Two CRTA‑opposed measures saw mixed outcomes this month, with one measure stalling in committee while another advanced despite concerns raised during the hearing. Both bills reflect ongoing debates over California’s clean air strategy and the balance between statewide goals and near‑term, deployable solutions.

SB 1035 (Strickland), which sought to suspend the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and other programs for one year to provide relief at the fuel pump, failed to advance out of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. The bill received only two affirmative votes, with remaining members voting no, abstaining, or absent. CRTA and other opponents emphasized that the LCFS plays a central role in reducing fuel carbon intensity, expanding alternative fuel use, and driving private investment in clean transportation, warning that even a temporary suspension of the program would strand projects, slow deployment of cleaner fuels, and jeopardize progress toward California’s climate and air quality goals. A majority of committee members echoed these concerns, citing similar reasons for opposing the bill, including the limited potential for price relief relative to broader, out‑of‑state market forces. The bill was granted “reconsideration” at the author’s request, though renewed action is considered unlikely.

In contrast, AB 1777 (Garcia) passed out of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on a largely partisan 9–4 vote, with Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) not voting, and now heads to Assembly Appropriations. This bill would expand CARB’s authority over indirect sources of pollution, such as warehouses, ports, and freight facilities, shifting power away from regional air districts and limiting locally tailored solutions. CRTA opposes the bill because it fails to deliver immediate NOx reductions and instead delays action while proven tools—such as low‑NOx trucks—are readily available and can reduce emissions to protect public health now.

During the hearing, concerns were raised echoing port labor workers’ perspectives about potential impacts on local authority, commerce, and jobs at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Despite these objections, the author maintained that the bill merely clarifies CARB’s authority to implement a statewide indirect source rules (ISR) and does not prescribe a new regulatory mandate. Notably, when asked, the author acknowledged that the earliest a statewide ISR could be implemented is 2029, reinforcing CRTA’s position that the bill fails to provide near‑term action needed to achieve timely air quality improvements.

As this bill move forward, CRTA will remain engaged to ensure policymakers prioritize immediate emissions reductions, consumer affordability, and workable solutions for California’s communities.