landfills, it spews methane, which traps way more heat than carbon dioxide, pound for pound.

Plastic is made from petroleum too. So it’s not only terrible for our bodies, it helps sustain the oil industry.

What the bill would do: SB 1053, from Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas), would eliminate plastic bags at California grocery store checkout lanes. No more “paper or plastic” — just paper, as my colleague Susanne Rust reports. Goodbye to those thicker, supposedly reusable plastic bags that hardly anyone actually reuses.

Assuming Newsom signs the bill.

Supporters include: Azul, California Interfaith Power & Light, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Oceana, Plastic Free Future

Opponents include: Assn. of Plastic Recyclers, Western Plastics Assn.

One more bill: AB 660, from Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), would prohibit food retailers from using the term “sell by” on food packaging, requiring them to switch to “use by” or “best if used by.” The idea is to prevent Californians from throwing away food that’s still perfectly good, and thus avoid unnecessary methane emissions from landfills. Having been confused by “sell by” plenty of times, I would welcome this.

Supporters include: Californians Against Waste, Active San Gabriel Valley, California Compost Coalition, Dr. Bronner’s

Opponents include: None

And now, just a few more things…

OUR CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGE

The Times’ special section on global warming, “Our Climate Change Challenge,” published in print on Sunday. You can read all the stories online here, and/or order a print copy here. There’s so much fascinating stuff.

A few more highlights since the last edition of Boiling Point:

• “We probably need to recapture some of the spirit that we remember from the moonshot days.” I enjoyed this story by Hayley Smith about older Americans taking responsibility and fighting for climate action.
• “Living sustainably costs money.” Young people in particular want to use less plastic, Susanne Rust reports — but companies such as Amazon make it cheaper and easier to keep doing things the same way.
• There are reasons for hope in the fight against garbage and waste — and no, recycling is not one of them. Alice Short, who edited the special section, has a fascinating interview with author Edward Humes.
• I also loved this story by Tony Briscoe about the growing number of climate change-themed board games designed to teach people to work together and solve hard — but not unsolvable! — problems.

Also! As I mentioned last week, The Times is hosting “California Climate Live” on Thursday, Sept. 26, at 9 a.m., at the Colburn School in downtown Los Angeles. My colleagues and I will be hosting several great panels.

You can buy a ticket here if you’re interested.

TWO MORE THINGS

The famed and now deceased mountain lion known as P-22 developed mange after eating rat poison in 2014, and was captured and treated for the illness.

(National Park Service)

Remember earlier, when I said I highlighted 13 bills in today’s Boiling Point?

Yeah, so my colleague Lila Seidman wrote about two more.

One of them, AB 1889, from Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), would require cities and counties to protect wildlife habitat in their land-use plans. It’s supported by environmental groups; no opposition.

AB 2552, also from Friedman, would expand restrictions on certain rat poisons, with a goal of saving mountain lions, owls and and other animals that sometimes eat poisoned rats. Environmental groups say yea; opponents include the Household and Commercial Products Assn. and a long list of agricultural trade groups.

Newsom has less than two weeks to make his decisions. I’ll keep you updated.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get in your inbox. Or open the newsletter in your web browser here.

For more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X.