Download our app for the optimal streaming experience
Topline:
What is it? Balcony solar kits consist of just a few panels, an inverter that converts solar energy into the kind used in a home and cables. In places where the technology is popular, like Germany, it can be plugged into a standard wall outlet.
Why it matters: The new law comes as Californians struggle to pay outsized electricity bills, which have risen substantially in recent years. Plug-in devices open the solar market to renters, people with unsuitable roofs, and those without the money to invest in a rooftop system.
Read on… for more on what this means for the new tech.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill legalizing balcony, or “plug-in,” solar Wednesday.
The device is a twist on rooftop solar: smaller, portable, and relatively inexpensive.
Balcony solar kits consist of just a few panels, an inverter that converts solar energy into the kind used in a home, and cables. In places where the technology is popular, like Germany, it can be plugged into a standard wall outlet.
The new law comes as Californians struggle to pay outsized electricity bills, which have risen substantially in recent years. Plug-in devices open the solar market to renters, people with unsuitable roofs, and those without the money to invest in a rooftop system.
“These small, easy-to-use solar panels will give everyone, including renters, the relief they desperately need on our outrageous energy bills,” said state Senator Scott Wiener (D – San Francisco) in a press release. Wiener authored the legislation.
The bill received overwhelming bipartisan support from state lawmakers before landing on Newsom’s desk.
Panels can hang from a balcony, out a window, or be tented in the backyard. Existing models range from $300 to $2200, depending on size.
One reason the technology is substantially less expensive than rooftop solar is that it cuts out the costs of installation. Customers themselves set it up, which some have said is straightforward and others have found more challenging than advertised.
California’s law comes with a wrinkle, however. Plug-in solar panels must be certified by an outside safety organization. Since the technology is new in the U.S., there is just one existing certification offered by Underwriters Laboratories. Depending on how manufacturers innovate and roll out products, some may require an electrician’s help to install, while others may be truly “plug and play.”
Electrical experts and other advocates of California’s new law are still calling its passage a massive win, and expect the safety certification to evolve and eventually allow the plug-in panels to connect to a standard wall outlet.
“We are celebrating,” said Cora Stryker, co-founder of plug-in solar advocacy group Bright Saver. “The market is sending a clear signal to manufacturers that they need to develop a California system.”
The new law will exempt plug-in panels from the typical way rooftop solar must be registered with utilities. Instead of paying upwards of a hundred dollars and waiting days to weeks, the new registration process will be free, straightforward, and immediate.
A handful of states have passed similar legislation within the past 18 months. Utah was the first, with a law passed in March 2025.
Ten states now have bills on the books that allow a relatively straightforward process for purchasing and setting up balcony solar systems, including Colorado, Virginia and Maine.
Supporters of the technology include hundreds of environmental and community groups, who argue plug-in solar democratizes access to solar power. They believe adoption by the most populous state would be a boon for the nascent U.S. balcony solar market.
Some of the state’s largest investor-owned utilities, including PG&E and SDG&E opposed the legislation, citing safety and a concern that the systems would shift energy costs to people without solar power in any form.
Labor unions representing firefighters and PG&E employees initially opposed the bill, but took a neutral stance once lawmakers included requirements that systems must comply with state and national electrical codes.
Some Californians have already installed plug-in solar panels, but utilities ask them to complete an interconnection agreement, citing state rules. If done through PG&E for example, representatives from the utility said that process would cost between roughly $100 to $800 and take about an hour. Typically, the approval comes through in three days, PG&E staff said.
Plug-in solar advocates argued that the interconnection process defeated the plug-and-play goal of the technology, and could double or triple its cost.
Their hope is to make the panels as ubiquitous and easy to install as any off-the-shelf appliance dotting the racks of a Home Depot or Costco.
Proponents of the technology say it can meet up to 20% of a home’s electricity needs and save as much as $500 annually for a small apartment.
The new law outlines several device requirements. The balcony solar systems must not generate more than 1,200 watts per home — enough energy to power a window air-conditioning unit — and offset a customer’s onsite electricity use. They must be certified by an outside safety organization and have a feature that would prevent electricity from feeding back into the grid if there’s a power outage.
Plug-in solar products currently on the market do not yet meet the outlined requirements, and customers therefore must still register the available systems as though they are rooftop solar. The sale of non-compliant systems will become illegal in 2030.
Groups that sponsored the bill said there are a few companies already developing systems meeting the specific California standards, and they expect these models to hit the market in the spring.
The legislation goes into effect in 2027, and sunsets Jan. 1, 2030, “making it a fight that continues,” said Stryker.
Topline:
Why it matters: Currently, food benefits are covered entirely by federal dollars. But starting in October 2027, states may have to pay for a portion of the food aid if their error rate — a measure of overpayments and underpayments to SNAP recipients — is at or above 6%. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, estimates that nearly half of states could each pay $100 million or more if they do not lower their error rates. California and New York could each be on the hook for over $1 billion if they are unable to do so, according to the think tank.
The backstory: The funding changes were triggered by President Trump’s signature domestic policy law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was enacted in July 2025. The White House said the legislation preserves and strengthens the food assistance program, adding that it was “so bloated that it is leaving fewer resources for those who truly need help.” Since Trump’s second term began, the number of people receiving SNAP benefits dropped from 42 million to 36 million, as of June. Most of that decline happened after the One Big Beautiful Bill was signed into law.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is undergoing a drastic restructuring of its funding model — one that will reduce federal support and require states to shoulder a larger share of the bill.
Historically, the federal government and states have evenly split the food aid program’s operational costs, such as paying for state workers and training staff. But starting on Thursday, states will need to cover 75% of that tab while federal funding shrinks by half.
By the federal government’s own calculations, the new rule will lead to a $16.9 billion reduction in federal spending for SNAP over the next five years, or $3.4 billion annually.
The Food Research & Action Center, an anti-hunger advocacy group, estimates that states would need to shore up anywhere between $3 million and $670 million to fully offset the loss in federal funding for administrative costs. California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Michigan are expected to be especially hard hit.
Over the past year, states have been rebalancing their budgets to account for the new costs. But they will likely need to tighten their belts even further as more funding changes are on the horizon.
Currently, food benefits are covered entirely by federal dollars. But starting in October 2027, states may have to pay for a portion of the food aid if their error rate — a measure of overpayments and underpayments to SNAP recipients — is at or above 6%.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, estimates that nearly half of states could each pay $100 million or more if they do not lower their error rates. California and New York could each be on the hook for over $1 billion if they are unable to do so, according to the think tank.
In a report published last year, the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality estimated that these changes together will force states to spend two to three times more to keep the food assistance program running.
These mounting costs will put states in a bind, where they will likely have to find new sources of revenue, cut funding from other programs or further restrict access to SNAP, according to Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
“And we may see some states decide that they need to withdraw from the program entirely,” Bergh says.
The funding changes were triggered by President Trump’s signature domestic policy law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was enacted in July 2025. The White House said the legislation preserves and strengthens the food assistance program, adding that it was “so bloated that it is leaving fewer resources for those who truly need help.”
But Bergh says SNAP’s previous funding structure served a purpose.
“That essentially ensured that eligible families who were seeking benefits could get them even if they lived in a state that had much higher rates of poverty or a smaller tax base,” she says.
The Agriculture Department, which administers SNAP, has not yet responded to a request for comment.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act also introduced other sweeping changes, adding stricter work requirements and ending food aid eligibility for the small pool of noncitizens who previously qualified.
Since Trump’s second term began, the number of people receiving SNAP benefits dropped from 42 million to 36 million, as of June. Most of that decline happened after the One Big Beautiful Bill was signed into law.
Copyright 2026 NPR
Topline:
Why it matters: Administration officials argue the new requirement will help the federal government stop immigrants lacking permanent legal status from collecting federal benefits they are not eligible for, potentially saving taxpayers up to $2 billion. But taxpayer and privacy advocates say the data could be used to help find and deport those people.
What it would mean: Most Americans will see it as a new checkbox that gives the government even more information on taxpayers. But those living in the country illegally face a more complicated choice: Declare on a tax return that they are not authorized to live in the U.S. or lie on the return, which is a felony. Some may stop filing their taxes altogether.
Read on… for more on the proposal
The Trump administration would require U.S. taxpayers to disclose their citizenship and work authorization status to the IRS as part of a proposed change to the annual tax form that nearly all workers file each year.
Administration officials argue the new requirement will help the federal government stop immigrants lacking permanent legal status from collecting federal benefits they are not eligible for, potentially saving taxpayers up to $2 billion. But taxpayer and privacy advocates say the data could be used to help find and deport those people.
“It could be used as an immigration enforcement tool and that is probably the reason why they are doing this,” said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.
Most Americans will see it as a new checkbox that gives the government even more information on taxpayers. But those living in the country illegally face a more complicated choice: Declare on a tax return that they are not authorized to live in the U.S. or lie on the return, which is a felony. Some may stop filing their taxes altogether.
“It’s dragging the IRS into this administration’s immigration policies,” said Nina Olson, executive director for the Center for Taxpayer Rights.
The IRS posted its draft 1040 form for 2026 in late August. It includes the question, “At the time you file your return, are you, and your spouse if filing jointly, a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or an alien lawfully authorized to work in the U.S.?” There are “Yes” or “No” checkboxes for both the filer and their spouse. A draft of a second form, known as Schedule 3-A used to claim refundable tax credits, asks a similar question.
The questions are not optional. Every tax filer must certify under penalty of law their immigration or citizenship status to the IRS to file their return.
The Treasury Department says the new question is meant to keep immigrants lacking permanent legal status from taking advantage of refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Additional Child Tax Credit. These are credits for which low- and middle income workers and families may qualify that often result in a refund back to the taxpayer.
In a statement, a Treasury Department official said the information will be “subject to a variety of privacy, disclosure and other legal protections.” The statement did not say whether the information will be shared with immigration enforcement agencies.
Despite not being authorized to live and work in the U.S., immigrants that do not have permanent legal status do pay taxes. A 2024 report by the National Taxpayer Advocate found 3.8 million tax returns where a taxpayer used an Individual Tax Identification Number, or ITIN. While an ITIN can be issued for a variety of purposes, undocumented workers who cannot obtain a Social Security number are among those who use them.
IRS data show that taxpayers who filed those nearly 4 million returns paid $14.4 billion in income taxes and $6.5 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
A valid Social Security Number, not an ITIN, is required to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. The IRS checks Social Security Numbers against Social Security Administration records for each claim of the EITC.
Because of this process, Olson said she believes the new proposal is unnecessary.
“Your citizenship or residency status is not information the IRS needs to process a return. It’s not even information the IRS needs to process these tax credits,” she said. “The IRS already has Social Security data on taxpayers, as well as ITIN information. It already has what it needs to process a return.”
Immigrants lacking permanent legal status are generally not eligible for federal benefits after Congress overhauled federal welfare programs in the mid-1990s. A tax filer needs to be a U.S. citizen or a green card holder to claim the EITC or CTC, with some limited exceptions.
But some immigrants in the U.S. who presently qualify for some of these credits would not under the new policy. This would include people covered under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, those with temporary protected status and temporary workers in the country under H1-B visas.
The Trump administration argues in its proposal that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the law that governs who is eligible for benefit programs, should be applied to refundable tax credits as well. The research paper published this week estimates that 671,000 people, including 309,000 children, will lose the Earned Income Tax Credit under this policy. Another roughly 1.1 million people, including 574,000 children, will lose the Additional Child Tax Credit.
Most of the children that would lose eligibility to these credits are U.S. citizens, according to these researchers at Boston University, Columbia University and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, because one or more of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status.
The Trump administration has tried to use the IRS to implement its immigration policies before. Last year, the Treasury Department agreed to share confidential taxpayer information of immigrants with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the purpose of identifying and deporting people.
The data-sharing agreement was halted by a federal judge, which found that it violated federal taxpayer privacy laws, and the halt remains in effect as the case works its way through the courts. However, before it was stopped, it was found that the IRS had already turned over the addresses of 47,000 people to ICE.
Topline:
When is it? The block party will be held Nov. 7 outside its building on 1st and Anderson streets, and will feature live performances by Los Lobos and La Santa Cecilia.
Why now: Self Help Graphics has been under renovation for years, with its Día de los Muertos celebration often held at the East LA Civic Center. The building is expected to reopen in 2027.
Read on… for more on the block party.
This story first appeared on The LA Local.
The annual Día de los Muertos celebration by Self Help Graphics & Art is coming home to Boyle Heights this year.
The block party will be held Nov. 7 outside its building on 1st and Anderson streets, and will feature live performances by Los Lobos and La Santa Cecilia.
Self Help Graphics has been under renovation for years, with its Día de los Muertos celebration often held at the East LA Civic Center. The building is expected to reopen in 2027.
“Día de los Muertos at Self Help Graphics has always been a homecoming — a day when our community gathers to remember our loved ones through art, music, and ceremony,” said Self Help Graphics executive director Paulina Flores in a statement. “This year, that word carries even more meaning as we celebrate block-party style on Anderson Street and begin our return to our Boyle Heights home.”
The 12,000-square-foot building is being transformed into a cultural center that meets museum standards, featuring seismic retrofitting, an expanded printmaking studio, upgraded gallery lighting and a larger multipurpose room for community gatherings.
A key player in the Chicano movement of the 1970s, Self Help Graphics & Art was founded in the East LA garage of Sister Karen Boccalero, a Franciscan nun and printmaker. It started with a small group of young Latino artists who used their medium to spread social justice messages.
From the onset, these artists involved members of the community in the process of making art and organizing programs, such as a 1972 Día de los Muertos event considered to be the first public commemoration in the United States of a tradition rooted in Mexico’s Indigenous origins. Community art workshops will also be offered this year.
Here’s what to know:
Attendees will have an opportunity to record interviews with community members at an oral history station hosted by the Smithsonian Folklife Festival. Self Help Graphics teaching artists will help attendees create miniature altars.
2 p.m. — A ceremonial procession featuring Aztec dancers will guide attendees from Mariachi Plaza to Self Help Graphics & Art
Self Help Graphics & Art is offering a series of Día de los Muertos community art workshops from 12 to 3 p.m. beginning this Saturday.
Topline:
Why it matters: The proposal to impose a one-time asset tax on the net worth of the state’s approximately 200 billionaires has divided Democrats, galvanized progressives and sparked fierce pushback from business groups and the state’s wealthy tech sector. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has poured more than $138 million into the campaign against the measure — including two countermeasures, Propositions 41 and 42 — and is among a handful of billionaires who have moved residences or business assets out of the state in an attempt to avoid the proposed tax. In total, opponents have raised more than $205 million to stop Prop. 40, according to campaign finance records.
How would the state assess the tax? Prop. 40 would require the state, within six months, to create a way to assess the value of a wide range of holdings: billionaires’ stock, investment accounts and business interests, but also their art collections, wine vaults, cars and anything else that stores wealth.
Read on… for more on Prop. 40.
Proposition 40, also known as the billionaire tax, is the most contentious fight on Californians’ ballots this November.
The proposal to impose a one-time asset tax on the net worth of the state’s approximately 200 billionaires has divided Democrats, galvanized progressives and sparked fierce pushback from business groups and the state’s wealthy tech sector. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has poured more than $138 million into the campaign against the measure — including two countermeasures, Propositions 41 and 42 — and is among a handful of billionaires who have moved residences or business assets out of the state in an attempt to avoid the proposed tax. In total, opponents have raised more than $205 million to stop Prop. 40, according to campaign finance records.
It would also set up an entirely new system of taxes in a state that doesn’t traditionally tax wealth. That would be challenging to implement and experts say is sure to invite litigation. Here are some common questions and answers about how the measure would work.
Aside from local taxes on real estate and some business equipment, California isn’t in the business of valuing and taxing personal property.
Prop. 40 would require the state, within six months, to create a way to assess the value of a wide range of holdings: billionaires’ stock, investment accounts and business interests, but also their art collections, wine vaults, cars and anything else that stores wealth.
“I have a client who has a machine gun collection,” said Jon Feldhammer, a San Francisco tax attorney who said he is advising several clients who would be or believe they could be subject to the billionaire tax.
The definition of wealth and property has to be broad to close possible loopholes, said Kirk Stark, a UCLA tax law professor.
“Otherwise there would be a very simple workaround, which is, if there’s something that’s exempt then you know there would be an incentive to just shift wealth from one form to another,” Stark said.
Ensuring those subject to the tax aren’t underreporting their assets would require the state’s Franchise Tax Board to hire more people for appraisals and auditing, Stark said.
“It can be done,” he said. “But it’s going to take a huge investment of resources to actually pull it off.”
Franchise Tax Board spokesperson Andrew LePage declined to say how many staff the agency would need to implement Prop. 40. Currently, the board doesn’t appraise property but sometimes auditors “examine asset values reported by taxpayers to ensure accuracy,” he said.
Chris Parker, a former attorney for the tax board who now works as a tax attorney with the firm Baker Tilly, said the board has “no way of knowing anyone’s net wealth.”
Ariel Jurow Kleiman, a tax policy professor at the University of Southern California, doesn’t think the state would have a hard time putting the tax into effect. Stocks, which make up a substantial part of billionaires’ wealth, are easily valued, she said. For more “bespoke” property like art and jewelry, California could look to the Internal Revenue Service’s federal tax on inherited property.
“There are commonsense methods like looking at comparable assets or looking to available markets to see how comps are valued,” she said. “We wouldn’t be asking people to reinvent the wheel here.”
Experts do expect disputes over the value of privately held businesses.
Feldhammer said many startup founders have raised money for their companies but haven’t yet sold any products. He criticized the ballot measure for defining a company’s worth as the most recent amount of investment money it raised, which diverges from how the IRS calculates an asset’s fair market value for the estate tax.
“How do you value a company that is not on the public market? It doesn’t even have a product yet. It’s not making any money,” he said.
He said he expects clients to mount lengthy legal challenges arguing the law overvalues their business holdings.
“These are people who have oftentimes plenty of wealth to spend on legal fees to put up the best defense money can buy,” he said.
The campaign against the measure warns that billionaires will flee California, depriving the state of billions of dollars in income tax revenue that helps fund the state budget. Experts say there’s no way to know whether the tax will spark a large-scale exodus.
Joel Slemrod, a University of Michigan economics professor who studies tax policy, said there’s very little evidence to gauge how billionaires could react to California’s tax, partly because the proposal is unique.
California experts considering the tax have looked at wealth taxes in European countries to try to discern the impact of Prop. 40. In 1990, 12 countries had wealth taxes. Today, only four remain. Many countries abandoned them because they were difficult and expensive to implement, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. But Slemrod said those examples are “not immediately applicable” to Prop. 40 because they differed significantly in design: Tax rates were much lower, they were intended to be permanent and the money was not earmarked for special interests.
“I wouldn’t jump from the evidence we have to California,” Slemrod said.
But one issue that could matter significantly for California, Slemrod said, is that it is much easier to move assets between states than between countries, as sometimes happened in Europe. Spain allowed its provinces to enact wealth taxes and research suggests that rich people changed residences based on tax rates.
Researchers at the Hoover Institution, a conservative policy think tank, conducted an analysis suggesting Californians need not look at history to figure out Prop. 40’s impact. Tax flight has already happened. They estimate that billionaires representing 30% of the tax base have publicly said they have left, lowering state revenue estimates by $60 billion and permanently altering California’s income tax collection.
Feldhammer, the tax lawyer, said “a third to half” of his clients have left the state over the proposed tax. He declined to say how many clients that is. Other tax lawyers told CalMatters that clients who are worth less than $1 billion are also considering moving to avoid limiting their earning potential.
Billionaires who didn’t leave before Jan. 1 would face taxes on their assets anyway; the measure would apply to anyone who was a California resident on that date.
But Feldhammer said he expects people to sue over the measure’s retroactive nature, pointing to two U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 1920s that held it was unconstitutional to apply the federal estate and gift taxes to assets transferred before those laws were enacted. In 1994, the court ruled that retroactive taxes could be constitutional in certain limited circumstances.
Asked how he’s advising clients who are considering leaving California, Feldhammer said there’s a “reasonable argument that the law may be unconstitutionally retroactive — but to take advantage of that, you’re going to have to leave.”
If you’re not a billionaire, no.
Even for billionaires, Prop. 40 exempts pensions and individual retirement accounts from the asset tax. There are some exceptions, most notably for Roth IRAs that contain more than $10 million.
Misleading advertisements from opponents claim the tax would allow California soon to eat into retirement savings for average Californians. They’re supporting Prop. 42, which would block the proposed billionaire tax by broadly banning any new taxes on personal property such as investment, retirement and pension accounts. Brin’s political spending group, Building a Better California, put it on the ballot, and unions representing firefighters, police and construction workers support it. (If both measures pass, whichever receives more “yes” votes becomes law.)
Proponents of Prop. 42 say their measure would protect the pensions and retirement accounts of teachers, firefighters and middle-class workers from being taxed before they withdraw the money.
“A new tax on Californians’ retirement and life savings would be devastating,” Robert Gutierrez, president of the California Taxpayers Association, said in a press release.
There are no active proposals to tax those accounts on the ballot or in the Legislature. Lawmakers who have floated such wealth taxes in the past have gotten nowhere.
Still, Brian Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which supports Prop. 42, denied being deceptive and said it’s “within the realm of realization” for California to tax middle-class workers’ retirement accounts.
“I think it’s more important to be proactive in this area,” he said.
Proponents say the billionaire tax is intended to backfill federal cuts to the state’s expansive Medi-Cal health program for low-income residents. State officials project the cuts, enacted as part of President Donald Trump’s 2025 budget bill known as H.R. 1, could amount to $30 billion a year.
The initiative gives the Legislature broad authority to decide how to spend the money. Of the revenue, 90% percent would be put in a special fund for healthcare; the other 10% would be put in a special fund to pay for schools and food assistance like CalFresh, which was also targeted by federal cuts.
If the money is used to keep Californians on Medi-Cal, that could mean spending it on the private health insurance companies that the state contracts with to administer low-income residents’ coverage.
There is some debate over whether the money would actually offset the cuts to Medi-Cal and how strictly the language bars lawmakers from using the money for anything else.
Opponents such as the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood recently circulated a memo arguing there’s no guarantee the money would replace the federal funding cuts, because the proposition also allows the money to offset state cuts to Medi-Cal. They warn that would allow lawmakers and the governor to use the new tax money to maintain state funding levels for Medi-Cal and free up the state’s general fund to pay for other things.
Lawmakers and governors have in the past used special new funds to simply replace existing funding. Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, did it with mental health funding created by a voter-approved tax on millionaires, and then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, did it with health funding created by the state tobacco tax. More recently, doctors and hospitals accused Newsom of using a different healthcare tax to backfill the general fund. They placed Proposition 35 on the ballot in 2024 to earmark the money. Voters approved it, but the groups say some funding was still diverted.
But proponents of Prop. 40 said that concern doesn’t make sense: Those budget maneuvers, they said, are usually done to address state budget shortfalls, while Prop. 40 was already written to create funding for a shortfall.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
LAist is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that is also home to L.A.’s largest NPR station broadcasting at 89.3 FM. We center our coverage around people and communities, not institutions or policies. We hold power to account. We are unapologetically L.A.
