###

Ed. note: “Community Energy Insights” is a monthly column from the people at the Redwood Coast Energy Authority, Humboldt County’s intergovernmental joint-powers authority on all things electrical. Look for it on the last Thursday of the month.

This week’s column is by RCEA Senior Programs Manager Mike Avcollie.

###

Electric vehicles (EVs) are becoming more common on Humboldt County roads — but questions and misconceptions still come up all the time.

Are they really better for the environment?

Are they too expensive?

What about range anxiety?

At Redwood Coast Energy Authority, we work with local residents, businesses, and public agencies on transportation programs across the county. Here’s what the data — and real-world experience — actually show.

Let’s break down a few common myths.

Myth #1: EVs Don’t Really Save Energy

Part of this myth may come from the fact that during the manufacturing phase, electric vehicles produce more emissions than internal combustion vehicles, largely due to the materials used in batteries. However, because the operational emissions from EVs are much lower than those of internal combustion vehicles, a new electric car will produce only 110 grams of CO2e per mile, while a new gasoline vehicle will produce 410 grams of CO2 per mile. (Source.)

Why? Electric vehicles are significantly more efficient to operate than gas-powered cars.

According to research highlighted by Yale Climate Connections, EVs convert about 77% of the electrical energy from the grid into power at the wheels. By comparison, conventional gasoline vehicles convert only about 12%–30% of the energy stored in gasoline into movement.

Because electric motors are so much more efficient, replacing a gasoline-powered vehicle with an EV saves energy, no matter what type of energy source is used to charge it.

The same research shows:

• Replacing gasoline with coal-based electricity reduces energy use by about 31%
• Replacing gasoline with natural gas reduces energy use by about 48%
• Replacing gasoline with hydropower reduces energy use by about 75%

In other words, EVs use less energy to move the same distance. And as California’s grid continues to incorporate more renewable resources, the benefits increase.

Myth #2: EVs Cost Too Much

It’s true that some EVs have a higher purchase price up front. But what many people don’t realize is that they often cost less to own and operate over time.

According to research from Consumer Reports, a typical EV driver can save $800 to $1,000 per year on fueling costs by charging at home instead of buying gasoline. Over the life of the vehicle, that can add up to thousands of dollars in savings.

Maintenance costs are also lower. EVs:

• Don’t require oil changes

• Have fewer moving parts

• Experience less brake wear due to regenerative braking

One study found that reduced maintenance costs can total around $4,600 in savings over the life of the vehicle. For many drivers, especially those with predictable daily commutes, the long-term math is worth considering.

Myth #3: I’ll Run Out of Charge

“Range anxiety” is one of the most common concerns we hear. Let’s consider what the numbers say locally.

The average daily vehicle miles traveled in Humboldt County is about 30 miles per day.

Meanwhile, most new EVs in 2026 offer a range of 250–300 miles on a full charge. For most daily driving — commuting, errands, school drop-offs — an EV can cover several days of driving before needing to recharge. And when you do need to recharge, options are expanding.

RCEA’s REVNet program supports public EV charging across Humboldt County, with 72 charging ports at 22 locations, plus there are many DC fast chargers along major travel corridors. DC fast charging can bring many modern EVs up to 80% charge in about 20 to 60 minutes, depending on the vehicle and charger. Plus, apps like PlugShare make it easy to locate public chargers wherever you travel.

A Few Practical Tips for Driving Electric

If you’re considering an EV — or already drive one — here are a few helpful tips:

• Consider switching your electric account to an EV billing rate (aka “EV-A”, “EV-B”, or “EV-2A”). EV rates offer deep discounts during Off-Peak hours to help reduce the cost of EV charging at home.

• Use DC fast charging when you need it but rely on home charging for day-to-day use. Frequent fast charging can contribute to battery wear over time.

• If your vehicle charges fastest up to 80%, it’s often quicker on long trips to charge up to 80% more often, rather than waiting for 100%.

• Expect a slightly lower range in very cold weather. Like any battery-powered device, EV range can dip when temperatures drop.

Save Even More with Discounted EV Charging

RCEA is partnering with GRID Alternatives to offer discounted public electric vehicle (EV) charging for income-qualified customers. Through this limited-time pilot program, eligible customers can receive 40% off charging at RCEA-owned REVNet charging stations across Humboldt County. This pilot is designed to make public EV charging more affordable and accessible for households already receiving CARE, FERA or other public assistance program benefits.

You may qualify if you:

• Have an active residential RCEA electric account in good standing

• Are enrolled in CARE, FERA, or another qualifying public assistance program

• Own an electric vehicle registered at your RCEA service address, or that is registered in the RCEA account holder’s name.

To learn more and apply, visit this link.

The application process is straightforward, and our team can help if you have questions about eligibility.

The Bottom Line

Driving electric in Humboldt County is not a future idea — it’s already happening.

As Humboldt County’s local electricity provider, Redwood Coast Energy Authority works to expand charging infrastructure, provide incentives, and support programs that make cleaner transportation more accessible.

Whether you’re EV-curious or ready to make the switch, we’re here to help you understand your options and what makes sense for your household.

Have Questions? Talk to Our Transportation Team

Electric vehicles aren’t one-size-fits-all. Every household’s driving needs, budget, and home setup are different. RCEA’s Transportation Team works with residents, businesses and public agencies across Humboldt County to answer questions about EV ownership, charging options, rebates and local programs.

If you’re EV-curious or ready to make the switch, we’re here to help you make an informed decision. Reach out to Redwood Coast Energy Authority via phone, (707) 269-1700, email info@redwoodenergy.org or stop by our office in Eureka at 633 3rd St., Eureka.

###

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

###

On a cracked two-lane road on the eastern edge of San Diego County, James Cordero eased his Jeep onto the shoulder after something caught his eye. It looked like an abandoned trailer. Inside he found a hidden camera feeding a vast surveillance network that logs the license plate of every driver passing through this stretch of remote backcountry between San Diego and the Arizona state line.

Cordero, 44, has found dozens of these cameras hidden in trailers and construction barrels on border roads around San Diego and Imperial counties: one on Old Highway 80 near Jacumba Hot Springs; another outside the Golden Acorn Casino in Campo; another along Interstate 8 toward In-Ko-Pah Gorge.

They started showing up after California granted permits to the Border Patrol and other federal agencies to place license plate readers on state highways in the last months of the Biden administration. Now as many as 40 are feeding information into Trump administration databases as the Democratic-led state chafes over the federal government’s massive deportation program.

The cameras are raising concerns with privacy experts, civil liberties advocates and humanitarian aid workers who say California should not be supporting the surveillance and data-collection program, which they view as an unwarranted government intrusion into the lives of Americans who’ve committed no crime. Moreover, they say the program conflicts with state law.

Supporters say the devices allow law enforcement to quickly identify and locate people they suspect of serious crimes. They also argue the cameras help agencies spot patterns in drug and human trafficking, and could be used to help locate missing persons, such as children or other vulnerable people.

“If you’re not doing anything illegal, why worry about it?” said long-time Jacumba resident Allen Stanks, 70.

“Everyone is talking about privacy, OK. Stop putting everything on Facebook. ‘Here’s a picture of my food.’ Who cares?” said Stanks.

Some locals, however, suspect the cameras are behind some unusual encounters they’ve had in recent months with officers from Border Patrol and its parent agency, Customs and Border Protection. In one case agents questioned a grandmother – a lawful permanent resident – about why she went to a casino, according to her grandson.

Cordero has a different concern. On his days off, he leads volunteers into the far reaches of the county, leaving water, food and clothing for migrants. He fears his colleagues could be detained by agents.

“I’m not so much worried about myself, but I’m worried about a lot of our volunteers that come out,” said Cordero. “I don’t want them to have to deal with any of the nonsense of being tracked or being pulled over and questioned.”

James Cordero, water drop coordinator for Al Otro Lado, in the Jacumba Hot Springs area of San Diego on Feb. 7, 2026. Cordero is concerned about the use of new automated license plate readers along the U.S.-Mexico border in California. Photo by Zoë Meyers for CalMatters

He has good reason to be nervous. During the first Trump administration, federal officials prosecuted volunteers from the humanitarian group “No More Deaths” for leaving water and supplies for migrants in the Arizona desert. The volunteers faced charges, including “abandonment of property” and felony harboring, though the convictions for some were later overturned.

Border Patrol provides little information about its use of license plate readers on its website. In 2020, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report that describes the technology in general, but doesn’t specify where it’s being used. CalMatters reached out to Border Patrol and Homeland Security officials for comment, but did not receive a response.

“There’s no transparency, that’s the worst part,” Cordero said.

The Homeland Security report says some readers are capturing license plate numbers, as well as the make and model of the vehicle, the state the vehicle is registered in, the camera owner and type, the GPS coordinates for where the image was taken, and the date and time of the capture.

The “technology may also capture (within the image) the environment surrounding a vehicle, which may include drivers and passengers,” the report states. It also says feds can access license plate readers operated by commercial vendors.

Mapping hidden cameras

Earlier this month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a coalition of 30 organizations sent a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Transportation urging them to revoke state permits and remove the covert readers operated by federal agencies like Customs and Border Protection and the Drug Enforcement Agency along California border highways.

The San Francisco-based privacy and civil rights advocacy organization, also known as EFF, mapped out more than 40 hidden license plate readers in Southern California, most of them along border roadways. It contends the devices bypass a 2016 state law that spells out how law enforcement agencies can use automated license plate readers, which are often referred to as ALPRs.

“By allowing Border Patrol and the DEA to put license plate readers along the border, they’re essentially bypassing the protections under (California law),” said Dave Maass, the director of investigations for EFF. “That is a backdoor around it.”

Maass said he believes Cordero’s concerns about the agency surveilling humanitarian volunteers may be valid.

“They claim they might be looking for smugglers or they might be looking for cartel members, but that’s not who they’re collecting data on,” said Maass. “(The program) is primarily collecting data on people who live in the region.

Maass said there’s no way to be certain which agency is installing each camera, but his organization checked with all other agencies operating in the area, such as the San Diego and Imperial sheriff’s departments, the California Highway Patrol, and Cal Fire, among others.

First: An automated license plate reader sits along Old Highway 80 outside the Jacumba Hot Springs area of San Diego on Feb. 7, 2026. Last: An automated license plate reader sits along Interstate 8 in the southeastern area of San Diego County on Feb. 7, 2026. Photos by Zoë Meyers for CalMatters

Automated license plate readers have been placed along Old Highway 80 in the Campo community of San Diego County, on Feb. 7, 2026. Photo by Zoë Meyers for CalMatters

The camera models currently installed on state highways in the border region are the same as ones the Border Patrol purchased in large amounts, according to Maass. Records obtained from Caltrans by EFF from 2016 appear to show Drug and Enforcement Administration and Border Patrol requesting permits to install the same devices in other parts of San Diego County, according to Maass.

Customs and Border Protection did not respond to a request for comment. The governor’s office did not comment. The Drug Enforcement Agency also did not respond to a request for comment.

Caltrans approves ALPR requests

By day, Cordero works in water-damage restoration, the crews residents call after floods and burst pipes. Comfortable with emergencies, he’s the type of guy you’d hope to run into if your car broke down in the middle of nowhere.

“People are literally dying out here,” Cordero says of his volunteer work, done through the nonprofit Al Otro Lado, a legal services organization that also provides humanitarian support to refugees, migrants and deportees on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. “All we’re trying to do is prevent people from dying.”

In response to questions from CalMatters, a spokesperson for Caltrans provided a written statement that the state agency has approved eight permits for license plate readers from federal agencies, like Customs and Border Protection and the Drug Enforcement Administration, to be stationed in state highway rights-of-way.

“Caltrans does not operate, manage, or determine the specific use of technology or equipment installed by permit holders, nor does it have access to any of the collected data,” the statement read in part.

Caltrans said federal immigration agencies haven’t requested permits for the cameras since June 2024. They did not say how long a permit lasts. Between 2015 and 2024, their records indicate Customs and Border Protection and the Drug Enforcement Administration requested 14 permit applications for “law enforcement surveillance devices.” Of the 14, eight were approved, four were cancelled by the applicants and two did not result in projects in state right-of-way, the agency said.

In California, license plates are tracked not only by the federal government and law enforcement, but also by schools and businesses, including some Home Depots and malls. While schools and businesses may not agree to pass that information on to the federal government, local police with access to those cameras may do so.

California law prevents state and local agencies from sharing license plate data with out-of-state entities, including federal agencies involved in immigration enforcement. A CalMatters investigation in June 2025 revealed that southern California law enforcement agencies, including sheriff’s departments in San Diego and Orange counties, have shared automated license plate reader data with federal agencies in violation of state law.

James Cordero, a water drop coordinator for Al Otro Lado, photographs the camera on an automated license plate reader outside the Jacumba Hot Springs area of San Diego on Feb. 7, 2026. Photo by Zoë Meyers for CalMatters

Newsom vetoed a bill to strengthen California license plate reader law last fall. Two days later, Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against the city of El Cajon for multiple violations ofthe license plate sharing prohibition. Since 2024, the attorney general’s office has sent letters to 18 law enforcement agencies, including the Imperial County Sheriff’s Office, the San Diego Police Department, and the El Centro Police Department.

Local agencies continue to share license plate data with federal immigration authorities, and not just along the border. The San Pablo Police Department in Northern California, one of the law enforcement agencies that received letters from the attorney general’s office, shared license plate data with the Border Patrol as recently as last month, according to records obtained by Oakland Privacy head of research Mike Katz-Lacabe. Some cameras are easy to spot, but Katz-Lacabe said that local police have concealed cameras that scan license plates for more than a decade, sometimes behind the grill of police cruisers or inside speed limit trailers or in a fake saguaro cactus.

“This has been the practice for years,” he said.

On a recent Saturday, Cordero was dressed for the remote border terrain – flannel, hiking boots, a San Diego Padres cap pulled low against the sun. His dirt-caked Jeep is built for places roads don’t go. On this particular weekend, supplies at one of the drop sites had already been used, indicating people may be crossing in the area.

Cordero has gotten good at finding stuff out here. In the remote Ocotillo washes, where the scrubs claw at people’s shins, he recently found what he believes to be the remains of a human finger.

A year earlier, Cordero found a phone contact list next to human remains. He and his wife, Jacqueline Arellano, were able to use the phone list to notify the person’s family in Arizona about where their missing loved one fell.

That’s why when, months ago, he first saw the abandoned trailer along the side of the road on Old Highway 80, he had to stop to take a closer look.

“It took me passing by a few times before I realized what it was,” said Cordero.

Pulling over grandma

An Associated Press investigation published in November revealed that Border Patrol had hidden license plate readers in ordinary traffic safety equipment. The data collected by the agency’s plate readers was fed into a predictive intelligence program monitoring millions of American drivers nationwide to identify and detain people whose travel patterns the algorithm deemed suspicious, according to the AP’s investigation.

Sergio Ojeda, a community organizer with the mutual aid group Imperial Valley Equity and Justice said CBP apparently believed his grandmother’s driving patterns were suspicious because they interrogated her about the amount of time she spends at local casinos in the area.

“She was outraged about it,” said Ojeda. His grandmother, a resident of Imperial Valley with legal status, was crossing the border when agents asked her about her trips to casinos.

“She asked them back, ‘Is something wrong with that? Am I not supposed to be doing that or why are you questioning me about this?’ and they were like “Oh, no, it just seems suspicious,” Ojeda recounted.

Ojeda said he was equally concerned, and he doesn’t enjoy the feeling of being watched just because he lives near the border. “It’s how I feel every day,” he said. “Driving around, I joke with my co-workers: ‘Which chapter of 1984 is this?’”

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

###

In December, fourth graders in a class at Delevan Drive Elementary School in Los Angeles were given a homework assignment: Write a book report about Pippi Longstocking, then draw or use artificial intelligence to make a book cover.

When Jody Hughes’ daughter asked Adobe Express for Education, graphic design software provided by her teacher, to generate an image of “long stockings a red headed girl with braids sticking straight out,” it produced nothing resembling the Swedish children’s book character she had accurately described. Instead, using recently-added artificial intelligence, it generated sexualized imagery of women in lingerie and bikinis. Hughes quickly contacted other parents, who said they were able to reproduce similar results on their own school-issued Chromebook computers. Days later, the parent group Schools Beyond Screens told the LA school board they were opposed to further use of the Adobe software.

The incident raised questions not only about the LA school district’s use of a particular AI product but also about guidelines state administrators provide to schools throughout California on how to safely adopt the technology. A few weeks after the incident, the state Department of Education published a new edition of the guidelines, which it had been working on for several months with help from a group of 50 teachers, administrators, and experts. The revision came in response to instructions from the Legislature, which passed two laws in 2024 telling the department, essentially, to get a handle on AI’s rapid spread among students, teachers and administrators.

Critics wonder if the guidelines would have helped avoid what parents referred to as Pippigate; the controversy, they say, provides evidence that districts, schools, and parents, who often lack the time or resources to ensure that software tools don’t produce harmful output, need more support from the state. The guidelines, they add, are also too vague in places and don’t do enough to define guardrails for how teachers use AI in the classroom.

The issues with the guidelines call into question whether the department can effectively respond to instructions from elected officials on how to safeguard a technology that, according to the guidelines themselves, can leave children isolated and with narrowed perspectives.

With AI rapidly becoming more prevalent in society, effectively managing the technology has become an urgent issue. Though OpenAI’s ChatGPT popularized generative AI just three years ago, polls show that a majority of teachers and students nationwide now use the technology in some capacity.

While AI can help save teachers time, personalize learning, and support students who do not speak English or who have disabilities, it can also inaccurately grade their papers and generate images that perpetuate or intensify stereotypes or sexualized imagery of women, particularly women of color. The majority of California K-12 students are people of color. Since the rapid expansion of generative AI adoption started, teachers who spoke with CalMatters have felt both a need to prepare their students for a future where AI is ubiquitous and a fear that AI tools can enable cheating on tests and lead to deficiencies in reasoning, logic, and critical thinking.

“Educators have a narrow window to set norms before they harden,” said LaShawn Chatmon, CEO of the National Equity Project, an Oakland group that helps teachers produce more equitable outcomes. “Local education agencies that take advantage of this opportunity to co-design learning and policy with students and families can help shift who gets to decide AI’s role in our learning and lives.”

A district spokesperson told CalMatters that images generated by the AI model don’t align with district standards and “we are collaborating with Adobe to address the issue.” Adobe VP of Education Charlie Miller said the company rolled out changes to address the issue within 24 hours of hearing about the incident. Miller did not respond to questions about how the tool was vetted before deployment.

As a result of what his child experienced, Hughes thinks students shouldn’t be told to use text-to-image generators for homework assignments. But he sees no attempt to place such limits on use of the technology in the Department of Education guidance.

“These tech companies are making things marketed to kids that are not fully tested,” he said. “I don’t know where to draw the line but elementary school is too young because it can get real nasty real fast as we’ve seen with the Grok stuff,” he added, referring to recent abuse of the Grok AI system to nonconsensually remove clothing in images of women and children.

Issues with AI guidance

The guidance supplies a list of unacceptable uses of AI by students, such as plagiarism, and urges educators to integrate real-world scenarios and case studies into discussions to help students apply ethical principles to practical situations. It also says students should be taught to “think critically and creatively” about AI tools’ “benefits and challenges.”

Julie Flapan, director of the Computer Science Equity Project at UCLA’s Center X, said that the Pippi Longstocking incident called to mind a 2024 study that found young Black and Latino people are more likely to use generative AI than young white people. That data, in tandem with the historical disparity in access to computer science education, means, she said, that some parents and students will need help to think critically about AI.

“These tech companies are making things marketed to kids that are not fully tested.”
— Jody Hughes, parent of student at Delevan Drive Elementary School, Los Angeles

“We often think about technological advances as ways to level the playing field,” she said. “But the reality is we know that they exacerbate inequalities.”

Flapan said it makes sense that the guidelines urge critical thinking and vetting of AI tools before use and encourage education leaders to engage communities in decisionmaking. But, she added, the guidance doesn’t detail how to do that.

Charles Logan, a former teacher now at a responsible tech laboratory at Northwestern University, said that the guidelines fall short by not offering teachers and parents clear guidance on how they can opt out of using the technology. A Brookings Institution study released in January, based on interviews with students, teachers and administrators in 50 countries, concluded that the risks of AI in classrooms currently outweigh the benefits and can “undermine children’s foundational development.”

Mark Johnson, head of government affairs at Code.org, praised the guidelines, but said the state should offer more AI education support to educators and make proficiency in AI and computer science requirements for graduation. A recent report by Johnson found four states adopted such graduation requirements after releasing AI guidance.

Katherine Goyette, who served as computer science coordinator for the Department of Education until January, when asked about the Longstocking incident, pointed to parts of the guidance emphasizing the importance of engaging families, communities and school board members when evaluating AI tools. She also said critical thinking is important in preventing such outcomes, pointing to guidance that pushes administrators to consider potential harms before use.

Additional direction is on the way for how to put the recently released guidance into practice: the department’s AI working group will introduce specific policy recommendations based on the guidance by July.

The pressure of the AI inevitability narrative

The latest version of California Department of Education AI guidelines come as local educational agencies move away from blanket AI bans considered after the 2022 release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Instead, districts are moving toward deciding when and how students and teachers can use the technology. Those local decisions will be critical to how the technology is actually used in schools, since the state cannot require school districts adopt its guidance.

Even the largest school districts in California can encounter serious issues when deploying AI. In June 2024, Los Angeles Unified’s superintendent promised the best AI tutor in the world but had to pull it from use weeks later. A week later, news emerged that a majority of members on the San Diego Unified School District board, the second-largest district in the state, signed a contract for curriculum that they didn’t know included an AI grading tool.

The move toward state and district AI guidance, rather than bans, reflects a broader sense of inevitability in the state around adoption of the technology. In his October veto of a bill that would have prevented use of some chatbots by minors, Gov. Gavin Newsom said AI is already shaping the world and that “We cannot prepare our youth for a future where AI is ubiquitous by preventing their use of these tools altogether.”

Logan, who recently advised San Diego parents about how to resist and refuse AI use in classrooms, pushes back against this idea. He says the California Department of Education guidance should address situations in which parents might want to avoid having their children use AI at all.

“It’s surprising that the guidance wants to make proficient AI users of kindergartners and there wasn’t space to say no or opt out,” he said in a phone call.

The statewide AI guidance joins a series of efforts to protect kids from AI, including bills now before the Legislature that seeks to place a moratorium on toys with companion chatbots and protect student privacy in the age of AI. Common Sense Media and OpenAI are working on getting a kids online safety initiative on the ballot for the election in November.

It is with great sadness that on February 20, 2026, we lost the heart of our family, Avelino Azevedo Homem, who passed away peacefully at home.

Avelino was the ninth of twelve children born to Amelia and Jose Homem on December 1, 1939, in Terceira, Açores. From a young age he was drawn to art, beauty and the natural world around him. Whether drawing, observing the land, or simply appreciating the quiet rhythm of island life, Avelino carried with him a creativity and curiosity that would remain throughout his life. As a member of a large family, work was plentiful, and the children spent their days tending the family fields and at night keeping watch over the sheep so wild dogs would not attack. What they lacked in material wealth they made up for in love. Avelino and his siblings often reminisced about those early years — their mother baking bread and sewing and quiet evenings by the fire as their father played the clarinet.

In 1956, as a young man seeking opportunity, Avelino embarked on a weeks-long journey by boat from Terceira to Rio de Janeiro, Brasil to join his brothers Jose and Fernando. He often recalled that voyage with humor, never forgetting how seasick he had been along the way. Still, the journey marked the beginning of a new chapter and a life shaped by courage, grit and determination.

In Rio, Avelino worked as a butcher alongside his brothers on the very street where his future wife, Ana, lived. At the time, Ana was working in a nearby laboratory, and Avelino would often see her as she walked home from the bus stop. Though they noticed one another, their paths had not yet crossed. That changed one evening when Ana’s father, a celebrated fado lyricist, was performing at a concert. Ana’s mother suggested inviting Avelino and his sister Maria Jose, knowing they would appreciate Portuguese music. That evening proved life-changing — Avelino and Ana met formally for the first time.

They began dating soon after. Though money was scarce, Avelino carefully saved what he could to take Ana to the movies. In the dim glow of the theater, everyday worries faded and were replaced by dreams of possibility. Walking home together, they spoke often about the future, and Avelino shared his dream of one day coming to America to build a life and raise a family of his own. They married on January 10, 1965, and later that year turned those dreams into reality, immigrating to the United States. Sponsored by Avelino’s beloved sister Gabriela and brother-in-law Robert Murphy, they settled in Arcata — a community that would become home for the rest of their lives. Avelino was eternally grateful for Bob and Gabriela giving him and Ana the opportunity to have a successful life in America.

Upon arriving in Arcata, Avelino began pulling green chain at Louisiana Pacific. Though grateful for the opportunity, he remained determined to return to his trade as a butcher. Through hard work and persistence, he entered an apprenticeship program while continuing to work at the mill, earning his meat cutter’s certification and eventually working as a butcher at Safeway and later Food Mart. His pride in his craft and commitment to providing for his family were evident in everything he did. Customers sought him out for the best cuts of meat and appreciated his skill and kindness.

After retiring, Avelino’s life grew even richer as he spent more time with his grandchildren. He became a familiar face at school performances, ballet recitals, orchestra concerts and sporting events, always arriving early and eager to cheer them on. After-school pickups, barber visits and trips to the hardware store became cherished outings — simple moments that meant the world to him and were treasured by his grandchildren in return.

Together, Avelino and Ana lived modestly, saving every penny in pursuit of the American dream. Along the way, they met and formed a lasting friendship with real estate agent Lois Leigh, who guided them in purchasing properties around Arcata — a testament to their discipline, vision and shared commitment to their family’s future. Maintaining those rentals kept them busy and also brought lifelong friendships with many exceptional tenants. Some of Avelino’s happiest moments were the simple ones, especially picnics at the pump station with his big family — gatherings filled with laughter, good food and the joy of being together.

Family was everything to Avelino. He deeply loved his siblings and remained closely connected to their lives and families. He gave generously of his time to the Portuguese Hall, helping cook for the festas and he volunteered countless hours in support of fundraising efforts for the new building of St. Mary’s Catholic Church — a place that held great meaning for him.

Avelino possessed an unmatched work ethic and immense pride in caring for his home and properties. He was, in every sense, a renaissance man. He loved music, cooking, keeping a spotless home, shopping for treasures, gardening, watching birds, admiring nature, building birdhouses and caring for his aviary. There was little he could not fix — a true “glue master.” He delighted in finding old furniture and restoring it, breathing new life into forgotten pieces much as he nurtured the people and spaces around him.

In 1999, Avelino and Ana, along with family, made their first trip to the Açores and mainland Portugal. They cherished the opportunity to revisit Avelino’s roots and spend time with extended family. Travel became one of their shared joys, and Avelino especially loved family vacations — the planning, the road trips, the food and the simple pleasure of being together in a new place. Over the years, Avelino and Ana visited loved ones across Brasil and created treasured memories with close friends on cruises to Alaska, through the Panama Canal and to the Hawaiian Islands. He especially loved visiting his grandchildren who lived in the sun. You could often find him relaxing in the outdoor cabana, watching the children play and the squirrels dart about — truly his happy place.

Avelino was a light to everyone he met; his laughter added sparkle to every room he entered. He never knew a stranger, lived humbly and left a lasting impression on all who had the good fortune to cross his path. His smile and laughter were contagious and he will be deeply missed. Ana will especially miss “meu querido, meu velho, meu amigo” — her love, her old man, her friend.

He was preceded in the death by his father Jose and mother Amelia Homem, his sisters; Maria Jose DeMatos, Maria dos Santos Rafael, Natalia Oliveira, and Fatima Borges, his brothers; Manuel “Albino” Homem, David Homem, Antonio “Tony” Lourenco and Fernando Lourenco.

Avelino is survived by his devoted wife of 61 years, Ana; his children, Frank (Betsy), Rich (Wendy), Diana (George), and Margo (Camron); his siblings, Gabriela Murphy, Jose (Gloria) Homem, and Durvalina Machado; his in-laws, Jorlanda Lourenco, Maria de Lourdes Homem, and Ana Paula Homem; and his cherished grandchildren, Briana Cavinta, John Homem, Dillon Homem (Nichelle), Georgie Cavinta, Mason Homem, Andrew Cavinta, Mike Homem, Gabriela Cavinta, Lucas Shimy, and Liam Shimy. He is also survived by his great-grandchild, Makana Homem, as well as many beloved nieces, nephews, great-nieces, and great-nephews.

The family would like to extend their heartfelt gratitude to his medical care providers for their compassion, dedication and gentle care.

A recitation of the Rosary will be held at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, February 28, 2026, at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Arcata, followed by the Mass of Christian Burial at 11 a.m. Interment will immediately follow at St. Mary’s Catholic Cemetery.

Jessica Naomi (Porter) Finley 
October 12, 1986- December 27, 2025

Jessica was born in Fortuna on October 12, 1986 and went to be with the Lord on December 27, 2025 with her parents Mike and Karen Porter by her side. 

Jessica attended local schools Hydesville Elementary, Scotia Elementary and graduated from Fortuna High School in 2004. She loved animals and was a member of FFA where she raised and showed animals at the Humboldt County Fair. She also loved to sing and had a beautiful voice. She was always the first in line to sing karaoke with her sister Mary and her mother. 

She worked at Humboldt County Health and Human Services where she had met many friends. 

She loved and adored her children Kaysen, Kesa and Kylo. 

She is survived by her parents Mike and Karen Porter; brothers David, Brian (Kristi), Jacob (Jen), Luke; sister Mary (Dave); and numerous cousins, aunts and uncles. 

She was preceded in death by her grandparents and several cousins. 

There will be a celebration of life held on Friday, March 20, 2026 at Rio Dell Fire Hall from 4 p.m.-7 p.m.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Jessica Finley’s family. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

Kennie Lynn Mendoza, 63, of Eureka, passed away peacefully on February 10, 2026, in Eureka, surrounded by those who loved him most. Born on November 21, 1963, in Salinas, California, Kennie lived a life defined by generosity, unwavering family devotion, and genuine joy in helping others.

Kennie never had children of his own, but he embraced many as if they were, especially his beloved nieces and nephews, whom he proudly called his own. He was a steadfast protector and provider, always checking in to ensure everyone was okay, and supported them through life’s ups and downs. His selflessness was legendary; he always put the needs of his family and friends before his own, often lifting their spirits even on his toughest days. No matter how he was feeling, he had an incredible ability to bring a smile to those around him.

He was a true automobile lover; Kennie spent countless hours working on cars — though he always seemed to break them. He had a passion for Ford Mustangs, his absolute favorites. For a decade of his life, he dedicated his time to rebuilding furniture, becoming quite skilled at restoring it, making it look like it did when it was first built.

Kennie Mendoza was one of a kind: a funny, loving, and caring soul who cherished his family and friends more than anything in this world. His presence brought comfort, his humor lightened hearts, and his quiet strength held everyone together. He is survived by his sisters, Karen Mendoza and Gwendolyn Egger, and his brother, Shannon Stone, as well as his late brother, Fred Mendoza. He is also survived by his nieces, Tracy Mendoza and Kendra Egger, and nephews, Kevin Mendoza and Daniel Egger, along with his late nephew, James Lay. He leaves behind a legacy of love that will continue to guide and inspire us all.

We all will miss you deeply, Kennie Lynn. Your laugh, your kindness, and most of all, your love. You will forever hold a special place in our hearts, and we take comfort in knowing that you’re watching over us all, reassuring us that everything will be okay. Until the dirt hits the box, and we meet again. Rest easy, dear brother, uncle and friend. We love you always.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Kennie Mendoza’s family. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

###

PREVIOUSLY:

• Sheriff’s Office Identifies the Man Who Was Fatally Shot By a Deputy at Bear River Recreation Center
• Sheriff’s Office Releases Name of Law Enforcement Officer in Bear River Shooting
• SHERIFF’S OFFICE: Today’s Shooting at Bear River Was Witnessed by Several and Captured on Body Cam Footage; Investigation Underway
• (UPDATE: SHERIFF PRESS CONFERENCE) Officer-Involved Shooting Near the Bear River Recreation Center
• Sheriff’s Office Releases Security and Body Camera Footage From June’s Fatal Shooting at Bear River Casino

###

Press release from the District Attorney’s Office:

District Attorney Stacey Eads has completed her review of the investigation, which includes extensive video surveillance as well as body worn camera footage, regarding the June 5, 2025, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) Officer-involved shooting of 29-year-old Nicholas David Anderson of Simi Valley, California. A Humboldt County Critical Incident Response Team, including members from the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, Eureka Police Department, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, Arcata Police Department, Fortuna Police Department, Ferndale Police Department, and California Highway Patrol, conducted the investigation. Additionally, the Humboldt County Coroner’s Office and the California Department of Justice- Bureau of Forensic Services, contributed to the investigation.

The following summarizes the facts derived from the investigation, as well as applicable law and legal conclusions of the District Attorney regarding this incident.

Please be advised the following content may be disturbing for readers.

Factual Summary

On the evening of June 4, 2025, 29-year-old Nicholas David Anderson drove to Redwood Memorial Hospital in Fortuna and walked in seeking treatment for a severe wound to his left forearm. Mr. Anderson gave hospital staff the alias “Edward Sherman” and told them “I hurt myself.” His left arm was wrapped with a t-shirt and bleeding. He described cutting his left wrist with a knife in a horizontal and vertical manner; however he soon recanted his initial description of the injury as being self-inflicted — providing very little additional information. After meeting with Mr. Anderson, a treating physician opined Mr. Anderson presented as a danger to himself and placed a 24-hour psychiatric “1799” hold on him. Shortly after midnight, Mr. Anderson was transferred from Redwood Memorial to St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka to provide him with a higher level of medical care.

At St. Joseph Hospital, initial assessments supported Mr. Anderson’s likely need for surgery and psychiatric intervention, however during early morning hours of June 5 he fled from the hospital. Staff followed him a short distance but lost sight of him after he ran into a nearby wooded area. Law enforcement was contacted to assist in locating him; however, Mr. Anderson was not located by authorities.

Mr. Anderson is captured on a doorbell camera video (later reviewed) in Eureka after he rings the doorbell and requests a ride, which he is not given, from the homeowner. A different Eureka homeowner also encounters him after he emerged from a wooded gully area onto her property around 11:00 a.m. After a brief encounter, he disappeared back into the woods. Shortly after noon, a Eureka woman, also unfamiliar with Mr. Anderson, encounters him and he asks for a ride. Shortly after noon, she arranges for a male friend to provide Mr. Anderson a ride to Redwood Memorial Hospital where his car was still parked.

At 2:16 p.m. on June 5 a 911 call was placed by an employee of the Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria reporting a man with an injured arm needed medical attention and was “dripping blood everywhere” in the men’s shower of the Recreation Center in Loleta. Humboldt County Sheriff Corporal Kellen Brown responded to the scene at 2:21 and arrived in his marked Sheriff’s patrol vehicle by 2:27. Cpl. Brown observed Mr. Anderson seated just outside entrance doors to the Recreation Center. He was unclothed with a towel around his waist and blood-soaked bandages wrapped around his left forearm. Cpl. Brown observed towels, a set of keys and a knife next to Anderson while they spoke. During the interaction, Mr. Anderson had a calm demeanor. He was not forthcoming about his age, nor the cause of his injury and provided only a first name of “Tommy”. Mr. Anderson suggested his injury may have been caused during a traffic collision, which prompted Cpl. Brown to request Corporal Bradford Anderson, HCSO, respond to assist and survey the area for a possible traffic collision.

Paramedics arrived at the Recreation Center shortly after Cpl. Brown. Emergency personnel assured Mr. Anderson that he was not in trouble and his name was needed for accuracy of medical records. Nonetheless, Mr. Anderson declined to provide accurate information. Due to the severity of his injury and need for care, the emergency medical professionals strongly recommended he go with them to the hospital for treatment; however, he refused. Within twenty minutes, Mr. Anderson’s wound was rinsed and wrapped with fresh gauze and bandages and the emergency medical team personnel left for their next 911 call. Mr. Anderson’s remaining belongings were gathered by Bear River Rancheria staff from within the Recreation Center and provided to him. He was then directed to leave the property.

Cpl. Brown offered to help Mr. Anderson take his belongings to his car. Mr. Anderson declined, stating “I will put it in my car. You don’t need to supervise me.” Cpl. Brown reiterated for Mr. Anderson his getting medical treatment at a hospital was recommended and he needed to make his way off the Rancheria. After putting on some clothes, Mr. Anderson walked off towards the Bear River Tobacco Traders shop, about 1000 feet northeast of the Recreation Center.

After Cpl. Anderson searched the area, finding no sign of a traffic collision, he joined Cpl. Brown to further assist. Shortly thereafter, with the assistance of Bear River Security they learned of the location of Mr. Anderson’s parked car in the Recreation Center lot. Identification of Mr. Anderson’s vehicle helped officers learn the name of the registered owner, and subsequently his true name. Additionally, it was evident Mr. Anderson was not heading towards his car, so the corporals suspected he was not intending to leave the property as directed. They drove to Mr. Anderson’s location near an EV charging station. They spoke with him and reminded him that Tribal representatives requested he leave the Bear River Rancheria property. Mr. Anderson expressed his understanding and clarified with the officers which direction he needed to go to leave the property. He was told they did not want to take him to jail, that it would not be a good solution. He was told he could walk out or go to his car and drive out. Despite the directions, Mr. Anderson lingered, and further discussion ensued with the corporals repeatedly explaining the request for him to leave and his options. At one point Cpl. Anderson tells Mr. Anderson “Like, we’re legitimately concerned. You have a giant slash in your arm…We just want to make sure you’re okay.” After about ten minutes Mr. Anderson seemed to acquiesce and walked across a field towards the Recreation Center lot towards his parked car.

The corporals continued to monitor the situation from a distance by parking in a paved cul-de-sac off Brenard Road across from the Recreation Center. There are no structures in the cul-de-sac, only grassy terrain. While awaiting Mr. Anderson’s departure, the corporals reached out to the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office and learned only that Mr. Anderson had minimal law enforcement contacts in his county of residence during the last ten years.

After reaching his car, Mr. Anderson drove out of the Recreation Center parking lot and onto Singley Hill Road; however, instead of leaving the property he parked off to the side of Singley Hill Road adjacent to the Bear River Tobacco Traders shop. After another ten minutes, he turned his car around heading back towards the Recreation Center. Before reaching the Recreation Center, Mr. Anderson pulled into the cul-de-sac parking near the marked Sheriff’s patrol vehicles. Both corporals exited their patrol vehicles. As Mr. Anderson got out of his car Cpl. Brown walked around the patrol vehicles stopping several feet away from Mr. Anderson’s vehicle. Cpl. Anderson took a seemingly relaxed composure leaning onto the hood of one of the patrol vehicles.

After Mr. Anderson was out of his car he walked towards the officers and stopped. He looked directly at them. Cpl. Brown asked, “What’s the issue, man?” Mr. Anderson dipped his hands into his front pants pockets and pulled a locking blade knife from his right pocket. Using both hands he opened the blade. Cpl. Brown and Cpl. Anderson simultaneously placed their right hand on their holstered firearm. Moments later they each drew their firearms. Cpl. Brown told Mr. Anderson “Put that down.” Cpl. Brown followed with “Put it down. Now!” During the interaction Mr. Anderson told them he is “Just done.”

Mr. Anderson raised both arms with his elbows relatively level to his shoulders and his hands as high as his head. With the knife clenched in his right hand and the exposed blade pointed in the direction of the officers he quickly walked towards the corporals. Both officers retreated backwards and repeatedly ordered Mr. Anderson to “Get on the ground.” With the knife still raised at head level, Mr. Anderson jogged around a patrol vehicle in pursuit of the officers who with their firearms drawn, walk backwards and at one point run from him to create distance. The corporals split from each other as Cpl. Brown walked back towards the driver’s side of Mr. Anderson’s parked car, and Cpl. Anderson onto a gently sloped grassy area. Mr. Anderson, knife still raised, sprinted directly at Cpl. Anderson. As Mr. Anderson closed in on him, Cpl. Anderson fired three shots. Mr. Anderson fell to the ground.

Less than 25 seconds passed from the moment Mr. Anderson first pursues the corporals with the knife and when he is shot by Cpl. Anderson. It was during the last 3 seconds that Mr. Anderson ran at Cpl. Anderson, with the knife raised. Both Cpl. Brown and Cpl. Anderson feared Mr. Anderson was going to stab Cpl. Anderson.

After Mr. Anderson falls, Cpl. Anderson kicked the knife out of Mr. Anderson’s reach, the corporals placed handcuffs on Mr. Anderson and immediately began lifesaving efforts. Mr. Anderson was transported to Redwood Memorial Hospital; however, he succumbed to his injuries and was declared deceased at 4:09 p.m. on June 5.

Three bullet casings located in a grassy area where Cpl. Anderson fired shots, a bullet projectile located in the front passenger door of an uninjured civilian’s Ford F-350 truck, and Mr. Anderson’s seven-inch folding knife with a three-inch blade, were collected from the scene by Senior Criminalist Dale Cloutier, Department of Justice.

On June 11, Dr. Bennet Omalu, Forensic Pathologist/Neuropathologist, performed an autopsy and determined Mr. Anderson suffered a fatal gunshot wound in the center of his chest. Dr. Omalu found a projectile pierced Mr. Anderson’s heart and right lung, and a corresponding bullet and polymer tip were removed from Mr. Anderson’s body. Another bullet, and projectiles, removed from Mr. Anderson’s left armpit area caused a gunshot wound near Mr. Anderson’s left shoulder. Subsequent forensic toxicology “complete drug screen” of Mr. Anderson’s blood, urine and other bodily fluid/substance samples returned negative.

At the time of the shooting, Cpl. Anderson had over 9 years of law enforcement experience working over 8 years on patrol for the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office and one year as a correctional officer. He wore his distinctly marked Sheriff’s uniform and was armed with his HCSO issued Glock 17.

The Law

Under California law, an officer is justified in using deadly force when they reasonably believe, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. Moreover, officers need not retreat or desist from their efforts due to resistance or threatened resistance.  

Pursuant to Penal Code section 196, homicide committed by peace officers is justified when the peace officer’s use of force complies with Penal Code section 835a.  Thus, the most pertinent law in this situation is Penal Code section 835a, which states the following:

[Ed. Note: Find the code at this link.]   

Legal Analysis

On June 5, when Cpl. Anderson discharged his firearm, he justifiably used deadly force because he was confronted by a situation where he reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary to defend himself against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury posed by Mr. Anderson. Based upon earlier interactions and available historical information, it was reasonable for the officers to anticipate a peaceful interaction with Mr. Anderson. However, once Mr. Anderson pulled the knife from his pants pocket, unfolded the 3-inch blade and pursued the officers, the situation rapidly evolved into an entirely different encounter. In response to Mr. Anderson brandishing the knife and chasing them, both officers drew their firearms and attempted to create distance between themselves and Mr. Anderson while giving clear directives for him to put the knife down. He was also directed to get on the ground. Rather than comply with the commands, Mr. Anderson closed in on Cpl. Anderson when he sprinted directly at Cpl. Anderson with his knife raised in the air. Just a few seconds passed during that critical time, and Cpl. Anderson believed if he did not defend himself, he would be stabbed.

During those last seconds before Cpl. Anderson fired shots when Mr. Anderson ran with the knife at Cpl. Anderson above his head, Cpl. Anderson reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against Mr. Anderson, who demonstrated the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to him.  Thus, Cpl. Anderson was legally justified in using deadly force to defend himself against the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury posed by Mr. Anderson.

Conclusion

District Attorney Stacey Eads has concluded the shooting was legally justified, in that the actions of Cpl. Anderson complied with California Penal Code Section 835a.   Mr. Anderson’s family has been notified of her findings and legal determination.