Amended IN Senate March 24, 2025 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 34Introduced by Senator RichardsonDecember 02, 2024 An act to add and repeal Section 39619.3 to 40453 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to ports. air pollution.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTSB 34, as amended, Richardson. Ports: emissions: intermodal goods movement stakeholder group. Air pollution: South Coast Air Quality Management District: mobile sources: public seaports.Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollution control districts and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law authorizes air districts to adopt and implement regulations to reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect sources of air pollution.Existing law provides for the creation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in those portions of the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino included within the area of the South Coast Air Basin, as specified. Existing law requires the district to adopt rules and regulations to carry out the south coast district air quality management plan that are not in conflict with state and federal laws and rules and regulations and requires those rules and regulations to provide for indirect source controls under certain circumstances.This bill would, until January 1, 2036, prohibit the district from adopting, considering adopting, or requiring that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport. The bill would, until January 1, 2036, authorize specified entities, including the district, to enter into a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport if the voluntary agreement meets specified requirements.Existing law regulates the operation of ports and harbors. Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources and generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution.This bill would require the state board to establish an intermodal goods movement stakeholders group consisting of, among others, a member from each specified port district. By requiring a port district to participate in the group, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the group to develop a plan that specifies short-term thresholds of yellow, orange, and red for port emissions and specifies actions to be taken to reduce port emissions and port-related emissions when the thresholds are reached, as specified. The bill would require the group to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before January 31, 2027, with its findings, recommendations, and the plan.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YESNO Local Program: YESNO Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) It is in the best interest of the State of California to develop strategies that maintain and grow industries, such as goods movement, concurrent with pursuing environmental benefits.(b) In order to timely and effectively meet the zero-emission goals expressed in Executive Order No. N-79-20 within revenue generating service providing industries, such as the goods movement industry, impacted stakeholders need to work in collaborative groups, and through agreements, to develop and implement plans that use zero-emission equipment and infrastructure, while not negatively impacting intermodal trade and jobs.(c) Goods movement is the movement of physical products and raw materials to businesses, consumers, and industries by oceangoing vessels, harbor craft, such as tug boats, trucks, locomotives, and cargo-handling equipment.(d) In California, there are 11 port authorities. The San Pedro Bay port complex, which historically has encompassed both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, is the largest port complex in the State of California, the United States, North America, and the Western Hemisphere and is the ninth largest port complex in the world, supporting over 3 million jobs nationwide and economic activity that generated $2.78 billion in state and local taxes, plus an additional $4.73 billion in federal taxes, in 2022.(e) For more than two decades, the San Pedro Bay port complex has conducted extensive testing of the emissions of air pollutants. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are two of the cleanest, if not the cleanest, seaport operations in the world, exceeding all of their ambitious voluntary emissions targets by wide margins in 2023, according to the Inventory of Air Emissions 2023, that showed the total San Pedro Bay emissions of diesel particulate matter down 91 percent, nitrogen oxides down 72 percent, sulfur oxides down 98 percent, and greenhouse gases down by 20 percent when compared to 2005 levels.(f) In pursuing the objective of reducing emissions of air pollutants, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted significant strategies, such as the Zero Emission Truck Voucher Incentive Program, the Vessel Speed Reduction Program, the Ship Incentive Programs, and Green Shipping Corridors, which have resulted in major environmental benefits while maintaining trade production, even during complex COVID-19 pandemic.(g) Furthermore, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted a joint Clean Air Action Plan whose updated goals include transitioning cargo-handling equipment to zero emissions by 2030 and all drayage trucks calling at marine terminals to zero emissions by 2035.(h) The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach operate within the South Coast Air Basin, which is impaired by a lack of attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, over which the State Air Resources Board (state board) has jurisdiction over the control and reduction of mobile sources of emissions, and the regional South Coast Air Quality Management District (south coast district) has jurisdiction over the control and reduction of stationary sources of emissions.(i) All of the current sources of intermodal emissions in operation at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are currently operating under, and subject to, the regulatory authority of the state board, which has adopted regulations, most of which are the strictest regulations anywhere in the world, limiting the emissions of every component of the intermodal supply chain, including drayage trucks, transportation refrigeration units, forklifts and warehouse equipment, cargo-handling equipment at marine terminals, cargo-handling equipment at rail terminals, oceangoing vessels at berth, oceangoing vessel fuels while in California waters, and commercial harbor craft and pilot vessels. Furthermore, oceangoing vessels in transit are operating under, and subject to, the regulatory authority of federal and international agencies, including the International Maritime Organization, which has a goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by or around 2050.(j) The south coast district has expressed its intention to adopt a regulation to control mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through the exercise of an indirect source rule. The use of this authority has no precedent against ports or against seaport facilities in the South Coast Air Basin, in any other local air district in California, or anywhere else in the United States, rendering the action potentially subject to legal claims in a case of first impression.(k) Initial south coast district concepts for a seaport indirect source rule included the imposition of inflexible emissions caps, which would ultimately limit cargo flow at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach due to a lack of technological and economic feasibility and a lack of infrastructure available to accommodate emissions reductions when and if the technology and economic feasibility issues were resolved. This action, in turn, would have catastrophic impacts on jobs, the economy, local communities, environmental quality, and the global supply chain.(l) The Ports and the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach assert that instead of the adoption of a unilateral indirect source rule, a process for a collaborative agreement would be a better alternative, as it would include the impacted stakeholders who are best positioned to achieve both economic and environmental goals concurrently while minimizing delays and barriers.(m) Maritime industry stakeholders concur with the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach that a process to implement a collaborative work product versus forcing top-down directives is more likely to create a more results-driven approach to environmental and economic improvements.(n) Representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, community groups, and other organizations agree with the mayors of the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach and are opposed to any indirect source rule that would require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment. Representatives of these same organizations would support a collaborative agreement alternative that results in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emissions equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emissions equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. (o) Therefore, it is in the best interests of Californians, the environment, the goods movement industry, and all parties to stop attempts to adopt unprecedented and unnecessary rules, and rather, work in a collaborative fashion within the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beachs authority, as long as the ports activities are consistently tracking toward the achievement of the 2035 goals expressed in Executive Order No. N-79-20.SEC. 2. Section 40453 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:40453. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 40716, 40717, and 40717.5, the south coast district shall not adopt, consider adopting, or require that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport.(b) Subdivision (a) does not preclude the implementation of a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport within the South Coast Air Basin if the voluntary agreement meets all of the following requirements:(1) Before the voluntary agreement is adopted, the south coast district holds discussions with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, maritime industry stakeholders, representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, and community groups.(2) The voluntary agreement does not cap, limit, impede, restrict, or hinder port operations.(3) The voluntary agreement shall not use public funds or grants, whether municipal, county, state, or federal funds or grants, to require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment.(4) The voluntary agreement may result in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emission equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emission equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(5) The voluntary agreement does not encroach, infringe, or usurp control from the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(6) The voluntary agreement does not attempt to assert control over mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that are outside of the control of the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(7) The voluntary agreement is entered into by all of the following:(A) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach.(B) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Los Angeles.(C) The mayor of the City of Long Beach.(D) The mayor of the City of Los Angeles.(E) The south coast district board.(c) This section does restrict any regulation by the state board of any mobile source otherwise authorized by law.(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2036, and as of that date is repealed.SECTION 1.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)California has 12 ports through which goods are imported to and exported from international markets.(b)The Port of Oaklands highest value exports are food related, including, but not limited to, fruits, nuts, meats, wines, and spirits. In contrast, the Humboldt Bay Harbor District primarily imports and exports logs and wood chips due to the lumber businesses in its region.(c)The Port of Los Angeles is considered the busiest container port in the Western Hemisphere. It handles around 10,000,000 cargo containers annually. In June 2024, the Port of Los Angeles processed 827,757 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), a 10-percent increase from the previous month. And in the third quarter of 2024, the Port of Los Angeles processed 2,850,000 TEUs, its best quarter in over 116 years. Each year, the cargo flowing through this port generates over $200 billion in economic activity and sustains nearly 3,000,000 jobs in the United States.(d)The Port of Los Angeles is part of the San Pedro Complex, which is the container hub for both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. The San Pedro Complex is the largest container hub in the United States and accounts for over 30 percent of the TEUs in the United States. It is also the fifth largest container hub in the world.(e)Vehicles and equipment at ports are significant sources of air pollution. Ships, trucks, and cargo handling equipment at ports and offsite goods movement systems are often fueled by diesel and emit air pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. In recent years, California ports have faced several challenges, including, but not limited to, onsite and offsite port congestion and air pollution from associated facilities and vehicles. Both the State of California and the federal government have engaged in legislative, regulatory, and budgetary efforts to help ports address these challenges.(f)State involvement with ports in California is distributed across several agencies, including the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Agency, the State Air Resources Board, the Governors Office of Business and Economic Development, and the local South Coast Air Quality Management District. Each entity has different responsibilities regarding ports and goods movement.(g)The long term plan to reduce port emissions requires ports to adopt new zero-emission technologies. However, ports face several barriers, including, but not limited to, the following:(1)Certain electric vehicles are not yet widely available.(2)Barriers to siting and building a sufficient electrical grid to power zero-emission technologies.(3)High and unbudgeted costs.(4)Unsuitability of current batteries for port operations.(h)As a result of these barriers and others, the timeline for implementing zero-emission technologies at ports remains unclear and the costs remain unknown but are believed to exceed $1 billion.(i)To reduce port emissions in the short term, while 2035 zero-emission goals are implemented, an intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall be created to develop a plan to reduce port emissions when damaging levels arise.SEC. 2.Section 39619.3 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:39619.3.(a)The state board shall establish an intermodal goods movement stakeholders group, consisting of each of the following individuals:(1)An individual representing each of the following:(A)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 13.(B)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 63.(C)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 94.(D)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Southern California District Council.(2)An individual representing terminal and tenant operations.(3)An individual representing ship and vessel operations.(4)An individual representing rail and locomotive operations.(5)An individual representing freight forwarders, as defined in Section 220 of the Public Utilities Code.(6)An individual representing warehouse distribution centers.(7)An individual representing the California Association of Port Authorities.(8)An individual representing each of the following:(A)The Port of Benicia.(B)The Port of Hueneme.(C)The Port of Long Beach.(D)The Port of Los Angeles.(E)The Port of Oakland.(F)The Port of Redwood City.(G)The Port of Richmond.(H)The Port of San Diego.(I)The Port of San Francisco.(J)The Port of Stockton.(K)The Port of West Sacramento.(L)The Humboldt Bay Harbor District.(9)An individual representing the Department of Transportation.(10)An individual representing the state board.(b)The intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall develop a plan that specifies short-term thresholds of yellow, orange, and red for port emissions and specifies actions to be taken to reduce port emissions and port-related emissions when the thresholds are reached. An action in the plan shall be agreed to by the entity that would be required to perform the action under the plan.(c)In developing the plan described in subdivision (b), the intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall do both of the following:(1)Hold monthly meetings in person or by video conference.(2)Meet with appropriate state agencies to do all of the following:(A)Determine escalating emission impact levels for the yellow, orange, and red thresholds.(B)Discuss a draft of the plan.(C)Provide and obtain recommendations relating to the performance of the plan, if any.(d)(1)On or before January 31, 2027, the intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall submit a report to the Legislature and the Governor with its findings, recommendations, and the plan.(2)(A)The requirement for submitting a report imposed under this subdivision is inoperative on January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the Government Code.(B)A report to be submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.(3)The plan shall not be implemented before July 1, 2027.SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Amended IN Senate March 24, 2025 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 34Introduced by Senator RichardsonDecember 02, 2024 An act to add and repeal Section 39619.3 to 40453 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to ports. air pollution.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTSB 34, as amended, Richardson. Ports: emissions: intermodal goods movement stakeholder group. Air pollution: South Coast Air Quality Management District: mobile sources: public seaports.Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollution control districts and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law authorizes air districts to adopt and implement regulations to reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect sources of air pollution.Existing law provides for the creation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in those portions of the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino included within the area of the South Coast Air Basin, as specified. Existing law requires the district to adopt rules and regulations to carry out the south coast district air quality management plan that are not in conflict with state and federal laws and rules and regulations and requires those rules and regulations to provide for indirect source controls under certain circumstances.This bill would, until January 1, 2036, prohibit the district from adopting, considering adopting, or requiring that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport. The bill would, until January 1, 2036, authorize specified entities, including the district, to enter into a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport if the voluntary agreement meets specified requirements.Existing law regulates the operation of ports and harbors. Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources and generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution.This bill would require the state board to establish an intermodal goods movement stakeholders group consisting of, among others, a member from each specified port district. By requiring a port district to participate in the group, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the group to develop a plan that specifies short-term thresholds of yellow, orange, and red for port emissions and specifies actions to be taken to reduce port emissions and port-related emissions when the thresholds are reached, as specified. The bill would require the group to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before January 31, 2027, with its findings, recommendations, and the plan.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YESNO Local Program: YESNO
Amended IN Senate March 24, 2025
Amended IN Senate March 24, 2025
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION
Senate Bill
No. 34
Introduced by Senator RichardsonDecember 02, 2024
Introduced by Senator Richardson
December 02, 2024
An act to add and repeal Section 39619.3 to 40453 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to ports. air pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
## LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 34, as amended, Richardson. Ports: emissions: intermodal goods movement stakeholder group. Air pollution: South Coast Air Quality Management District: mobile sources: public seaports.
Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollution control districts and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law authorizes air districts to adopt and implement regulations to reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect sources of air pollution.Existing law provides for the creation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in those portions of the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino included within the area of the South Coast Air Basin, as specified. Existing law requires the district to adopt rules and regulations to carry out the south coast district air quality management plan that are not in conflict with state and federal laws and rules and regulations and requires those rules and regulations to provide for indirect source controls under certain circumstances.This bill would, until January 1, 2036, prohibit the district from adopting, considering adopting, or requiring that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport. The bill would, until January 1, 2036, authorize specified entities, including the district, to enter into a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport if the voluntary agreement meets specified requirements.Existing law regulates the operation of ports and harbors. Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources and generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution.This bill would require the state board to establish an intermodal goods movement stakeholders group consisting of, among others, a member from each specified port district. By requiring a port district to participate in the group, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the group to develop a plan that specifies short-term thresholds of yellow, orange, and red for port emissions and specifies actions to be taken to reduce port emissions and port-related emissions when the thresholds are reached, as specified. The bill would require the group to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before January 31, 2027, with its findings, recommendations, and the plan.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollution control districts and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law authorizes air districts to adopt and implement regulations to reduce or mitigate emissions from indirect sources of air pollution.
Existing law provides for the creation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in those portions of the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino included within the area of the South Coast Air Basin, as specified. Existing law requires the district to adopt rules and regulations to carry out the south coast district air quality management plan that are not in conflict with state and federal laws and rules and regulations and requires those rules and regulations to provide for indirect source controls under certain circumstances.
This bill would, until January 1, 2036, prohibit the district from adopting, considering adopting, or requiring that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport. The bill would, until January 1, 2036, authorize specified entities, including the district, to enter into a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport if the voluntary agreement meets specified requirements.
Existing law regulates the operation of ports and harbors. Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources and generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution.
This bill would require the state board to establish an intermodal goods movement stakeholders group consisting of, among others, a member from each specified port district. By requiring a port district to participate in the group, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the group to develop a plan that specifies short-term thresholds of yellow, orange, and red for port emissions and specifies actions to be taken to reduce port emissions and port-related emissions when the thresholds are reached, as specified. The bill would require the group to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before January 31, 2027, with its findings, recommendations, and the plan.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
## Digest Key
## Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) It is in the best interest of the State of California to develop strategies that maintain and grow industries, such as goods movement, concurrent with pursuing environmental benefits.(b) In order to timely and effectively meet the zero-emission goals expressed in Executive Order No. N-79-20 within revenue generating service providing industries, such as the goods movement industry, impacted stakeholders need to work in collaborative groups, and through agreements, to develop and implement plans that use zero-emission equipment and infrastructure, while not negatively impacting intermodal trade and jobs.(c) Goods movement is the movement of physical products and raw materials to businesses, consumers, and industries by oceangoing vessels, harbor craft, such as tug boats, trucks, locomotives, and cargo-handling equipment.(d) In California, there are 11 port authorities. The San Pedro Bay port complex, which historically has encompassed both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, is the largest port complex in the State of California, the United States, North America, and the Western Hemisphere and is the ninth largest port complex in the world, supporting over 3 million jobs nationwide and economic activity that generated $2.78 billion in state and local taxes, plus an additional $4.73 billion in federal taxes, in 2022.(e) For more than two decades, the San Pedro Bay port complex has conducted extensive testing of the emissions of air pollutants. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are two of the cleanest, if not the cleanest, seaport operations in the world, exceeding all of their ambitious voluntary emissions targets by wide margins in 2023, according to the Inventory of Air Emissions 2023, that showed the total San Pedro Bay emissions of diesel particulate matter down 91 percent, nitrogen oxides down 72 percent, sulfur oxides down 98 percent, and greenhouse gases down by 20 percent when compared to 2005 levels.(f) In pursuing the objective of reducing emissions of air pollutants, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted significant strategies, such as the Zero Emission Truck Voucher Incentive Program, the Vessel Speed Reduction Program, the Ship Incentive Programs, and Green Shipping Corridors, which have resulted in major environmental benefits while maintaining trade production, even during complex COVID-19 pandemic.(g) Furthermore, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted a joint Clean Air Action Plan whose updated goals include transitioning cargo-handling equipment to zero emissions by 2030 and all drayage trucks calling at marine terminals to zero emissions by 2035.(h) The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach operate within the South Coast Air Basin, which is impaired by a lack of attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, over which the State Air Resources Board (state board) has jurisdiction over the control and reduction of mobile sources of emissions, and the regional South Coast Air Quality Management District (south coast district) has jurisdiction over the control and reduction of stationary sources of emissions.(i) All of the current sources of intermodal emissions in operation at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are currently operating under, and subject to, the regulatory authority of the state board, which has adopted regulations, most of which are the strictest regulations anywhere in the world, limiting the emissions of every component of the intermodal supply chain, including drayage trucks, transportation refrigeration units, forklifts and warehouse equipment, cargo-handling equipment at marine terminals, cargo-handling equipment at rail terminals, oceangoing vessels at berth, oceangoing vessel fuels while in California waters, and commercial harbor craft and pilot vessels. Furthermore, oceangoing vessels in transit are operating under, and subject to, the regulatory authority of federal and international agencies, including the International Maritime Organization, which has a goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by or around 2050.(j) The south coast district has expressed its intention to adopt a regulation to control mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through the exercise of an indirect source rule. The use of this authority has no precedent against ports or against seaport facilities in the South Coast Air Basin, in any other local air district in California, or anywhere else in the United States, rendering the action potentially subject to legal claims in a case of first impression.(k) Initial south coast district concepts for a seaport indirect source rule included the imposition of inflexible emissions caps, which would ultimately limit cargo flow at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach due to a lack of technological and economic feasibility and a lack of infrastructure available to accommodate emissions reductions when and if the technology and economic feasibility issues were resolved. This action, in turn, would have catastrophic impacts on jobs, the economy, local communities, environmental quality, and the global supply chain.(l) The Ports and the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach assert that instead of the adoption of a unilateral indirect source rule, a process for a collaborative agreement would be a better alternative, as it would include the impacted stakeholders who are best positioned to achieve both economic and environmental goals concurrently while minimizing delays and barriers.(m) Maritime industry stakeholders concur with the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach that a process to implement a collaborative work product versus forcing top-down directives is more likely to create a more results-driven approach to environmental and economic improvements.(n) Representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, community groups, and other organizations agree with the mayors of the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach and are opposed to any indirect source rule that would require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment. Representatives of these same organizations would support a collaborative agreement alternative that results in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emissions equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emissions equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. (o) Therefore, it is in the best interests of Californians, the environment, the goods movement industry, and all parties to stop attempts to adopt unprecedented and unnecessary rules, and rather, work in a collaborative fashion within the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beachs authority, as long as the ports activities are consistently tracking toward the achievement of the 2035 goals expressed in Executive Order No. N-79-20.SEC. 2. Section 40453 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:40453. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 40716, 40717, and 40717.5, the south coast district shall not adopt, consider adopting, or require that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport.(b) Subdivision (a) does not preclude the implementation of a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport within the South Coast Air Basin if the voluntary agreement meets all of the following requirements:(1) Before the voluntary agreement is adopted, the south coast district holds discussions with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, maritime industry stakeholders, representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, and community groups.(2) The voluntary agreement does not cap, limit, impede, restrict, or hinder port operations.(3) The voluntary agreement shall not use public funds or grants, whether municipal, county, state, or federal funds or grants, to require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment.(4) The voluntary agreement may result in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emission equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emission equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(5) The voluntary agreement does not encroach, infringe, or usurp control from the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(6) The voluntary agreement does not attempt to assert control over mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that are outside of the control of the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(7) The voluntary agreement is entered into by all of the following:(A) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach.(B) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Los Angeles.(C) The mayor of the City of Long Beach.(D) The mayor of the City of Los Angeles.(E) The south coast district board.(c) This section does restrict any regulation by the state board of any mobile source otherwise authorized by law.(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2036, and as of that date is repealed.SECTION 1.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)California has 12 ports through which goods are imported to and exported from international markets.(b)The Port of Oaklands highest value exports are food related, including, but not limited to, fruits, nuts, meats, wines, and spirits. In contrast, the Humboldt Bay Harbor District primarily imports and exports logs and wood chips due to the lumber businesses in its region.(c)The Port of Los Angeles is considered the busiest container port in the Western Hemisphere. It handles around 10,000,000 cargo containers annually. In June 2024, the Port of Los Angeles processed 827,757 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), a 10-percent increase from the previous month. And in the third quarter of 2024, the Port of Los Angeles processed 2,850,000 TEUs, its best quarter in over 116 years. Each year, the cargo flowing through this port generates over $200 billion in economic activity and sustains nearly 3,000,000 jobs in the United States.(d)The Port of Los Angeles is part of the San Pedro Complex, which is the container hub for both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. The San Pedro Complex is the largest container hub in the United States and accounts for over 30 percent of the TEUs in the United States. It is also the fifth largest container hub in the world.(e)Vehicles and equipment at ports are significant sources of air pollution. Ships, trucks, and cargo handling equipment at ports and offsite goods movement systems are often fueled by diesel and emit air pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. In recent years, California ports have faced several challenges, including, but not limited to, onsite and offsite port congestion and air pollution from associated facilities and vehicles. Both the State of California and the federal government have engaged in legislative, regulatory, and budgetary efforts to help ports address these challenges.(f)State involvement with ports in California is distributed across several agencies, including the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Agency, the State Air Resources Board, the Governors Office of Business and Economic Development, and the local South Coast Air Quality Management District. Each entity has different responsibilities regarding ports and goods movement.(g)The long term plan to reduce port emissions requires ports to adopt new zero-emission technologies. However, ports face several barriers, including, but not limited to, the following:(1)Certain electric vehicles are not yet widely available.(2)Barriers to siting and building a sufficient electrical grid to power zero-emission technologies.(3)High and unbudgeted costs.(4)Unsuitability of current batteries for port operations.(h)As a result of these barriers and others, the timeline for implementing zero-emission technologies at ports remains unclear and the costs remain unknown but are believed to exceed $1 billion.(i)To reduce port emissions in the short term, while 2035 zero-emission goals are implemented, an intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall be created to develop a plan to reduce port emissions when damaging levels arise.SEC. 2.Section 39619.3 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:39619.3.(a)The state board shall establish an intermodal goods movement stakeholders group, consisting of each of the following individuals:(1)An individual representing each of the following:(A)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 13.(B)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 63.(C)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 94.(D)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Southern California District Council.(2)An individual representing terminal and tenant operations.(3)An individual representing ship and vessel operations.(4)An individual representing rail and locomotive operations.(5)An individual representing freight forwarders, as defined in Section 220 of the Public Utilities Code.(6)An individual representing warehouse distribution centers.(7)An individual representing the California Association of Port Authorities.(8)An individual representing each of the following:(A)The Port of Benicia.(B)The Port of Hueneme.(C)The Port of Long Beach.(D)The Port of Los Angeles.(E)The Port of Oakland.(F)The Port of Redwood City.(G)The Port of Richmond.(H)The Port of San Diego.(I)The Port of San Francisco.(J)The Port of Stockton.(K)The Port of West Sacramento.(L)The Humboldt Bay Harbor District.(9)An individual representing the Department of Transportation.(10)An individual representing the state board.(b)The intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall develop a plan that specifies short-term thresholds of yellow, orange, and red for port emissions and specifies actions to be taken to reduce port emissions and port-related emissions when the thresholds are reached. An action in the plan shall be agreed to by the entity that would be required to perform the action under the plan.(c)In developing the plan described in subdivision (b), the intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall do both of the following:(1)Hold monthly meetings in person or by video conference.(2)Meet with appropriate state agencies to do all of the following:(A)Determine escalating emission impact levels for the yellow, orange, and red thresholds.(B)Discuss a draft of the plan.(C)Provide and obtain recommendations relating to the performance of the plan, if any.(d)(1)On or before January 31, 2027, the intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall submit a report to the Legislature and the Governor with its findings, recommendations, and the plan.(2)(A)The requirement for submitting a report imposed under this subdivision is inoperative on January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the Government Code.(B)A report to be submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.(3)The plan shall not be implemented before July 1, 2027.SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
## The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) It is in the best interest of the State of California to develop strategies that maintain and grow industries, such as goods movement, concurrent with pursuing environmental benefits.(b) In order to timely and effectively meet the zero-emission goals expressed in Executive Order No. N-79-20 within revenue generating service providing industries, such as the goods movement industry, impacted stakeholders need to work in collaborative groups, and through agreements, to develop and implement plans that use zero-emission equipment and infrastructure, while not negatively impacting intermodal trade and jobs.(c) Goods movement is the movement of physical products and raw materials to businesses, consumers, and industries by oceangoing vessels, harbor craft, such as tug boats, trucks, locomotives, and cargo-handling equipment.(d) In California, there are 11 port authorities. The San Pedro Bay port complex, which historically has encompassed both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, is the largest port complex in the State of California, the United States, North America, and the Western Hemisphere and is the ninth largest port complex in the world, supporting over 3 million jobs nationwide and economic activity that generated $2.78 billion in state and local taxes, plus an additional $4.73 billion in federal taxes, in 2022.(e) For more than two decades, the San Pedro Bay port complex has conducted extensive testing of the emissions of air pollutants. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are two of the cleanest, if not the cleanest, seaport operations in the world, exceeding all of their ambitious voluntary emissions targets by wide margins in 2023, according to the Inventory of Air Emissions 2023, that showed the total San Pedro Bay emissions of diesel particulate matter down 91 percent, nitrogen oxides down 72 percent, sulfur oxides down 98 percent, and greenhouse gases down by 20 percent when compared to 2005 levels.(f) In pursuing the objective of reducing emissions of air pollutants, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted significant strategies, such as the Zero Emission Truck Voucher Incentive Program, the Vessel Speed Reduction Program, the Ship Incentive Programs, and Green Shipping Corridors, which have resulted in major environmental benefits while maintaining trade production, even during complex COVID-19 pandemic.(g) Furthermore, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted a joint Clean Air Action Plan whose updated goals include transitioning cargo-handling equipment to zero emissions by 2030 and all drayage trucks calling at marine terminals to zero emissions by 2035.(h) The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach operate within the South Coast Air Basin, which is impaired by a lack of attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, over which the State Air Resources Board (state board) has jurisdiction over the control and reduction of mobile sources of emissions, and the regional South Coast Air Quality Management District (south coast district) has jurisdiction over the control and reduction of stationary sources of emissions.(i) All of the current sources of intermodal emissions in operation at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are currently operating under, and subject to, the regulatory authority of the state board, which has adopted regulations, most of which are the strictest regulations anywhere in the world, limiting the emissions of every component of the intermodal supply chain, including drayage trucks, transportation refrigeration units, forklifts and warehouse equipment, cargo-handling equipment at marine terminals, cargo-handling equipment at rail terminals, oceangoing vessels at berth, oceangoing vessel fuels while in California waters, and commercial harbor craft and pilot vessels. Furthermore, oceangoing vessels in transit are operating under, and subject to, the regulatory authority of federal and international agencies, including the International Maritime Organization, which has a goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by or around 2050.(j) The south coast district has expressed its intention to adopt a regulation to control mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through the exercise of an indirect source rule. The use of this authority has no precedent against ports or against seaport facilities in the South Coast Air Basin, in any other local air district in California, or anywhere else in the United States, rendering the action potentially subject to legal claims in a case of first impression.(k) Initial south coast district concepts for a seaport indirect source rule included the imposition of inflexible emissions caps, which would ultimately limit cargo flow at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach due to a lack of technological and economic feasibility and a lack of infrastructure available to accommodate emissions reductions when and if the technology and economic feasibility issues were resolved. This action, in turn, would have catastrophic impacts on jobs, the economy, local communities, environmental quality, and the global supply chain.(l) The Ports and the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach assert that instead of the adoption of a unilateral indirect source rule, a process for a collaborative agreement would be a better alternative, as it would include the impacted stakeholders who are best positioned to achieve both economic and environmental goals concurrently while minimizing delays and barriers.(m) Maritime industry stakeholders concur with the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach that a process to implement a collaborative work product versus forcing top-down directives is more likely to create a more results-driven approach to environmental and economic improvements.(n) Representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, community groups, and other organizations agree with the mayors of the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach and are opposed to any indirect source rule that would require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment. Representatives of these same organizations would support a collaborative agreement alternative that results in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emissions equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emissions equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. (o) Therefore, it is in the best interests of Californians, the environment, the goods movement industry, and all parties to stop attempts to adopt unprecedented and unnecessary rules, and rather, work in a collaborative fashion within the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beachs authority, as long as the ports activities are consistently tracking toward the achievement of the 2035 goals expressed in Executive Order No. N-79-20.
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) It is in the best interest of the State of California to develop strategies that maintain and grow industries, such as goods movement, concurrent with pursuing environmental benefits.(b) In order to timely and effectively meet the zero-emission goals expressed in Executive Order No. N-79-20 within revenue generating service providing industries, such as the goods movement industry, impacted stakeholders need to work in collaborative groups, and through agreements, to develop and implement plans that use zero-emission equipment and infrastructure, while not negatively impacting intermodal trade and jobs.(c) Goods movement is the movement of physical products and raw materials to businesses, consumers, and industries by oceangoing vessels, harbor craft, such as tug boats, trucks, locomotives, and cargo-handling equipment.(d) In California, there are 11 port authorities. The San Pedro Bay port complex, which historically has encompassed both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, is the largest port complex in the State of California, the United States, North America, and the Western Hemisphere and is the ninth largest port complex in the world, supporting over 3 million jobs nationwide and economic activity that generated $2.78 billion in state and local taxes, plus an additional $4.73 billion in federal taxes, in 2022.(e) For more than two decades, the San Pedro Bay port complex has conducted extensive testing of the emissions of air pollutants. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are two of the cleanest, if not the cleanest, seaport operations in the world, exceeding all of their ambitious voluntary emissions targets by wide margins in 2023, according to the Inventory of Air Emissions 2023, that showed the total San Pedro Bay emissions of diesel particulate matter down 91 percent, nitrogen oxides down 72 percent, sulfur oxides down 98 percent, and greenhouse gases down by 20 percent when compared to 2005 levels.(f) In pursuing the objective of reducing emissions of air pollutants, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted significant strategies, such as the Zero Emission Truck Voucher Incentive Program, the Vessel Speed Reduction Program, the Ship Incentive Programs, and Green Shipping Corridors, which have resulted in major environmental benefits while maintaining trade production, even during complex COVID-19 pandemic.(g) Furthermore, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted a joint Clean Air Action Plan whose updated goals include transitioning cargo-handling equipment to zero emissions by 2030 and all drayage trucks calling at marine terminals to zero emissions by 2035.(h) The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach operate within the South Coast Air Basin, which is impaired by a lack of attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, over which the State Air Resources Board (state board) has jurisdiction over the control and reduction of mobile sources of emissions, and the regional South Coast Air Quality Management District (south coast district) has jurisdiction over the control and reduction of stationary sources of emissions.(i) All of the current sources of intermodal emissions in operation at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are currently operating under, and subject to, the regulatory authority of the state board, which has adopted regulations, most of which are the strictest regulations anywhere in the world, limiting the emissions of every component of the intermodal supply chain, including drayage trucks, transportation refrigeration units, forklifts and warehouse equipment, cargo-handling equipment at marine terminals, cargo-handling equipment at rail terminals, oceangoing vessels at berth, oceangoing vessel fuels while in California waters, and commercial harbor craft and pilot vessels. Furthermore, oceangoing vessels in transit are operating under, and subject to, the regulatory authority of federal and international agencies, including the International Maritime Organization, which has a goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by or around 2050.(j) The south coast district has expressed its intention to adopt a regulation to control mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through the exercise of an indirect source rule. The use of this authority has no precedent against ports or against seaport facilities in the South Coast Air Basin, in any other local air district in California, or anywhere else in the United States, rendering the action potentially subject to legal claims in a case of first impression.(k) Initial south coast district concepts for a seaport indirect source rule included the imposition of inflexible emissions caps, which would ultimately limit cargo flow at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach due to a lack of technological and economic feasibility and a lack of infrastructure available to accommodate emissions reductions when and if the technology and economic feasibility issues were resolved. This action, in turn, would have catastrophic impacts on jobs, the economy, local communities, environmental quality, and the global supply chain.(l) The Ports and the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach assert that instead of the adoption of a unilateral indirect source rule, a process for a collaborative agreement would be a better alternative, as it would include the impacted stakeholders who are best positioned to achieve both economic and environmental goals concurrently while minimizing delays and barriers.(m) Maritime industry stakeholders concur with the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach that a process to implement a collaborative work product versus forcing top-down directives is more likely to create a more results-driven approach to environmental and economic improvements.(n) Representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, community groups, and other organizations agree with the mayors of the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach and are opposed to any indirect source rule that would require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment. Representatives of these same organizations would support a collaborative agreement alternative that results in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emissions equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emissions equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. (o) Therefore, it is in the best interests of Californians, the environment, the goods movement industry, and all parties to stop attempts to adopt unprecedented and unnecessary rules, and rather, work in a collaborative fashion within the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beachs authority, as long as the ports activities are consistently tracking toward the achievement of the 2035 goals expressed in Executive Order No. N-79-20.
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
### SECTION 1.
(a) It is in the best interest of the State of California to develop strategies that maintain and grow industries, such as goods movement, concurrent with pursuing environmental benefits.
(b) In order to timely and effectively meet the zero-emission goals expressed in Executive Order No. N-79-20 within revenue generating service providing industries, such as the goods movement industry, impacted stakeholders need to work in collaborative groups, and through agreements, to develop and implement plans that use zero-emission equipment and infrastructure, while not negatively impacting intermodal trade and jobs.
(c) Goods movement is the movement of physical products and raw materials to businesses, consumers, and industries by oceangoing vessels, harbor craft, such as tug boats, trucks, locomotives, and cargo-handling equipment.
(d) In California, there are 11 port authorities. The San Pedro Bay port complex, which historically has encompassed both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, is the largest port complex in the State of California, the United States, North America, and the Western Hemisphere and is the ninth largest port complex in the world, supporting over 3 million jobs nationwide and economic activity that generated $2.78 billion in state and local taxes, plus an additional $4.73 billion in federal taxes, in 2022.
(e) For more than two decades, the San Pedro Bay port complex has conducted extensive testing of the emissions of air pollutants. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are two of the cleanest, if not the cleanest, seaport operations in the world, exceeding all of their ambitious voluntary emissions targets by wide margins in 2023, according to the Inventory of Air Emissions 2023, that showed the total San Pedro Bay emissions of diesel particulate matter down 91 percent, nitrogen oxides down 72 percent, sulfur oxides down 98 percent, and greenhouse gases down by 20 percent when compared to 2005 levels.
(f) In pursuing the objective of reducing emissions of air pollutants, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted significant strategies, such as the Zero Emission Truck Voucher Incentive Program, the Vessel Speed Reduction Program, the Ship Incentive Programs, and Green Shipping Corridors, which have resulted in major environmental benefits while maintaining trade production, even during complex COVID-19 pandemic.
(g) Furthermore, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have adopted a joint Clean Air Action Plan whose updated goals include transitioning cargo-handling equipment to zero emissions by 2030 and all drayage trucks calling at marine terminals to zero emissions by 2035.
(h) The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach operate within the South Coast Air Basin, which is impaired by a lack of attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, over which the State Air Resources Board (state board) has jurisdiction over the control and reduction of mobile sources of emissions, and the regional South Coast Air Quality Management District (south coast district) has jurisdiction over the control and reduction of stationary sources of emissions.
(i) All of the current sources of intermodal emissions in operation at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are currently operating under, and subject to, the regulatory authority of the state board, which has adopted regulations, most of which are the strictest regulations anywhere in the world, limiting the emissions of every component of the intermodal supply chain, including drayage trucks, transportation refrigeration units, forklifts and warehouse equipment, cargo-handling equipment at marine terminals, cargo-handling equipment at rail terminals, oceangoing vessels at berth, oceangoing vessel fuels while in California waters, and commercial harbor craft and pilot vessels. Furthermore, oceangoing vessels in transit are operating under, and subject to, the regulatory authority of federal and international agencies, including the International Maritime Organization, which has a goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by or around 2050.
(j) The south coast district has expressed its intention to adopt a regulation to control mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through the exercise of an indirect source rule. The use of this authority has no precedent against ports or against seaport facilities in the South Coast Air Basin, in any other local air district in California, or anywhere else in the United States, rendering the action potentially subject to legal claims in a case of first impression.
(k) Initial south coast district concepts for a seaport indirect source rule included the imposition of inflexible emissions caps, which would ultimately limit cargo flow at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach due to a lack of technological and economic feasibility and a lack of infrastructure available to accommodate emissions reductions when and if the technology and economic feasibility issues were resolved. This action, in turn, would have catastrophic impacts on jobs, the economy, local communities, environmental quality, and the global supply chain.
(l) The Ports and the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach assert that instead of the adoption of a unilateral indirect source rule, a process for a collaborative agreement would be a better alternative, as it would include the impacted stakeholders who are best positioned to achieve both economic and environmental goals concurrently while minimizing delays and barriers.
(m) Maritime industry stakeholders concur with the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach that a process to implement a collaborative work product versus forcing top-down directives is more likely to create a more results-driven approach to environmental and economic improvements.
(n) Representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, community groups, and other organizations agree with the mayors of the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach and are opposed to any indirect source rule that would require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment. Representatives of these same organizations would support a collaborative agreement alternative that results in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emissions equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emissions equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
(o) Therefore, it is in the best interests of Californians, the environment, the goods movement industry, and all parties to stop attempts to adopt unprecedented and unnecessary rules, and rather, work in a collaborative fashion within the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beachs authority, as long as the ports activities are consistently tracking toward the achievement of the 2035 goals expressed in Executive Order No. N-79-20.
SEC. 2. Section 40453 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:40453. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 40716, 40717, and 40717.5, the south coast district shall not adopt, consider adopting, or require that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport.(b) Subdivision (a) does not preclude the implementation of a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport within the South Coast Air Basin if the voluntary agreement meets all of the following requirements:(1) Before the voluntary agreement is adopted, the south coast district holds discussions with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, maritime industry stakeholders, representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, and community groups.(2) The voluntary agreement does not cap, limit, impede, restrict, or hinder port operations.(3) The voluntary agreement shall not use public funds or grants, whether municipal, county, state, or federal funds or grants, to require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment.(4) The voluntary agreement may result in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emission equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emission equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(5) The voluntary agreement does not encroach, infringe, or usurp control from the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(6) The voluntary agreement does not attempt to assert control over mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that are outside of the control of the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(7) The voluntary agreement is entered into by all of the following:(A) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach.(B) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Los Angeles.(C) The mayor of the City of Long Beach.(D) The mayor of the City of Los Angeles.(E) The south coast district board.(c) This section does restrict any regulation by the state board of any mobile source otherwise authorized by law.(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2036, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 2. Section 40453 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
### SEC. 2.
40453. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 40716, 40717, and 40717.5, the south coast district shall not adopt, consider adopting, or require that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport.(b) Subdivision (a) does not preclude the implementation of a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport within the South Coast Air Basin if the voluntary agreement meets all of the following requirements:(1) Before the voluntary agreement is adopted, the south coast district holds discussions with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, maritime industry stakeholders, representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, and community groups.(2) The voluntary agreement does not cap, limit, impede, restrict, or hinder port operations.(3) The voluntary agreement shall not use public funds or grants, whether municipal, county, state, or federal funds or grants, to require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment.(4) The voluntary agreement may result in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emission equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emission equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(5) The voluntary agreement does not encroach, infringe, or usurp control from the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(6) The voluntary agreement does not attempt to assert control over mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that are outside of the control of the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(7) The voluntary agreement is entered into by all of the following:(A) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach.(B) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Los Angeles.(C) The mayor of the City of Long Beach.(D) The mayor of the City of Los Angeles.(E) The south coast district board.(c) This section does restrict any regulation by the state board of any mobile source otherwise authorized by law.(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2036, and as of that date is repealed.
40453. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 40716, 40717, and 40717.5, the south coast district shall not adopt, consider adopting, or require that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport.(b) Subdivision (a) does not preclude the implementation of a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport within the South Coast Air Basin if the voluntary agreement meets all of the following requirements:(1) Before the voluntary agreement is adopted, the south coast district holds discussions with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, maritime industry stakeholders, representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, and community groups.(2) The voluntary agreement does not cap, limit, impede, restrict, or hinder port operations.(3) The voluntary agreement shall not use public funds or grants, whether municipal, county, state, or federal funds or grants, to require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment.(4) The voluntary agreement may result in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emission equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emission equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(5) The voluntary agreement does not encroach, infringe, or usurp control from the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(6) The voluntary agreement does not attempt to assert control over mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that are outside of the control of the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(7) The voluntary agreement is entered into by all of the following:(A) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach.(B) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Los Angeles.(C) The mayor of the City of Long Beach.(D) The mayor of the City of Los Angeles.(E) The south coast district board.(c) This section does restrict any regulation by the state board of any mobile source otherwise authorized by law.(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2036, and as of that date is repealed.
40453. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 40716, 40717, and 40717.5, the south coast district shall not adopt, consider adopting, or require that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport.(b) Subdivision (a) does not preclude the implementation of a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport within the South Coast Air Basin if the voluntary agreement meets all of the following requirements:(1) Before the voluntary agreement is adopted, the south coast district holds discussions with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, maritime industry stakeholders, representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, and community groups.(2) The voluntary agreement does not cap, limit, impede, restrict, or hinder port operations.(3) The voluntary agreement shall not use public funds or grants, whether municipal, county, state, or federal funds or grants, to require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment.(4) The voluntary agreement may result in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emission equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emission equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(5) The voluntary agreement does not encroach, infringe, or usurp control from the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(6) The voluntary agreement does not attempt to assert control over mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that are outside of the control of the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.(7) The voluntary agreement is entered into by all of the following:(A) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach.(B) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Los Angeles.(C) The mayor of the City of Long Beach.(D) The mayor of the City of Los Angeles.(E) The south coast district board.(c) This section does restrict any regulation by the state board of any mobile source otherwise authorized by law.(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2036, and as of that date is repealed.
40453. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 40716, 40717, and 40717.5, the south coast district shall not adopt, consider adopting, or require that any local agency or city enforce any regulation or indirect source rule to address pollution from any mobile source that is already subject to regulation by the state board and that is associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not preclude the implementation of a voluntary agreement to address pollution from any mobile source associated with an operation at any public seaport or marine terminal facility at a public seaport within the South Coast Air Basin if the voluntary agreement meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Before the voluntary agreement is adopted, the south coast district holds discussions with relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, maritime industry stakeholders, representatives of maritime labor unions, national, statewide, regional, and local businesses, organized labor, and community groups.
(2) The voluntary agreement does not cap, limit, impede, restrict, or hinder port operations.
(3) The voluntary agreement shall not use public funds or grants, whether municipal, county, state, or federal funds or grants, to require, incentivize, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment, or infrastructure to support automated, remotely controlled, or remotely operated equipment.
(4) The voluntary agreement may result in the procurement and operation of human-operated, zero-emission equipment and infrastructure to support human-operated, zero-emission equipment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
(5) The voluntary agreement does not encroach, infringe, or usurp control from the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
(6) The voluntary agreement does not attempt to assert control over mobile sources of emissions from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that are outside of the control of the Ports and Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
(7) The voluntary agreement is entered into by all of the following:
(A) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach.
(B) The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of Los Angeles.
(C) The mayor of the City of Long Beach.
(D) The mayor of the City of Los Angeles.
(E) The south coast district board.
(c) This section does restrict any regulation by the state board of any mobile source otherwise authorized by law.
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2036, and as of that date is repealed.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)California has 12 ports through which goods are imported to and exported from international markets.
(b)The Port of Oaklands highest value exports are food related, including, but not limited to, fruits, nuts, meats, wines, and spirits. In contrast, the Humboldt Bay Harbor District primarily imports and exports logs and wood chips due to the lumber businesses in its region.
(c)The Port of Los Angeles is considered the busiest container port in the Western Hemisphere. It handles around 10,000,000 cargo containers annually. In June 2024, the Port of Los Angeles processed 827,757 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), a 10-percent increase from the previous month. And in the third quarter of 2024, the Port of Los Angeles processed 2,850,000 TEUs, its best quarter in over 116 years. Each year, the cargo flowing through this port generates over $200 billion in economic activity and sustains nearly 3,000,000 jobs in the United States.
(d)The Port of Los Angeles is part of the San Pedro Complex, which is the container hub for both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. The San Pedro Complex is the largest container hub in the United States and accounts for over 30 percent of the TEUs in the United States. It is also the fifth largest container hub in the world.
(e)Vehicles and equipment at ports are significant sources of air pollution. Ships, trucks, and cargo handling equipment at ports and offsite goods movement systems are often fueled by diesel and emit air pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. In recent years, California ports have faced several challenges, including, but not limited to, onsite and offsite port congestion and air pollution from associated facilities and vehicles. Both the State of California and the federal government have engaged in legislative, regulatory, and budgetary efforts to help ports address these challenges.
(f)State involvement with ports in California is distributed across several agencies, including the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Agency, the State Air Resources Board, the Governors Office of Business and Economic Development, and the local South Coast Air Quality Management District. Each entity has different responsibilities regarding ports and goods movement.
(g)The long term plan to reduce port emissions requires ports to adopt new zero-emission technologies. However, ports face several barriers, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1)Certain electric vehicles are not yet widely available.
(2)Barriers to siting and building a sufficient electrical grid to power zero-emission technologies.
(3)High and unbudgeted costs.
(4)Unsuitability of current batteries for port operations.
(h)As a result of these barriers and others, the timeline for implementing zero-emission technologies at ports remains unclear and the costs remain unknown but are believed to exceed $1 billion.
(i)To reduce port emissions in the short term, while 2035 zero-emission goals are implemented, an intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall be created to develop a plan to reduce port emissions when damaging levels arise.
(a)The state board shall establish an intermodal goods movement stakeholders group, consisting of each of the following individuals:
(1)An individual representing each of the following:
(A)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 13.
(B)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 63.
(C)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 94.
(D)International Longshore and Warehouse Union Southern California District Council.
(2)An individual representing terminal and tenant operations.
(3)An individual representing ship and vessel operations.
(4)An individual representing rail and locomotive operations.
(5)An individual representing freight forwarders, as defined in Section 220 of the Public Utilities Code.
(6)An individual representing warehouse distribution centers.
(7)An individual representing the California Association of Port Authorities.
(8)An individual representing each of the following:
(A)The Port of Benicia.
(B)The Port of Hueneme.
(C)The Port of Long Beach.
(D)The Port of Los Angeles.
(E)The Port of Oakland.
(F)The Port of Redwood City.
(G)The Port of Richmond.
(H)The Port of San Diego.
(I)The Port of San Francisco.
(J)The Port of Stockton.
(K)The Port of West Sacramento.
(L)The Humboldt Bay Harbor District.
(9)An individual representing the Department of Transportation.
(10)An individual representing the state board.
(b)The intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall develop a plan that specifies short-term thresholds of yellow, orange, and red for port emissions and specifies actions to be taken to reduce port emissions and port-related emissions when the thresholds are reached. An action in the plan shall be agreed to by the entity that would be required to perform the action under the plan.
(c)In developing the plan described in subdivision (b), the intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall do both of the following:
(1)Hold monthly meetings in person or by video conference.
(2)Meet with appropriate state agencies to do all of the following:
(A)Determine escalating emission impact levels for the yellow, orange, and red thresholds.
(B)Discuss a draft of the plan.
(C)Provide and obtain recommendations relating to the performance of the plan, if any.
(d)(1)On or before January 31, 2027, the intermodal goods movement stakeholders group shall submit a report to the Legislature and the Governor with its findings, recommendations, and the plan.
(2)(A)The requirement for submitting a report imposed under this subdivision is inoperative on January 1, 2031, pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the Government Code.
(B)A report to be submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.
(3)The plan shall not be implemented before July 1, 2027.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.