By Manola Secaira

David Soohoo is, first and foremost, a chef. Over the course of decades, he’s owned and run a variety of Sacramento restaurants, like Bamboo and Ming Palace. One lesson he’s learned: It takes more than skillful cooking to succeed. His work also requires a knack for adaptation. 

“Life is a challenge,” he said. “And the thing about being a chef is it has never been easy, so I welcome that challenge.” 

He learned that first from his dad, a Cantonese master chef who opened Sacramento’s original Tea Cup Cafe in the early 1950s. At the restaurant, they had gas stovetops that burned hot enough to make food in a wok, which traditionally requires flame. But at home, their stove was much less powerful. 

So, they got creative. Soohoo said his dad took their cracked, gas-powered water heater, drained it and sawed it in half. Then, he used its burner as a stovetop. 

“That burner actually was incredibly hot,” said Soohoo. “You put your wok in there and you can do everything a restaurant can do. That's the way we adapted, and it was unknown…outside of the Chinese community.”

Now, Soohoo said home cooks and chefs like himself are readying themselves for a fast-approaching future without gas. As part of its goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2045, California is working to cut emissions in all parts of life, including the kitchen. 

Matt Botill, chief of the Industrial Strategies Division at the California Air Resources Board, said the agency has set a state target for residential appliance sales to be all-electric by 2045. He said this transition helps the state along its journey to cut emissions and with that, improves both indoor and outdoor air quality.

“It's really important that we cut down on our natural gas use and that we don't expand the gas infrastructure so that we're not creating more natural gas demand in the state,” he said. 

On a more local scale, dozens of cities have adopted plans for electrification. Some, like Sacramento, have passed ordinances to ban the installation of gas in new buildings alongside local efforts to electrify existing homes. 

As these efforts gain traction, they’ve sparked nationwide debate over one appliance in particular: stoves. Many advocates of electrification point to research on the negative health impacts associated with their use and concerns that aging gas appliances will only create more problems in the future. Others say they’re not willing to let gas stovetops go, because other options just aren’t as efficient.

Katie Valenzuela is a city councilmember who worked on Sacramento’s electrification ordinance. She said the change is more than a technological one. For many, it’s cultural, and deeply personal. 

“There is a concern about how … you adapt those practices that were passed down from prior generations to this new technology,” she said. 

It’s a tricky issue, Soohoo said. He’s worried about a transition that could unintentionally leave cultural cooking styles like his own behind; after all, he’s not the first chef to share concerns about how electrification could impact the wok. But he’s also deeply invested in shaping the future.

“You adapt,” he said. “That’s the best you can do.” 

The culture of gas

Decades ago, electric stovetops were popular in California households, but that’s changed over the years. A 2020 survey found 70% use gas stoves in the state, a number that’s much higher than the nationwide average of 38%. 

This can be partially blamed on successful campaigns led by gas industry leaders to popularize them. But many chefs have also found that these stovetops are more reliable in achieving high heat – especially in a restaurant setting. 

“You know, for a full service restaurant, you do 200 covers a night,” said Billy Ngo, the owner of a few Sacramento restaurants including Kru, which mainly focuses on sushi. “You can't cook on an electric stove for 200 people in a four and half hour service.”

On top of Soohoo’s concerns, Ngo said he’s worried about what summertime blackouts could mean for an all-electric kitchen. He also said sales for cold dishes like sushi tend to decline in the winter, so his restaurant relies on selling hot food to bridge that financial gap.  

For home cooks, gas and electric stoves pose a different set of problems. In online forums and news pieces about electrification, you can find dozens of questions about the differences between cooking on electric and gas stoves. Soohoo said some of these questions boil down to differences in cultural styles of cooking, which require different kinds of heat. 

“For Western cooking, European cooking, because you're working with butter and you're working with sauces … you don't need that much heat,” he said. 

In other styles of cooking, like in many Asian and Latin American dishes, he said you’re dealing with vegetables and meats that have been cut into smaller pieces. It makes these dishes particularly “energy frugal,” he said, because they’re cooked quickly with the help of high heat. 

“Even the breads are flat,” he said. “This way you have more surface.” 

As the city of Sacramento chips away at local electrification efforts, Valenzuela said she’s become familiar with these conversations.

“There's a lot of pros to it, but it is different,” she said of electrification. “How do we make that accessible to people so that people can get there and understand it? You need to have that ongoing technical assistance available, and that has to be an investment.” 

She said she’s seen some electrification programs that allow people to opt out of replacing their gas stoves if they’re not interested. But she’s worried about what that means for them, especially as the state moves forward with its goal to phase out gas appliances. 

“Particularly in older neighborhoods where those lines are older, there will need to be a lot of improvements made to those lines to keep them safe in general,” she said. “Then what we're doing is we're putting the onus on that household to figure that out in the future, and that's not equitable either.”

Researchers looking at gas stoves have linked them to a vast array of health concerns like respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. One UCLA study found these stoves are a major cause of indoor air pollution and disproportionately impact people of color, who are already more likely to live in polluted areas. 

Yifang Zhu, a UCLA researcher and an author of the study, said it’s often a compounding issue for communities of color. 

“They are already disproportionately experiencing poor housing conditions, including old and unmaintained gas appliances,” she said. “Those devices tend to emit more pollution as compared to the newer ones.”  

If people are going to move away from these devices, Valenzuela said, it’s important to come at them with more than just the science. 

“We want to engage the communities first,” she said. “Not just because you need to understand those barriers and those concerns from the beginning [but] so you can design a program to meet their needs.”  

At home, and at restaurants 

All over California, cities are considering this transition on a local scale. Sacramento passed an ordinance that kicked into gear this year, requiring newly constructed residential and commercial buildings that are up to three-stories tall be all electric. 

But just like similar efforts in other municipalities, Sacramento’s ordinance allows for some exemptions. An exemption can be offered, for example, if a developer proves it’s infeasible for a project to be all-electric, whether due to high costs or the unavailability of certain technologies. 

Valenzuela said these exemptions can also apply to parts of a building where the developer intends to host a restaurant. As a whole, she said the ordinance is limited in its impacts. 

“It's a very narrow interpretation,” she said. “It will mean that most new residential buildings will likely not have gas, but I think in all practicality it means that most mixed development buildings, like what we're seeing in downtown, in Midtown, will probably have gas anyways.” 

Outside of new construction, there are also efforts to electrify already-existing homes, but they’re still operating on a smaller scale. Despite the frenzy of concerns that have accompanied these efforts, Valenzuela said there’s a lot more work to be done before major changes can happen. 

A lot of that, Valenzuela said, will come down to how cities work with their residents and how they “show people what this could look like so that it’s successful,” which could mean anything from group cooking classes to regular meetings. 

In the past few years, Soohoo has played a bigger role in the transition himself. He took part in shaping Sacramento’s electric buildings ordinance as a restaurant industry representative. He’s also led classes teaching residents how to cook effectively with electric woks over the years and is considering bringing them back because of all the questions he’s seen arise in conversations about electrification. 

Long before these issues became popular, he said he had to figure this out on his own. He remembers buying an electric wok back in the eighties, when he first noticed the pan gaining mainstream popularity among Western consumers in the United States. 

But there was a problem: The wok still didn’t get hot enough. He’s kept the electric wok that he bought decades ago at home. It’s a good example of the problems he’s faced in the quest to find a way to do electric wok cooking well. 

“Since they don't really ask Chinese chefs, they make this thing shut down at 400 degrees, 425 maybe,” he said. “And what happens is just when I need the energy, it turns off on me.” 

So, Soohoo took after his dad. He tampered with the electric wok, allowing it to heat up to a higher temperature than it had been manufactured to reach. He told students in his cooking classes about his adaptations, too. 

“What I always do is I take this thermostat and I short it out, simple as that,” he said. “I open it up and I short it so it never shuts off, so it generates enough [heat] for home.”

Soohoo said he still has a lot of questions and doubts that a majority of restaurants can successfully make the transition anytime soon. But he sees the move away from gas cooking at home as a little more straightforward. 

For now, at least, he said it’s important to learn from the ways in which communities like his own have adapted — and with that, take those lessons into California’s energy future. 

By Randol White

The overwhelming evidence, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shows the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, both for adults and children 12 and up. Also, the FDA is expected to authorize a COVID-19 vaccine for younger children in the coming weeks.

But false claims are circulating on social media saying the COVID-19 vaccines are harmful to children and caused the death of a Sonoma County teenager.  

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols fact-checked those claims in this week's Can You Handle the Truth segment.

He spoke with anchor Randol White.

Interview Highlights

There are false claims spreading on social media saying the vaccines are harmful. You found one high-profile example. Tell us about that. 

A story went viral on Twitter and Facebook after the tragic death of a 15-year-old boy in Sonoma County this summer. 

He had received the second dose of his vaccine within 48 hours of his death, and some anti-vaccination groups used that information to make the false claim that the vaccine caused his death. 

I contacted Sonoma County spokesperson Paul Gullixson about this. Here’s what he told me:  

“The case was thoroughly investigated by the Sonoma County coroner's office in partnership with the California Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," Gullixson said. "Forensic experts from all those agencies have concluded that there was no evidence the vaccine caused the death.”

So, there’s no evidence the vaccine caused the death. Were the experts able to determine what did cause his death?

They concluded he died of what is called stress cardiomyopathy, or heart failure with coronary artery inflammation. 

The CDC says there have been rare cases where young people developed heart inflammation after receiving the Covid 19 vaccines, correct?

That is correct. And the agency says people should seek medical care if they have symptoms such as chest pain or shortness of breath or feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart. They say most patients respond well to medicine and rest, and feel better quickly. 

But again the experts who looked at this Sonoma County case said they could not find a link to the vaccine. They described this as a perplexing case: the boy did not have a history of heart problems. 

Here is Gullixson: 

“We had cardio forensic pathologists, we had pediatric cardiologists looking at this case and they all agree it's a very rare and tragic and complicated case. But they could find no direct link between the death and the vaccines," Gullixson said.

In response to the posts circulating on social media, the family of the boy who died provided a message to the public. What did they say? 

They did. They told the Press Democrat newspaper in Santa Rosa, that “We feel strongly that everyone should have their children vaccinated.”

They went on to say: 

“We believe vaccines are safe and effective. Families should recognize that complicating factors can occur with any vaccine and, because of that, we encourage parents to closely monitor their children ... following vaccination regardless if they have symptoms or not.”

By Sasha Hupka

If Your Time Is Short:

• In recent weeks, several California school districts have announced that students over the age of 12 will be required to receive the COVID-19 vaccine to attend school in person.

• Some districts, such as the Los Angeles Unified School District, will only accept medical exemptions to the shot, while others, like the Oakland Unified School District, will also offer personal belief exemptions.

• California for decades has required schoolchildren receive vaccines for a range of diseases from measles to mumps to chickenpox, but experts say it’s unclear whether districts can individually mandate vaccines under current state law. 

• California law allows the state Legislature and the department of public health to set vaccination requirements for schoolchildren but does not include a process for local school boards.

• Legal scholars expect that the mandates will be challenged in court.

When the Culver City Unified School District announced in August it would require all eligible students to be vaccinated against COVID-19, the announcement was met with overwhelming support from the surrounding Los Angeles County community.

But as other schools across California have announced similar mandates in recent weeks, questions have emerged about whether individual districts can legally require public schoolchildren to receive COVID-19 shots, spurring opposition.

The Los Angeles Unified School District saw protesters when its board voted to mandate COVID-19 shots for students over 12 years of age on Sept. 9. The vote led to claims online that the district did not have the legal authority to require vaccinations. Last week, a crowd of parents holding signs with slogans like “My child, my choice” gathered outside a high school in Glendale, even though the school currently has no COVID-19 vaccination mandate in place for pupils.

Experts say previous legal rulings indicate that schools can generally mandate vaccinations for students and employees. But in California, where the state Legislature has already passed laws on student vaccination mandates, it’s unclear how much latitude districts might have to require schoolchildren to get the shot.

Legal scholars expect that the courts will have to work out the details. In the meantime, here’s what we know.

Constitutional Challenges

Leslie Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and director of the Capital Center for Law & Policy, said legal scholars “always” expect to see constitutional challenges to vaccine mandates.

But in the case of school vaccination mandates, she said those challenges “should not be strong” and are unlikely to succeed in court given past rulings.

“Religious liberty shouldn't be a winner constitutionally and bodily integrity — ‘I can't have a shot in my body’ — should also not be a winner constitutionally,” Jacobs said.

Government entities like schools and the U.S. Army have historically been able to require vaccinations based on legal precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905.

At the time, Massachusetts law empowered local health boards to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults if it was deemed crucial to the health and safety of the surrounding community. Adults who refused to get vaccinated faced a $5 fine.

During a smallpox outbreak in 1902, the city of Cambridge mandated the vaccination of all of its residents. One resident, Henning Jacobson, refused, sparking a case that eventually went before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court upheld the vaccination requirement. That decision firmly established the power of states and other government entities to enforce compulsory vaccinations in the interest of public health, according to legal scholars.

"A community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members," Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in the majority opinion in the case.

California’s Current Vaccination Laws

Vaccinations for California schoolchildren are currently regulated by Senate Bill 277, which passed in June 2015. The legislation was prompted by an outbreak of measles at Disneyland in 2014 that ultimately infected more than 150 people from eight different states, Mexico and Canada.

For decades, California has mandated vaccinations against measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, hepatitis B, influenza type B, polio, whooping cough, tetanus and chickenpox. But passage of the law removed personal belief exemptions, giving California one of the toughest vaccination mandates in the nation. Without a medical exemption, the only way parents could opt out of vaccinating their children was to home-school them or enroll them in an independent study program without classroom instruction. 

The legislation also included several options for adding vaccinations to the mandated list. The state Legislature could pass a new statute or amend the law at any time, opting to add a new vaccination with or without a personal belief exemption.

Alternatively, a clause in the law allowed the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to mandate new vaccines, taking into consideration advice from health experts. But if a vaccination is added to the schedule in this way, the legislation stipulates that personal belief exemptions must be offered to parents and students.

The law raises several legal concerns for school districts currently mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for students. Dorit Reiss, a professor of law at UC Hastings in San Francisco and a member of the Vaccine Working Group on Ethics and Policy, said the law can be interpreted as a minimum standard that schools must follow and noted that one clause in the legislation gives districts “broad authority” to act in ways that do not conflict with the law.

However, Reiss said legal challenges could stem from the fact that state law does not lay out any sort of formal process for individual districts to add vaccination requirements.

“The argument is that because the state has extensively regulated this area, the state has occupied it, and districts cannot deviate from state law at will,” Reiss said. “The broad school immunization law covers it, and there is no room for local action.”

Ultimately, it’s unclear where courts will land on the issue. Jacobs said schools mandating COVID-19 vaccinations are “pushing the envelope” legally.

Will More California Schools Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations?

So far, just a handful of California school districts have mandated COVID-19 shots for students. 

Culver City and Los Angeles Unified are the two largest districts to do so in Southern California. Neither are currently offering personal belief exemptions.

Last week, the Oakland Unified School District and Piedmont Unified School District, both in Alameda County, became the first districts to mandate the vaccination in Northern California. While Piedmont Unified is only allowing medical exemptions, Oakland Unified will accept personal belief waivers.

Other school districts seem less eager to jump into new mandates. Officials with the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Diego Unified School District told CalMatters earlier this month that they did not plan to set a vaccination requirement.

When Culver City Unified announced its vaccination mandate, Superintendent Quoc Tran told EdSource that he believed the requirement was legally sound. He said school officials did not ask district lawyers to look at the policy.

A spokesperson for Los Angeles Unified declined to comment on the school’s legal authority for this article, and a spokesperson for Oakland Unified said they could not discuss legal specifics with PolitiFact California as the school believes “there is the possibility of litigation on this topic.”

If school districts get challenged in court, Jacobs, with the McGeorge School of Law, said a judge could issue an emergency order to halt vaccination requirements as the case moves through the legal system.

It’s also possible that districts soon won’t be making the vaccination rules in classrooms across the Golden State. During a media briefing last week, California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly said officials are considering a statewide requirement, although no definitive decision has been made.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday said school mandates are “still on the table.”

In the meantime, whether or not California school districts can independently require students to get vaccinated will likely be fought out in the courts. 

That process may be repeated across the country as districts in other places confront their own state laws on vaccinations in schools.

“State law controls,” Jacobs said. “It will be up to a court to look at these sources of state law to determine what's happening.”

Source List: 

Email interview with Dorit Reiss, a professor of law at UC Hastings and a member of the Vaccine Working Group on Ethics and Policy, Sept. 23, 2021

Zoom interview with Leslie Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at McGeorge School of Law and director of the Capital Center for Law & Policy, Sept. 23, 2021

The Los Angeles Times, Culver City Unified to require student COVID-19 vaccinations, in what may be a first, Aug. 18, 2021

The Los Angeles Times, L.A. school officials order sweeping student vaccine mandate, a first by a major district, Sept. 9, 2021

ABC7, Parents protest vaccine mandates despite Glendale Unified not having requirement for students, Sept. 24, 2021

Cornell Law Library Legal Information Institute, Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

California Legislative Information, Senate Bill No. 277

National Conference of State Legislatures, States With Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From School Immunization Requirements, April 30, 2021

The Los Angeles Times, California Legislature passes mandatory vaccination bill, June 29, 2015

SF Gate, State Assembly approves vaccine bill, June 25, 2015

Centers for Disease Control, Measles Outbreak — California, December 2014 - February 2015, Feb. 20, 2015

Culver City Unified School District, Facebook post, Aug. 17, 2021

Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles Unified to Require All Students 12 and Older to be Vaccinated Against COVID-19 by January 10, 2022, Sept. 9, 2021

Los Angeles Unified School District, Safe Steps to Safe Schools: Frequently Asked Questions

Piedmont Unified School District, PUSD Board Meeting Summary – September 22, 2021, Sept. 24, 2021

Oakland Unified School District, OUSD Board of Education Passes Vaccine Requirement for Students 12 Years Old and Up, Sept. 23, 2021

CalMatters, Other school districts in no rush to follow Los Angeles Unified vaccine mandate, Sept. 10, 2021

EdSource, Culver City Unified mandates Covid vaccine for students, possibly a first for California, Aug. 18, 2021

NBC Bay Area, California Considers COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Students 12 and Up, Sept. 23, 2021

By Chris Nichols

Updated at 10:54 a.m. on September 24, 2021

Reports about vaccinated Americans catching COVID-19 are energizing vaccine skeptics and leading to more misinformation about efficacy and breakthrough cases.

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols examined the facts about breakthrough infections in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth.

Nichols sat down and spoke with CapRadio’s afternoon anchor Randol White and broke everything down.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On how rare breakthrough COVID-19 cases are feeding into misinformation

One example is a popular and misleading post on Instagram.

It wrongly claimed that the vaccines are “the first in history to not prevent people from catching or spreading a virus” and that they only last a few months.

PolitiFact found that is completely false. No vaccine is 100% effective. That’s the case for the flu vaccine and also the case for the COVID-19 vaccines.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says on its website some fully vaccinated people will get sick, some will even be hospitalized or die from COVID-19, and that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections can also spread the disease.

On current COVID-19 cases in unvaccinated people

Studies show vaccinated people are eight times less likely to be infected — and 25 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people, according to the CDC.

And those who are fully vaccinated and get one of these breakthrough cases are less likely to suffer a serious illness.

On the false claim that vaccine efficacy ‘only lasts for months’

It’s still not clear how long the protection provided by the vaccines will last. Health officials are still debating whether everyone will need a booster shot.

But the last part of the social media post is misleading because plenty of other vaccines require boosters.

People are asked to take the flu vaccine every year, and vaccines against Hepatitis B, whooping cough, chickenpox and measles all require multiple shots.

On the odds of a fully vaccinated person developing a breakthrough case

The New York Times found that the average vaccinated American’s odds of getting a breakthrough infection are roughly 1 in 5,000 a day, or 1 in 10,000 in highly vaccinated states.

They used data on daily average COVID-19 cases in different parts of the country to arrive at these odds.

A recent CDC report includes data showing the odds of a breakthrough might be even lower, at about 1 in 5,000 per week.

PolitiFact found all of these statistics have some limitations. For example, they don’t take into account the undercounting of breakthrough infections. But, they do show the vaccines are reducing infections and the overall risk of a breakthrough is low.

Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the risk of breakthrough infections. They are rare, but not exceedingly rare.

By Steven Rascón

False information about COVID-19 vaccines continues to spread on social media, and comes as cases are on the rise across the United States.

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols and contributor Steven Rascon fact-checked several claims in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment. 

They spoke with CapRadio anchor Randol White.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On a false Instagram post that makes a questionable claim about vaccines and miscarriages

Chris Nichols: This post cherry-picks and manipulates some data from a scientific study to make a false and alarming claim. It says there’s a high miscarriage rate, more than 80%, for women who got an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine early in their pregnancies. 

The Instagram post arrives at this flawed conclusion based on a small sample of completed pregnancies known by researchers. But in reality, the majority of study participants are either still pregnant, or have not yet had follow-ups with the study’s authors.

Researchers said early results have not found an increased risk of miscarriage tied to the COVID-19 vaccination. They also acknowledge that there’s limited data on this topic and that it requires further research.

On a false claim about infants and childhood vaccines

Nichols:These social media posts claim that common childhood vaccines cause sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS. PolitiFact found this is also a false, baseless claim. 

SIDS refers to the sudden and unexplained death of an apparently healthy baby, also called crib death. But scientific studies have consistently shown that there is no causal relationship between vaccines and SIDS. Those studies also show that receiving recommended immunizations can lower an infant’s risk of SIDS. 

The CDC recommends that during their first six months, infants get vaccinated against a range of diseases, from tetanus to whooping cough to polio and several others. Studies looking at each of these vaccines have found no associations between them and SIDS. 

On a misleading claim on social media that said San Francisco was allowing children to get the COVID vaccine without their parent’s approval 

Steven Rascon: Just as the FDA was about to approve the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use for minors, San Francisco issued a health order saying if you are a minor you can consent to the vaccine only if you are emancipated as according to the state or considered self-sufficient.

Most of this information was in the health order, and it recognizes that emancipated minors are not the norm but should have a choice to receive the vaccine. Much of the misinformation came from Twitter and Facebook users sharing a portion of the health order which clearly says “San Francisco allowing minors to consent to receive the COVID vaccine.”

San Francisco’s Department of Public Health confirmed this was only the case for emancipated minors, and healthcare providers giving out the shot would still have to try to get a parent’s consent before giving out the shot.

Because San Francisco allows some minors to consent to the vaccine on their own, PolitiFact California rated this claim as Mostly False.

By Chris Nichols

Misinformation played a crucial role in the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, which took place six months ago this week.

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols breaks down the extent to which false claims influenced those who took part in the riot.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On what PolitiFact journalists in Washington, D.C. uncovered about the insurrection

In a recent investigation, PolitiFact reviewed court filings for 430 defendants arrested on charges tied to the riot. These defendants range from current and former law enforcement officials to a Washington, D.C. music teacher to conspiracy theorists here in California.

PolitiFact found many of them saw their actions as patriotic, but they also found they were driven by the lie that the election was stolen and motivated by other misinformation.

On how the lie that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent fueled the insurrection

[The lie] was really exploited. This lie was promoted for months by former President Donald Trump. It was also repeated over and over again on conservative cable TV channels such as Fox News, Newsmax and One America News Network, as well as on social media.

Some of these cable channels and Trump himself continued to spread these false claims, even as local, state and federal officials verified that this was a free and fair election. Several recounts were held, but they only reinforced President Joe Biden’s victory in key swing states.

Importantly, judges in courtrooms across the country, some of them appointed by Trump, rejected more than 50 lawsuits brought by the former president or his allies alleging election fraud.

On how many of the insurrection participants were influenced by other strains of misinformation

In about half of the 430 cases PolitiFact looked at, the court documents showed how false narratives really shaped the lives of these individuals.

There was a music teacher in D.C. who amplified false conspiracy theories on his podcast and YouTube channel — including the baseless conspiracy that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting never happened, that former NBA star Kobe Bryant is still alive, and even that Earth is flat.

There was also a 54-year-old woman from Pennsylvania who suggested on Facebook that Democrats “have been trafficking children for years.” A witness testified that she had lost customers at the restaurant where she worked over her views on politics.

On what experts in the spread of disinformation said about how the false narrative about a stolen election can be stopped

They say that many of these defendants truly believe this false information and will continue to spread it.

The experts say it’s really up to the people in power, some who are also spreading these lies but don’t necessarily believe them, to shut this down. Experts say those people need to reject these false narratives.

Editor’s note: PolitiFact has reviewed court filings and other information for hundreds of defendants facing charges related to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol in an ongoing effort to document what role misinformation played. This report reflects our initial findings about the way that hundreds of false claims about the 2020 election being stolen contributed to the events of that day. Our reporting will continue. To comment on this story, please go to our Facebook page. Send feedback or tips via email to [email protected]. 

By Sasha Hupka

If your time is short:

• The California Independent System Operator, which oversees the operations of the state’s power grid, issued a Flex Alert last week amid the first heat wave of the summer.
• The alert asked Californians to conserve electricity when possible. It included several tips, including a suggestion to avoid charging electric cars during peak power usage hours.
• Most electric car drivers top off their battery regularly rather than charging it from empty to full. Therefore, many cars are equipped with charging timers and only require a few hours of charging each day, so Californians can easily avoid charging vehicles during peak hours.
• Experts say California’s power grid can comfortably support up to 5 million electric cars on the road. Currently, there are roughly 635,000 electric vehicles registered in the state, according to the California Energy Commission.

As Californians grapple with the increasing impacts of climate change, few things have come to be dreaded more than summer heat waves.

This year, the scorching temperatures arrived early, prompting the first power conservation advisory of the summer on June 17 and setting off speculation on social media about how the heat could impact electric car owners.

“California literally just told everyone to not charge their electric cars due to power shortage,” read a June 18 post on Facebook, which was shared more than 46,000 times.

“So California just asked everyone to stop charging electric cars due to power outages … can’t make this crap up,” read another, posted on June 21.

There’s good news for electric car owners — the rumors are missing a lot of context and aren’t entirely true.

But the posts spread quickly online and migrated from Facebook to other platforms, including Twitter. 

They also sparked discussion about whether California has the resources to continue to move toward electric vehicles in pursuit of a greener future.

“California can't provide enough electricity for the homes and businesses they have yet they're mandating everyone drive more electric cars,” read one post on Facebook. “I'm continually amazed at how stupid leftists can be.”

Facebook flagged the posts as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed, so we decided to investigate. (Read more about PolitiFact California’s partnership with Facebook.) 

The Alert

The California Independent System Operator, or CAISO, is the nonprofit tasked with operating and managing most of California’s power grid. It regularly issues power conservation advisories when the grid is facing challenging conditions, such as intense heat or wildfires. 

The advisories, known as Flex Alerts, encourage Californians to shift their energy usage to certain times of the day when the power grid is less stressed.

“A flex alert is not a power outage,” said Gil Tal, director of the Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. “It's a way to prevent outages. We don't like that we are being told not to use electricity, but it's a much better situation than sitting in the dark if the grid is collapsing.”

Usually, the alerts ask that residents conserve power during evening hours, when people are still awake and using electricity but some energy sources, such as solar power, are not available.

“On a good day, solar in California can make up half of the generation,” said Severin Borenstein, a professor of business administration and public policy at UC Berkeley and the director of the Energy Institute at the university’s Haas School of Business. “And so when we start to lose it, we need to have other things. One of the problems that comes up on super hot days when the demand is very high is we may not have enough of the other resources to keep the balance in the system.”

In announcing the June 17 Flex Alert, CAISO encouraged people to voluntarily cut back their power usage from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. The announcement included tips on how Californians could conserve energy and advised residents to complete tasks involving high amounts of energy, such as using large appliances and charging electric vehicles, before the alert to “be as comfortable as possible” during the evening hours.

The advisory never explicitly told Californians to not charge electric vehicles – just to shift their charging schedules, if possible, to accommodate limited resources in the evening.

“This is completely voluntary,” Borenstein said. “There typically aren't even financial incentives. It's just a plea and that applies to electric vehicles as well.”

How Electric Cars Get Charged

Today, there are just under 630,000 electric cars on the road in the Golden State, according to the California Energy Commission. Although they come in many shapes, sizes and models, all of them work similarly — drive, park and plug in as needed.

How long and how often electric cars need to charge depends on a variety of factors, including how far the car has traveled, what the car’s top range is and what type of outlet it is hooked up to.

Borenstein said charging a vehicle fully can take hours.

“If you're plugging into a regular old household 110-[volt] outlet, it can take all night just to replenish a battery that's been driven 100 miles during the day,” he said. “Most houses that have charging have at least a 220-[volt] outlet and charge about twice as fast.”

But most daily commutes won’t completely drain an electric car’s battery. Data from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration shows that residents of the San Francisco Bay Area traveled an average of about 20.7 miles per day in 2019. In Los Angeles, that number was 22.5 miles each day and in Sacramento, it was 22.3 miles. 

So most modern electric cars don’t need to be charged on a daily basis, Tal said. 

Many get plugged in every couple of days and are equipped with timers so that owners can schedule their charges. While electric car drivers might initially balk at power outages and conservation advisories, Tal said these events usually pose “no problem.”

“A Flex Alert is a couple of hours and there are very, very few electric car drivers that have to charge their cars in these specific few hours,” Tal said. “Most of the drivers today and in the future will be able to delay it by a couple of hours or a couple of days if needed.”

Does California Have The Power To Go Green?

As of 2019, renewable sources produced just over 30% of California’s power. In 2015, the state pledged to increase that number to 50% by 2030 and Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order last year that requires all new cars sold in California to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

“California is really on the cutting edge of integrating wind and solar into generation,” Borenstein said. “California also has much larger penetration of electric vehicles than any other state, and so we are on the cutting edge there, too. That gives us the opportunity to be a leader in coordinating the electric vehicles with the intermittent renewables.”

If everyone drove an electric vehicle, Tal said Californians would “double” their electric use in their homes. But change is unlikely to come quickly, and the current grid is able to support short-term increases in electric cars.

“We can have millions of electric cars on today's grid with no problem,” Tal said. “We have less than a million today and we can go to three, four, five million without doing any serious upgrades.”

In the long run, California’s power grid will need to produce and store more electricity to reliably make the shift to an entirely electrified fleet. But Tal said the process should be smooth if the changes happen “together.” 

Borenstein said it’s not the first time the power grid has needed to adjust to emerging technology, comparing the shift toward electric cars to when air conditioning became popular in the 1950s. Over the years, the grid successfully scaled up capacity to accommodate energy demands.

Air conditioning units tend to kick in at roughly the same times because outside temperatures increase during the day and decrease overnight, which posed an additional challenge for the electric grid of the 1950s. Borenstein said electric cars will likely have an easier adjustment.

“We are going to have to build up capacity here as well,” Borenstein said. “But we probably aren't going to have to build up capacity nearly as much because everybody doesn't have to charge at the same time.”

As California transitions to electric vehicles and renewable power sources, Borenstein said market forces will likely promote charging during times when energy is more plentiful.

“I think that's where we're going,” he said. “We're not going to make it illegal to charge your car at any particular time, but it's going to be cheaper to charge it when the grid actually is more plentiful with electricity and more expensive when the grid is tight.”

Our Ruling

Posts on social media claimed that California told electric car owners to “not charge” their vehicles because of a power shortage.

The posts appear to refer to a Flex Alert that was issued by the California Independent System Operator on June 17. The alert encouraged Californians to voluntarily conserve energy and charge their electric vehicles before 5 p.m. to minimize possible stress on the power grid during the first major heat wave of the summer. 

CAISO officials never said people could not charge their vehicles. Rather, they asked that electric vehicle owners shift their charging schedule to accommodate limited energy sources in the evening.

Furthermore, experts say that most electric vehicles only need a few hours of charging each night and are equipped with timers so that owners can schedule charging periods, making it simple for Californians to voluntarily comply with the Flex Alert.

The posts also kicked off debate about whether California’s grid will be able to accommodate efforts to move toward electric vehicles in the coming years. But experts said the transition should be smooth as long as the shift to electric cars is coordinated with efforts to push for renewable energy sources and improve grid capacity.

The posts entirely misinterpreted the Flex Alert and stoked largely unfounded fears about California’s move toward green energy. Therefore, we rate these claims False.

FALSE – The statement is not accurate.

Sources:

Facebook post, June 18, 2021

Facebook post, June 21, 2021

Facebook post, June 28, 2021

Twitter post, June 21, 2021

Interview with Gil Tal, director of the Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, June 25, 2021

Interview with Severin Borenstein, a professor of business administration and public policy at UC Berkeley and the director of the Energy Institute at Haas, June 29, 2021

California Independent System Operator Corporation, Flex Alert in effect today from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m., June 17, 2021

California Energy Commission, Zero Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure Statistics, April 20, 2021

Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics Series: Highway Statistics 2019, Sept. 30, 2020

California Energy Commission, 2019 Total System Electric Generation

Los Angeles Times, Gov. Brown signs climate change bill to spur renewable energy, efficiency standards, Oct. 7, 2015

Los Angeles Times, Newsom orders 2035 phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, calls for fracking ban, Sept. 23, 2020

By Sasha Hupka

A TV ad supporting Gov. Gavin Newsom in the recall election claims the governor is “getting 65,000 homeless Californians into housing.”

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols fact-checked that claim in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment. Meanwhile, PolitiFact California contributor Sasha Hupka fact-checked a claim about Newsom’s power to extend the COVID-19 state of emergency.

Nichols and Hupka joined CapRadio’s afternoon anchor Randol White to discuss both claims.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On the ad supporting Newsom and if the numbers check out

Chris Nichols: The ad was produced by Stop The Republican Recall of Governor Newsom Committee. This is a group formed by Democrats supporting Newsom. They’ve produced several TV ads that talk about how the governor is helping Californians.

The ad focused on things like the state stimulus checks he approved, but then they also make a claim about homelessness that caught our attention.

“Gov. Gavin Newsom has California roaring back,” the ad said. “What does that mean for you? Newsom is delivering money to your pocket, cleaning up our streets, and getting 65,000 homeless Californians into housing.”

This claim really needs some context. Newsom has proposed spending a record $12 billion on homelessness. The big focus is on housing people — but that’s a plan that stretches over the next three fiscal years, according to his proposed budget.

On getting more context on the state’s homelessness crisis and the state’s Project Roomkey initiative

Nichols: It’s not easy to house the unhoused, and it’s mainly the job of the cities, counties and nonprofits to do this challenging, time-consuming work. Though state funding and technical assistance do help.

Project Roomkey has helped more than 40,000 homeless Californians. It provided them with temporary shelter in motels during the worst of the pandemic. CapRadio recently reported that only about 30% of those who left the program have gone on to find permanent or temporary housing.

So, Newsom and local governments have a big challenge ahead to house that 65,000 number talked about in the campaign ad.

On Gov. Newsom’s ability to keep a state of emergency declaration active

Sasha Hupka: We saw claims on Facebook that Newsom can’t extend the state of emergency and that it expired last year, but that’s simply not true.

In fact, he’s already extended it several times. The laws which govern such things say very clearly [that] a declaration is ended either by him or by concurrent resolution in the legislature.

A concurrent resolution is used to resolve issues that pertain to both the Assembly and Senate. Legal experts say it’s a check on Newsom’s power because it means both he and a majority of the legislature have to agree … the declaration should continue.

Experts say there is also a check in the form of public opinion. This is especially true for Newsom, who is facing a recall election.

On what the ongoing state of emergency does, and why to keep it

Hupka: It allows officials to address the crisis, which could be important if cases spike again. It also unlocks funding California usually wouldn’t have access to.

PolitiFact rated the claim that Newsom has “no power or authority” to extend the state of emergency as False.

By Chris Nichols

Some emails that Dr. Anthony Fauci sent during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic have been released, leading to a new round of misleading posts on social media.

PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols joins CapRadio Anchor Randol White on this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On how these emails came to light 

Fauci, who is the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, wrote these emails in the winter and spring of last year.

But they were not released through some unsanctioned or underhanded way. Instead, the federal government provided these emails to The Washington Post and BuzzFeed News after they filed Freedom of Information Act requests.

That act gives the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. The news outlets then published many of these emails in their news reports.

On the false claim’s misrepresentation of Fauci’s early mask recommendations

These claims make the false argument — one that we’ve heard a lot over the past year — that masks are ineffective in preventing COVID-19.

They essentially say that Fauci lied to the public about masks, and they take him out of context. They do this by citing one of his emails from early February last year, where he recommends mask-wearing only for people infected with the virus.

That was the consensus at the time, and mask-wearing was not common until later on. The guidance from Fauci and other experts changed in April last year, as more evidence about the virus and its transmission emerged.

That’s when mask-wearing was widely recommended. It came after clearer findings that showed the virus could be transmitted by people who showed no symptoms.

PolitiFact rated the claim about Fauci lying about masks as False.

On the other false claim that Fauci "lied" about rheumatoid arthritis and lupus medication, hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine is also the medication former President Donald Trump famously touted. The emails show that Fauci did express interest in the drug early on, but he also said that more data was needed to prove whether it was effective.

So, his comments in the email are in line with what he's said in public and with the general scientific agreement on the drug.

By Chris Nichols

Vice President and former California Senator Kamala Harris recently claimed one-third of all small businesses have closed during the pandemic.

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols fact-checked that and other statements in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On when Harris made this claim and if it’s correct

She made it during a TV interview that aired this week on MSNBC, and she was talking about the toll the pandemic has taken on small businesses.

“This is one of my areas of focus I care so deeply about, which is … let’s just be clear about where we are. Half of America’s workforce works for a small business or owns a small business,” Harris said. “Sadly, during the course of the pandemic, one-third of our small businesses have closed.”

It really is a stark figure, and we found a couple of sources that do support her statement. A spokesperson for Harris pointed to a Harvard University project called The Economic Tracker.

That’s an online platform that provides data about real-time economic trends, and it uses things like financial transaction activity to determine whether a business has closed.

As of this week, the Tracker shows there are 37% fewer small businesses open nationwide compared with a couple of months before the pandemic. That share was slightly higher in California at 39%.

On how this statement was fact-checked, and if there were any contradictions

The Small Business Roundtable, which advocates for small businesses, published a survey in May of last year that also supports this claim. At that time, 31% of small businesses reported that they were not operating. Those fairing the worst at the time were hotels, restaurants, cafes and similar businesses.

The Federal Reserve Board published a study in April that offers a slightly different but more hopeful perspective. It found there certainly were a lot of business closures over the past year, but fewer than expected ended up as permanent business closures.

On a widely-shared and inaccurate social media post about Harris and President Joe Biden

This was a Facebook post that claimed Biden and Harris “did not say one word about American troops, veterans or fallen military on Memorial Day.”

That post is simply incorrect. The post points to tweets that Biden and Harris sent out a couple days before the Holiday that do not mention the military. However, over the weekend, both made statements honoring military members and their families.

Biden and Harris participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.

Biden spoke at a Memorial Day ceremony in Delaware.

“Even last year during those early and dark days of the pandemic, Jill and I didn’t want to let Memorial Day pass, like every other day, and there was no event here, [so] we came to lay a wreath at the plaza,” Biden said. “It was the first time we did any sort of events since the lockdown had begun in March because we were determined to honor the fallen.”

In the end, PolitiFact rated the claim on Facebook as False.