Why Gas Prices Are So High in California

September 14, 2026 By Katy Grimes 3 Comments

‘When tensions flare in the Middle East, Californians feel it first and worst’

While national crude prices set the floor, California’s taxes, climate rules, unique fuel special blend, and diminished refining system raise the price per gallon.

California gas is expensive for two overlapping reasons: it is structurally more costly than in most other states even in normal times, and the 2026 global oil shock has hit the state harder than the rest of the country.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

As of mid-September 2026, regular gasoline in California averages about $5.89 to $5.97 a gallon versus a U.S. average around $4.27 to $4.31.

Diesel costs are even more extreme, with statewide averages over $8.00 per gallon, even topping $9.00 per gallon in some counties.

AAA gas prices California September 11, 2026. (Photo: AAA.com)

Oil is priced globally, and while the U.S. is “energy independent,” it does not mean the U.S. sets its own gasoline price or that domestic crude automatically stays cheap at the pump.

Oil trades as a global commodity, so U.S. gasoline prices follow international crude benchmarks, even when the country produces more oil than anyone else and is a net exporter of petroleum products.

The U.S. is the world’s largest oil producer and a net exporter of petroleum products.

Global market, not a closed U.S. market

Crude oil trades as one interconnected commodity.

A barrel of similar quality from Texas, the North Sea, or the Middle East is valued against the same worldwide supply-demand balance and the same set of risks. Refiners then pay that price or lose supply to exports.

U.S. consumption of petroleum products is still far larger than domestic crude output – approximately 20 million barrels per day of products vs. roughly 13.5–13.8 million bpd of crude in 2026. The country remains a net importer of crude oil even while exporting refined products. 

AAA gas prices September 11, 2026. (Photo: AAA.com)

Forbes explains the two extra facts that sharpen the picture:

  • U.S. production is mostly light, sweet crude. Many U.S. refineries were built for heavier, sour grades, so the country simultaneously exports light barrels and imports heavier ones. That two-way trade further locks domestic prices to the global market.
  • Quality, location, and transport still create modest differentials (a few dollars a barrel, occasionally more). They do not break the overall linkage.

The result is a structural swap: the U.S. exports most of its light crude and imports heavy crude mostly from Canada, so refineries can run efficiently. Those imported barrels are bought at world prices. Retrofitting plants is expensive and slow. 

What you actually pay at the pump

The U.S. Energy Information Administration standard four-part breakdown of U.S. retail regular gasoline prices treats crude oil as the largest component, and longer-run averages sit right in the 50–52% range.

The EIA explains:

Gasoline types

Gasoline is sold based on octane levels in three primary grades of gasoline:

  • Regular
  • Midgrade
  • Premium

“The octane level indicates gasoline’s resistance to combustion. Gasoline with a higher octane is less prone to pre-ignition and detonation, also known as engine knocking. Refiners charge more for higher-octane fuel, and premium-grade gasoline is the most expensive. From 1995 through 2006, the price difference among grades of gasoline was typically about 10 cents per gallon. Since 2006, the price difference among gasoline grades has generally increased. In 2025, the national annual average price of midgrade gasoline was about 57 cents per gallon more than regular-grade gasoline, and the average price for premium-grade gasoline was about 93 cents per gallon more than regular-grade gasoline.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Newsom signed 13 new laws to protect kids from technology. Will they work?

September 14, 2026 By Jocelyn Wiener Leave a Comment

Even a decade ago, the horror stories behind some of the 13 children’s online protection bills Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Thursday seemed the stuff of fiction.

An AI chatbot coaching a teenager to isolate himself from friends and family and ultimately take his own life.

Children’s AI-enabled plush toys detailing how to light matches, locate knives and pills and discuss sexually explicit topics.

And nearly a third of the teens reporting in a recent survey that talking with an AI companion was “as satisfying or more satisfying” than actual conversations with friends.

The bills signed at Thursday’s emotional ceremony accelerated California’s race to protect children’s mental health from the perils of rapidly evolving technologies born and raised in the state.

“This is all personal,” Newsom said, referencing his own four children, and what he described as his near daily desire to throw their devices away. “None of this is academic…How many parents are here? Because of love and exhaustion and frustration, anger, despair…feeling hopeless,” he continued. “Parents can’t compete. Can’t compete with the engineering, can’t compete with the algorithms, can’t compete.”

Mounting public concern

Newsom made addressing mental health one of the pillars of his time as governor – though some of his signature mental health policies have proven controversial among civil rights groups.

As public concern mounts about the dangers kids face online, Newsom and state legislators now are showing increasing resolve to push back against tech’s encroachment into children’s lives.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Among the bills he signed this week:

* A law that makes social media companies financially liable if they fail to protect children from harm.

* A law that temporarily bans the manufacture and sale of toys with companion chatbots for children under the age of 16.

*A law that says social media platforms must either cease offering users younger than 16 “addictive” features like infinite scroll, or keep those young people off their platforms entirely.

*Adam’s Law, which imposes time limits for young users on AI platforms, restricts targeted advertising, requires timely crisis support and mandates reporting of threats of suicide and self-harm. The law bears the name of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who died by suicide last year after coaching by ChatGPT isolated him from his family and friends. Raine had initially connected with the chatbot seeking help with his math homework.

The new laws build on other recent efforts by the state to curtail the impact of technology on kids’ developing brains. In July, school administrators began enforcing a new law limiting or banning the use of smartphones on campuses during the school day.

In August, a coalition of states – co-led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta – secured a $17 billion settlement with the social media giant Meta. The states alleged the company designed its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, to be addictive to children. The settlement requires Meta to enact a variety of use restrictions designed to limit kids’ access to the platforms. The company has denied any wrongdoing.

Speaking through tears

At the bill signing, Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, along with several legislators and Adam Raine’s mother, Maria, described the problems AI and social media addiction have caused for their constituents, their neighbors and even their own children. Several lawmakers pulled their children from school to attend the event at the Bay Area Discovery Museum, with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. Some spoke through tears.

Newsom said the new laws are evidence of California’s role as a national leader in efforts to curb the impacts of artificial intelligence and social media on children and adolescents. And he didn’t mince words about the federal government’s seeming lack of urgency:

“We’re going to again lead the nation, but the bar is pretty damn low, and that’s what’s so frustrating,” he said. That “Congress and the president can’t lead to get this done is an abomination,” he added. “It’s absurd. Talk about family values.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom holds up documents while speaking at a podium with a “Protecting Kids” sign during a press conference at the Bay Area Discovery Museum in Sausalito. Several people stand behind him.
Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference at the Bay Area Discovery Museum in Sausalito where he signed 13 bills focused on protecting kids online, on Sept. 10, 2026. Photo by Anna Hoch-Kenney, CalMatters

Advocates like Jim Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that sponsored Adam’s Law, voiced similar outrage this week, saying California’s leadership is particularly critical with the federal government effectively missing in action.

 “We’ve been saying broadly that this is Big Tech’s Big Tobacco moment,” Steyer said in an interview with CalMatters. “The blowback is not building anymore. It’s here.”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

How Did This Nigerian Chief Make Millions From Medicaid?

September 12, 2026 By Christopher F. Rufo, Madeleine Rowley Leave a Comment

His company, California Home Health Agency, has billed the program for more than $30 million.

Last December, Chief Nathan Ogbatue arrived in a motorcade outside the grand entrance of a newly built palace in Abatete, Nigeria. A videographer shouted praises in Igbo, calling him “half man, half god” and commending him for building the palace “free of charge” for the Abatete community.

Ogbatue is hailed on social media as a philanthropist who has built roads and housing, sponsors annual medical clinics, and provides food for the needy in Abatete. He is also, it turns out, CEO of California Home Health Agency (CHHA), a lucrative taxpayer-funded company that provides in-home medical care and a range of specialty treatments.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

How did Ogbatue make his money? Between 2018 and 2021, CHHA made less than $2 million from Medicaid. Then, over the next three years, the company raked in more than $34 million—a massive increase, which coincided with a series of high-dollar real estate transactions. Experts we spoke with said that CHHA’s billing numbers raised major red flags.

Ogbatue and his wife, Agnes, have built a small fortune. Between 2023 and 2024, Nathan and Agnes amassed at least $7 million worth of property, including a Riverside mansion with a sports court, putting green, archery range, and a pool. Nathan’s taxpayer-funded business appears to have played a significant role.

That business, CHHA, dates back at least to 2013, when Agnes submitted its first publicly listed utilization report. She appears to have filed that mandatory form for every year through 2019. California’s Health Care Access and Information department told City Journal that since then, it has not received a report from CHHA “despite continued requests.”

In the years that followed, CHHA’s Medicaid revenues exploded. In 2018, the agency received just $89,570. In 2022, CHHA pulled in nearly $4 million. Across the following two years, the company garnered over $17 million and $13 million, respectively.

The real-estate records seem to reveal a similar trajectory. In 2000, Ogbatue bought a Riverside home for $330,000. Then, between 2023 and 2024, he and his wife purchased the $2.7 million Riverside mansion, a $1.9 million beach house, and $1.4 million in other Riverside properties. In all, the Ogbatues acquired more than $7 million worth of property between 2023 and 2024.

The home that Ogbatue bought in Redondo Beach was tied to another Nigerian family. Before Ogbatue took possession of the home, it served as collateral for the bail bond of Tamara Motley, who was sentenced to prison in December 2023 for submitting $24 million worth of fraudulent claims to Medicare. As of 2023, Motley was married to former Nigerian Senator Ahmed Ogembe, whom the Obgatues named as a defendant in a lawsuit related to the sale of the Redondo Beach property.

California Home Health Agency’s website makes no mention of Nathan or Agnes Ogbatue. When we called the number on the site, a woman picked up, but declined to answer our questions, saying it was a customer service line only.

We drove to California Home Health Agency’s location in a strip mall in Riverside. The blinds were shut tight as we knocked on the door. After a while, a woman answered, and directed us to call Nathan.

We showed her a photo of Chief Nathan Ogbatue in Abatete standing in front of golden statues of himself and Agnes. She confirmed that Nathan Ogbatue was the man in the photo.

Next, we drove to the Ogbatues’ six-bedroom, six-bathroom mansion, but the gates were closed. We called and asked to talk, but Nathan himself brushed us off, saying he didn’t have the time. In a previous conversation over the phone, he denied that he was the “Owelle” (roughly translating to “chief”) of Abatete and said our investigation wouldn’t get anywhere.

“We worked really hard, to be honest with you. If we were doing anything funny we wouldn’t talk to you,” he said. “I’m talking to you because I have nothing to fear. What I’m telling you is that we worked hard.”

We spoke to Ogbatue over the phone three times. During two of those calls, we asked how many people he employed, but he would not give us an estimate.

Nathan Ogbatue was crowned chief of Abatete, a southern Nigerian farming town, in a boisterous ceremony in 2012. A YouTube video shows his acceptance speech, during which he pledged “to place the interests of Abatete first in all my private and official transactions . . . so help me God.”

Click here to read the full article in the City Journal

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

California sanctions insurer after it cut assisted living coverage to thousands

September 11, 2026 By Kristen Hwang 2 Comments

California regulators ordered Health Net to fix how it’s handling the termination of assisted living services for low-income residents after the insurer’s abrupt decision left patients and providers scrambling. The state’s corrective action plan requires Health Net to extend services for all members until the end of the year, rather than stopping some as soon as October.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Health Net, one of the largest Medicaid insurers in the country, notified providers several months ago that it was ending its assisted living and home care services contracts. The services are optional under Medi-Cal — California’s version of Medicaid — meaning an insurer can decide annually whether it will continue coverage. Providers and family members said they got little or no warning, leaving them confused and panicked about finding other arrangements.

In an August letter to Health Net, the Department of Health Care Services cited eight deficiencies in the insurer’s handling of the change, including failure to submit transition plans for members, failure to move members to other medically appropriate care, and denying services to members. Regulators wrote that violations “jeopardize member safety, disrupt continuity of care, and endanger medically vulnerable members.”

If Health Net does not extend benefits and create individualized transition plans for each affected member, the state may fine them $25,000 per member per day of violation, the letter states.

Advocates and providers estimate about 3,500 Medi-Cal patients rely on Health Net to pay for assisted living costs. Most are elderly, and many have cognitive issues like dementia. Health Net operates Medi-Cal plans in 10 counties: Amador, Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Los Angeles, Mono, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare.

In a statement to CalMatters, Health Net spokesperson Beatriz Lopez said the company still plans to end the services next year, but will now cover all members through the end of the year.

“Health Net and DHCS share a commitment to advancing the health and well-being of Medi-Cal members,” Lopez said.

Health Net has previously told CalMatters the assisted living benefit “has not led to better care” in terms of fewer emergency room visits or days hospitalized. The benefit is part of CalAIM, a broad state initiative to improve Medi-Cal services and save money by stabilizing high-cost users who frequently end up in emergency rooms. Lopez said Health Net would continue analyzing data and supporting services that result in better health outcomes.

Providers confirmed to CalMatters that their contracts would run through the end of the year.

Thousands still face January deadline

Hagar Dickman, director of long-term services and supports at Justice In Aging, said the state’s corrective action plan resolves the immediate crisis but fails to address the long-term problem:  “Thousands of older Californians are still set to lose their housing on January 1st.”

Allowing health insurers to cancel housing-related benefits creates problems, Dickman said, because most assisted living residents have no other home to return to. Additionally, the Department of Health Care Services has stated that if a member moves to another insurer that still covers assisted living, continuity of care protections would no longer apply, meaning the new insurer might not approve the member’s assisted living costs.

“It’s disingenuous to say there are protections and then say the protections don’t apply,” Dickman said. “So the option is skilled nursing or homelessness.”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Why a signature Newsom power move flopped in the last days of the Legislative session

September 8, 2026 By Maya C. Miller 3 Comments

Despite his signature last-minute maneuvering, Gov. Gavin Newsom couldn’t secure his final major deal with the California Legislature.

The Democratic governor, who terms out in January, wanted to reduce how much utilities must pay after their equipment sparks wildfires by eliminating the ability of insurance companies to sue utilities to recoup costs.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

But on Tuesday, after weeks of pushback from lawmakers and survivors of the Los Angeles-area wildfires, the Assembly killed a compromise Newsom had previously agreed to, throwing into question whether the governor would call a special session to hammer out a deal before he leaves office.

The bill before the Assembly, Senate Bill 492, amounted to a collection of “half measures,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas told reporters after the chamber adjourned. “I think Californians expect a lot more than half measures,” he said. (Senate Pro Tem Monique Limón said her chamber was prepared to pass the deal.)

The unsuccessful last-minute scramble, and ultimately the deal’s death, illustrates the limits of a lame-duck governor’s power in his last legislative session — even for one as high-profile and ambitious as Newsom.

The governor himself acknowledged the fumble.

“Simply put, this measure did not meet the gravity of this moment,” Newsom said in a statement. “California cannot settle for half measures.”

‘Jamming’ the Legislature

Newsom has become accustomed to pushing priorities through the Legislature in the days before a deadline, a practice known as a “jam” in Sacramento. The move has previously helped Newsom score carveouts to the state’s landmark environmental law and a measure to fast-track infrastructure construction

“Jamming the Legislature” involves closed-door negotiations with interest groups and legislative leadership, from which compromise legislation emerges often just days or hours shy of the deadline.

Lawmakers are then left with little time to make amendments or hold public hearings, and opponents have little opportunity to object.

Late last week, a Newsom aide conceded in a memo to legislative leaders that the governor’s measures “do not appear to have a path” and instead presented a narrower set of reforms that the administration and legislative leaders agreed upon. Still, Newsom’s office balked at the suggestion that the governor capitulated to lawmakers’ and wildfire victims’ demands.

“All other outstanding issues are off the table,” his office wrote in the memo obtained by CalMatters. Last Friday, share prices of the state’s three major investor-owned utilities tumbled. On Monday, the companies’ stock continued to plunge; Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric saw more than 20% declines.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Globe Accused of ‘Hit Piece’ over Exposé of CA Assemblyman Who Sent $6 Million to His Own Nonprofit from State Budget

September 8, 2026 By Katy Grimes 2 Comments

Taxpayers did not volunteer to underwrite Assemblyman Jackson’s nonprofit

California Assemblyman Dr. Corey Jackson (D-Moreno Valley), who received his Masters in Social Work, founded and directs the nonprofit Center Against Racism and Trauma (CART), which has only been tax-exempt since February 2022. Earlier this year, he named CART his legislative district’s “Nonprofit of the Year” and then steered $6 million of California taxpayer funding to it, the Globe just reported recently.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Here is the proof of this $6 million going to Jackson’s charity, courtesy of the FLOOR REPORT OF THE 2026-27 BUDGET:

Rather than acknowledge the obvious nefarious funding with taxpayer money, Mr. Hardy Brown of California Black Media defended the Assemblyman’s actions, and accused the Globe of writing a “hit piece,” and not-so-subtly implied that the underlying motive of the Globe is because Assemblyman Corey Jackson is black… not because Jackson was caught red-handed self-dealing and abusing the privilege and authority of his elected office with taxpayer dollars allocated to his own nonprofit.

“In the Black community we do not have the luxury of ignoring any of our leaders whether we agree with them or not,” Mr. Brown says.

The article, “The Receipts: California Assemblyman Steers $6 Million To His Own Nonprofit,” is not about disagreeing with Assemblyman Jackson. The article is entirely about Jackson’s self-dealing and abuse of office.

Mr. Brown continues: “An outspoken advocate for equity, fairness, public health, and social service resources for our Inland Valley community, I have come to admire and respect Jackson’s grit and his work as a legislator. However, I don’t always agree with his political or policy positions.”

“That’s why I was deeply disappointed when the California Globe published a scathing, one-sided and blatantly under-reported hit piece on Jackson last week. Written by reporter Katy Grimes, that article omitted pertinent details, added off-topic information, conflated facts and stretched the truth to suggest that Jackson inappropriately or illegally directed $6 million in taxpayer money to the Center Against Racism and Trauma (CART), a non-profit he founded in Moreno Valley.”

“Assemblymember Corey A. Jackson is my friend,” Mr. Brown begins his op-ed. If I had a friend steering $6 million of state taxpayers funding to her own non-profit that has no employees and a dubious mission, I wouldn’t start out defending her because we are friends.

Corruption is corruption, payola, malfeasance, shadiness, regardless of a personal friend’s status, color, ethnicity, gender or religion.

“Grimes’ two articles might raise some questionable concerns about Jackson’s non-profit going from $250,000 to $6 Million,” Mr. Brown says.

Yes, they might. Particularly when Jackson’s nonprofit appears to rely on government funds rather than private contributions.

However, Mr. Brown then threatens: “I want to caution you of accusing him of any inappropriate self-serving dealing and putting a stain on his reputation by publicly calling for the Trump Administration DOJ to investigate a Black elected official.”

Is Mr. Brown implying that because Assemblyman Corey Jackson is black, and an elected member of the State Assembly, he is untouchable? Is he implying that Assemblyman Jackson is above the law, free from investigation because he is black?

“As a community newspaper founder and news publisher in California for over 46 years, a Black elected school board member for 12 years and a representative for U.S. Congressman George Brown, I know how some journalists who work for the White press work, when it comes to covering Black leaders and the Black community in general,” Mr. Brown says.

I am not a “White press” reporter, and don’t specialize “covering Black leaders and the Black community in general.” I cover the California State Capitol and report on the Governor and members of the California Legislature, regardless of their ethnicity or party. I go where the issues and where the news takes me.

California Globe readers know this, and will remember our recent reports on the former Republican Minority Leader Heath Flora and Republican Caucus Chair Juan Alanis when they voted in July to pass Senate Bill 762, a significant transactions and use tax increase on 14 cities and counties, while the rest of the caucus voted NO, the Globe reported. When Republicans vote for tax increases, that alone is enough of an ideological violation. But when Republican leadership votes to pass increases, that vote represents the entire Republican Caucus,” I wrote.

Or when the Globe reported on Assemblyman Heath Flora (R-Ripon), or “Flora the Explorer” as he is known, and his penchant for the ponies – as in Kentucky Derby ponies. Assemblyman Flora started a ballot initiative committee, which appears to raise money for the sole purpose of taking lobbyist friends to the Kentucky Derby – at least the last couple of years of his mandatory reporting indicates this.

We have many such examples of reporting on many different lawmakers, based entirely on their actions and the impacts on state policies – not on their ethnicity, gender, skin color, or religion. But because California has a Democrat super-supermajority in the State Legislature, most of our articles involve the supermajority.

Claiming victimhood on behalf of Assemblyman Corey Jackson is odious.

Mr. Brown says, “Grimes also does not indicate that she reached out to Jackson or others to question the budget allotment to CART.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,

Deficiency Determinations

September 7, 2026 By Chris Micheli Leave a Comment

Deals with deficiency determinations under the California Sales and Use Tax Laws

Article 2 of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code deals with deficiency determinations under the California Sales and Use Tax Laws.

Section 6481 provides that, if the board is not satisfied with the return or returns of the tax or the amount of tax, or other amount, required to be paid to the state by any person, it may compute and determine the amount required to be paid upon the basis of the facts contained in the return or returns or upon the basis of any information within its possession or that may come into its possession.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

One or more deficiency determinations may be made of the amount due for one or for more than one period. When a business is discontinued, a determination may be made at any time thereafter, within the periods specified, as to liability arising out of that business, irrespective of whether the determination is issued prior to the due date of the liability.

Section 6482 provides that the amount of the determination, exclusive of penalties, is required to bear interest at the modified adjusted rate per month, or fraction thereof, from the last day of the month following the quarterly period for which the amount or any portion thereof should have been returned until the date of payment.

Section 6483 states that, in making a determination the board may offset overpayments for a period or periods, together with interest on the overpayments, against underpayments for another period or periods, against penalties, and against the interest on the underpayments. The interest on underpayments and overpayments is computed in the manner set forth in law.

Section 6484 states that, if any part of the deficiency for which a deficiency determination is made is due to negligence or intentional disregard of this part or authorized rules and regulations, a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of the determination is added.

Section 6485 says that, if any part of the deficiency for which a deficiency determination is made is due to fraud or an intent to evade this part or authorized rules and regulations, a penalty of 25 percent of the amount of the determination is added.

Section 6485.1 provides that any purchaser of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft who registers it outside the State of California for the purpose of evading the payment of taxes due under this part is liable for a penalty of 50 percent of any tax determined to be due on the sales price of the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft.

Section 6486 requires the department to give to the retailer or person storing, using, or consuming tangible personal property written notice of its determination. The notice is to be served in one of the three specified manners.

Section 6487 states that, except in the case of fraud, intent to evade this part or authorized rules and regulations, or failure to make a return, every notice of a deficiency determination can be served within three years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period for which the amount is proposed to be determined or within three years after the return is filed, whichever period expires the later.

In the case of failure to make a return, every notice of determination must be served within eight years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period for which the amount is proposed to be determined. For taxpayers filing returns on an annual basis, except in the case of fraud, intent to evade this part or authorized rules and regulations, or failure to make a return, every notice of a deficiency determination must be served within three years after the last day of the calendar month following the one-year period for which the amount is proposed to be determined.

Section 6487.05 explains that the period during which a deficiency determination may be served to a qualifying retailer is limited to three years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period for which the amount is proposed to be determined. The term “qualifying retailer” is defined.

Section 6487.06 provides that the period during which a deficiency determination may be served to a qualifying purchaser is limited to three years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period for which the amount is proposed to be determined. The term “qualifying purchaser” is defined.

If the department makes a determination that the purchaser’s failure to timely report or remit the taxes imposed by this part is due to reasonable cause or due to circumstances beyond the purchaser’s control, the purchaser may be relieved of any penalties imposed by this part. Any purchaser seeking relief from penalties imposed by this part is required to file a statement, signed under penalty of perjury, setting forth the facts that form the basis for the claim for relief.

Section 6487.07 allows a deficiency determination to be issued to a qualifying retailer only for those liabilities arising under this part for sales made. The term “qualifying retailer” is defined.

Section 6487.1 provides, in the case of a deficiency arising under this part during the lifetime of a decedent, a notice of deficiency determination is required to be served within four months after written request therefor, in the form required by the department, by the fiduciary of the estate or trust or by any other person liable for the tax or any portion thereof.

Section 6487.2 states that a notice of determination issued to an individual who was a general partner, as shown on the department’s records, and who, prior to the period covered by the determination, withdrew from the partnership, causing a change in ownership, and failed to notify the department, is to be served within four years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period in which the change of ownership occurred.

An individual who was a general partner, as shown on the department’s records, who withdraws from a partnership without notifying the department of the change in ownership, is not liable for any unpaid, self-assessed liability of the partnership that becomes due at least three years after the last day of the calendar month following the quarterly period in which the change in ownership occurred.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,

Community colleges suddenly oppose plan to let them offer more bachelor’s degrees

September 6, 2026 By Mikhail Zinshteyn 1 Comment

California’s community colleges have been trying for several years to offer more bachelor’s degrees. This year, they put their hopes in two sweeping bills designed to help them do that. But lawmakers made massive, last-minute changes that prompted the state’s community colleges to now oppose the legislation.

The abrupt change of heart, spurred by new limits on how much the colleges could grow their bachelor’s programs, didn’t influence the outcomes of the bills, Senate Bill 960 by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Democrat from Napa, and Assembly Bill 2694 by David Alvarez, also a Democrat from Chula Vista. Both passed this week by wide margins in the Legislature and now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

In recent years, Newsom vetoed bills that sought to expand the community colleges’ ability to issue more bachelor’s degrees. Still, Newsom’s office was involved in the revision of the latest bills, Cabaldon said in a Senate floor speech Monday.

“This is the first time that we’ve been able to engage in productive conversation between the houses and the executive branch,” he said.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Combined, the bills introduce new mechanisms for determining when colleges can create bachelor’s degrees and how many they can offer. The new approach has accountability metrics — colleges would be able to offer an additional two to 12 bachelor’s degrees starting in 2028 depending on their students’ certificate, degree and transfer completion rates. No college district could propose more than three new degrees per year and districts would need to prove that there’s a workforce need in their region to justify the creation of a bachelor’s degree. That’s a claim the state’s labor secretary would step in to validate if the California State University system objects, as has regularly occurred in the pitched policy disputes between the community colleges and the university.

The rules would apply to new degrees offered after 2028; existing community college bachelor’s degrees are grandfathered in. Today, 49 colleges either offer or will soon offer 66 bachelor’s degrees.

Cabaldon called the bills a breakthrough that would bring long-sought clarity.

“This will give us peace,” he said in a phone interview. “That doesn’t mean everybody’s going to agree all of the time, but it does mean the endless war and bickering and fighting and more and more legislation will come to an end.”

Community college leaders said the amendments are too last-minute, too unclear and too complicated, even if they appreciate the effort by the Legislature to wrangle the thorny issues.

“We’re being asked to … support a process that is not completely understood or vetted at the last minute, and so that’s just not great policymaking,” said Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, an association representing community college presidents and board leaders.

Why bachelor’s degrees have been so contentious

The community colleges’ sudden shift is another turn in an effort that has produced near-constant turmoil.

Historically, the community colleges and Cal State have clashed over which bachelor’s degrees the colleges can teach. A 2021 state law was supposed to establish peace in the realm, but the colleges and Cal State regularly disagreed on a key concept — degree duplication. That law said the colleges couldn’t create bachelor’s degrees that are already offered by any Cal State or University of California campus, even if a community college is hundreds of miles from the nearest public university.

Colleges and several lawmakers called that an unfair arrangement, since many community college students can’t relocate to a distant university. In some instances, community colleges created those degrees anyway, over the objections of the Cal State system, EdSource reported.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Legislature passes slew of bills as end of session approaches

September 3, 2026 By Madeline Shannon 1 Comment

The California Legislature met Sunday afternoon in a rare weekend session to pass bills still waiting for a vote, only one day before the deadline.

The final day of the 2026 session is Monday, and lawmakers were expected to be back on the floor during late morning.

On Sunday, several bills – including those regulating education, immigration, election security, insurance and competitive business practices – passed the Senate.

One bill, Senate Bill 259, authored by Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, would create a new misdemeanor for anyone tasked with the care of vote-by-mail ballots if they interfere with the ballot delivery to a voter. The bill would also apply to anyone in charge of vote-by-mail ballots, who oversees someone working under them for ballot delivery or a ballot’s return to local elections officials, according to a legislative analysis.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“This bill largely is to defend the vote,” Wahab said on the Senate floor on Sunday afternoon.

“SB 259 is a response to the federal and local actors that have interfered with elections by undermining or obstructing the vote-by-mail process,” said Wahab, who was recently elected to serve the rest of former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s term in Congress. Swalwell, a Democrat, resigned from the U.S. House and the California gubernatorial race amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell has denied any wrongdoing.

Earlier this year, Wahab said on the floor, the federal government issued a new rule that aimed to rewrite the rules of federal elections, directing the U.S. Postal Service to only deliver vote-by-mail ballots to voters on a Postal Service-managed list.

“Federal courts have deemed this executive order unconstitutional, and warned that implementation will cause confusion and disenfranchise eligible voters,” Wahab said. “Regardless of party affiliation, our democracy is strongest when every eligible voter can cast a ballot freely, securely and with confidence that it will be counted.”

Republican opposition focused on the California Legislature’s lack of jurisdiction over activities of the U.S. Postal Service.

“Once again, we’re trying to do something here in the Legislature that’s not within our authority,” Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, said on the Senate floor. “The mail system is a federal issue. In my understanding, the Supreme Court actually ruled against a provision like this from happening, and I believe the federal Supreme Court supersedes the California state Legislature when it comes to federal mail rules.”

Click here to read the full article in the Center Square

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: ,

Why a bill to juice condo construction died even though California lawmakers voted for it

September 3, 2026 By Ben Christopher 1 Comment

A bill that supporters hoped would kickstart California’s moribund condo industry and boost the scarce number of entry-level homeownership opportunities, died under mysterious circumstances at the stroke of midnight on Tuesday after failing to get a final vote before the end of the legislative session.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Assembly Bill 1903 by Oakland Democratic lawmaker Buffy Wicks would have changed the way that disputes between homeowners and builders over purportedly shoddy construction are resolved in a way the bill’s author hoped would result in fewer defect lawsuits and less developer skittishness around building condos. .

Backed by real estate interests, “Yes In My Backyard” advocates and a bevy of city governments, the bill sailed through the Senate without objection on Monday after 11:15 p.m.

But in a legislative mystery with weighty implications for California’s dysfunctional housing market, it never made its way back to the Assembly. At midnight, the legislative session officially came to a close. The bill had already passed the Assembly the prior week. But lacking an obligatory “concurrence” vote needed to lock in the final amendments, the bill died quietly without facing a single “no” vote in either chamber.

In a statement released on Tuesday afternoon, Wicks said that she was “incredibly disappointed and frustrated” that the bill “was ultimately held by the Senate.”

“We put hundreds of hours, months of negotiations, and endless stakeholders engagement and coalition building,” she said. “Ultimately I had a bill Friday morning that I truly believe would have unlocked condo construction to serve our working class families desperate for homeownership opportunities.”

A spokesperson for Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat, did not respond to a request for comment.

The bill was closely watched by pro-development advocates, who championed it as a key to unlocking the type of naturally affordable for-sale construction that the state so desperately needs.

But the bill had been opposed throughout the year by the politically powerful Consumer Attorneys of California, a lobbying group representing civil trial lawyers, along with many homeowners associations. Both argued that the bill would make it unduly hard for homeowners to take irresponsible builders to court over legitimately defective construction.

Those groups stopped fighting the bill when Wicks agreed to water it down over the weekend. Stripping out language that would have specified the types of defects ripe for litigation and placed new restrictions on how defects can be identified, the final bill simply required homeowners to clearly document the defects before filing suit, to give the builder a chance to repair them first and, if those repairs were made complete, to absolve the builder of future liability.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,