Environment

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) administrative determination that California Senate Bill (SB) 1280 is preempted by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA). SB 1280, authored by Senator John Laird (D–Santa Cruz), prohibits, with limited exceptions, the sale in California of certain non-reusable and non-fillable propane cylinders beginning on January 1, 2028. Propane cylinders are single-use, generally one-pound containers used in applications like camping stoves, portable heaters, and lanterns. When disposed into the waste stream, they pose a significant explosion and fire risk, environmental and health impacts, and a costly burden on local governments to safely manage. The purpose of California’s law is to reduce the volume of propane cylinders that are being improperly disposed of in the municipal waste stream and that threaten environmental harm and the safety of waste pickup, landfill, and recycling workers. In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta is petitioning for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to vacate the administrative determination. 

“Once again, the Trump Administration is trying to overrule California’s laws aimed at protecting public safety, health, and the environment,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Let’s be clear about what this law does: It will protect workers and the environment from residual propane explosions and save local governments millions of tax dollars in waste management costs. We’ll continue to fight against the Administration’s federal overreach armed with the law and facts on our side.” 

“I thank Attorney General Bonta for taking on the Trump Administration’s federal overreach. I authored SB 1280 to save taxpayers the cost of disposing of used propane canisters, and to protect workers and communities from the fire and explosion risks posed by propane cylinders thrown away in our parks and beaches,” said Senator John Laird (D–Santa Cruz). “Let’s be clear: this law doesn’t ban propane. It simply replaces dangerous single-use cylinders with refillable alternatives. Yet the Trump Administration would rather protect a company’s business model than the safety of California workers and taxpayers. Our responsibility is to protect Californians and our environment.”

The federal HMTA establishes a national regulatory scheme for the safe transportation of hazardous materials and authorizes the Department of Transportation to adopt regulations designating hazardous materials and specifying the design of hazardous materials packaging and containers. The Department of Transportation, through PHMSA, has adopted the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), which designate propane as a hazardous material and prescribe design specifications for compressed-gas cylinders. Although propane cylinders are required to be disposed of as hazardous waste, an estimated 3 million of the estimated 4 million one-pound, single-use propane cylinders sold in California each year are placed into municipal waste streams. These cylinders often contain residual gas of which the user is unaware. When damaged or crushed in a waste hauling truck, sorting facility, landfill, or recycling facility, residual gas may explode or catch fire, causing injury. 

On January 9, 2026, PHMSA published a notice that Worthington Enterprises, Inc., an Ohio-based manufacturer of disposable propane cylinders, had asked PHMSA to determine that HMTA preempts SB 1280. The Attorney General submitted a comment letter defending SB 1280. On September 10, 2026, PHMSA published its determination on Worthington’s preemption application. PHMSA determined that SB 1280 is preempted because it imposes requirements that are “not substantively the same” as cylinder designs prescribed by HMR and because it stands as an obstacle to HMTA’s purposes. However, SB 1280 is not preempted under HMTA because HMR authorizes refillable propane cylinders and refillable cylinders, which are widely available for sale, and SB 1280 does not regulate the transportation of disposable propane cylinders. Today’s suit asks the Court to recognize that HMTA and HMR do not preempt SB 1280 and strike down PHMSA’s preemption determination.

LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, alongside the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), filed a lawsuit against Waste Connections, and other owners and operators of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, related to the ongoing subsurface elevated temperature event that is the source of persistent environmental contamination, including repeated releases of contaminated liquids known as leachate, which can have profound impacts to public health. Chiquita Canyon is a 639-acre landfill located in the Santa Clarita Valley in Los Angeles County that opened in 1972. Since at least May 2022, the subsurface elevated temperate event has caused odors, large volumes of leachate, and other environmental impacts resulting from the rapid breakdown of the waste mass in the landfill. During this time, Chiquita Canyon has repeatedly and pervasively failed to manage hazardous waste at the landfill, in violation of state laws meant to protect people and the environment from hazards like the leachate being produced at the landfill. There has been consistent evidence of leaks, seeps, and spills of hazardous leachate and improper transport, treatment, and storage of hazardous materials. These failures are unlawful, have caused environmental harm, and threaten further environmental harm still. These violations, and the fact that they are continuing to happen, have led to today’s lawsuit. This suit, which follows several important administrative and court enforcement actions from other state and federal agencies, seeks to address the continuing impacts of the subsurface elevated temperature event.

“Protecting the environment and safeguarding Californians requires quick and effective action from the Chiquita Canyon Landfill’s owners and operators. For too long, the Chiquita Canyon Landfill has done the opposite, which has resulted in numerous spills of leachate and other violations of our state’s hazardous waste laws. We cannot allow the California dream to be smothered by the repeated releases of hazardous waste at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill — we must act,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Other public agencies and residents have taken their own enforcement actions, and today my office is taking additional action to protect and defend the integrity of this region. Let there be no doubt, when owners and operators fail to do their part in protecting our water, soil, and air, my office will step in.” 

“Waste Connections has repeatedly, consistently and pervasively failed to lawfully manage hazardous waste at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill,” said California Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia. “This lawsuit makes it clear that California will continue to hold Waste Connections accountable for its actions.”  

“For the people who live near this facility, and for all Californians, Waste Connections must manage hazardous waste safely and in full compliance with the law, clean up existing contamination and prevent future harm,” said DTSC Director Katherine Butler. “Today’s action is another important step toward addressing the magnitude of impacts and sends a clear message that this kind of waste mismanagement has serious consequences.”

“For years, families living near Chiquita Canyon Landfill have endured dangerous conditions, toxic gasses, and serious impacts to their health and safety, while those responsible have repeatedly failed to protect our community. No company should be allowed to put its profits ahead of the health of our families or the safety of our community,” said Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo (D-Los Angeles). “I want to thank Attorney General Bonta and the DTSC for taking this critical step to hold the landfill accountable and enforce the laws meant to protect us. We deserve real relief from this ongoing public health crisis, and thanks to the action being taken today and the years of endless dedication from the impacted families, we are one big step closer.” 

What is Happening at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill?

The Chiquita Canyon Landfill is a 639-acre municipal solid waste disposal facility in Los Angeles County that is operated by Chiquita Canyon, LLC and its parent companies. The landfill stopped accepting waste on January 1, 2025, when it failed to obtain a permit from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Water Board (Regional Water Board). The subsurface elevated temperatures at the landfill started in May 2022, and the affected area has expanded from 20 acres to at least 90 acres. The subsurface elevated temperatures beneath the landfill, which have exceeded 212 degrees Fahrenheit in places, and have reached as high as 260 degrees Fahrenheit, result from chemical reactions that release odors, toxic fumes, and cause other environmental and health impacts. The reaction also produces millions of gallons of leachate that must be pumped out of the reaction area, collected, and disposed of properly as hazardous waste. The leachate has been found to contain benzene and, on occasion, methyl ethyl ketone, dangerous chemicals that can harm public health and the environment. On numerous occasions, the landfill has mismanaged the collection and removal of the leachate. For example, on November 14, 2025, the landfill spilled 8,000 gallons of hazardous leachate, which flowed into the landfill’s eastern stormwater sedimentation basin (called the East Basin), an area that is not a permitted hazardous waste storage unit and not authorized to store or hold leachate. Increased rainfall in December 2025 resulted in an overtopping of the weir (a small dam) in the East Basin. As a result, on December 29 and 30, 2025, stormwater mixed with leachate was released to Castaic Creek, which flows into the Santa Clara River.

What’s at Stake?

Several residential communities are near the landfill, including the Val Verde, Halsey Canyon, Halsey Hills, North Bluffs, Live Oak, and Williams Ranch communities. The nearest, the Val Verde community, is located approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the developed area of the landfill. Thousands of residents reside in these communities, and several schools are near the landfill, including two preschools, four elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools. In November 2023, local, state, and federal agencies formed a Multi-Agency Critical Action Team, comprised of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Regional Water Board, CalRecycle, DTSC, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and various departments within the County of Los Angeles, among others. To date, there are several ongoing administrative and court enforcement actions stemming from the Multi-Agency Team’s efforts to address the ever-increasing impacts of the subsurface elevated temperature event, including lawsuits filed by Los Angeles County and SCAQMD. Residents have filed several individual and class-action lawsuits alongside efforts from local leaders to demand greater accountability and relief.

What’s Next?

Today’s lawsuit adds to these existing actions by bringing new claims against the landfill and generating additional momentum towards relief for the environmental and public health harm. In the lawsuit, DTSC bring claims against the landfill for violating multiple sections of the state Hazardous Waste Control Law relating to the management of hazardous waste, and the Attorney General alleges a claim for equitable relief under Government Code section 12607 to protect the natural resources of the state (including its air, water, and soil) from pollution, impairment, or destruction and a claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200, which prohibits businesses from profiting from various activities that constitute “unfair competition” under that law. The lawsuit seeks civil penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive and other equitable relief for these claims and violations, including an abatement fund to help address environmental pollution and ensure protection of the state’s natural resources, which has and will continue to affect the nearby communities.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a multistate coalition of attorneys general in sending a letter to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works and Energy and Natural Resources Committees regarding the proposed Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026. The draft bill, introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, is a wide-ranging package with the goal of reducing energy costs, creating jobs, and promoting clean energy and environmentally responsible growth. In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition commend the legislation’s important goals, but express substantial concerns with the bill as currently drafted. The letter also states that the coalition will continue to engage with stakeholders on the details of the legislation to share additional perspectives and adjustments to ensure appropriate environmental and public health protections.

“As I’ve said before, building a clean energy future is a team effort that requires everyone — Republican and Democrat — to step off the sidelines. While the goals of the bill are noble, the legislation as drafted would undermine progress by reducing state authority to safeguard our resources and communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As a former legislator, I understand the importance of sharing perspectives and working to build laws that work for everyone. With this letter, we aim to do just that. We will work tirelessly to build an energy future on behalf of Americans, not Big Oil.”

The current draft bill is a varied package that would transform energy permitting and infrastructure. Without amendment, some of the bill’s provisions will unnecessarily intrude upon states’ rights, harm critical resources in our states, and create uncertainty in ways that undermine the purposes of the bill. These provisions will add to historical inequities and limit the ability of states — as well as Indigenous peoples and communities — to ensure appropriate environmental and public health protections for their residents.

The coalition states are home to a wide variety of natural resources, including wind and solar resources, waterways, large landscapes, cultural districts, and parks, along with Tribal resources. In the letter, the states offer a unique and diverse perspective, as they possess significant existing authority under the Clean Water Act and National Historic Preservation Act that the bill would undermine. The states also regularly participate in National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act processes that would be affected by the bill, and the bill’s permitting certainty provisions would impact countless projects in the states. 

In sending the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown co-lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Vermont, Oregon, and Maine.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the Trump Administration’s proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) and the accompanying draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If adopted, the United States Forest Service’s (USFS) proposal would remove vital forest protections and open nearly 45 million acres of national forest lands to road construction, timber harvesting, mining, and oil and gas development in some of the last protected stretches of forests nationwide. The proposed rule, which follows USFS’s notice of intent to propose the changes last year, is the latest chapter in the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce protections for National Forests, including the Roadless Rule. In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the proposed rule and draft EIS do not meet the legal requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and National Forest Management Act and would fragment vulnerable ecosystems, jeopardize clean water sources, threaten plant and wildlife habitat, and undermine efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change. 

“Our Golden State is home to some of the most pristine and diverse ecosystems in the nation. We will not stand by and allow the federal government to subject our National Forests to commercial exploitation,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Time and time again, the Trump Administration has demonstrated a willingness to devastate our environment and public lands for the sake of short-term economic gain. But the evidence is clear: roadbuilding and logging increase risks of wildfire, destroy habitat, and disrupt clean water resources. California greatly cares about protecting our forests and ensuring they are preserved for future generations. We are strongly urging this Administration to abandon its course of action.” 

"This reckless proposal threatens millions of acres of our public lands," said California Secretary for Natural Resources Wade Crowfoot. "For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has helped protect California's clean water, wildlife habitat, recreational backcountry, and some of our most treasured public lands. Repealing it would put those protections at risk when we need them most."

The Roadless Rule was established in 2001 to prohibit road construction, reconstruction, and commercial logging in designated “roadless areas” of National Forests to preserve their ecological integrity, shield wildlife habitat, protect watersheds, and maintain opportunities for recreation. Among the primary nationwide drivers of the Roadless Rule were the desire to prevent further fragmentation of the few remaining roadless areas, and the concern that case-by-case local decisions would comprehensively and cumulatively have a large impact on biodiversity by increasing habitat fragmentation.

In June 2025, in response to President Trump’s Executive Order 14225, “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,” the USFS announced its intent to rescind this rule. The proposed rule changes would open 4.4 million acres of National Forests in California to potential new roadbuilding, road reconstruction and logging, as well as other industrial uses such as mining, oil, and gas development. This would affect sensitive waterways, recreational areas, and wildlife habitat in all 20 National Forests in California with significant roadless areas. 

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the USFS to rescind its proposal, and assert that, among other things: 

• The proposed rule is contrary to the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the APA, as it would change land and resource management plans within each National Forest without undergoing the required plan amendment or revision process. 
• The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the APA because the agency fails to justify its change in policy, does not provide a reasoned basis for rescinding the prohibitions of road construction and reconstruction, and fails to make the necessary connection between the rescission of the Roadless Rule and the need for increased wildfire management.
• The proposed rule fails to address legitimate reliance interests in the Roadless Rule, as states rely on the rule to provide clean affordable water, protect aquatic life, promote recreation, and meet conservation and climate goals, among other things.
• The draft EIS from the agency does not comply with NEPA or the APA because the agency’s statement of purpose and need is unreasonably narrow, unlawfully limits the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives, and departs from previous agency positions without a reasonable explanation.
• The proposal directly violates NEPA, as it fails to sufficiently consider the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the rule change on human environments as well as the economic impacts on small businesses. 

In sending this letter, Attorney General Bonta, alongside Washington Attorney General Nicholas Brown and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, co-led the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Advises affected jurisdictions to comply with the law and route trucks to minimize exposure to residences, schools, day cares, parks, playgrounds, and more

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued an enforcement advisory letter to eight jurisdictions in California’s warehouse concentration region that have not complied with their requirements under Assembly Bill (AB) 98 (Carrillo, Reyes, 2024) to amend their general plans to include truck routes that avoid residential areas and “sensitive receptors," such as schools, day cares, parks, playgrounds, nursing homes, and hospitals. As defined under the law, California’s warehouse concentration region consists of two Inland Empire counties, San Bernardino and Riverside County, and 12 cities within those counties. As part of the law’s requirements, these jurisdictions must also provide opportunities for heightened community engagement on truck route planning that reach all economic segments of the community. By identifying specific routes for trucks that avoid residential areas and sensitive receptors, jurisdictions can reduce burdens on communities that result from the pollution, noise, road deterioration, accidents, and other road hazards created by truck traffic. The enforcement advisory is directed to the eight jurisdictions that have not amended their general plans despite the law’s January 1, 2026, deadline: Chino, Moreno Valley, Perris, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Riverside, Ontario, and Riverside County.

“California is fighting for vulnerable communities and finding real solutions that help everyday people, like preventing pollution, noise, traffic, and potholes from trucks cutting through quiet neighborhoods where parents and children live, sleep, and go to school,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That’s why California law requires cities and counties to establish specific truck routes that minimize impacts in areas where communities would feel it the most. Everyone must do their part to make our communities better. With this advisory, we’re making sure California’s planning laws are followed, and helping ensure every community can enjoy the same prosperous quality of life that makes California the golden state to work and live in.”

“AB 98 was about making sure our communities are not forced to bear the health and safety burdens that come with heavy truck traffic. When trucks are routed through neighborhoods, past schools and day cares, and near other sensitive locations, families pay the price through increased pollution, noise, traffic hazards, and deteriorating roads," said Assemblymember Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale). "The law gave local jurisdictions clear requirements and a clear deadline. Today’s enforcement action reinforces that these protections are not optional. I appreciate Attorney General Bonta for holding jurisdictions accountable and ensuring that the communities most impacted by warehouse and truck traffic have a meaningful voice in how truck routes are planned. We worked hard to pass AB 98 because every family deserves to live, work, and raise their children in a community where public health and safety are taken seriously. I will continue working to make sure the law is implemented as intended and that residents have a seat at the table." 

“For decades, Inland Empire communities have carried an outsized share of the pollution and public health impacts that come with moving goods throughout California,” said Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Colton). “Families should not have to accept heavy truck traffic in front of their homes, and children should not have to breathe diesel exhaust on their way to school. We fought for stronger protections because the health and quality of life of our residents cannot continue to be treated as the cost of doing business. I am grateful to Attorney General Bonta for making clear that these protections are not optional. The law must be followed, and our communities deserve to feel the difference.”

Warehouse Concentration Region

California’s warehouse concentration region consists of two counties — Riverside and San Bernardino — and 12 cities within those counties — Chino, Colton, Fontana, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley, Perris, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ontario. The concentration region constitutes the area of the state with the highest concentration of warehouses, and, as a result, communities in the region experience some of the greatest exposures to truck pollution and other safety and quality of life issues that come with the significant truck traffic in the area. Trucks travelling to and from warehouses emit nitrogen oxide and diesel particulate matter, which contribute to smog formation and the development of health problems like asthma, cancer, and heart disease. Trucks can also create noise pollution and create safety issues like traffic jams, deterioration of road surfaces, and traffic accidents.

The eight jurisdictions in the warehouse concentration region that have not amended their general plans — Chino, Moreno Valley, Perris, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Riverside, Ontario, and Riverside County — have made varying degrees of progress toward compliance. The deadline to complete the amendments was January 1, 2026, and the statute provides for enforcement by the Attorney General, including a possible civil penalty of up to $50,000 every six months, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. While expeditious compliance with the law is important, it is also critically important that these noncompliant jurisdictions take the necessary steps to engage impacted communities and ensure the truck routes they ultimately adopt adequately protect sensitive receptors. 

Assembly Bill 98

AB 98, as amended by Senate Bill 415 (Reyes, 2025), requires that jurisdictions in the warehouse concentration region amend the circulation element of their general plans to include truck routes that minimize negative effects on sensitive receptors, including residences, schools, day cares, parks, playgrounds, nursing homes, and hospitals. To reduce the negative impacts of truck routes on communities, jurisdictions must establish truck routes that safely accommodate additional truck traffic; avoid residential areas and sensitive receptors; and maximize use of interstate highways, arterial roads, major thoroughfares, and roads that are predominantly commercial, agricultural, or industrial.

AB 98 also requires a heightened standard of community outreach, mandating that jurisdictions create engagement opportunities on the truck routes for all segments of the community. The proper implementation of AB 98, with thoughtfully planned truck routes and robust community engagement, will reduce impacts on environmental justice communities that bear the health and safety burdens of living near truck routes.

Truck Routing Requirements Outside of the Warehouse Concentration Region

AB 98’s requirement to create truck routes that avoid residential areas and sensitive receptors and conduct heightened community engagement applies to all California cities and counties. However, jurisdictions outside of the warehouse concentration region must adopt an ordinance, rather than a general plan amendment, to comply with AB 98. The deadline for jurisdictions outside the warehouse concentration region to adopt a truck route ordinance is either January 1, 2028, or January 1, 2030, depending on the jurisdiction’s population. While not the focus of this enforcement advisory, the advisory can be a useful reference for jurisdictions with future deadlines to adopt a truck route ordinance.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 26 states, counties, and cities in filing a lawsuit against the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) challenging its final rule weakening corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new passenger cars and light trucks. Historically, NHTSA’s standards have reduced consumer costs by improving fuel efficiency for vehicles, placed downward pressure on gas prices by reducing fuel consumption, protected the U.S. economy from global oil shocks, and reduced pollution from tailpipes and refineries. However, the final rule significantly weakens fuel economy standards and hurts consumers and the planet. In the lawsuit filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that NHTSA’s new rule is contrary to law and that NHTSA contravenes its mandate from Congress to set fuel-economy standards at their “maximum feasible” level. Far from “maximum feasible,” NHTSA’s backsliding standards for the next five years require less efficiency than what the U.S. fleet actually achieved in 2021. 

“The President started a war that has created volatility in oil markets, disrupted global energy supplies, and left families and businesses paying the price at the pump. Yet, the Trump Administration is attempting to gut fuel economy standards and force Americans to spend billions more on gas while poisoning the air in our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Let’s be clear: The Trump Administration is doing this to line the pockets of their Big Oil donors. California will not stand idly by, we will defend fuel economy standards that keep costs down, protect public health, and build a better, sustainable future.” 

In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which requires NHTSA to establish “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards for new vehicles that reflect technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the government, and the need to conserve energy. To set fuel economy standards, NHTSA first models the current fleet’s performance and then considers what, if any, additional actions manufacturers could take to improve their fuel economy in future model years above that. In past rulemakings, including during the first Trump Administration, NHTSA started from a realistic baseline fleet that included the millions of electric vehicles that already existed on our nation’s highways and roads and based fuel-economy standards on how additional technological improvements to gas-fueled cars could make that fleet more efficient. NHTSA never based fuel-economy standards on “mandating” automakers to produce more electric vehicles or requiring consumers to buy them.

The final rule misinterprets NHTSA’s statutory authority and improperly forces the agency to ignore the presence of millions of electric vehicles in the nation’s existing fleet, leading to a flawed, dramatically distorted analysis of the “maximum feasible” fuel economy level that the auto industry can achieve. Essentially, NHTSA’s novel reinterpretation of the law renders the federal fuel-economy program toothless, unable to protect consumers against rising gas prices or the ongoing global oil shock from President Trump’s war.

NHTSA has also utilized defective analyses of vehicle affordability and sales, fleet turnover, fuel savings, and vehicle safety to make a profoundly harmful and destructive rule look net-beneficial to society. For example, NHTSA tries to paper over nearly $220 billion in lost fuel savings — money that drivers would have saved at the pump under the previous fuel economy standards, which will instead benefit Big Oil. It also refuses to consider hundreds of billions of dollars in future damages from climate change-driven disasters, flouting the best science and research and effectively setting these costs at zero. Defying a longstanding and repeatedly affirmed Congressional mandate, NHTSA asserts that the United States does not need to conserve energy after all — treating the high gasoline prices and the instability of global oil markets as an acceptable trade for fossil fuel companies’ profits. Finally, NHTSA’s rule will end the CAFE credit trading program in 2028, which will significantly harm electric vehicle industries that employ Californians and support our economy.

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that NHTSA’s final rule is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to advocating for and defending drivers, consumers, and the environment. This year, he secured a key victory after the Trump Administration conceded its attempt to impose conditions on Department of Transportation grant funding for California’s vital travel infrastructure was unlawful. He also co-led a coalition in filing lawsuits against the Trump Administration for unlawfully suspending two bipartisan grant programs for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Previously, he filed an amicus brief defending NHTSA’s stringent fuel economy standards under the Biden Administration.

In filing this lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta leads the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the City of Chicago, the City and County of Denver, the City of New York, and the City and County of San Francisco.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated Governor Gavin Newsom signing Assembly Bill (AB) 1457 into law. The new law, authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) and sponsored by Attorney General Bonta and the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE), amends Senate Bill (SB) 1000 (Leyva, 2016) to set a compliance deadline for local governments with disadvantaged communities in their planning areas to address environmental justice in their general plans and promote transparency and community engagement in the process. With this new law, Attorney General Bonta is proud to uplift community voices in local planning processes and ensure local governments consider environmental justice in their local planning so that no community is left behind in our fight for a healthier, more just future.

“California won’t stand idly by as our disadvantaged communities face significant environmental threats, including disproportionate exposure to polluted air, water, and soil. In 2016, SB 1000 promised that local planning would address the health burdens of communities living with the heaviest pollution burdens. Now, we’re building on that promise to make sure local governments do their part expeditiously and ensure the impacted communities have a voice in the process,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: When it comes to protecting our planet, we all have a part to play. A firm deadline means local governments cannot put this planning off, because every Californian should have the opportunity to live in a community that is healthy and safe.”

"Disadvantaged communities in California have been waiting over a decade to see a meaningful response to the environmental hazards impacting their lives and health on a daily basis,” said Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles). “AB 1457 ensures their voices will finally be heard." 

“The approval of AB 1457 is a resounding victory for environmental justice communities that have been waiting for a decade for the prioritization of their health,” said Alma Martinez, Policy Advocate, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. “Residents in these communities can now look forward to elevating their voice to ensure their neighborhoods’ wellbeing.”

AB 1457

AB 1457 requires local governments subject to SB 1000 that have not yet adopted an environmental justice element, or related policies, goals, and objectives in other general plan elements, to do so by June 30, 2031. It also expands transparency and public engagement requirements to ensure that local governments meaningfully involve impacted communities in the development of environmental justice elements and policies, including by providing opportunities for public input on drafts.

Under existing law, SB 1000 requires local governments with disadvantaged communities in their planning areas to adopt an environmental justice element (or related policies, goals, and objectives in other elements) in their general plans; however, that requirement is only triggered when a local government concurrently adopts two or more elements of its general plan. The last 10 years have shown that this is not an effective trigger. Local governments operate on different planning calendars and follow different processes for adopting general plan updates, and many with disadvantaged communities have yet to act. AB 1457 ensures that SB 1000 is fully realized so that marginalized communities are not left behind.  

BACKGROUND

Attorney General Bonta expanded the Bureau of Environmental Justice within the Department of Justice in 2021 to increase oversight and protect communities that endure a disproportionate share of environmental pollution and public health hazards. The Bureau of Environmental Justice has developed significant expertise in environmental justice considerations in land use planning and has been actively engaged in SB 1000 implementation through comment letters, enforcement action, and providing technical assistance through published SB 1000 guidance promoting environmental justice for marginalized communities across California. 

Attorney General Bonta remains committed to fighting for environmental justice so that all Californians have access to a healthier, more just future. This year, he sponsored additional environmental legislation to ensure that settlements of Proposition 65 violations provide public benefit and continues to challenge federal actions that perpetuate and worsen environmental injustice. In July, Attorney General Bonta secured a court order requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to move forward with the implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for soot. Previously, he submitted an amicus brief supporting Earthjustice, Public Rights Project, and Southern Environmental Law Center in their class action lawsuit against the EPA for unlawfully terminating the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program. He also previously issued multistate guidance affirming the necessity and legality of environmental justice initiatives despite the Trump Administration’s recent efforts to mislabel and undermine these critical efforts. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Air Resources Board today joined a coalition of 25 states, counties, and cities in filing a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rescission of three main aspects of EPA’s 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards (CPS) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The rule change repeals Biden Administration-era protections from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal, oil, and gas-fired power plants. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition ask the court to vacate EPA’s illegal rescission of the 2024 CPS and restore EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards.

“While California is focused on protecting the environment and the health of our loved ones, President Trump remains hell-bent on protecting the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. Rolling back emission standards for power plants is an affront to the American people,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “President Trump’s EPA continues to fail at protecting our environment. Let’s be clear: The President’s climate defeatism has no place in California. We won’t let these actions put our communities at risk. We’ve seen the impacts of climate change firsthand and will continue to fight back.”  

“Today California is challenging the federal government's latest public health rollback that abandons science-based limits on power plant pollution," said CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez. "We will use every legal tool available to defend the right to breathe clean air and hold the line on the climate progress.”

BACKGROUND

Fossil fuel-fired power plants in the United States are collectively one of the largest contributors to climate pollution in the world. The power sector is the largest stationary source and second-largest overall source of GHG emissions in the United States, accounting for a quarter of all domestic emissions. Failing to control the sector’s carbon dioxide emissions will exacerbate significant threats facing California, including intensifying and increasing heat waves, wildfires, severe storms, flooding, disease, air pollution, and harm to regional ecosystems. Last year, two of the most destructive fires in state history — the Palisades Fire and the Eaton Fire, both in Los Angeles County — killed at least 30 people, destroyed over 16,000 homes and other structures, and damaged over 37,000 acres. 

Meanwhile, President Trump and the EPA are moving to accelerate climate change and further endanger hundreds of millions of Americans — particularly communities that are disproportionately burdened by environmental harms. This includes the EPA’s illegal attempt to overrule science and abandon the Endangerment Finding that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that drives climate change and endangers public health and welfare, which has served as the legal basis under the Clean Air Act for limiting climate pollution from vehicles.

Now, in its amendments to the 2024 CPS, EPA repeals — and does not replace — the three main aspects of the CPS: (1) emission guidelines for existing coal, oil, and gas-fired steam generating units, (2) requirements for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification, and (3) carbon capture and storage-based requirements for new baseload natural gas combustion turbines. In doing so, the rule significantly undermines efforts to address climate change and exposes communities to greater environmental harm by undoing climate regulations on power plants. In the lawsuit, California and the coalition allege that EPA’s rescission of the 2024 CPS violates the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the coalition asks the court to vacate EPA’s illegal rescission of the 2024 CPS and restore EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards for these power plants. 

In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Mayors of New York City and Chicago, and the City and County of Denver.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) insufficient evaluation of the environmental consequences of commercial drone package delivery. Drone operations are subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the FAA violated the law’s requirement to take a hard look at the environmental consequences that may result from a more expansive rollout of drone delivery operations.

“When it comes to cutting-edge innovation, the Trump Administration should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. As the fourth largest economy in the world — built in large part on technological innovation and a commitment to protecting our communities — California is proving that an economic future doesn’t need to come at the cost of our environment. Allowing states to be responsive to innovation while still protecting our planet serves both industry and consumers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Unfortunately, FAA's programmatic environmental assessment falls far short of properly analyzing the environmental impacts that drone package delivery operations may have. At the California Department of Justice, we to stand firm that environmental justice and thoughtful innovation can and should go hand in hand. We will continue to uphold laws such as NEPA as a cornerstone of both.”

BACKGROUND

So far, drone delivery operations are already happening in states ranging from California to Arkansas and Florida to Utah. In 2022, Amazon initiated Prime Air deliveries in Lockeford, California and now seeks to expand those operations to additional cities like Tracy, California. These operations generally occur under 400 feet of altitude with packages that weigh less than five pounds. Packages are delivered via rope dropped down from the drone to a delivery location, dropped from a hover height, or by full stop landing. 

FAA purported to comply with NEPA by issuing a Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact, and Record of Decision. The PEA provides an overview of nationwide drone package deliveries to occur at future points in time without meaningful contextual information about the impacted communities or environment. It contemplates a dramatic expansion of package delivery by drones but does not adequately address the potential safety risks or other environmental impacts. NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action.” In doing so, the agency must take a hard look at the environmental impacts. Despite that, the PEA fails to adequately consider the environmental risks. Thus, Attorney General Bonta and the multistate coalition today filed a lawsuit challenging the FAA’s PEA, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Record of Decision for commercial drone package delivery.

Attorney General Bonta joins the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Harris County, Texas.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, alongside a multistate coalition of attorneys general, submitted a comment letter opposing the United States Forest Service’s (USFS) proposed revisions to the Travel Management Rule (TMR), aimed at opening the country’s National Forests to increased motorized vehicle use. The current TMR, established in 2005, provides guidelines and standards for where motorized vehicles can and cannot travel within National Forests, which reduces user conflicts and protects the environment. Now, the USFS is proposing to remove restrictions and open more roads (including dirt/gravel roads) and trails to motorized use, continuing its rollbacks of rules and safeguards that protect our National Forests. In today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition highlight how the Trump Administration’s proposed revisions threaten vulnerable ecosystems, undermine years of careful recreational planning, and jeopardize clean water resources and wildlife habitat. 

“The health and wellbeing of our protected lands will not be run over by the President’s overreaching political agenda. California is home to renowned forests and cherished ecosystems that must be preserved and shared responsibly,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The facts overwhelmingly show that more roadbuilding and motorized vehicle usage in our forests will fragment and destroy wildlife habitats, degrade water quality, and increase the risk of wildfires. We have a responsibility to preserve and protect the great outdoors, and we’re urging this Administration to immediately rethink its course of action.”

Established in 2005, the current TMR aims to protect the National Forests by designating roads, trails, and areas expressly open or closed to recreational vehicle use. Among other things, the rule was implemented to protect wildlife, promote clean watersheds, and reduce conflicts between visitors using passenger and off-road vehicles and visitors traveling on foot, bicycle, or horseback. The TMR further provided for public input and Tribal coordination in designating roads, trails, and areas open and closed to various types of recreation that are published in maps for each National Forest.

This August, in response to an Executive Order from the Trump Administration, the USFS announced its intent to revise this rule. The proposed revisions would open and remove restrictions on existing roads and establish new roads and trails for motorized vehicle use in the National Forests, including the 20 National Forests in California, the Sequoia National Forest and Tahoe National Forest included. The proposal also builds on the Trump Administration’s recent proposal to rescind the USFS’s Roadless Rule, which currently prevents road construction and timber harvesting in unfragmented stretches of National Forest land nationwide. The proposed rescission of both rules demonstrates a coordinated and flagrant attack on publicly-owned forest lands that would open millions of acres to road construction, logging, and other development.

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the USFS to rescind its proposal and assert that: 

• The USFS should examine a reasonable range of alternative strategies to its proposal.
• The USFS must comply with NEPA by considering all environmental impacts of revising the TMR in its Environmental Impact Statement.
• The USFS must comply with other statutory requirements, including under the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
• The USFS should provide for more public participation in this proposal, which would have broad, nationwide impacts on our National Forests.
• The USFS should not have initiated the TMR rulemaking at the same time it is proposing to roll back the Roadless Rule, because the USFS cannot assess the environmental impacts and implementation feasibility of the proposed revisions to the TMR until it has decided what action to take on the Roadless Rule.  

In sending today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Here is a copy of the comment letter.