###

Press release from Linc Housing:

Nonprofit Linc Housing announced the start of construction on 90 new affordable apartments in downtown Eureka. The new homes are at three separate locations, making use of vacant city-owned land to bring much-needed housing to the area. The homes are for families earning 30-55% of the area median income.

The City of Eureka’s housing plan commits to developing at least 315 affordable homes to address the area’s housing shortage. This scattered-site development by Linc fulfills more than 25% of that commitment with its 90 new apartments.

“This development is more than just new buildings—it’s about restoring hope and opportunity for Eureka’s working families,” said Eureka Mayor Kim Bergel. “By prioritizing homes for those who need them most, we’re building a stronger, more resilient city that reflects our shared values and long-term vision for housing security and community well-being.”

The three new buildings include:

• 550 M Street - northwest corner of 6th & M streets: 28 apartment homes, including 12 one-bedroom, seven two-bedroom, and nine three-bedroom units, a 1,988 square-foot courtyard on the ground-floor, and an 824 square-foot community room.
• 611 8th Street - northeast corner of 8th & G streets: 31 apartment homes, including 14 one-bedroom, eight two-bedroom, and nine three-bedroom units, a 2,244 square-foot courtyard on the ground floor, and a 774 square-foot community room.
• 1310 Myrtle Avenue - southeast corner of Sunny & Myrtle avenues: 31 apartment homes, including 16 one-bedroom, eight two-bedroom, and seven three-bedroom apartments, a 1,566 square-foot courtyard on the ground floor, and a 606 square-foot community room.

During predevelopment, Linc and the City of Eureka were awarded $30.1 million in Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The funds will be used to support the construction and infrastructure of the three new apartment buildings, while fully funding new micro-transit vehicles, new bus shelters, bicycle parking, publicly accessible electric vehicle chargers, a bicycle lane along G Street, a trail connection from L to M streets, sidewalk repairs along Myrtle Avenue, a trail at Cooper Gulch, among many other upgrades and enhancements in the community.

The AHSC funds will also support a workforce development program, an active transportation safety and encouragement program, a homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing program, as well as a no-cost transit pass program and a no-cost broadband internet program for residents of the three new apartment buildings.

“In addition to bringing 90 new homes to Eureka, this development includes more than $9 million in investment from the State of California for public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and critical infrastructure citywide,” said Rebecca Clark, Linc Housing CEO. “It has been a long journey with our partners at the City of Eureka, and Linc appreciates their commitment to housing solutions that contribute to the overall wellbeing of the community.”

Funding for the development comes from a variety of sources, including multiple funding sources within the California Department of Housing and Community Development (AHSC, National Housing Trust Fund, Infill Infrastructure Grant), a construction loan from Umpqua Bank, a permanent loan from the California Community Reinvestment Corporation, as well as federal and state tax credit equity from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and investor Raymond James.

The buildings were designed by D33 Design and Planning, and the general contractor is Pacific Builders.

About Linc Housing Corporation Linc Housing, one of California’s leading nonprofit developers of affordable housing, is committed to building communities and strengthening neighborhoods for underserved populations. Linc has developed more than 10,0000 homes in 100 communities statewide. Known for its excellent design, outstanding management, and life-enhancing resident services, Linc has more than 40 years of experience serving families, seniors, individuals with special needs, and local governments. For more information, visit www.linchousing.org. To donate, visit www.linchousing.org/donate. To stay connected and join the conversation on social media, follow on Instagram @linchousing, LinkedIn Linc Housing and Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) @LincHousing.

PREVIOUSLY

• The City of Eureka is Gearing Up to Turn Three More Parking Lots into Affordable Housing Developments, Including the Two Lots at City Hall
• Eureka City Council Releases Three City-Owned Parking Lots for Affordable Housing Developments; Adopts Budget for the Upcoming Fiscal Year
• Eureka City Council: Responding to Community Complaints Over Parking Lot Housing Developments, Staff Proposes Property Exchange With Pierson Company
• (UPDATE) Eureka Gets $30 Million Grant for Housing Projects That the ‘Housing For All’ Initiative Hopes to Block
• (UPDATE) Arkley-Affiliated ‘Citizens for a Better Eureka’ Files Two More Lawsuits Against the City, Aiming to Block Linc Housing Developments
• State Attorney General’s Office Joins the Fight Against the Pro-Parking Group ‘Citizens for a Better Eureka’
• ‘I Will Not Stand For It’: Attorney General Bonta Decries ‘Cynical’ Lawsuits From Citizens for a Better Eureka
• Judge Tosses Suit From ‘Citizens for a Better Eureka’ Backers Accusing the City of Violating Elections Code
• Linc Housing Secures Another $15M for 90 Affordable Housing Units in Three Eureka Locations

###

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is accusing Providence St. Joseph of trying to “shirk its duty to patients” under California’s Emergency Services Law, and on Thursday he filed a motion asking a judge to enforce an order requiring it to do so.

This is the latest motion in the state’s lawsuit against Providence St. Joseph, filed in September, accusing the Catholic-owned organization of violating multiple California laws through to its refusal to provide emergency abortion care to people experiencing obstetric emergencies.

The case focuses largely on the experiences of Eureka chiropractor Anna Nusslock, who is represented in a second suit filed by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). In response to the Attorney General’s latest motion, K.M. Bell, senior litigation counsel at NWLC and attorney for Dr. Nusslock, issued the following statement:

We applaud the Attorney General for continuing to hold Providence accountable for violating the law and endangering patients’ lives. The hospital cannot agree to follow state law in a court order and then walk away when it becomes inconvenient. Dr. Nusslock is still grappling with the trauma of being denied emergency abortion care, a violation that should never have happened in the first place. This motion is a crucial step in ensuring that hospitals in California are not permitted to disregard their legal obligations and prioritize ideology over patient safety. The law in California is clear: pregnant patients have the right to emergency care, including abortion. Providence Hospital must be held to its word and the law.

Below is a press release from Bonta’s office.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a motion to enforce the stipulation and order requiring Providence St. Joseph Hospital (Providence) to comply with state law. The motion to enforce comes after Providence signaled its intent to modify its stipulation and assert exceptions to their clear obligations under California’s Emergency Services Law (ESL). In September 2024, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against Providence alleging it violated multiple California laws due to its refusal to provide emergency abortion care to people experiencing obstetric emergencies. One particular patient, Anna Nusslock, had her water break when she was 15 weeks pregnant with twins on February 23, 2024. Despite the immediate threat to her life and health, and despite the fact her pregnancy was no longer viable, Providence refused to treat her. She had to travel to a small critical access hospital called Mad River, 12 miles away, where she was actively hemorrhaging by the time she was on the operating table.

“The terms of the stipulation and court order against Providence St. Joseph are clear. Providence must fully comply with California’s Emergency Services Law and ensure that patients can access life-saving health services including emergency abortion care – no exceptions,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Now, months after their stipulation and agreement to abide by the law, Providence St. Joseph is attempting to find wiggle room to shirk its duty to patients under the law. We refuse to let that happen. Even a single violation would be devastating, as no one should have to endure what Anna Nusslock and others experienced at Providence. We’re asking the court to enforce its order against Providence St. Joseph.”

To ensure that patients like Anna could receive timely emergency healthcare services, including abortion care, at Providence, Attorney General Bonta initially moved for a preliminary injunction in conjunction with the filing of the lawsuit. However, in October 2024, he secured a stipulation from Providence, enforceable by court order, to ensure the hospital followed California law while the case proceeds, with no exceptions or limitations. The stipulation resolved the Attorney General’s preliminary injunction motion, as Providence voluntarily agreed to comply with all the terms the Attorney General requested in its proposed injunction.

Now, seven months after entering the stipulation, Providence has asserted its intent to file a motion to modify the stipulation asserting that it does not require Providence to provide procedures to terminate a pregnancy that are prohibited by Ethical and Religious Directives. With this move, Providence is attempting to circumvent the unambiguous — and lawful — obligations it agreed to last year. Providence’s anticipated motion escalates a deeply concerning position: that the stipulation and order do not mean what they plainly state and that Providence only has to comply with them to an extent. Providence’s position raises grave concerns about the renewed risk of Providence violating the ESL and denying emergency abortion care. Therefore, Attorney General Bonta is asking the court to enforce its order and the unambiguous terms of the stipulation. Providence must follow the law and abide by ESL, without exception.

Under the stipulation and court order Providence must:

• Fully comply with California’s ESL, Health & Safety Code section 1317, et. seq. with respect to pregnant patients experiencing emergency medical conditions.
• Allow its physicians to terminate a patient’s pregnancy whenever the treating physicians determine in their professional judgment that failing to immediately terminate the pregnancy would be reasonably expected to place the patient’s health in serious jeopardy; result in serious impairment to the patient’s bodily functions; or result in serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part of the patient.
• Comply with ESL’s pre-transfer treatment requirements. In particular, Providence Hospital may not transfer a pregnant patient without first providing emergency services and care (including where applicable terminating a pregnancy) such that there is a reasonable medical probability that the transfer or the delay caused by the transfer will not result in a material deterioration in the medical condition in, or jeopardy to, the patient’s medical condition or expected chances for recovery.
• Follow the policy and protocol requirements of the ESL under Health & Safety Code section 1317.2. In particular, Providence Hospital may not “discharge” patients with instructions to self-transport to another facility and Providence Hospital must comply will all applicable protocols and regulations for transfers prescribed by the California Department of Public Health. 

A copy of the motion to enforce is available here.

###

And here’s a statement from a Providence spokesperson:

Serving the residents of Humboldt County is a privilege we, at Providence St. Joseph Hospital Eureka, don’t take for granted. That’s why we are wholeheartedly committed to providing high-quality, compassionate care, just as we have been for more than 100 years. 

As a Catholic health care organization, we are transparent that we do not perform elective abortions. However, in emergencies, our care teams provide medically necessary interventions to protect pregnant patients who are miscarrying or facing serious life-threatening conditions. 

This is consistent with the California Emergency Services Law and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. It is also consistent with the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives, which include discussion of the importance of the physician-patient relationship as well as the circumstances in which certain medical procedures that could result in fetal death may be allowed in a Catholic hospital. 

The California Attorney General is interpreting the stipulation in a way that would require Providence to provide care that goes beyond the California Emergency Services Law and possibly in conflict with the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives.  Providence will address the California AG’s position in its forthcoming response through the litigation process.

We take our responsibility as a vital safety net incredibly seriously and are committed to continuing to meet the needs of our community, just as we have for more than a century.

###

###

The Sequoia Park Zoo took to Facebook this afternoon to announce some exciting news: Another baby black bear is en route!

The orphaned bear — known as “Cub 24-3926” — currently resides at the Gold Country Wildlife Rescue (GCWR) in Auburn. When he arrived at the facility six months ago, he was “severely compromised,” weighing just 20 pounds and nearly hairless with “multiple serious health issues, including bacterial and fungal skin infections (yeast and ringworm), and deep ear infections in both ears.”

“Now nearly 80 pounds, fully furred, and thriving, this resilient cub has made an inspiring recovery,” the wildlife rescue wrote in a press release. “However, after thorough monitoring and evaluation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has determined that while his progress has been remarkable, there remain concerns about his long-term survivability in the wild. In particular, it’s unclear whether he can reliably grow and maintain the thick undercoat essential for surviving harsh winter conditions — a critical trait for wild bears.”

CDFW decided the cub would require permanent human care for the duration of his life, and thought he’d fit right in with Tule and Ishŭng among the towering redwoods at Sequoia Park Zoo. The wildlife rescue is still working with the zoo to determine the exact timing of his transfer. 

“We are honored to be part of this resilient black bear’s journey,” the zoo wrote in a Facebook post. “His arrival date is flexible, and we will update our supporters with more details once he is in our care – including his name! The Sequoia Park Zoo’s Black Bear habitat was generously funded by the Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, whose Council members choose the name for each new bear, and we look forward to announcing his name once it is has been decided.”

###

In other heart-warming zoo news, Boris and Ivana Screamlot, a pair of Crested Screamers, hatched a healthy chick at the end of April. Zoo staff say the one-month-old screamer “appears to be thriving” and represents a “celebration for conservation.” Gaze upon the Screamlot’s family portrait below.

###

If you’re still in need of some cute animal-related news, you should know that our beloved Ishŭng has been hard at work playing with sticks and spinning wheels in her new play structure. Look at her go!

Humboldt County Drug Task Force release:

On May 30, 2025, the Humboldt County Probation Department (HCPD) received information regarding the whereabouts of Decker Contreras (Age 21), who had a warrant out for his arrest. Officers from the HCPD along with the Humboldt Area California Highway Patrol (CHP-Humboldt) responded to the 2500 block of Glendale Ave in Blue Lake where they contacted and arrested Contreras.

A probation search of the residence and a related vehicle was conducted. The search revealed an unregistered revolver, 5 rounds of live .357 caliber ammunition, and what appeared to be large quantities of narcotics. Due to the presence of narcotics, the HCPD contacted the Humboldt County Drug Task Force (HCDTF) to assist. Upon arrival, agents located 5 grams of Methamphetamine, 37 grams of MDMA, 184.9 grams of Cocaine, 557 grams of Marijuana, and evidence related to the sales of controlled substances. Contreras was transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility and booked without incident.

Anyone with information related to this investigation or other narcotics-related crimes is encouraged to call the Humboldt County Drug Task Force at 707-267-9976.

As tensions remain high in the other half of our state amid massive protests in Los Angeles over federal immigration crackdowns, California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded President Trump stand down and indicated California was preparing to sue the federal government. 

Speaking from inside L.A.’s Emergency Operations Center, Newsom said he blames President Trump for inflaming unrest, while accusing him of illegally deploying the National Guard without coordination with California officials.

“This is a serious moment,” Newsom said in the interview, addressing Trump directly.  “It requires serious leadership, and it’s time for you to be a commander in chief of the United States of America, and I will have your back if you want to work in a relationship of trust and truth in the spirit of our founding fathers. But you come after poor kids — you come after families — we will do everything in our power to stand up and stand in your way.”

Watch the entire exchange below:

For his part, President Trump has called the protesters “insurrectionists” when explaining the rationale behind deploying troops to California. Trump took to social media Monday morning to justify his actions, while also attacking California officials. 

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

When he took office, President Donald Trump made every indication that California’s politics and policies were directly in his sights. He started with a list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, a designation that includes the entire state, and promised to defund them.

Since then, he has challenged California’s approach to the environment, health care, education and LGBTQ rights, mostly in federal court – there are four pending lawsuits titled “State of California v. Trump,” and another 16 that the state has joined against the president.

Last week, the conflict escalated when White House officials told CNN Trump was planning to cut federal funding to California. On Sunday, he sent in the troops.

Trump deployed hundreds of California National Guard soldiers in downtown Los Angeles as part of a rolling immigration enforcement action throughout Southern California that entered its third day.

The mobilization, made over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom and the mayor of Los Angeles, was the first time a president has called in the National Guard since 1965, when Lyndon Johnson ordered the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights protesters marching from Selma to Montgomery.

“This is intentional chaos,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said at a news conference. “There was no need to federalize troops. And so to have this here is really just a provocation and something that was not needed in our city.”

Tensions in the city ratcheted up again in downtown Los Angeles, where protesters on Sunday faced off with police officers who fired dozens of less-lethal rounds attempting to disperse people in the streets surrounding the 300 North Los Angeles Federal Building.

At least two self-driving vehicles were set on fire near the protest, and police continued to pepper the rally with rubber bullets well into the late afternoon.

At one point, a protester threw an object at the police skirmish line. In response, an officer fired a foam projectile from a 40 mm grenade launcher. The projectile missed the person who threw the object and struck a nearby woman in the head. She was sitting down when she was hit.

Bill Essayli, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California – which includes Los Angeles – told KNBC-TV that immigration enforcement agents were under duress while conducting raids in Paramount and Compton.

“You have thousands of people forming and gathering in crowds, rioting, attacking our agents, throwing rocks, throwing eggs, throwing Molotov cocktails,” Essayli told the news station.

Protesters follow ICE agents

In Pasadena on Sunday, a group of local activists homed in on the AC Hotel in the city’s downtown, where they said they had located immigration enforcement agents along with their vehicles parked in the garage next door.

About 350 people gathered on the largest intersection bounding the hotel, holding signs that said “Not Here” and “F — ICE.”

“We got reports that the people staying here, the (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents that were staying here, were asking the workers and chefs and people that clean the rooms about their immigration status,” said Jose Madera of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

A restaurant employee in downtown Pasadena said the hotel workers left in the morning or never arrived, evinced by all the open parking on the street that would have been crowded on any other Sunday.

“A lot of people just didn’t show up to their job,” Airam Gurrola, 22, said.

Mercedes Woolsey of Pasadena said the departure of migrant workers from the hotel was a portent of what the U.S. would look like with fewer immigrant workers, and pledged to return to the protest at the hotel until immigration enforcement agents left.

“Be a menace, that’s all we can do,” Woolsey said. “We want to make sure that the AC Hotel knows that they decided to do this and we are not OK with that.”

At the Urth Caffé across the street, indoor and outdoor brunch service continued without interruption.

California Democrats condemn raids

The escalation by the Trump administration could be a turning point for a state with the third-most Trump voters in the country behind Texas and Florida.

Democratic politicians started the year quieter than usual resisting Trump’s immigration crackdowns, and with the state facing a multibillion-dollar budget deficit, lawmakers and Newsom were antsy about losing federal funding. That was especially true of Newsom, who was depending on a relatively harmonious relationship with the federal government to secure aid for Los Angeles wildfire recovery.

But California Democrats have since struck a more defiant tone. Last week they advanced numerous bills to discourage warrantless ICE visits to hospitals, schools and shelters. Over the weekend, they condemned the raids and sided with protesters, especially after federal agents arrested prominent union president David Huerta on Friday during a clash with protesters outside an immigration raid of a garment company’s warehouse.

Newsom sent a letter on Sunday afternoon to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth requesting that the administration withdraw the troops and questioning the legality of their deployment.

“There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,” Newsom’s legal affairs secretary, David Sapp, wrote in the letter.

The governor had previously spoken to Trump on the phone for about 40 minutes on Friday night, a spokesperson said.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, called the raids “an authoritarian assault on our immigrant communities.”

His counterpart in the state Senate, Healdsburg Democrat Mike McGuire, said the National Guard deployment “reeks of fascism.”

Workers brace for more sweeps

Marissa Nuncio, director of the Los Angeles-based Garment Worker Center, said garment workers were reeling after immigration enforcement agents detained 20 of them in a raid at Ambiance Apparel in the city’s Fashion District on Friday. The amassing of troops downtown made her members worry about a second raid.

The Garment Worker Center held a know-your-rights seminar on Saturday, one day after the raid.

Attendees “wanted to know, how can we stop this,” Nuncio said. “How can we resist these attacks on our community? They wanted to know if it’s safe to go to work, to go to church, to go to the clinic.”

Garment workers are particularly vulnerable because they are often employed in illegal production facilities that pop up and then disappear overnight. They’re paid by the piece, usually 5 cents to 12 cents per piece of clothing, a controversial practice that has drawn scrutiny from the Legislature.

Their weekly take-home pay is about $300, or $5.50 per hour, paid in cash.

“We feel the best we can do is inform workers of what’s going on,” Nuncio said, “and remind them that they have power in their rights.”

###

CalMatters reporters Sergio Olmos and Mikhail Zinshteyn contributed to this story.

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

State utility regulators next week are slated to wrap up a three-year effort to keep open California’s only remaining nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon.

The final step: Hammering out how plant-owner Pacific Gas & Electric must spend and report how it uses a controversial statewide fee to keep the facility open.

One member of the California Public Utilities Commission, critical of the level of scrutiny being given to funds in the case, has twice held the matter back from a vote. Consumer and nuclear safety advocates argue that commissioners will be greenlighting an annual slush fund of hundreds of millions of dollars for the utility that could end up enriching shareholders if they approve it as proposed.

“The commission is ready to throw in the towel and say they’re not interested in spending the time and resources on fighting this,” Matthew Freedman, lawyer for The Utility Reform Network, said. “They’re going to let PG&E do what it wants.”

“They’re going to let PG&E do what it wants.”
— Matthew Freedman, lawyer for The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group.

PG&E argues that state regulators don’t have the authority to conduct the level of oversight advocated by critics such as The Utility Reform NetworkGroup, and it shouldn’t be hemmed in on how it can use the fee that the Legislature enabled. It has made the case that spending the fee on other approved areas besides Diablo Canyon can also help control costs for customers.

Originally expected to close this year for economic reasons, Diablo Canyon saw its operations extended until 2030 to give California more energy security while transitioning to renewable sources. controversial bipartisan legislation that enabled the plant to keep running was approved in the wake of heat-related blackouts in 2021, as well as a subsequent state report determining renewable energy didn’t cover California’s needs yet. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law in 2022.

Today, Diablo Canyon provides about 8% of the state’s total energy and about 17% of its carbon-free energy.

The legislation was unusual in that it allowed PG&E to charge both its customers and those of other utilities a fee for energy the plant produces. The logic behind the move was that Diablo Canyon is a resource benefitting the entire state. But instead of handing the specifics of the fee off to the California Public Utilities Commission, which typically oversees the complicated and deliberative process of ratemaking, it set the fee amount directly in statute – $13 per megawatt hour.

Called a “volumetric performance fee,” the charge is meant to replace the return on investment PG&E would typically get for the plant and provide compensation for any potential liability from the increased risk of running an older plant. It is forecasted by the utility to cost, in 2026, $190.8 million for PG&E customers, $59.7 million for Southern California Edison customers, $12.9 million for San Diego Gas & Electric customers.

PG&E shareholders are explicitly prohibited from benefiting from the fees under the law.

But state utility regulators have thus far declined to require PG&E to provide enough detail into how it spends the fees to confirm that shareholders truly aren’t benefitting.

“California law requires that PG&E spend the volumetric performance fees to advance critical public-purpose priorities, including accelerating customer connections to the grid and reducing operational and system risk. State law also expressly prohibits profit by PG&E shareholders,” Jennifer Robison, spokesperson for PG&E, said in a statement. “Our proposal outlines detailed accounting mechanisms and controls that PG&E uses to demonstrate compliance with state law each year.”

Under the law, PG&E is expected to use the fees toward approved expenses at Diablo Canyon. If the fees aren’t needed there, it can spend on six other categories meant to benefit the public. These include:

• Bringing new customers’ power online.
• Safety for customers and employees.
• Bringing more renewable or zero-carbon energy onto the grid.
• Reducing the carbon footprint of buildings.
• Grid resilience.
• Education and communication.

The proposed decision adds a few more constraints. PG&E would be required to spell out how many customers benefit from each project it spends the fees on. It would also need to say how these projects help keep customer bills down, although a revision released Tuesday reduced this requirement, allowing PG&E to not comply with that aspect as long as it explains why.

PG&E is also expected to report how the fees were spent in “major work categories,” predetermined buckets the utilities already use to categorize their spending for the commission. These buckets have a spending cap on them – if PG&E goes over the allotted amount, shareholders pay for the overspend, and goes under, shareholders keep the difference.

But PG&E is only required to report such categories in which the fee is used, preventing regulators from seeing the net effect on shareholders. The net effect is important, the Utility Reform Network said, because PG&E could strategically use it to give shareholders more money overall. And while PG&E would report all of those categories during its general rate case, that case only happens every four years, as opposed to the annual filing for the Diablo Canyon fee.

The Utility Reform Group proposed broader reporting on this to better see the flow of money, which would allow the commission to better see if costs shareholders normally cover were being funded with the Diablo Canyon fees. The commission agreed in its decision that the spending plans as set out don’t have enough detail to determine this currently, but that such a requirement would be “overly complex if not infeasible or speculative analysis.”

A state analysis noted that the legislation had no “guardrails” preventing PG&E from using the fees for expenses that would have been paid by shareholders.

Concern about the fees being used to benefit shareholders was brought up as early as the 2022 law’s inception. A state Assembly analysis noted at the time that the legislation had no “guardrails” preventing PG&E from using the fees for expenses that would have previously been paid for by shareholders, “thereby freeing up ratepayer dollars elsewhere for capital expenditures [PG&E] may earn a return on.”

Advocates also asked the commission to require that PG&E use the fees to cover a predicted annual budget hole. PG&E is currently predicting an operating loss at the plant of about $583 million on average each year.

The Utility Reform Network, the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, and the Green Power Institute asked the commission to require PG&E to use the fees to reduce this hole first before allocating money on other allowed public projects. Reducing this deficit, they argued, would lower bills for not just PG&E customers, but those of the other two major utilities that are charged the fee. Money spent on the allowed public benefit projects, on the other hand, only benefits PG&E’s territory.

The commission declined, instead saying it “strongly encourages PG&E to take their underlying reasoning into account as a guiding principle.”

PG&E has pushed back strongly against limitations on how it spends the fees and reports that spending, as well as prior approval of its fee spending plans. It has also challenged limitations on its fee spending or mandates to prove that its costs were reasonable. In a March comment filed with the commission, PG&E argued that having to report how the fees were spent in major work categories went beyond the scope of the 2022 law. It also took the issue before an appellate court and the Supreme Court of California, saying that by requiring it to spend in certain ways, the commission undermined the 2022 law and “called into question the economic viability of extended operations at Diablo Canyon.”

Both courts declined to take up PG&E’s case, and the commission denied the utility’s request to reconsider its proposed decision.