AB 2752 California Assembly · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Bay Area Air Quality Management District and South Coast Air Quality Management District: policies: oil refineries.

Summary
Existing law establishes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which is vested with the authority to regulate air emissions located in the boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara and portions of the Counties of Solano and Sonoma. Under existing law, the Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act establishes the South Coast Air Quality Management District in those portions of the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino included within the South Coast Air Basin as the local agency with the responsibility for comprehensive air pollution control within the basin. This bill would require the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, on or before December 31, 2027, to analyze specified policies to determine the cost of compliance, potential cost to consumers, impacts on state and local tax revenue, refinery employment, and impacts on the statewide gasoline supply, as provided. The bill would also require those districts, on or before January 1, 2028, to make a good faith effort to minimize any adverse impacts identified pursuant to that requirement. By requiring a higher level of service of local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires, whenever a district intends to propose the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulation that will significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations, that district to perform an assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the rule or regulation. Existing law defines "socioeconomic impact" for these purposes. With respect to the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulation related to oil refineries by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the bill would expand the definition of "socioeconomic impact" to also mean the cost to consumers, impacts on state and local tax revenue, and impacts on the statewide gasoline supply. The bill would also require those districts to actively consider those additional socioeconomic impacts and make a good faith effort to minimize any adverse impacts, as provided, before adopting, amending, or repealing a rule or regulation related to oil refineries. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 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.
Bill status in committee 1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2026
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 20, 2026 Last action Apr 20, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 3 comparisons

What changed between versions

03/19/26 - Amended Assembly 04/06/26 - Amended Assembly · 8 edits · Apr 6, 2026
MODERATE
The April 6 amendment substantially strengthens AB 2752 by replacing aspirational 'intent' language with concrete deadlines and binding requirements, and by adding a new section that amends the existing socioeconomic impact assessment law (Section 40728.5) to specifically protect oil refineries from adverse regulatory impacts. The bill now requires BAAQMD and SCAQMD to complete refinery policy analyses by December 31, 2027, make a good faith effort to minimize adverse impacts by January 1, 2028, and expand the definition of socioeconomic impact for refinery-related rules to include consumer costs, tax revenue effects, and statewide gasoline supply impacts.
Scope change
The bill's scope expanded from a single new section (40004.5) with no deadline to two sections: the strengthened 40004.5 with specific deadlines and named policies, plus a rewrite of existing Section 40728.5 that adds refinery-specific socioeconomic impact factors, good faith minimization duties, and new exemptions for less-restrictive rules and rules mirroring state/federal requirements.
REQUIREMENT

Section 40004.5 now includes a hard deadline of December 31, 2027 for completing the policy analysis, and adds a new subdivision (b) requiring both districts to make a good faith effort to minimize adverse impacts by January 1, 2028.

Section 40004.5 now specifies four particular policies that must be analyzed: BAAQMD Regulation 3 fees, BAAQMD Regulation 6 Rule 5, SCAQMD Regulation III fees, and SCAQMD Rule 1109.1.

The amended Section 40728.5 requires district boards to actively consider socioeconomic impacts and make a good faith effort to minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts before adopting, amending, or repealing refinery-related rules.

DEFINITION

A new Section 3 amends Health and Safety Code Section 40728.5 to expand the definition of 'socioeconomic impact' for oil refinery-related rules by BAAQMD and SCAQMD to include cost to consumers, impacts on state and local tax revenue, and impacts on statewide gasoline supply.

SCOPE

A new exemption is added to Section 40728.5: county districts are not required to include certain analyses (cost-effectiveness of alternatives and emission reduction potential) for rules that are substantially similar to or required by state or federal statutes, regulations, or formal guidance documents such as federal Control Techniques Guidelines, RACT determinations, BART determinations, and air toxic control measures.

A new exemption is added to Section 40728.5: the section does not apply to rules that result in less restrictive emissions limits, provided the action does not interfere with the district's adopted plan to attain ambient air quality standards or cause a significant increase in emissions.

The prior version's Section 1 stated only the Legislature's 'intent to enact subsequent legislation' for accountability and oversight of the two districts. This aspirational language was removed and replaced with binding requirements and deadlines.

FISCAL

Fiscal committee review changed from 'no' to 'yes' and state-mandated local program designation changed from 'no' to 'yes', reflecting that the new binding requirements on local districts now trigger potential state reimbursement obligations under the California Constitution.

Floor votes

How they voted

No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
8
Key actions
2
Committee
5
Amendments
2
Apr 20, 2026
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken.
lower
Apr 7, 2026
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
lower
Apr 6, 2026
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 23, 2026
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
lower
Mar 19, 2026
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 19, 2026
Committee
Referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
lower
Feb 21, 2026
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.
lower
0 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

No sponsor information available.