Gov. Gavin Newsom’s latest proposal that could help private utility companies dodge liability for wildfires sparked by their own equipment is facing heat from survivor groups.

A coalition of insurers, local governments, fire survivors, attorneys and consumer advocates urged state lawmakers to reject the plan in a fact sheet titled “Wildfire Recovery Reform: Survivors First” — warning it would drive up insurance costs statewide while capping what fire victims and insurers can claw back from utilities.

“Wildfire survivors should not be asked to subsidize utility shareholders. Families who have lost loved ones, homes, businesses, and livelihoods because of utility-caused fires deserve full compensation and a clear path toward recovery,” the coalition wrote in an Aug. 11 letter to the legislature.

Newsom’s utility bailout push comes as California’s wildfire liability fund nears depletion after being drained by Southern California Edison’s payouts to victims of last year’s Eaton Fire, which has been blamed on sparks from a decades-idle Edison transmission line.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Utility equipment has caused seven of the world’s 20 most expensive wildfires, every one of them in California, the coalition said.

Existing liability rules put utilities on the hook for the disasters their equipment causes.

“The Legislature is now being asked to consider proposals that would instead transfer those costs to homeowners’ insurers, local governments, state taxpayers, and the very communities devastated by these disasters,” the groups added.

California lawmakers are advancing an effort to preserve oil refinery safety rules that were designed to prevent fires, explosions and other catastrophes despite industry opposition.

The union-backed proposal, Senate Bill 966, would enshrine existing worker protections into state law as California regulators move to revise them in response to a legal settlement with the state’s oil lobby.

“We’re trying to get the best regulations possible for these industries,” said Nick Plurkowski, a leader of a Bay Area local of the United Steelworkers. “An industry where you have to write into regulation … that it’s okay to refuse work that could lead to your death.”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The bill would lock in workers’ rights to refuse dangerous work, participate in safety reviews, choose their own representatives for safety planning and report hazards anonymously.

The measure is among several targeting the oil and gas industry this year, including proposals aimed at refinery closure plans and a bid to curb high gas prices during wartime by expanding the state’s price-gouging law. Lawmakers’ focus on refineries comes as California drivers face the nation’s highest gasoline prices and the Iran war pushes up the global price of crude oil.

The worker safety bill would lock in provisions adopted after a 2012 Chevron refinery fire in Richmond that prompted 15,000 people to seek medical attention. The Western States Petroleum Association, the state’s main oil lobby, formally opposes the measure, arguing it would override a 2024 legal settlement the industry reached with regulators.

The industry and union players fighting over the bill do not contribute much money directly to lawmakers, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database. Campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry can be toxic in elections for the state’s politically dominant Democratic Party.

But WSPA is a powerhouse when it comes to lobbying. It’s routinely the biggest spender in the Capitol among the many interest groups that hire lobbyists, according to state records.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

The state ‘should have raised the red flag. They didn’t. They opened the door,” and fraudsters walked in, said one trade group executive

A quiet change in California law in 2018 unleashed a deluge of new hospices and spurred millions of dollars in Medicare fraud that state and federal authorities are still trying to unwind.

Hospices shared addresses with burrito stands, car repair shops and vacant lots. They piled into nondescript office buildings offering cheap rent, month-to-month leases and little scrutiny. Hundreds appeared in Van Nuys, Glendale, Burbank and North Hollywood at rates far exceeding the need in those communities.

Within a few years, Los Angeles County had more hospices than a dozen other states combined.

It all started with three paragraphs added, at the request of the California Department of Public Health, to the end of an omnibus bill in 2018. CDPH had a backlog of 72 applications for hospice licenses at the time and wanted legislators to provide an alternative to a major bottleneck: its own inspectors.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Under SB 1495, hospices could choose to pay a third-party accrediting organization for the inspection needed for a license, instead of waiting weeks or months for the next available state employee.

Critics argue the change, combined with California’s already lax oversight, lifted a floodgate and gave control of one of the earliest means of detecting fraud — actually being on site — to organizations with a financial incentive to sign off on as many hospices as possible.

One described it as “the fox guarding the henhouse.”

‘They were overwhelmed’

Before, the state’s limited capacity kept new hospices low. CDPH received 115 applications for hospice licenses in 2018. By 2020, that jumped to 1,104, records showed.

Accrediting organizations, already performing inspections for the federal Medicare program, had the resources to move quickly. Shifting the workload also freed up funding and time for the state to focus on more serious complaint investigations.

“They were overwhelmed,” said Sheila Clark, the CEO and president of the California Hospice and Palliative Care Association, in an interview. “They saw all of these applications, all of this coming in, and they should have raised the red flag.

“They didn’t,” she said. “They opened the door.”

Unlike a restaurant, which must undergo fire, building and health inspections, the vast majority of hospices in California could suddenly obtain a license, and even approval to bill Medicare, without a public employee stepping foot on the property.

State inspectors handled only 12 licensure inspections in 2020, down from 138 in 2016, records showed.

Today, about 80% of all licensed hospices in California went through an accrediting organization. Nearly 70% used one to obtain the right to bill Medicare on the federal side as well.

It is rare for either CDPH or the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to deny a hospice recommended by an accreditor, according to interviews. Under SB 1495, CDPH must grant a license to any accredited hospice that meets the necessary conditions.

‘They created their own problem’

The largest of the three federally approved hospice accreditors, the Accreditation Commission for Health Care (ACHC), doesn’t believe AOs are to blame, however, and argues the state needs to “own responsibility for licensure issues.”

CDPH reviews the application and address before the accrediting organization goes out to perform the verification, ACHC said.

“They’ve created their own problem,” said Jose Domingos, the CEO of ACHC in an interview.

ACHC accredited nearly 1,000, or about 70%, of the hospices in Los Angeles County, including 170 in Van Nuys, from 2018 to 2025, according to the federal “Provider of Services” database. ACHC’s close relationship with consultants helped the nonprofit expand in California, while others slowed down during COVID, Domingos said.

A state audit previously found that while L.A. County experienced a 1,589% increase in hospices from 2010 to 2021, the population in need of such care went up only 40%.

Katy Barnett, director of home care and hospice operations and policy at LeadingAge, a nonprofit representing more than 5,300 providers of aging services, called the numbers “very concerning.”

“It definitely dampens people’s faith in accrediting organizations,” she said.

Still, the providers represented by LeadingAge prefer accreditation to working with state agencies as they get better support, she said.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register