California Air Resources Board

Summary 

Would have added to the definition of a Local Education Agency (LEA), for the purposes of Proposition 98 funding, a private contractor with ownership of title for a schoolbus that is used to provide transportation services for a school district, county office of education, or charter school. This bill would have also required CARB to establish a minimum time period for a private contractor to provide transportation services to an LEA with a zero-emission schoolbus purchased using the specified grant money and to develop a depreciation schedule that determines the amount of money to be repaid to CARB by the private contractor, if the private contractor ceases to contract with an LEA to provide transportation services before the minimum time period elapses. Was not heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee. 

View full bill text here 

Summary 

Would have provided an exemption for 2024 and subsequent model heavy-duty trucks, provided they meet federal exhaust emission standards, from CARB's emissions standards and test procedures. Was not heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee. 

View full bill text here

Summary 

Would have required CARB to ensure, when implementing the Clean Cars 4 All (CC4A) Program, incentives provided under the program are available and distributed in all areas where air districts have elected to not manage the distribution of these incentives. This bill would have also required CARB to prioritize vehicle retirement in areas with the highest percentage of people in disadvantaged and low-income communities. This bill would have required CARB to address the funding for targeted outreach in low-income or disadvantaged communities with the highest number of vehicles manufactured before 2004, or that are at least 20 years old that are driven most and have the poorest fuel economy. This bill would have required CARB, in allocating funding to local air districts participating in the program and to the portion of the program managed by CARB, to consider additional metrics relating to retired vehicles. 

View full bill text here 

Governor’s Veto Message 

To the Members of the California State Assembly:  

I am returning Assembly Bill 2401 without my signature.  

This bill would require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to make several changes to the Clean Cars 4 All (CC4A) Program, including but not limited to codifying a statewide CC4A program, potentially reallocating funds between statewide and air district-run programs, expanding reporting requirements, and prioritizing certain recipients who drive older vehicles in greater amounts in more pollution-burdened areas.  

The CC4A program has helped thousands of lower-income residents living in some of the most disadvantaged and air-polluted areas of the state replace their old higher-polluting vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles. The program is designed to be consumer-focused, and its appeal is its ease of access and straightforward eligibility and participation requirements.  

Unfortunately, while the intent of this bill is laudable, the new application requirements it would impose on the CC4A program recipients are onerous and will discourage some of the lowest-income residents in California from participating. In addition, the new verification requirements would necessitate constant and costly monitoring by CARB of recipient driving patterns, further discouraging program participation and thereby preventing continued reductions in local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from being realized. 

Sincerely, 

Gavin Newsom 

View Governor’s veto message here 

Summary 

Would have authorized CARB to provide a voucher under the California Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Program (HVIP) for zero-emission vehicles that meet the following requirements:  
(a) has a gross weight exceeding 8,500 pounds; 
(b) is purchased for fleet operations by a public or private fleet owning one or more medium- and heavy-duty vehicles;  
(c) is not a "house car" that is equipped for human habitation. 

Was not heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee. 

View full bill text here 

Summary 

Would have created an exception to the prohibition of any action that alters or modifies a vehicle’s catalytic converter by allowing for a new aftermarket catalytic converter that has been approved for sale and use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Was not heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee. 

View full bill text here

Summary 

Provides specified direction for procedures that pertain to restitution or vehicle replacement pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Tanner Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the “Lemon Laws.” Specifically, this bill would specify that a consumer seeking restitution for a vehicle repair or replacement must file their case within one year of the expiration of an applicable express warranty and in all cases must file their case within six years of the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle. Additionally, this bill, among other things, requires a consumer, at least 30 days prior to the commencement of a civil action seeking civil penalties related to the Lemon Laws, to notify the manufacturer of specified vehicle information and demand that the manufacturer repurchase or replace the motor vehicle. 

View full bill text here

Governor’s Signing Message 

To the Members of the California State Assembly:  

I am signing Assembly Bill 1755, which would significantly alter the procedures for handling vehicle defect claims under California's "Lemon Law." I commend the authors for their efforts to expedite resolution of Lemon Law claims and reduce litigation that is placing increasing pressure on court dockets.

Earlier this year, I was pleased to sign AB 2288 (Kalra) and SB 92 (Umberg), consensus measures that were the product of months of negotiation to address deficiencies in Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) litigation. In contrast to that consensus, this bill has drawn substantive opposition from several consumer groups and the majority of automakers, who were not party to the negotiations. While AB 1755 aims to speed resolution of Lemon Law claims and reduce litigation, many automakers, including smaller electric-vehicle automakers, have expressed serious concerns that some of the specific procedures prescribed in AB 1755 are unworkable for them. In light of those concerns, the authors have agreed to introduce a bill early in the 2025-2026 legislative session that would amend the statute enacted by this bill to make its new procedures subject to election by a given automaker. Automakers that do not elect to utilize the new procedures to resolve Lemon Law claims on their vehicles would be subject to existing Lemon Law rules. I urge the Legislature to adopt that compromise proposal swiftly.

The agreed-upon amendments would also require consumers who have made Lemon Law claims under this bill to give notice to prospective buyers if they sell their vehicles prior to resolution of their Lemon Law lawsuit, in order to ensure that buyers are aware of potential defects. The sale of vehicles to buyers unaware of pending Lemon Law claims on the vehicle is a broader problem under current law that puts buyers and the general public at risk from unsafe vehicles on the road, and I encourage the Legislature to consider additional solutions to that issue.

I also encourage the Legislature to consider whether additional changes to the Lemon Law are needed in light of the transition to electric vehicles and significant advancements in automotive technology. The Lemon Law was enacted in 1970, before cars were equipped with a single computer (today they have as many as 100 separate computers and related electronic sensors) and decades before the first mass-produced electric vehicle. While this issue was not the focus of AB 1755, I encourage the Legislature to consider whether additional updates to the Lemon Law are warranted.  

Sincerely,  

Gavin Newsom 

View Governor’s sign message here 

Summary 

Would have imposed an additional annual $4 charge on each motor vehicle registered in the state to be collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with the revenues deposited into the Air Quality Improvement Fee Fund, which the bill would have created. The bill would have continuously appropriated the revenues in the fund to the DMV for distribution upon request to air districts based upon the amount of the charges collected from motor vehicles registered within each air district. This bill would have required these revenues to be used for the reduction of air pollution from motor vehicles and for related planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical studies, as specified, or for the attainment or maintenance of State or federal ambient air quality standards or the reduction of toxic air contaminant emissions from motor vehicles. Held on suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

View full bill text here 

Summary 

Would have required CARB, if CARB requires a fleet owner to acquire zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) as part of its fleet, to authorize the rental of a ZEV or vehicles for a cumulative total of 260 days in a calendar year to be deemed ownership of one ZEV for purposes of meeting that obligation. This provision would have resulted in the exemption of any vehicles rented less than 260 days as not a part of the “owned fleet,” thereby reducing the fleet’s compliance obligation under CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) Regulation.  

View full bill text here 

Governor’s Veto Message 

To the Members of the California State Assembly:  

I am returning Assembly Bill 637 without my signature.  

This bill would require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to authorize a fleet owner's rental of a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) for a cumulative total of 260 days per year to be considered ownership of one ZEV for the purpose of complying with the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation.  

In 2020, I issued Executive Order (EO) N-79-20, which directed CARB, among other things, to develop strategies to transition in-state sales of new passenger vehicles and trucks to 100 percent zero-emission by 2035, where feasible. Pursuant to this EO, CARB developed the ACF to accelerate transportation sector emission reductions while providing safe, feasible, and flexible compliance options for affected fleet owners that have over 50 vehicles or over $50 million in gross annual revenue.  

This bill would allow rental vehicle companies to circumvent the ACF regulations, and the flexible and balanced compliance mechanisms CARB has already created, with a new and unclear compliance mechanism. I am concerned this will jeopardize our clean air goals at a time when the state awaits action on its Clean Air Act waiver by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.  

With that, I encourage the rental vehicle companies to work toward meeting the ACF regulations, and if there are insurmountable challenges, to work with CARB to explore practical and alternative compliance pathways through the existing regulatory process.  

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.  

Sincerely,  

Gavin Newsom 

View Governor’s veto message here 

Summary 

This bill would have required CARB, when providing a voucher for the purchase of a new or used drayage truck, to ensure the incentive amount be determined pursuant to a sliding scale that authorizes increased vouchers in different amounts for fleets of 50 or fewer, 30 or fewer, or 5 or fewer vehicles. The bill would have also required CARB, when administering incentives specified by this bill, to prioritize fleets of five or fewer trucks and drayage operations transporting goods between the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, or Oakland and warehouses located in the State. Was not heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. 

View full bill text here

Summary

Would have required CARB, if it proposed a regulation to regulate an on-road mobile source, to prepare a lifecycle analysis, as defined, of any technology required by the regulation. The scope of environmental impacts in the lifecycle analysis would have been required to include, but would not have been limited to, the assessment from raw material extraction and processing, through the product’s manufacture, distribution, and use, to the recycling or final disposal of the materials composing it. The assessments would have been required to include, but would not have been limited to, consideration of carbon dioxide emissions. Was not heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

View full bill text here