Jon Stewart’s biting satire may have made his new bosses squirm, but they went ahead and extended the comedian’s run on Comedy Central through December 2026.

The channel’s parent company, Paramount, announced Monday that Stewart will continue to host “The Daily Show” on Monday nights and serve as an executive producer through the end of next year.

Members of the show’s news team will continue to share Tuesday-through-Thursday hosting duties. Terms of the contract were not disclosed.

“Jon Stewart continues to elevate the genre he created. His return is an ongoing commitment to the incisive comedy and sharp commentary that define The Daily Show,” Ari Pearce, Comedy Central’s manager, said in a prepared statement. “We’re proud to support Jon and the extraordinary news team.”

Stewart’s contract was re-upped nearly four months after Paramount-owned sister network CBS notified Stephen Colbert, who rose to fame on “The Daily Show,” that it was dumping his late night show at the end of the season. The cancellation was revealed days after Colbert lambasted a $16-million settlement Paramount agreed to pay President Trump to end a lawsuit over edits to “60 Minutes.” Colbert called the arrangement “a big fat bribe.”

Paramount settled the Trump suit to win approval from the Trump administration of its sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media and RedBird Capital Partners. CBS has said the reason for Colbert’s cancellation was financial, not political, although many people have expressed doubts.

Ellison took ownership of Paramount in August. Stewart has joked that he, too, might be tossed as the company tries to reposition itself to the political center.

Since taking over the media firm that also includes MTV, BET, Nickelodeon and Hollywood-based Paramount Pictures movie studio, the company has made big bets, including agreeing to pay $7.7 billion for rights to UFC fights and $1.25 billion over five years to Matt Stone and Trey Parker to continue creating their “South Park” cartoon for Comedy Central and the Paramount+ streaming service. Ellison and his team also lured Matt and Ross Duffer, the duo behind “Stranger Things,” from Netflix and paid $150 million to buy the Free Press and bring its co-founder, Bari Weiss, to the company as CBS News editor in chief.

Paramount also signed a 10-year lease on a film and television production facility under construction in New Jersey.

Last week, the company began a deep round of layoffs, cutting 1,000 employees with plans to terminate another 1,000 in the coming weeks, in an effort to trim its workforce by 10%. About 100 people from CBS News were among the layoffs.

After a nine-year absence, Stewart returned as a host in February 2024. He had helmed the show for 16 years before taking a break in 2015. His current contract was expiring.

The show was hosted by Trevor Noah until 2022, when he stepped down. That prompted a rotation of guest hosts, including Kal Penn, Charlamagne tha God, Sarah Silverman and Michelle Wolf.

Last month, during a conversation with the New Yorker at a cultural festival, Stewart was asked whether he might stick around longer. “We’re working on staying,” Stewart told the New Yorker’s David Remnick.

The rotation of “The Daily Show” hosts also will include Ronny Chieng, Josh Johnson, Jordan Klepper, Michael Kosta and Desi Lydic with Troy Iwata and Grace Kuhlenschmidt.

Policyholders critical of State Farm General’s response to January’s firestorms won a court victory this week when a judge ruled a Pacific Palisades homeowner can probe the insurer’s claims handling practices during a rate hearing.

In doing so, Administrative Law Judge Karl Fredric Seligman denied a motion by the Department of Insurance to move an inquiry into the insurer’s claims practices by Merritt Farren, whose home burned down, to a separate hearing after the rate increase is first considered.

“The outcome could easily result in chaos and challenges … on numerous grounds that would only operate to cause delay,” the judge wrote of the department’s motion in his Wednesday ruling.

State Farm is seeking to raise its homeowner rates 11% after receiving an emergency 17% hike in May from Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, who adopted a decision by Seligman at the time that the insurer deserved the hike given its weak financial position even prior to the fires. State Farm also is seeking increases in other lines of property insurance.

The insurer said this week it has received more than 13,000 claims and paid over $4.5 billion to policyholders. State Farm has said it expects claims payments to top $7 billion from the Jan. 7 fires, but losses under $700 million due to reinsurance agreements with its parent company. State Farm contends an “overwhelming majority” of its local policyholders are satisfied with its services.

However, policyholders led by the Eaton Fire Survivors Network have demanded there should be no rate hike until hundreds of complaints over alleged payment delays, underpayments and claims denials are looked into and resolved — a position also voiced by area legislators at a news conference this week.

Also opposing the increase is Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, which says State Farm’s possible total increase, including the 17% hike it already has received, would cost consumers $1.2 billion.

Farren, 64, a former attorney for Disney and Amazon, was granted permission in July to participate in the rate hearing under a provision of Proposition 103, which regulates the industry and allows for public participation in rate hearings.

He said he was thankful for the judge’s ruling this week, as well as a second decision that gave him time to seek documents from State Farm through the discovery process.

He said any rate increases should be tied to the actual value homeowners receive from their policies, which crucially should include how their claims are handled. “I think it’s completely common sense and that it just really shouldn’t be done any other way,” Farren said.

State Farm spokesperson Bob Devereux, in a statement said, “We thank the judge for the ruling on this matter, and we are looking forward to moving the rate hearing process forward toward conclusion later this year.”

The Department of Insurance also said it looked forward to the rate hearing, which has been delayed and is now set for December.

In court filings, the department has argued that combining the two issues — the proposed rate increase and allegations the company has mishandled claims — could slow review of the rate request, which State Farm has said is critical to stabilize its finances.

The company’s financial strength has been downgraded by ratings agencies, including S&P Global this month. However, the agency said it benefited from its strategic importance to its highly rated Bloomington, Ill., parent company.

The department also maintained that state law calls for handling claims issues through separate proceedings, including a market conduct exam of State Farm General’s practices that Lara announced in June. It said a separate hearing would allow those findings when they are released to be considered with Farren’s own probe of the issue.

Farren said that while he lost his Mount Holyoke Drive home where he lived with this two sons, his request to look into claims practices wasn’t driven by his personal experience with State Farm — which he deemed likely “better than most’’ — but from what he heard from other policyholders.

In particular, he said he wants to look into the insurer’s practices regarding payments for personal property losses and how it calculates building-cost estimates for reconstruction, as well as how it has handled claims for smoke-damaged houses. The insurer has been accused of being “stingy” in handling such claims.

Farren said he has heard of situations in which State Farm has advanced payments for personal property coverage and then after receiving an itemized list of losses, has sought to offset what it has deemed overpayments from future payouts.

Meanwhile, Palisades homeowners have received reconstruction cost estimates under $400 a square foot from State Farm, he alleged, when other insurers are issuing estimates of $800 to $1,200 per square foot.

After the hearing, Joy Chen, chief executive of the Eaton Fire Survivors community group, issued an email to its more than 7,000 members, criticizing Lara for the department’s legal position, saying Seligman had “sided with fairness.”

After a series of setbacks, Kroger’s recent decision to close 60 locations nationwide is the latest sign of distress for the grocer that operates more than 300 stores in California.

Kroger, the parent company of Ralphs and Food 4 Less, is reducing its footprint after the resignation of its chief executive and a failed merger with competing grocery giant Albertsons. The company faces a lawsuit related to the merger and also has been struggling with labor unrest.

Employees had been threatening to strike until the company reached a tentative agreement with the United Food and Commercial Workers union this week.

Based in Cincinnati, Kroger also owns Harris Teeter, King Soopers and Dillons. The company operates more than 2,700 stores under different brands across the country and offers fresh goods, some household items and pharmacy services.

“Instead of popping champagne and toasting to their merger, Kroger is instead just enduring one hit after another,” said Jeff Wells, lead editor at the trade publication Grocery Dive. “They’re still a pretty stable business, but they’re facing a lot in terms of challenges.”

Impending closures

Kroger announced late last month in its quarterly earnings report that it plans to close 60 stores over the next 18 months. The company did not disclose which locations would be shut down.

“We’re simplifying our business and reviewing areas that will not be meaningful to our future growth,” interim Chief Executive Ronald Sargent said in an earnings call. “Today, not all of our stores are delivering the sustainable results we need.”

Kroger temporarily paused routine store closures while the Albertsons merger was pending, Sargent said. The company normally closes about 30 stores per year, Melius Research analyst Jacob Aiken-Phillips said.

The company is on track to complete 30 major store projects this year and expects to accelerate store openings in 2026, Sargent said on the earnings call.

Competitive market

Kroger is under increasing pressure from competitors, experts said, some of which offer a wider range of items and convenient one-stop shops.

“Kroger faces this intensely competitive field in the grocery industry,” Wells said. “From Walmart to Costco to Whole Foods and Sprouts Farmers Market, everybody in the industry is kind of gunning for them.”

The Albertsons merger would have given Kroger the scale to compete with giants such as Walmart and Amazon, Aiken-Phillips said.

“After the merger failed, they had to reexamine their strategy and focus on how they can grow and compete without that scale,” he said. “That’s the major challenge right now.”

Kroger relies on pharmacy services, advertising and e-commerce for additional revenue, experts said. Although the company grew its e-commerce business 15% in the first quarter of this year, the business remains unprofitable.

A chief executive shuffle

Former Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen stepped down in March after an investigation into his personal conduct, the company announced. Sargent was appointed chairman of the board of directors and interim CEO.

Kroger did not share details of the investigation into McMullen. His “personal conduct, while unrelated to the business, was inconsistent with Kroger’s Policy on Business Ethics,” the company’s statement said.

“When he resigned, it threw a wrench in progressing the company because now you need a new leader to come in,” Aiken-Phillips said.

A failed merger

In 2022, Kroger agreed to buy Albertsons for $24.6 billion, a sale that would have been the largest supermarket merger in U.S. history.

The Federal Trade Commission, California and several other states sued to stop the merger, arguing that it would hobble competition in many parts of the country, leaving customers at the mercy of a newly formed behemoth and driving up prices. Kroger and Albertsons collectively own about 5,000 grocery stores.

In late 2024, Albertsons scrapped the deal after a federal judge in Oregon issued a preliminary injunction in the case. The high-stakes court battle centered on concerns that the megamerger would add to the financial woes of consumers who have grappled with the rising cost of food.

Albertsons also sued Kroger, claiming that the grocer didn’t do enough to win over regulators. Kroger has since countersued.

Ongoing labor unrest

In June, grocery workers at Albertsons and Kroger — numbering about 45,000 — voted to authorize a strike to protest what they called unfair labor practices. A walkout would have caused a major disruption for two of the nation’s largest grocery chains during the busiest season of the year.

The United Food and Commercial Workers union announced Thursday that it reached a tentative agreement with the two companies that would allow them to avoid a strike. The union will vote on whether to approve the agreement July 9-11.

“Following an intense 40 plus hour bargaining session that began on Friday morning, we’ve secured an agreement that addresses our priorities,” the union said in a statement.

The agreement includes higher wages, improved pension plans as well as health and welfare improvements, the union said. Kroger did not respond to requests for comment.

The chief executive of Southern California Edison’s parent company said Tuesday that the company was likely to suffer “material losses” related to the deadly Eaton fire, which ignited on Jan. 7 and burned more than 14,000 acres.

Investigations into the cause of the fire are continuing and have not concluded that Edison’s equipment sparked the blaze, Edison International Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro said during the company’s first-quarter earnings call.

But Edison’s investigation into the start of the fire has not revealed any other possible sources of ignition, Pizarro said.

“Absent additional evidence” and “in light of pending litigation, it is probable that Edison International and Southern California Edison will incur material losses in connection with the Eaton fire,” Pizarro said.

Edison has previously acknowledged that it could be responsible for the blaze and said this month that a dormant power line might have been the cause.

But Tuesday’s comments are the clearest signal to date that the company is likely to sustain substantial losses from the devastating wildfire.

“It’s still very early days here and the liability is simply not estimable today,” Pizarro said. “I’m not sure when it may become estimable.”

The Eaton fire killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes and other structures. Early estimates put the cost of damage at $10 billion, but experts said that number would grow. The total estimated economic loss caused by the January wildfires in Southern Califronia has surpassed $250 billion.

Southern California Edison, based in Rosemead, is an investor-owned public utility that provides electricity to about 15 million people across a 50,000-square-mile area in Southern California. Along with the utility, which is one of the largest in the country, Edison International owns an energy advisory company, Trio.

In all, Edison International employs more than 14,000 people and had a valuation of around $30 billion before January’s wildfires. The company’s valuation closed Tuesday at $22.6 billion.

If Edison has to cover the damage caused by the Eaton fire, the utility will be partially protected by an emergency fund that state lawmakers created in 2019 in the wake of earlier wildfires. The fund is designed to protect utility companies from bankruptcy in the event that the utility is found responsible for a wildfire and has to make a large payout.

Video of flames at the base of an Edison transmission tower in Eaton Canyon on the night the fire began raised suspicions that the utility’s equipment was at fault. Just months before the fire sparked, state utility safety regulators raised questions about Southern California Edison’s maintenance of aging transmission lines, The Times reported. Edison’s equipment sparked 178 fires in 2024.

“Unlike when we were dealing with TKM and Woolsey, we have the wildfire fund that we will be accessing,” Edison International Chief Financial Officer Maria Rigatti said on Tuesday, referring to previous wildfires tied to Edison’s equipment.

The emergency fund is supposed to cover up to $21 billion in damages on behalf of a utility company but had amassed only $14.7 billion as of December 2024.

Under state law, a utility does not have to reimburse the wildfire fund after using it to cover damages if a review finds it acted prudently to prevent a fire, such as by shutting down power to transmission lines amid high winds. But if Edison is found to have been imprudent, it will have to pay back $4 billion to the fund.

“Based on everything we know today and the information that we’ve reviewed, we believe that Southern California Edison will make a good-faith showing that it was prudent,” Rigatti said.

On Tuesday, Edison International reported first-quarter net income of $1.4 billion and earnings per share of $1.37, up from $1.13 a year earlier.

Shares closed at $58.73 on Tuesday, about half a percent higher and down 26% so far this year.

Nearly 2 million California rooftop solar owners could lose the energy credits that help them cover what they spent to install the expensive climate-friendly systems under a proposed state bill.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), is a former executive at Southern California Edison and its parent company, Edison International. She says the credits that rooftop owners receive when they send unused electricity to the grid is raising the bills of customers who don’t own the panels.

Her bill, AB 942, would limit the current program’s benefits to 10 years — half the 20 year-period the state had told the rooftop owners they would receive. The bill would also cancel the solar contracts if the home was sold.

Southern California Edison and the state’s two other big for-profit utilities have long tried to reduce the energy credits that incentivized Californians to invest in the solar panels. The rooftop solar systems have cut into the utilities’ sales of electricity.

The legislation, which applies to people who bought the systems before April 15, 2023, has outraged some Californians who invested tens of thousands to install the solar panels.

“We’re just trying to reduce our carbon footprint and you’re penalizing me for that?” said David Rynerson, a Huntington Beach resident who spent $20,000 to install the panels. “That’s just absurd.”

Until she was elected in 2020, Calderon spent 25 years at Southern California Edison and Edison International. Her last position was as a government affairs executive at Edison International, where she managed the utility’s political action committee.

Calderon declined to be interviewed. In a statement, she said that she wasn’t acting on behalf of the utility companies.

“I introduced this bill with one goal in mind: to help lower the cost of energy for Californians,” she said.

Calderon said if her bill was enacted it would reduce electric costs for customers who do not own the panels beginning in 2026.

According to OpenSecrets.org, which tracks political spending, Southern California Edison and the other two big investor-owned utilities are among Calderon’s most generous corporate donors.

Last year, the the company gave Calerdon’s campaign $11,000. Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, also contributed $11,000, while Pacific Gas & Electric provided $8,000.

Southern California Edison spokesperson Kathleen Dunleavy said that the company supports rooftop solar but it also supports efforts to reduce the amount of costs that have been shifted to customers who don’t own the panels.

She said the company’s political contributions to elected officials “are based on their shared interest in how best to safely serve SCE customers reliable and affordable energy.”

In her statement to The Times, Calderon said that “political contributions have no bearing on any policy decisions I make.”

Calderon is a member of a political dynasty that has held power in the blue-collar neighborhoods east of Los Angeles for four decades.

She is married to Charles Calderon, a former state Assembly speaker and former state Senate majority leader. She was elected to the Assembly seat that had been held by her stepson Ian Calderon.

Under California’s rooftop solar program, owners get a credit on their electric bills for the solar energy they produce but don’t use. The credit is based on the current retail electric rates. The value of the credits has increased rapidly as the state’s Public Utilities Commission approved rate increases requested by the companies.

In December 2022, the big utility companies successfully pressed the commission to slash financial incentives that rooftop solar owners could receive by about 75%, starting with those people purchasing the systems on April 15, 2023.

The commission left in place the program for owners who purchased the panels by that date. The agency says the value of the credits given to those owners is now a leading cause of the state’s rising electric bills — a claim that has been disputed by the rooftop solar industry and dozens of environmental groups.

In a February report to Gov. Gavin Newsom, the commission suggested reducing the number of years that rooftop solar owners can receive credits at the retail electric rate — similar to what Calderon’s bill would do — as a remedy for escalating power costs. California now has the country’s second highest electric rates.

The commission says the rooftop customers are not contributing their fair share of the costs to maintain the electrical grid, so the expense is shifted to those who don’t own the panels.

Dozens of environmental groups sent a letter this month to the chair of the Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee opposing Calderon’s bill and pointing out that the state has long said the solar contracts would last for 20 years, which is the expected useful life of the panels.

“The CPUC’s new proposal, to break energy contracts mid-stream, would be patently unfair,” the groups wrote. “It would punish the very people who California encouraged to invest in solar energy. And it would gut consumer confidence and trust in government.”

The groups pointed out that when Californians bought the systems, they signed a state-mandated legal agreement with their utility that details in the terms that the customer is eligible to receive the credits for 20 years.

In California, under a policy known as decoupling, utilities don’t make more money as customers use more energy. Instead they make most of their profit by building infrastructure, including poles, wires and the rest of the grid.

In their letter, the environmental groups pointed to an analysis that economist Richard McCann performed for the rooftop solar industry that found that electric rates had risen as the utilities spent more on infrastructure.

Even though homeowners’ solar panels helped keep demand for electricity flat for 20 years, the three utilities’ spending on transmission and distribution infrastructure had risen by 300%, McCann found.

“To address rising rates, California must focus on what’s really wrong with our energy system: uncontrolled utility spending and record utility profits,” the environmental groups wrote.

A hearing on the bill is scheduled in the Assembly Utilities & Energy committee on April 30.

Cherene Birkholz of Long Beach said that she and her husband spent $22,000 on panels for their home. The couple saw the solar panels, she said, as a way to control costs so they could stay in California after they retired.

Birkholz said she believed the credits would continue for 20 years. The proposed legislation, she said, “came as a shock.”

“If I had known, I may not have made these decisions,” she said.

Dwight James of Simi Valley said that he spent $35,000 on solar panels in 2018 and another $40,000 on batteries to store the power in 2021. He said he financed the purchase with a 20-year loan and that he found it “disturbing” that the state would now back out of what it had promised.

“If you follow the money, it gives you all the answers,” James said. “My thought is that this bill is a way for the utility companies to try to hold on a little bit longer and slow the adoption of solar.”