The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Wednesday explained in a notice to the Federal Register that it will explore the impact of fracking in the state, setting off alarm bells among environmentalists.

“[T]his document announces the beginning of the scoping process and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria related to hydraulic fracturing,” the notice reads.

Specifically, BLM will prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine what environmental impacts the technology will have on the region.

The land in question includes “approximately 400,000 acres of public land and an additional 1.2 million acres of Federal mineral estate,” according to the agency, and spans across multiple counties including Fresno, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura.

Fracking is a technique by which water, sand and additives are injected deep into the ground at high pressures to crack open rocks and release the oil or gas trapped inside. It’s led to drilling booms in places like Texas, North Dakota and Pennsylvania.

Proponents argue that it’s a safe technology that is increasing America’s energy independence and creating jobs, while opponents say it poses environmental risks and recklessly promotes an energy policy centered around fossil fuels instead of alternative energy resources.

“This step toward opening our beautiful public lands to fracking and drilling is part of the Trump administration’s war on California,” said Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We desperately need to keep these dirty fossil fuels in the ground. But Trump is hell-bent on sacrificing our health, wildlife and climate to profit big polluters.”

The administration has already faced backlash over similar moves. This spring, for example, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke postponed a sale for leasing public lands for drilling near Livingston, Montana, following heavy outrage due to its proximity to Yellowstone National Park.

“I’ve always said there are places where it is appropriate to develop and where it’s not. This area certainly deserves more study, and appropriately we have decided to defer the sale,” Zinke responded in a March statement.

More broadly, the development is just the latest high-profile fight between California and the Trump administration, as the state has challenged the president’s agenda on nearly every hot button issue, including immigration, climate change and health care. 

And just last week, President Trump issued a series of tweets lambasting the state’s environmental regulations, claiming that the rules are hindering the ability to effectively fight wildfires, remarks that drew wide condemnation from state officials.

Earlier this summer, the Tim Draper-backed plan announced that it had obtained enough signatures to get on the ballot, grabbing national headlines about whether such a plan had any realistic chance of getting voter approval.

But in its ruling Wednesday, the state’s high court unanimously blocked the initiative “because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.”

The lawsuit was filed by The Planning and Conservation League, an environmental group, which argued that the measure amounted to an amendment to the California Constitution, meaning it would require the two-thirds approval of the Assembly and the state Senate to get on the ballot.

“Proposition 9 was a costly, flawed scheme that will waste billions of California taxpayer dollars, create chaos in public services including safeguarding our environment and literally eliminate the State of California – all to satisfy the whims of one billionaire,” Howard Penn, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, said in a statement. “We are thankful for the opportunity to save Californians from having to vote on a billionaire’s folly.”

The “Three Californias” plan proposed splitting the state up into California, Northern California and Southern California in an attempt to improve things like the state’s infrastructure and education system.

Under the plan, Northern California would go from the San Jose area and extend to the Oregon border. Southern California would start in Fresno and cover most of Southern California, including the Inland empire and San Diego, and California would include Los Angeles County and extend up the coast to Monterey County.

In addition to the legal hurdles, the proposal came with many question marks, like the transactional costs of actually breaking up the state’s university systems, public works projects and other governmental services.

However, the state Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t completely end the effort, as the justices noted that the measure may be able to qualify for a future ballot, depending on a final ruling on the legality of the proposal.

“The whole point of the initiative process was to be set up as a protection from a government that was no longer representing its people. Now that protection has been corrupted,” Draper said in a statement posted on Facebook. “Whether you agree or not with this initiative, this is not the way democracies are supposed to work. This kind of corruption is what happens in third world countries.”

The project is being backed by Silicon Valley titan Chris Hughes, whose Economic Security Project gave $1 million toward the effort.

The goal, supporters say, is to ensure that the embattled city’s residents can stay out of poverty and the experiment is designed to assess whether or not the program could be rolled out on a wider scale.

“We’ve overspent on things like arenas and marinas and things of that sort to try to lure in tourism and dollars that way,” Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs explained, according to Fox News, believing that the model can be used to bolster quality of life in the struggling city – and others like it.

Stockton in recent years has been known as the “foreclosure capital” of the country and drew headlines in 2012 when it declared bankruptcy, becoming a flashpoint for Americans suffering during the Great Recession.

The concept of a universal basic income has gained traction in the Bay Area amid concerns that automation will increasingly displace workers. It’s been propelled by major CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, who argue that so-called “free money” may be a necessity as technological advances alter the labor landscape.

“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,” Zuckerberg said in his Harvard commencement address in May 2017.

Other similar efforts have been rolled out in places like Finland, which announced in April that it was ending its trial run to explore alternative welfare programs instead. The full results will be disclosed next year.

While some experts argue that universal basic income can be a way to lessen poverty by creating a guaranteed income floor, others explain that such a framework is impractical given the current entitlement and welfare state.

“I would be in favor of this if it meant eliminating all other welfare programs and requiring work,” economist and Heritage Foundation fellow Steve Moore told CalWatchdog via email. “The only way out of poverty is a job not a government handout.”

Overall, the experiment will look at how the residents spend the money and the potential economic impact it could have on the city, something that the young 27-year-old mayor is optimistic about.

“We trust that people are smart and resilient to make the best decision for them and their families with the money,” Tubbs said in a CBS News interview back in February. 

Stockton’s effort is expected to begin in early 2019.

It’s the last phase of Proposition 14, which voters passed in 2014 and raised the wage in increments of $1.00 through 2018.

“Those who say we have to choose between economic growth and fair pay are wrong,” City Administrator Naomi Kelly said in a statement. “We in San Francisco have proven that these elements aren’t exclusive of each other and, in fact, they compliment each other.”

And while “Fight for 15” advocates are cheering the move, the increase does little to address the cost of living concerns in the Bay Area, a region which continues to see a heavy exodus to neighboring states.

For example, a recent analysis by the National Low Income Housing Coalition found that someone would have to work around 160 hours per week at $15 per hour to be able to afford an average 2 bedroom apartment in San Francisco.

Furthermore, the income level for a family of four to qualify to low income assistance is now over $117,000 in the region, according to findings from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Across all of California, the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $1,750 and a two-bedroom averages $2,110. Average home prices in the state have surpassed $500,000 – and in places like Santa Clara County it’s well over $1 million.

Additionally, experts are noting that the wage hike may actually hurt low-wage workers, arguing that such an increase comes with trade-offs for poor residents. While the hourly wage may increase, it’s also likely to force businesses to cut prices – and possibly the hours of their workers.

 “San Francisco already has a major problem facing low wage workers,” George Mason economist Michael Farren explained on C-SPAN. “So the additional cost of $15 hour minimum wage and the effect it’s going to have on prices isn’t going to help low-wage workers very much.”

Senate Bill 1, passed last year, raised the base excise tax on gasoline by 12 cents per gallon. This initiative would require a majority of voters to approve any increases on the taxes on gas – and it would apply retroactively. 

“This is a message to the millions of forgotten Californians ignored by the Sacramento political elite, help is on the way,” Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox said in a written statement. “Let this also be a message to every special interest in Sacramento, we’re coming for you. You can outspend the people, but you can’t outvote the people, because there are more of us than there are of you.”

Cox worked with other Republican leaders in organizing and providing funds for the repeal effort.

Democrats in the state argue that the higher tax on fuel is needed to fund repairs to crumbling infrastructure in the state, while conservative opponents note that Californians are already highly taxed and that it’s unnecessary spending – like the long-plagued bullet train project – that prevents funds from reaching road repairs.

“The gas and car tax hikes will cost the typical family of four $700 more per year in higher taxes, but the roads will not get fixed because the politicians will continue to divert the funds as they always have in the past,” Carl DeMaio, chairman of Reform California and a leader of the Gas Tax Repeal campaign, explained in a statement.

For Gov. Jerry Brown, a repeal would be a major blow to his budget and legacy as he departs office, with the outgoing governor offering a blistering critique of the move.

“This flawed and dangerous measure pushed by Trump’s Washington allies jeopardizes the safety of millions of Californians by stopping local communities from fixing their crumbling roads and bridges. Just say no,” Brown said.

For Republicans nationally, having the repeal measure on the ballot is thought to be able to increase turnout and could be key in saving vulnerable congressional seats in the 39th and 49th districts, where longtime GOP representatives Ed Royce and Darrell Issa are retiring.

The initiative received around 600,000 signatures — almost double the amount needed to qualify for the November 6th ballot.

“Three Californias” is backed by Silicon Valley billionaire Tim Draper and would divide the Golden State up into California, Northern California, and Southern California.

“Californians deserve a more effective education system that isn’t failing our families, more reliable infrastructure that isn’t fracturing our communities, and more sensible taxes that aren’t stifling our opportunities,” the Cal 3 campaign site reads.

Northern California would go from the San Jose area and extend to the Oregon border. Southern California would start in Fresno and cover most of Southern California, including the Inland empire and San Diego, and California would include Los Angeles County and extend up the coast to Monterey County.

“No one can argue that California’s government is doing a good job governing or educating or building infrastructure for its people,” Draper told The New York Times last year. “And it doesn’t matter which party is in place.”

While the group faces heavy hurdles in actually swaying voters, as a recent SurveyUSA poll shows voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the move, if it passed, the change could have a sizable effect on the national election map, and perhaps be a boost to the GOP in the electoral college.

For example the potential “Southern California” includes Fresno, Tulare, Madera and Kern counties, all of which voted for President Trump in 2016. Additionally, the historically conservative Orange County is in that theoretical state.

But it would also likely result in four more Democratic senators from California and Northern California.

Even if voters were persuaded to backing it, the intuitive would still need the approval of the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

The plan still comes with numerous question marks — like the transactional costs of actually breaking up the state with respect to how university systems, public works projects, and other governmental services would be divided and structured during a transition into three separate states.

“California government can do a better job addressing the real issues facing the state, but this measure is a massive distraction that will cause political chaos and greater inequality,” tweeted Steve Maviglio, a consultant for the opposition effort NoCABreakup. “Splitting California into three new states will triple the amount of special interests, lobbyists, politicians and bureaucracy.”

But supporters cite those same issues as reasons for breaking up the state in the first place, arguing that California has become too big to succeed.

“The California state government isn’t too big to fail, because it is already failing its citizens in so many crucial ways,” Peggy Grande, a spokesperson for Citizens for Cal 3 campaign, said in a statement. “The reality is that for an overmatched, overstretched, and overwrought state-government structure, it is too big to succeed. Californians deserve a better future.”

State Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, is renewing his push to reform health care in California, this time proposing new legislation to cover illegal immigrants’ health care.

“Two years ago we passed #Health4All children in California & now the Senate is fighting to cover our seniors in the CA budget. #Health4AllElders is the answer to every child who asked: What about my grandfather? What about my abuela? They deserve to age with dignity and security,” Lara tweeted to promote the bill.

While Lara originally intended to have the bill cover all undocumented immigrants, the bill was reportedly amended in the Senate appropriations process. It now covers minors up to 19 and undocumented adults 65 years and older. 

Currently, most illegal immigrants in the state rely on emergency rooms for care – a reality that drives up health care costs for everyone in the state, supporters of the bill argue.

Lara, who’s currently running for insurance commissioner in Tuesday’s primary, has taken several steps in defiance of the Trump agenda, putting himself at the center of the so-called “resistance” – like his failed efforts to pass a universal health care bill last year.

More broadly, it comes at a time of rising health care costs in the Golden State, with about 60 percent of the state’s uninsured being those here illegally.

“It has been 32 years since Congress last passed comprehensive immigration reform for those already living in the U.S., and their failure should not fall on our elders’ shoulders,” Lara added in a press release. “Dysfunction in Washington and Trump’s constant attacks on immigrants should not distract California from doing the right thing and extend health care to those who have given so much to our state.”

And in the Assembly, a similar bill has passed. Introduced by Democratic State Assemblyman Dr. Joaquin Arambula, that legislation expands the Medi-Cal program to cover undocumented young adults up to age 26.

“The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions,” Assembly Bill 2965 reads. “The federal Medicaid program prohibits payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law.”

Offering such coverage would cost the state around $3 billion next year, according to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

However, the bill comes with the risk of heavy political blowback, with Republicans in the state already energized in opposition to California’s sanctuary state law and the gas tax heading into the November elections.

“It’s another freebie given by an out-of-control Legislature,” GOP gubernatorial candidate John Cox recently said on Fox News about the policy. “We’re a compassionate society but there’s a limit on what we can afford to do.”

The move was approved with a 5-0 vote by the California Energy Commission, in what supporters of solar energy are hailing as a monumental moment.

“This is an undeniably historic decision for the state and the U.S.,” Abigail Ross Hopper, the Solar Energy Industries Association’s CEO said in a statement. “California has long been our nation’s biggest solar champion … now, California is taking bold leadership again, recognizing that solar should be as commonplace as the front door that welcomes you home.”

The regulation will go into effect once it receives its expected approval by the Building Standards Commission later this month.

And while proponents of renewable energy may be pleased with the decision, there’s mounting concerns that the requirement will only aggravate the state’s home affordability crisis, as the mandate is expected to add at least $10,000 in additional construction costs.

However, supporters argue that utility savings will balance out that cost in the long term.

“Adoption of these standards represents a quantum leap in statewide building standards,” Robert Raymer, technical director for the California Building Industry Association, told the commission. “You can bet every other of the 49 states will be watching closely to see what happens.”

But Republican leaders are already coming out against the decision, framing it as just the latest example of government overreach in Sacramento.

“That’s just going to drive the cost up and make California, once again, not affordable to live,” Republican Assemblyman Brian Dahle reportedly said of the dangers of the rules.

The mandate will apply to all homes, condominiums and apartment buildings up to three stories high — with exceptions for structures that are covered by shade.

According to the commission’s own estimates, the panels will cost homeowners around $40 a month, but save them about $80 a month on heating, air conditioning and other costs.

“This is great for wealthier homeowners, but for everybody else it’s one more reason to not go to California or to leave ASAP,” American Enterprise Institute economist Jimmy Pethokoukis said on CNBC Wednesday.

More broadly, the move is part of California’s plan to have all residential buildings be “zero net energy,” which means that the the total amount of energy used by the building is the same as the amount of renewable energy it creates.

The case, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, dealt with a delivery service that classified its workers as ICs. A driver filed a class action suit, arguing that the classification was improper.

While the ruling did not resolve this specific case, it provided a new framework for lower courts adjudicating the dispute and others like it.

In an unexpected turn, the court established an entirely new test. Under the previous “Borello” framework, the main consideration was whether the company had the right to control the manner by which the worker performs the work.

But under the new ABC test, businesses must show that the worker is (1) free from the control and direction of the employer; (2) that the worker performs work that is outside the hirer’s core business; (3) and the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business.

“When a worker has not independently decided to engage in an independently established business but instead is simply designated an independent contractor … there is a substantial risk that the hiring business is attempting to evade the demands of an applicable wage order through misclassification,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the court.

The decision has particularly stark effects for the so-called gig economy, as ride-sharing giants like Uber and Lyft have increasingly come under scrutiny for classifying their workers as independent contractors and not employees. Additionally, the ruling is likely to have a major effect across almost all sectors.

The court provided other examples for occupations like plumbing.

“A plumber temporarily hired by a store to repair a leak or an electrician to install a line would be an independent contractor. But a seamstress who works at home to make dresses for a clothing manufacturer from cloth and patterns supplied by the company, or a cake decorator who works on a regular basis on custom-designed cakes would be employees.”

Furthermore, a worker won’t be considered an employee “only if the worker is the type of traditional independent contractor … who would not reasonably have been viewed as working in the hiring business,” the court added.

More broadly, the court also framed the issue as one of fairness, believing that denying employee status is harmful to a large swath of workers.

Companies have a substantial incentive to classify workers as ICs over employees, as they don’t have to pay their social security or payroll taxes. Furthermore, workers have additional protections if they’re employees, such as unemployment insurance.

Worker rights groups are hailing the decision as a win, with the National Employment Law Project declaring that “the gig is up.”

“It means that companies in industries from construction to tech to homecare and trucking will no longer be able to dodge minimum wage laws by pretending that the workers who form their workforces are somehow not their employees,” the group’s spokeswoman Rebecca Smith added.

To read the ruling, visit: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S222732.PDF