SACRAMENTO\u00a0\u2014\u00a0 It was unprecedented and stunning: California\u2019s governor and top two legislative leaders negotiated a compromise on a big bill \u2014 and one house rebelled, refusing to bring it to a vote.<\/p>\n
Not just any bill, but this year\u2019s biggest<\/a> in the state Legislature, dealing with catastrophic wildfires, arguably the state\u2019s most perilous problem.<\/p>\n The issue: who gets hit the hardest financially when a for-profit utility\u2019s electrical equipment ignites a blaze. The utility\u2019s investors? Its ratepayers? The insurers? Their premium payers?<\/p>\n At stake, depending on who you talk to, is whether the electricity providers can afford to stay in business and keep our lights on.<\/a> Will some utility \u2014 Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric or San Diego Gas & Election \u2014 be forced into bankruptcy when the next powerline-caused wildfire explodes?<\/p>\n Alternatively, there\u2019s another unacceptable potential outcome: Property insurance companies completely stop issuing policies \u2014 not just in obvious fire-prone areas, but in tree-lined urban neighborhoods \u2014 and basically pull out of California. Or their premiums become flat-out unaffordable.<\/p>\n You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter <\/p>\n George Skelton and other analysts cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.<\/p>\n By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service<\/a>, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy<\/a> such as personalizing your experience and ads. <\/p>\n Politically, the wildfire legislation\u2019s flameout called into question Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s seeming weakness as a lame duck chief executive who will be termed-out of office in January.<\/p>\n Newsom stuck out his neck and took it on the chin from fellow Democrats \u2014 showing that even with lopsided one-party rule, unity and success aren\u2019t always guaranteed.<\/p>\n But the episode also raised doubts about Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas\u2019 leadership capability. The Hollister Democrat signed off on the deal with Newsom and Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limon (D-Santa Barbara), but reneged at the last minute under pressure from the Assembly Democratic Caucus. They killed the bill without a floor vote.<\/p>\n I\u2019m in my seventh decade of covering California governors and legislatures and never have seen \u2014 or heard of \u2014 anything like this: a legislative leader backing out of a deal agreed to with the governor and the other house\u2019s leader.<\/p>\n But in truth, Newsom didn\u2019t really like the agreement much anyway. He was on the utilities\u2019 side,<\/a> and they were out-lobbied by the insurers and ratepayers.<\/p>\n \u201cI know we all hate utilities, so no one wants to defend a utility. But you\u2019ve got to deal with reality. This thing\u2019s not going to get better on its own,\u201d Newsom told reporters at the Capitol on the night before the deal collapsed, referring to the utilities\u2019 worsening financial liability.<\/p>\n Personally, I think it\u2019s an overreach to conclude that Newsom\u2019s power has been severely weakened \u2014 or that Rivas necessarily showed lack of leadership. One can question their reasons for doing what they did, but that doesn\u2019t mean it was because of political debility.<\/p>\n \u201cNewsom\u2019s still a powerful lame duck because he could be a presidential nominee,\u201d Republican consultant Rob Stutzman says.<\/p>\n \u201cOne of the better things he has done all year is taking on this issue. It would have been very easy for him to just pass it on to the next governor.\u201d<\/p>\n Leaving aside whether this governor could become a president, there are hundreds of bills piling up on his desk that he must sign or veto by Sept. 30. That gives him tremendous clout. It\u2019s good politics \u2014 and human nature \u2014 for a governor to lean more favorably toward a measure if it\u2019s authored by a legislator who has voted with him.<\/p>\n Plus, one of the Legislature\u2019s last acts last week was to send Newsom a bloated supplemental budget bill containing more than $3 billion in spending, including countless stacks of pork sought by lawmakers for their districts. Newsom easily and gleefully could discard any or all of it.<\/p>\n So Newsom has awesome power, lame duck or not.<\/p>\n But he\u2019s vulnerable to criticism for his style. He has had an annoying habit of waiting until the very end of a legislative session to spring a hefty proposal on the lawmakers. It\u2019s called \u201cjamming.\u201d<\/p>\n In the past, this pressure tactic mostly worked, although it ticked off lawmakers. This time Assembly members rebelled.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not clear whether his jamming is mainly strategy, or just lack of focus and a tendency to push too many projects at once. Or is he preoccupied with positioning himself to run for president in 2028? Probably all of the above.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we had more time, we could have had a different outcome,\u201d Rivas told me.<\/p>\n With only a few days remaining in the legislative session, Newsom initially proposed an ambitious plan that would have shifted more cost for utility-sparked wildfires<\/a> to property insurers, sharply raising premiums across California. Utilities would have gotten some relief.<\/p>\n It became a titanic fight between two powerful special interests. And insurers \u2014 teamed with consumer advocates \u2014 triumphed, forcing Newsom to back down.<\/p>\n After hard bargaining, the governor and legislative leaders finally agreed on a post-midnight deal to help wildfire victims receive compensation more quickly \u2014 a so-called fast-pay program \u2014 and to step up fire preventative efforts.<\/p>\n But utilities\u2019 financial risks weren\u2019t significantly reduced, and they quickly mounted an opposition campaign. That resulted in Assembly Democrats scuttling all of it on the session\u2019s last day.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s unfortunate that [bill] was not given a vote,\u201d Limon said, adding that the Senate was prepared to pass it.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t want us to do the easy stuff and call it a day,\u201d Rivas told me. \u201cI wanted to see real utility accountability. This bill did not go nearly far enough.\u201d<\/p>\n It went a fair distance, however, in helping future fire victims<\/a> get their insurance payouts faster. And it probably should have been passed.<\/p>\n Half a loaf. Bird in hand. Incremental change. Next year more incrementalism. Ultimately it can add to massive reform.<\/p>\n Some problems are just too tough to resolve in one sitting.<\/p>\n What else you should be reading<\/p>\n The must-read: Reining in Big Tech: How California lawmakers plan to regulate AI and social media<\/a> Until next week,
California vs. Trump: Judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit challenging California transgender sports policies<\/a>
The L.A. Times Special: Texas is red, California blue \u2014 but for how much longer? A Lone Star toss-up will tell<\/a> <\/p>\n
George Skelton<\/p>\n