analyst

With California facing increasingly destructive wildfires, experts and officials have long urged the strategic removal of dense, flammable vegetation that can erupt into particularly destructive flames from a lightning bolt or the spark of a power line.

But after years of record investment by the state in such wildfire risk mitigation, two key money sources are drying up, potentially reducing the state’s annual budget for vegetation removal by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Wildfire resiliency advocates are warning that the loss of these funds will leave the state vulnerable to devastation, and are calling on California’s next governor to take that threat seriously.

Currently, California relies heavily on two funding sources for wildfire mitigation work: A state program that charges polluters for their emissions and a climate bond approved by voters in 2024.

Late Friday, however, state officials adopted a new structure for the emissions program, called cap-and-invest, that analysts say will likely reduce wildfire mitigation funding by $200 million per year. At the same time, the governor’s latest budget proposal puts the state on track to allocate the majority of the climate bond’s $1.5 billion in wildfire prevention money within just three years.

As a result, California could go from routinely pulling more than $600 million a year from these sources, to just $150 million, according to an estimate from the Wildfire Solutions Coalition — a group of more than 80 organizations representing conservationists, business owners, fire officials and tribal leaders.

The coalition is urging the state to find new sources of funding for the work.

“We have the scientists, we have the technicians, we have the advocates,” said Michelle Decker, who is on the coalition’s executive committee and serves as president and CEO of the Inland Empire Community Foundation. “We see this problem. We can get ahead of this problem. It is a revenue issue.”

California wildfires have become increasingly costly. The 2025 L.A. fires alone caused an estimated $250 billion in damage and economic loss. Insurance companies have already paid out $22.4 billion.

In attempt to reduce the risk of damage to communities and ecosystems, the state has employed a wide range of tactics. These includes fortifying homes against wildfires, replanting fire-ravaged forests and thinning out vegetation with prescribed burns, goat grazing and manual thinning with heavy machinery to reduce the intensity of potential fires.

Research suggests wildfire mitigation work pays off. A recent analysis of 285 fires in the western U.S. found that every dollar spent on landscape projects saved about $3.75 in wildfire damage.

But as funding from cap-and-invest and the climate bond dwindle, the state must increasingly turn to Cal Fire, which devotes only a small portion of its budget to mitigation work.

“This is not an issue that can be pushed off to a timeline based solely on politics,” said Steve Frisch, a founding member of the coalition and president of the Sierra Business Council. “Fire happens whether we want it to or not.”

After a series of destructive wildfires in Northern California and the 2017 Thomas fire in Southern California, the state legislature began to explicitly focus on funding wildfire mitigation.

In 2018, lawmakers directed $200 million per year of cap-and-invest funds to wildfire mitigation projects.

As the Woolsey fire in Southern California and the Camp fire in Paradise raged later that fall, Trump accused the state of “gross mismanagement” of forest lands and threatened to cut off federal funds unless it was corrected.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the legislature, with a significant budget surplus, began earmarking even more funds, leading to a peak of $1.1 billion in wildfire mitigation investments during the 2021-2022 fiscal year.

After the surplus dwindled, the legislature opted in 2024 to put a $10-billion climate bond in front of voters — $1.5 billion of which was dedicated specifically for wildfire mitigation work.

Newsom has since pointed to this high state funding to call on the federal government to step up its own investments into forest management work.

The federal government manages 57% of all forests in the state. While the U.S. Forest Service spent $3.1 billion mitigating wildfire conditions in the state over the last few years, California spent $4.3 billion, according to the California Forest Resilience and Wildfire Task Force.

However, the state has already allocated about $600 million of the climate bond’s wildfire mitigation pot for the 2024-2025 and current fiscal years. The latest budget proposal would allocate more than $300 million for this upcoming fiscal year. While many advocates support allocating the money quickly, it leaves little for future years.

Once that money is spent, California has to pay off the $10 billion bond with interest. The result is an estimated price tag of $16 billion, paid in roughly $400 million increments every year, for 40 years, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

As for the cap-and-invest funds, a fraught months-long debate at the California Air Resources Board on how to extend the program beyond 2030 resulted in a compromise that will cut the revenue it generates in half, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates.

Since other projects get priority — including $1 billion every year for California’s high-speed rail project — the new proposal would “likely leave no funding” for the wildfire and forest resilience line item, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found.

Cal Fire still holds a modest annual budget for wildfire mitigation work. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the agency had $500 million for forest management and fire prevention that was not directly tied to cap-and-invest or the bond — up from about $65 million two decades prior.

As for the federal government, independent analyses by Grassroots Wildland Firefighters and NPR found that Forest Service wildfire mitigation work is on the decline amid federal staffing cuts. The Forest Service claims the decrease in work was primarily due to poor weather conditions for activities like prescribed burns and staff being occupied with firefighting.

Both the state and federal government’s investments pale in comparison to the spending of California’s investor-owned utilities. In 2025 alone, the utilities planned to spend more than $9.2 billion on preventing their equipment from sparking the next devastating wildfire, primarily funded by Californians’ electricity bills.

Times staff writer Hayley Smith contributed to this report.

Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison defended his commitment to release 30 movies a year once his media company swallows Warner Bros. Discovery — a goal that some industry observers view as overly ambitious.

During a Monday call with analysts to discuss Paramount’s first-quarter earnings, the tech scion said the target was achievable because his management team would maintain current levels of production. Paramount has doubled its film release capacity to 15 films this year, matching the number of theatrical releases planned by competing Warner Bros.

“The two companies are actually making 30 films to date,” Ellison said. “We really view our pending acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery as a powerful accelerant to our strategy.”

The company said it was on track to finalize its Warner takeover by the end of September. The $111-billion deal would transform the smaller Paramount into an industry titan with prestigious programming, including Harry Potter, “Game of Thrones,” “Euphoria,” as well as its current slate of Taylor Sheridan-produced franchises, including “Yellowstone” and “Landman.” The combined company also would own dozens of popular TV networks, including CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, Food Network and HGTV.

But the proposed merger would saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, stoking fears that Paramount would need to make steep cost cuts to balance such a large debt load. During the quarter, Paramount lined up banks and other institutional investors to provide bridge financing to help pull off the transaction, the company said.

“We’re pleased with the momentum and will continue to take the necessary steps to bring this deal to completion,” Ellison told analysts.

Late last month, Warner Bros. Discovery stockholders overwhelmingly voted in favor of the deal, which will pay $31 a share to Warner investors. The company now must secure regulatory approvals in the U.S. and abroad, and that process is well underway, Paramount said.

Paramount has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to exceed a cap on foreign ownership for U.S. media companies. Ellison’s company is expecting $24 billion from three Middle Eastern royal families, who would become part owners of the combined entity. Those total funds will represent about 49% of equity in that new company, exceeding the current foreign ownership cap of 25%.

More than 4,000 filmmakers, actors and industry workers, including Bryan Cranston, Connie Britton, Kristen Stewart, Jonathan Glazer and Jane Fonda, have signed an open letter asking California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and other regulators to block the deal, saying it “would reduce the number of major U.S. film studios to just four.”

Late last week, a small group of consumers sued to block Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery and unwind Ellison’s Skydance Media’s takeover of Paramount, alleging that both deals reduce marketplace competition.

For the January-March quarter, Paramount’s earnings beat Wall Street’s expectations. Revenue grew 2% to $7.3 billion compared with the first quarter of 2025.

Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) reached $1.1 billion, helped in part by growth in its streaming services unit. Paramount+ increased its revenue by 17% to nearly $2 billion, compared with the year earlier period when it generated $1.7 billion. The service added 700,000 subscribers, bringing the total to nearly 80 million.

With Warner’s HBO Max streaming platform, the combined service would boast more than 200 million subscribers.

Paramount reported first-quarter net earnings of $168 million, or 15 cents per share, compared with $152 million in 2025, which occurred before Skydance acquired the media company in August.

Executives pointed to “Scream 7,” a late February release that has topped $200 million in global ticket sales, as a success story. Studio revenue grew 11% to $1.28 billion for the quarter.

Television networks revenue declined 6% to $3.7 billion as Paramount’s cable channels continue to contend with the loss of cable cord-cutters, which reduces the company’s collections from pay-TV providers. Nonetheless, Paramount pointed to the strength of Sheridan’s “Landman,” starring Billy Bob Thornton, Ali Larter, Sam Elliott and Demi Moore, and the strength of the CBS television network, which currently has 13 of the broadcast industry’s top 20 prime-time shows, including “60 Minutes,” “Marshals,” and “Tracker.”

The company told analysts it would achieve $30 billion in revenue for the full year and $3.8 billion in adjusted EBITDA. Paramount said it would also make $2.5 billion in cost-cuts by the end of this year and reduce expenses by $3 billion in 2027.

Paramount said it ended the quarter with $1.9 billion in cash and cash equivalents. It also was carrying $15.5 billion in debt. The company had to draw $2.15 billion from its revolving credit facility to pay Netflix a $2.8-billion termination fee that Warner Bros. Discovery had agreed to pay under a previous deal to sell the company to Netflix.

Paramount released its earnings after Monday’s trading day. Its shares closed at $11.13, basically unchanged.