Editor’s note: This story is republished from CalMatters, a public interest news outlet covering the important issues affecting all of California.
Do you have an experience with heat waves at work that you’d like to share? Get in touch with us at [email protected]. We’ve also included more information about how to stay safe during heat waves at the bottom of this article.
With more heat waves expected this summer, California officials are trying to assess the long-term economic impact on workers and businesses — and what more can be done to protect workers bearing the brunt of extreme temperatures.
Although California is one of the few states with heat standards protecting outdoor workers, advocates and workers say enforcement is still a struggle. Meanwhile the state has been trying for years to create indoor workplace heat rules.
A 2021 study of California worker compensation data by a left-leaning economic research nonprofit shows hot days lead to increased workplace accidents across California. The Washington Center for Equitable Growth study estimates hot temperatures have caused at least 360,000 workplace injuries in California from 2001 to 2018, or about 20,000 injuries a year.
The welfare impacts associated with heat-related workplace injuries may be on the order of $525 million to $875 million per year in California.
Researchers examined California workers compensation data and tracked daily temperatures down to the zip code. They compared the number of worker injuries and illnesses on 85-to-105-degree days to days when temperatures hovered around 60 degrees.
A new state advisory committee is set to use this data as a roadmap to tackle hot workplace issues. The group of state agency staffers and scholars will examine persistent problems with underreported heat-related illness and injuries, as well as gaps in data collection and the financial toll on workers and businesses when temperatures rise and production falls.
Young workers at risk
A day above 100 degrees can lead to a 10-15% increase in same-day injuries on the job, the study says, with injuries hitting low-wage workers hardest. And recovering from a heat-related injury or illness costs the average worker $35,000, including health care and long-term wage impact.
“This implies that the welfare impacts associated with heat-related workplace injuries may be on the order of $525 million to $875 million per year in California alone,” the study authors wrote.
The study says workplace injuries include incidents not usually linked to heat, such as falling from heights, getting struck by a vehicle or mishandling dangerous machinery. Research links high temperatures to reduced cognitive performance and decision-making.
The lead author of the study, University of Pennsylvania professor R. Jisung Park, is a member of the advisor committee. He and his coauthors found that low-wage workers, especially young men, face the greatest risks of heat injuries, even in mostly-indoor workplaces like restaurants or warehouses.https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GKazD/3/
The state’s advisory committee met for the first time at the end of June. Its mandate is part of a package of heat-related legislation passed last year.
Gov. Gavin Newsom in September signed several bills creating the first extreme heat warning and ranking system in the nation, directing the California Department of Public Health to study the impact of extreme heat on pregnant workers and encouraging local governments to invest in protections against extreme heat and other climate effects.
“There are certain sectors that are going to be heavily influenced of course, including food production,” said Daniel Sumner, an advisory committee member who is an agricultural and labor economist at UC Davis. “I think we’d be remiss not to try to think through impacts that directly affect workers’ lower productivity, raise danger for workers, and as a consequence raise food prices.”
Are California workers protected from heat?
California is one of a few states with laws that mandate employers provide water breaks, shade and rest for outdoor workers once temperatures reach certain levels.
The state implemented its outdoor heat standard in 2005, after several farmworkers – three in Kern County and one in Fresno County – died due to heat exposure. After the 2008 death of a pregnant teen working in a Central Valley vineyard drew national outrage, state officials frantically tried to strengthen and enforce the heat protections.
The Washington Center study found occupational heat-related injuries in California declined by about 30 percent since the standards took effect in 2005.
There still are no heat-related federal workplace protections, even for outdoor workers, although the Occupational Health and Safety Administration announced two years ago it was developing heat rules for outdoor and indoor workers.
There’s currently little relief for California’s indoor workers. The state has been considering proposals for heat rules for employees in indoor settings like restaurants or warehouses for nearly seven years, missing a 2019 deadline the Legislature set.
Last summer, a 24-year-old United Parcel Service driver died after collapsing from the heat during deliveries in Pasadena.
The 340,000-strong union representing the UPS workers has been seeking heat rules that would cover its California members. The union reached a “historic” contract agreement with the company July 25 after threatening a strike, securing a deal with higher wages and more heat protections.
Jassy Grewal, a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council and a member of the state’s heat advisory committee, said workers in high-intensity environments, or those who don’t have a cool place at home, are especially vulnerable without indoor heat rules.
“What type of pressures from employers, like work quotas, contribute to heat-related illness,” Grewal asked during the first committee meeting. “And how does the intensity of work and how physically demanding it is relate to the impact of heat exposure while at work and while not at work?”
Gaps in job protections
Unions and worker advocates have sued the state in the past to enforce heat-related regulations, and they say the state needs to hold employers accountable.
Advocacy groups warn that despite progress, the greatest risk to workers lies with the state’s troubled enforcement record.
Some experts say it’s as simple as better outreach, informing workers about heat risks and their rights.
“It’s all implementation and ensuring that these workers actually get the benefits of these laws,” said Michael Méndez, environmental policy professor at UC Irvine, “and having a culturally and linguistically appropriate messaging on the risk and severity of these heat waves.
“I think for any population it’s confusing to understand how our climate is changing and how much risk they could have. So ensuring that we have trusted messengers and doing it in a culturally and linguistically appropriate way matters.”
“We expect state agencies to be out in full strength across California to make sure employers are being compliant with the state heat rules. Heat is still a deadly hazard.”ANTONIO DE LOERA-BRUST, UFW SPOKESPERSON
The United Farm Workers sued the Cal/OSHA in 2012 to compel the state to enforce heat rules for farmworkers. In 2015 the state settled a suit the union brought on behalf of five farmworkers who alleged CalOSHA was systematically neglecting its duty to enforce the 2005 law.
UFW spokesperson Antonio de Loera-Brust told CalMatters “people died to win” California’s enforcement standards.
“We expect state agencies to be out in full strength across California to make sure employers are being compliant with the state heat rules,” De Loera-Brust said. “Heat is still a deadly hazard.”
Farmworker health
A February study on California farmworker health and safety by the UC Merced Community and Labor Center found that only a third of farm laborers could recognize the symptoms of a heat-related illness.
Only half of the roughly 1,500 farmworkers surveyed said their employers always provide shade mandated by California law when it hits 80 degrees, while a quarter said their employers never or rarely provide the required shade.
The study, which surveyed farmworkers in six languages, also found:
- About 22% of farmworkers said their employer “never” monitors for heat illness. A slightly higher percentage in the Imperial Valley, where scorching temperatures are common, said the same.
- 82% of farmworkers in the San Joaquin Valley said they have received heat related illness training.
- About 43% of farmworkers statewide, including two-thirds of Central Coast farmworkers, said their employers never had a written heat illness protection plan.
Some farm employers still don’t comply with state rules about providing water, shade and rest, the survey shows.
- 55% of farmworkers across the state said their employers always monitored the temperature on hot days — 76% said it in the Imperial Valley, but 46% did in Napa Valley and Sonoma areas.
- 75% of farmworkers said their employers provide clean drinking water every time.
- Barely half of farmworkers reported their employers always provide a 10-minute cool down rest, while 21% said their employers “never” did.
Alice Berliner, worker health and safety program director at the community and labor center, said it’s clear employers some workers aren’t getting safety information or training in Spanish when they need it.
“We know heat-related deaths are going up,” she said. “If we want to prevent future deaths from happening, we really need to ensure workers are protected at work.”
State officials taking preventive measures, such as conducting heat sweeps ahead of heat waves, has helped, she added.
What will the state committee do?
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, who authored legislation creating the advisory committee last year, called the panel of 13 a “solid first step.” He said he will work with the Legislature to do more for workers.
“Climate change is accelerating, and extreme heat and heat-related illnesses are on the rise,” the Salinas Democrat said in a statement. “California is committed to protecting workers’ health and quality of life during extreme heat waves.”
Despite near-universal consensus among state officials and advocates that heat reform work is urgent, and despite recent record shattering temperatures, the committee has been given a 2026 deadline to report results to the Legislature.
The committee is set to meet quarterly. The next session is September 19. Members indicated they’ll likely commission a study to guide the committee’s work.
“I have no doubt the work this committee will do will save lives,” said Cal/OSHA chief Jeff Killip at the meeting.
Tips from the National Weather Service about heat waves:
Outdoor Activities
- Slow down. Reduce, eliminate or reschedule strenuous activities until the coolest time of the day. Those particularly vulnerable to heat such as children, infants, older adults (especially those who have preexisting diseases, take certain medications, living alone or with limited mobility), those with chronic medical conditions, and pregnant women should stay in the coolest available place, not necessarily indoors.
- Dress for summer. Wear lightweight, loose fitting, light-colored clothing to reflect heat and sunlight.
- Minimize direct exposure to the sun. Sunburn reduces your body’s ability to dissipate heat.
Eating and Drinking
- Eat light, cool, easy-to-digest foods such as fruit or salads. If you pack food, put it in a cooler or carry an ice pack. Don’t leave it sitting in the sun. Meats and dairy products can spoil quickly in hot weather.
- Drink plenty of water (not very cold), non-alcoholic and decaffeinated fluids, even if you don’t feel thirsty. If you are on a fluid-restricted diet or have a problem with fluid retention, consult a physician before increasing consumption of fluids.
- Do not take salt tablets unless specified by a physician.
Cooling Down
- Use air conditioners or spend time in air-conditioned locations such as malls and libraries.
- Use portable electric fans to exhaust hot air from rooms or draw in cooler air.
- Do not direct the flow of portable electric fans toward yourself when room temperature is hotter than 90°F. The dry blowing air will dehydrate you faster, endangering your health.
- Take a cool bath or shower.
Check on Others
- Check on older, sick, or frail people who may need help responding to the heat. Each year, dozens of children and untold numbers of pets left in parked vehicles die from hyperthermia. Keep your children, disabled adults, and pets safe during tumultuous heat waves.
- Don’t leave valuable electronic equipment, such as cell phones and GPS units, sitting in hot cars.
- Make sure rooms are well vented if you are using volatile chemicals.
Heat Safety in Vehicles
- Even on mild days in the 70s, studies have shown that the temperature inside a parked vehicle can rapidly rise to a dangerous level for children, pets and even adults. Leaving the windows slightly open does not significantly decrease the heating rate. A dark dashboard or car seat can quickly reach temperatures in the range of 180°F to over 200°F. These objects heat the adjacent air by conduction and convection and also give off long wave radiation, which then heats the air trapped inside a vehicle. Touch a child’s safety seat and safety belt before using it to ensure it’s not too hot before securing a child
- Never leave a child unattended in a vehicle, even with the windows down, even for just a minute
- Teach children not to play in, on, or around cars. They could accidentally trap themselves in a hot vehicle.
- Always lock car doors and trunks–even at home–and keep keys out of children’s reach.
- Always make sure children have left the car when you reach your destination. Don’t leave sleeping infants in the car.
- Click here to learn more and follow these tips to ensure childrens’ safety.
Heat stroke and exhaustion symptoms
| Symptoms | What to do | |
|---|---|---|
| Heat Exhaustion | – Heavy sweating – Cold, pale, clammy skin – Fast, weak pulse – Nausea or vomiting – Muscle cramps – Tiredness or weakness – Dizziness – Headache – Fainting | – Move to a cool place – Loosen your clothes – Put cool, wet clothes on your body or take a cool bath – Sip water Get medical help right away if: – You are throwing up – Your symptoms get worse – Your symptoms last longer than one hour |
| Heat Stroke | – High body temperature (103℉ or higher) – Hot, red, dry, or damp skin – Fast, strong pulse – Headache – Dizziness – Nausea – Confusion – Fainting | – Call 911 immediately – Move person to a cooler place – Help lower temperature with cool cloths or a cool bath – Do NOT give the person anything to drink |
A few weeks ago we publish an article by our environmental & natural resources reporter, Lana Cohen, in which she discussed the fire insurance crisis facing Californians. In this article our partners at CalMatters discuss how “home hardening” might help.
Sue Ladich spent $1,600 clearing brush and trees from around her home in 2014. In 2017, she ponied up $3,500 to clear even more potential wildfire fuel from her property. This year, she spent another $2,200.
But the more than $7,000 and countless hours of work spent in the name of keeping her Truckee home safe from wildfires added up to nothing in the eyes of insurers.
Californians across the state are taking measures to help save their homes from the state’s ever-worsening fires and satisfy risk-averse insurers, but many, like Ladich, are seeing their homeowners’ policy cancelled or premiums jacked up anyway.
“When the local fire department or the Forest Service comes by to inspect our property, we pass with flying colors — they don’t have a single recommendation,” Ladich said. “In my conversations with insurance companies, I’ve raised these items to try to plead our case — it doesn’t make a difference, it’s like they don’t even care to hear these details. They just have a set map and they say, ‘Nope, we’re not insuring in that area.’”
Ladich has been dropped by two companies in three years, and when the third insurer proposed raising her premium from $5,000 to $11,000 this year, she finally gave up and joined the California FAIR plan, the state’s bare bones fire insurance plan of last resort.
She’s far from alone. Homeowners like Susie Williams in Tuolumne County and Lucy Smallreed in Marin have also been dropped by insurers despite efforts at making their homes safer. In 2019, policy cancellations statewide rose by 61%, and the state’s 10 most fire-prone counties saw a 203% increase. Enrollments in the FAIR Plan jumped 225% last year.
Insurers say it’s simply too risky to write policies in these regions — payouts from the 2017 and 2018 fire seasons alone totaled $24 billion, almost completely wiping out the industry’s profits for the previous 16 years.
It’s likely some homeowners would choose to reduce their risk against fire — a practice known as home hardening — regardless of the insurance implications, but state regulators are increasingly eyeing the practice as a potential solution to the burgeoning insurance crisis. In fact, they’re considering whether — and how — to institutionalize it.
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara backed a bill this year, AB 2367, that would have required insurers to renew policies for homeowners that met state standards for hardening their home against wildfire. It died in committee after strong opposition from insurers, and Lara has since said he plans to use regulatory powers to create an insurance program that incentivizes California homeowners to take mitigation measures.
In an October hearing on the insurance crisis and in interviews with CalMatters, both consumer groups and insurance companies indicated that, as a long term solution, they support creating an insurance-based mitigation program. They disagree, however, on the logistics of such a system and whether the state is ready to move that way now.
The fundamental questions that need to be answered are:
- Who will certify that homeowners meet mitigation standards?
- How will those standards be determined?
- Will insurers be allowed more flexibility to adjust rates in conjunction with such a program?
Lara seems to have taken notice of the questions. He is convening a hearing Dec. 10 with fire and home hardening experts and wildfire catastrophe modeling experts to discuss incentivizing home hardening in order to increase insurance availability and affordability.
As Lara has pointed out, when car owners show their insurance company that they’re a safe driver who avoids accidents, they’re usually given a discounted rate. California homeowners who demonstrate that they’ve made their home more immune to wildfire are hoping for the same deal on their insurance policy.
Who will certify?
Some California communities already require their residents to meet certain mitigation standards against wildfire. More than 350 jurisdictions in the state are enrolled in the National Fire Protection Association’s “Firewise” program, meeting certain community-wide mitigation standards. Individual cities and homeowners’ associations sometimes also set their own requirements for cutting back plants or using certain building materials.
Still, insurers are dropping customers who meet these community standards.
Susie Williams, a resident of Groveland, high in the Tuolumne County foothills, has to comply with strict fire mitigation measures stipulated by her homeowners’ association, such as cutting her grass to four inches or less.
Yet since the Rim Fire grazed the town in 2014, Williams has had her homeowners’ policy cancelled by four different insurance companies, despite making no claims.
“It wasn’t one particular insurance company that was dropping people, one particular type of house, full timers or part timers,” she said. “Every time you turn around, you see someone whose insurance was dropped.”
Even those who have had insurance company inspectors come to their property and followed their recommendations have faced cancellations.
Lucy Smallreed, who owns a home with her husband in the Marin County community of Inverness, said an Allstate inspector visited her home in 2018 and required her to cut back her trees for fire safety. She did that and more, but still received a cancellation in 2019.
“We keep the brush cut down, we have a metal roof on our home, it’s one story,” all measures experts say reduce the risk of a home burning down, she said. “We’ve done a lot to make it fire-resistant, but that hasn’t resulted in us being able to get insurance.”
She’s now on the state FAIR plan, which costs 21% more than her previous comprehensive plan and covers only smoke and fire damage.
Janet Ruiz, communications director at the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group, said insurers are still unsure how to gauge the risk reduction that comes from homeowners taking certain mitigation measures, making it difficult to implement a broader discount program.
“Science is just getting to the point where they’re identifying what things really make a difference,” Ruiz said, adding that the lack of specific standards was the main reason the industry opposed Lara’s fire hardening bill this year.
Waiting for answers
Hoping to advance fire science to allow for more specific standards to be set, the insurance industry has put its chips on the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, a South Carolina-based nonprofit.
The Institute is researching the efficacy of mitigation measures homeowners can take in eight aspects of their home — fuel management, fences, decks, building shape, walls, roofs, roof vents, and eave overhangs — on behalf of 103 insurers, according to its president and CEO, Roy Wright.
By blasting embers at full-scale model homes in its testing center and taking field observations at California wildfires, Wright said the organization aims to give companies a quantifiable figure on the risk reduction that comes from taking any single one of the eight measures.
“What we cannot yet do is say, okay, if you address just the roof vent, do you reduce the risk by 4%, by 7%, by 12%?” he said. “If you had to say, addressing the deck versus the fence — we know they’re both important, but if you wanted me to put a specific number behind differentiating which one is more likely of ignition, that’s the gap we’re still working on.”
Wright added that a separate complexity for insurers is that fire can spread between closely-placed homes through radiant heat.
“Your house can be perfect, every dimension dealt with, and your neighbor who is six or seven doors down is not, and at that point you’re still vulnerable to wildfire,” he said.
Yana Valachovic, a forest advisor and researcher with the University of California Cooperative Extension, agreed that the science is not there yet to quantify the dollar value from taking particular mitigation measures.
Most of the home mitigation in California thus far has focused on reducing ignition through direct flame contact, but two other ignition types — embers and radiant heat — have not been addressed as frequently, Valachovic said.
Doing the math
Insurers say another essential step to facilitate a home hardening program would be to allow greater flexibility in setting rates.
Currently, California does not allow insurers to use what’s known as catastrophe modeling — statistical models that help insurers predict losses from catastrophic events — to set rates. Insurers say that changing that rules would allow them to more accurately serve customers, and thus, serve more customers. The state isn’t a fan of proprietary (read: private) models, and doesn’t think the insurers need it, anyway.
California currently requires insurers to base rates on 20-years of historical data on both catastrophic and non-catastrophic losses.
Nancy Watkins, principal and consulting actuary at actuarial firm Milliman, said the most comparable situation to California’s current wildfires is the hurricanes in Florida between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, which nearly brought that state’s property insurance market to its knees.
In their wake, Florida created a home mitigation program, requiring insurers to offer discounts to customers who took action such as installing hurricane shutters. The program foundered, however, with insurers finding that homes without the mitigation measures were actually more attractive to insure than those participating in the program.
Watkins said Florida’s program was implemented without recognition of insurers’ rate setting strategies, and she worries the same might be in store for California.
“The real problem with mitigation is not the concept of it, it’s how difficult it is to be right and how customized a mitigation credit has to be to the insurer’s situation,” she said.
So what does this mean for California?
Creating a successful risk mitigation program in California will require the buy-in of numerous parties, most importantly, the insurance companies and state regulators. One successful model for such a program is Wildfire Partners in Colorado’s fire-prone Boulder County.
Launched in 2014, the program is a public-private partnership between more than 40 organizations — government agencies, insurers, consumer groups, fire districts, realtors, and others. The program is funded independently through state and FEMA grants, and uses those funds to hire former firefighters and forestry professionals. They conduct audits of fire risk on individual homeowners’ properties and provide support to homeowners in mitigating hazards. It certifies properties that meet all of its standards.
The program seems to overcome many of the obstacles California is facing now: the certification is conducted by professionals paid by the program itself, answering the question of who is responsible for the inspections. And unlike the community-scale certification programs that insurers labeled as too broad, Wildfire Partners issues certifications by property, giving individual homeowners evidence of reduced risk they can provide to insurance companies.
Jim Webster, the program coordinator, said Wildfire Partners is unique in that it brings together stakeholders that are often adversaries for a “unified certification process” that encourages mitigation. Because they’ve bought into the program before and trust that its inspectors are professionals, insurers can feel more comfortable continuing to insure those properties or avoid raising premiums.
“Insurance companies took time to buy into the Wildfire Partners approach,” he said. “Anybody can certify and give a person a piece of paper and say ‘I’ve done mitigation,’ but that certification has to mean something.”
As of now, the program has only certified 1,021 homes, but it’s drawing attention nationwide as a model mitigation program. Webster said California could start by piloting a similar program in one county.
Ruiz, the trade group communications director, said the California insurance industry has already been examining Wildfire Partners model and is interested in working together with the Insurance Department to find a solution. And the Department has likewise shown interest in Wildfire Partners, inviting Webster to present at its October hearing.
Susan Hassett, who lived in rural Yolo County until she lost her home to the LNU Lightning Complex fire this year, said such a partnership is exactly what would have helped her insure her home.
Hassett said that as a former firefighter, she knows what she’s doing on home hardening — she spent three years and thousands of dollars reducing the fire risk to her property, including clearing a 400-by-700-foot swath of open space. But in 2017, her insurer cancelled her policy.
“I started grilling them and I asked them questions like, have you driven our road? Will you come out and look?” she said.
The answer was “no,” and when she couldn’t find an affordable alternative plan, she went without insurance. After this year’s fire, she was left with nothing to rebuild.
