Environmental Justice Advocates Urge Governor Newsom to Veto Bills Threatening Zero-Emission Regulations

A coalition of climate and environmental justice advocates is urging Governor Gavin Newsom to veto four bills they argue could undermine California’s ambitious zero-emission transportation goals and increase pollution in vulnerable communities. The bills would require amendments to the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) and Commercial Harbor Craft (CHC) regulations, potentially stalling the state’s efforts to reduce emissions from trucks and harbor vessels.

The four bills—Assembly Bills 637, 3179, 1122, and 1296—propose changes that advocates say would weaken California’s clean transportation regulations. These regulations are essential to the state’s long-term plan for phasing out diesel-powered vehicles and marine vessels in favor of zero-emission alternatives. The proposed changes, they argue, would slow progress and lead to more pollution, particularly in communities already facing poor air quality.

Overview of the Bills

AB 637 (Jackson) would delay the enforcement of California’s ACF rule, which aims to transition medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to zero emissions. The rule is intended to achieve 100% new truck sales by 2036. According to advocates, the amendments in AB 637 could add substantial annual costs—$1.8 million in the first two years, followed by $2.3 million annually from the third year onward—without providing meaningful environmental benefits.

AB 3179 (Carrillo) seeks to exempt emergency telecommunications vehicles from zero-emission standards. While the bill’s proponents argue that it ensures uninterrupted emergency services, advocates believe these exemptions would undermine broader electrification efforts. The bill could incur at least $1.4 million in costs during the first year, with ongoing annual expenses projected at $232,000.

AB 1122 (Bains) proposes an override feature for pollution filters and delays the installation of cleaner engines on certain harbor craft. Environmental justice groups argue that harbor crafts are major sources of pollution at California’s ports, and delaying upgrades would exacerbate air quality problems in nearby communities.

AB 1296 (Grayson) focuses on delaying compliance for pilot station boats under the CHC rule, which targets emission reductions from marine vessels. The delay would create additional regulatory costs of approximately $2.4 million annually and, advocates argue, jeopardize California’s position as a leader in reducing diesel emissions from the maritime sector.

Impact on Zero-Emission Goals

In 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-79-20, which directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and enforce regulations to achieve 100% zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment by 2035. The ACF and CHC regulations are critical to fulfilling this mandate. Medium- and heavy-duty trucks are significant contributors to both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution in the state, and the ACF regulation is seen as a cornerstone of CARB’s strategy to address these issues.

The CHC regulation is equally crucial for reducing emissions from marine vessels, which are significant polluters at seaports and other waterfront facilities. The rule sets stringent engine standards for harbor crafts and establishes the first zero-emission mandate for short-run ferries in the United States. Any delay or rollback of the CHC regulation, advocates warn, could stall California’s progress in reducing pollution from maritime activities and harm public health in affected areas.

Calls for Collaboration

Advocates believe the bills’ amendments would create significant setbacks for California’s clean transportation efforts. They argue that working within the existing regulatory framework offers enough flexibility to address concerns while still meeting the state’s emissions reduction goals. If the bills pass and require amendments to the ACF and CHC regulations, advocates fear this could lead to delays in waiver approvals by federal agencies, further stalling the implementation of zero-emission standards.

Governor Newsom’s decision on whether to veto the bills is seen as pivotal for the future of California’s environmental policy. The outcome could have lasting implications for the state’s ability to combat climate change, reduce pollution, and protect public health, particularly in disadvantaged communities most affected by transportation-related emissions.