Climate and environmental justice advocacy groups are urging Governor Gavin Newsom to veto four bills that they say could undermine California’s ambitious zero-emissions transportation goals and increase pollution in vulnerable communities. The bills would mandate changes to the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) and Commercial Harbor Vessel (CHC) regulations, potentially stalling the state’s efforts to reduce emissions from trucks and harbor vessels.
Four bills (Assembly Bills 637, 3179, 1122 and 1296) propose changes that advocates say would weaken California’s clean transportation regulations, which are essential to the state’s long-term plan to phase out diesel cars and boats and replace them with zero-emission alternatives. Supporters argue the proposed changes would slow progress and lead to more pollution, especially in areas already struggling with air pollution.
Overview of the bill
AB 637 (Jackson) would delay implementation of California’s ACF rule, which aims to transition medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to zero-emissions by reaching a target of 100% of new truck sales by 2036. Supporters say the AB 637 amendments would add significant annual costs – $1.8 million in the first two years and $2.3 million each year after the third – without providing any significant environmental benefits.
AB 3179 (Carillo) seeks to exempt emergency communications vehicles from zero-emission standards. Supporters of the bill argue that the exemptions would not disrupt emergency services, but advocates believe these exemptions would undermine broader electrification efforts. The bill is projected to cost at least $1.4 million in the first year, with ongoing annual costs of $232,000.
AB 1122 (Bains) would propose a pollution filter override feature and delay the installation of clean engines on certain port vessels. Environmental justice groups argue that port vessels are a big source of pollution in California ports and that delaying upgrades would worsen air quality problems in nearby communities.
AB 1296 (Grayson) focuses on delaying pilot station boat compliance under CHC rules targeted at reducing emissions from marine vessels, a delay that would result in approximately $2.4 million in additional regulatory costs per year and, proponents argue, jeopardize California’s position as a leader in reducing diesel emissions from the maritime sector.
Impact on zero emissions targets
In 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-79-20, directing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and implement regulations to achieve 100% zero emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment by 2035. The ACF and CHC regulations are critical to meeting this mandate. Medium- and heavy-duty trucks are significant contributors to both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution in the state, and the ACF regulations are viewed as a cornerstone of CARB’s strategy to address these issues.
The CHC regulations are equally important for reducing emissions from ships, which are a significant source of pollution in ports and other waterfront facilities. The rules set strict engine standards for port vessels and mandate zero emissions for short-distance ferries for the first time in the U.S. Delaying or reversing the CHC regulations could impede California’s progress in reducing pollution from maritime activities and negatively impact public health in affected areas, advocates warn.
Ask for help
Advocates believe the bill’s amendments would pose a significant obstacle to California’s clean transportation efforts. They argue that working within the existing regulatory framework provides enough flexibility to address their concerns while still achieving the state’s emissions reduction goals. If the bill passes and requires amendments to the ACF and CHC regulations, advocates worry that waiver approvals by federal agencies could be delayed, further delaying the implementation of zero-emission standards.
Governor Newsom’s decision whether to veto the bill is seen as crucial to the future of environmental policy in California. The outcome could have lasting effects on the state’s ability to combat climate change, reduce pollution, and protect public health, especially in disadvantaged communities most affected by transportation-related emissions.
