California lawmakers are stepping into a fierce battle over the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as regulators ramp up the next frontier of clean-air enforcement. Senate Bill 34, authored by Senator Laura Richardson, D-South Bay, aims to limit the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s powers to regulate emissions at the state’s busiest seaport complex. The regional air district had initially planned to vote on its landmark indirect source rule in October, the same month that SB 34 could be signed into law.
Agriculture is watching closely. The San Pedro Bay complex housing the ports handles more than a third of all U.S. container trade — comprising billions of shipments for almonds, citrus, wine and other perishables. Farm exporters warn that additional regulatory uncertainty or any slowdown in cargo could ripple through global markets, eroding reliability just as California producers fight to hold onto overseas shelf space.
Sequencing, not stoppage
Under the latest amendments, SB 34 requires the district to evaluate infrastructure readiness — power supply, workforce, environmental and cost impacts — before adopting stricter emissions rules. Ports may request timeline extensions under the bill, which also bars throughput caps and public funding for automation, while allowing human-operated zero-emission equipment.
Richardson emphasized the bill’s intent during a recent committee hearing.
“I believe this bill strikes the right balance,” said Richardson. “In no way do we want to pause from emissions and what our goals are. But we do want to make sure everyone's at the table and those who are best to address it are at that table as well.”
SB 34 directly challenges the district’s Proposed Rule 2304, which would require both ports to submit detailed infrastructure plans by 2027 in support of achieving zero-emission cargo-handling by 2030 and drayage trucks by 2035. The rule represents the next phase of the Clean Air Action Plan, already supported by the ports.
The shipping industry warns the rule could disrupt a decades-long model of cooperation.
“The Clean Air Action Plan is a 20-year history of successful collaboration,” said Thomas Jelenić, vice president at the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, at an April committee hearing on SB 34. “Unfortunately, proposals like the indirect source rule will stifle the most successful partnership in the nation. SB 34 lays out the ground rules for continued collaboration and success that will help ensure that we can achieve our zero emissions future.”
Rallying cry for public health
Support for SB 34 comes from the local International Longshore and Warehouse Union branches, the California Trucking Association and the Retailers Association — groups that argue phased electrification is practical only if power and funding are aligned. Labor leaders have also said they fear stricter rules could indirectly cap throughput and accelerate automation, threatening jobs.
Interested in more news on farm programs, trade and rural issues? Sign up for a four-week free trial to Agri-Pulse. You’ll receive our content - absolutely free - during the trial period.
Opponents include the Coalition for Clean Air, American Lung Association, Communities for a Better Environment and other environmental justice groups.
Sen. Laura Richardson, D-Rancho Cucamonga (photo: Richardson's office)As the sole vote against SB 34 in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, Assemblymember Robert Garcia, D- Rancho Cucamonga, referenced a recent opinion piece in the Los Angeles Sentinel from West Long Beach community advocate Theral Golden.
“SB 34 is a death sentence for our communities,” paraphrased Garcia. “Three people die each day in this region from poor pollution. It's not car crashes, not gun violence. It's air. And that is the price we pay for living near these ports and warehouses: our lungs, our health, our lives — and no, we can't just move away.”
Regulators also voiced strong opposition, with the rare testimony of an executive officer from a regulatory agency.
“The bill circumvents the local public process and introduces legal ambiguity and jeopardizes our ability to regulate emissions from the largest source of pollution in our region and the entire state,” warned Wayne Nastri, who leads the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Pressed on federal implications, Nastri added that the bill’s time-limited constraints could collide with federal directives.
“If EPA were to say you need to do something before 2031, and if this bill were approved, we would be in violation of state law,” Nastri explained to Asm. Corey Jackson, D-Moreno Valley.
The exchange underscored concerns about potentially heavy federal intervention from the Trump administration if the region falls behind on ozone compliance as well as Jackson’s evolving stance on regulatory costs. Last year he authored AB 1857 to strengthen state air quality regulations by having the California Air Resources Board usurp control of the district’s rulemaking. Yet Jackson pushed back on Nastri’s concerns and supported SB 34.
Recent district data underscores the stakes behind the district’s argument. In 2023 port-related operations generated 183 tons of PM2.5, 146 tons of diesel particulate and more than 8,400 tons of nitrogen oxides. The South Coast faces the nation’s worst smog and risks losing billions in federal highway funding if it misses federal deadlines.
For growers in the Central Valley and beyond, any federal sanctions for not meeting air quality standards could add costs to shipping and further strain competitiveness — at a time when farm exports are already challenged by high logistics costs and tight margins.
Rule vs. MOU: tensions at the board table
At the district’s board hearing this month, staff laid out the agency’s long-running efforts to negotiate voluntary agreements with the ports. The ports have submitted a cooperative agreement draft, reviving a previously stalled MOU track.
Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League, advocated on behalf of an agriculture coalition in favor of the MOU and warned about the effect on trade through the regulatory pathway.
“Food cannot sit in a port,” Cunha told the board. “It has to leave immediately and arrive at its destination. If not, buyers would refuse to buy from California because of these problems.”
But environmental and community groups pressed the board to stay the course on the rule, warning that voluntary pacts lack accountability and would delay critical enforcement.
Supervisor Holly Mitchell (photo: Assembly)“This last-minute submission of an agreement or MOU is frustrating, offensive and only serves to delay a life-saving regulation,” argued Paola Vargas, an organizer for East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice.
Several board members shared those concerns. Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell challenged the logic of halting the regulatory momentum.
“I don’t know why any rulemaking body would agree to a 10-year prohibition on rulemaking,” said Mitchell. “Why couldn't we go ahead and go forward with a rule that's administrative in nature, that focuses on infrastructure, while we continue to attempt to come to some agreement?”
Mitchell noted that the MOU “has failed twice — maybe the third time's a charm.”
Board discussions centered on three paths: proceed with rulemaking, pause for negotiations, or pursue both concurrently. Staff recommended the third approach, negotiating in parallel while retaining the rule, aiming to return with proposals by December.
For farm exporters, the distinction matters. A protracted back-and-forth could mean new bottlenecks, while a purely voluntary agreement could fail to reduce the smog levels that imperil federal highway funding essential to moving crops.
What’s next for lawmakers and regulators
SB 34 awaits a critical vote in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Friday to advance to floor votes.
Meanwhile, the district has scheduled a virtual public meeting on Thursday to update stakeholders on ongoing cooperative agreement negotiations with the ports. With the release of the draft agreement from the ports, the district bumped back its board vote on Rule 2304 to around December.
For exporters, the outcome of the two policy proposals could define whether California ports maintain export reliability or whether air quality goals inadvertently compromise cargo flow. Almond handlers, wine shippers and citrus packers have all warned that even short disruptions at the ports can upend overseas contracts.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
