Environment

Files motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with bipartisan support from 20 states and nine major municipalities

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, with the support of a bipartisan coalition of 20 attorneys general and nine major municipalities, today filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to stop Corteva Inc. — now the parent company of the chemicals manufacturer historically known as DuPont — from trying to move $39 billion of its assets and value to avoid paying its liabilities. Attorney General Bonta recently filed a second amended complaint in his existing lawsuit alleging that some of the nation’s largest chemical companies, including Corteva and DuPont, shifted assets to avoid liability and failed to warn the public about the dangers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS or “forever chemicals.” Now, in the latest stage of this scheme, Corteva plans to spin off the bulk of its assets and value from DuPont (its subsidiary) into a new independent company called Vylor in order to insulate those assets from the financial consequences of causing decades of harm from forever chemicals that have contaminated groundwater, bays, lakes, streams, rivers, wildlife, soil, and communities in California and throughout the country. Tellingly, Corteva’s CEO and many of its board members are fleeing Corteva — the company liable for these harms — for Vylor, which they say will be free of PFAS liability. Absent appropriate guardrails, the impending Vylor spinoff transaction increases the risk that states and municipalities, and by extension taxpayers, will be left to shoulder the massive financial burdens arising from historical DuPont operations. Filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, today’s motion seeks to freeze Corteva’s assets and stop its fraudulent attempt to avoid the consequences of its toxic legacy. 

“If you’re confused by these corporate machinations, that’s exactly what these chemical companies intended. This family of chemical manufacturers has been constantly changing hats and engaging in a decades-long campaign of deception to evade accountability for the widespread damage they caused to our environment and public health,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “We will be dealing with PFAS for generations, and these companies need to pay for the harms they’ve inflicted on Californians and our environment. Today, we’re asking the court to immediately freeze Corteva’s assets to stop these companies’ efforts to avoid accountability. Nobody can hide from the law.” 

“PFAS persist in the environment forever and present a clear public health risk. That’s why California continues to lead the way providing best-in-class science and research to protect our residents from these forever chemicals,” said Secretary for Environmental Protection Yana Garcia. “This lawsuit is proof that California will take aggressive steps to hold corporate polluters accountable for the harm that they have done and secure all available resources to clean up PFAS contamination.”

What Are PFAS? 

PFAS are widely used in consumer products, including food packaging, cookware, clothing, carpets, shoes, fabrics, polishes, waxes, paints, and cleaning products, as well as in firefighting foams designed to quickly smother liquid fuel fires. These so-called “forever chemicals” are stable in the environment, resistant to degradation, persistent in soil, and known to leach into groundwater. PFAS have been found in the blood of nearly all Californians tested for these dangerous chemicals. Human exposure to PFAS can occur from contaminated air, water, soil, food, and consumer products. PFAS can cause adverse health impacts, including developmental defects, liver, kidney, testicular, breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers, adverse pregnancy outcomes, infertility, reduced bone density in children, and impacts on the thyroid and immune system. 

For decades, PFAS manufacturers, including DuPont, were aware of these chemicals’ toxicity, persistence, and prevalence in humans, but chose to deliberately mislead the government and the public. For example, as early as the 1950s, companies began testing the physiological and toxicological properties of PFAS. Based on these internal studies, the manufacturers knew that PFAS were toxic to humans and the environment. By the 1960s, the manufacturers had confirmed that PFAS were leaching into groundwater and contaminating the environment, and by the 1970s, they had confirmed that PFAS bioaccumulate in humans. Rather than warn or change their products, DuPont doubled down, continuing to use PFAS in its products without warning the public or regulators for decades.

What Is Happening?

Attorney General Bonta recently filed a second amended complaint in his existing lawsuit against some of the nation’s largest chemical companies, alleging new wrongful conduct as part of the continuing fraudulent scheme that the historical DuPont, its successor New DuPont, Corteva, Chemours, and the recently created Qnity Electronics (together, the “DuPont Defendants”) engaged in. The amendment builds on Attorney General Bonta’s November 2022 lawsuit alleging that the manufacturers knew or should have known about the dangers of PFAS when they made and/or sold products containing them and that the manufacturers failed to warn the public and regulators about the dangers of PFAS, and in many cases concealed them.

To protect their assets from the many legitimate claims against them by those harmed by PFAS, the DuPont Defendants developed a complex, multi-step strategy to protect profits and reduce assets available to plaintiffs by selling assets and paying the proceeds to shareholders, leaving the public to deal with the environmental damage and serious health effects. Each step was designed to shield the DuPont Defendants’ assets from judgment: 

• 2015 Spin-off: The historical DuPont created a new company called Chemours and transferred its chemical business to it. DuPont tried to shift its massive PFAS liabilities onto Chemours to protect its own profitable business units from legal claims.
• 2017 Merger: DuPont merged with The Dow Chemical Company to form a temporary company named DowDuPont. This move was designed to protect DuPont’s remaining product lines.
• 2019 Corporate Splits: DowDuPont broke apart into new companies. Corteva was formed to handle the agricultural business (holding the original DuPont as a subsidiary), while Dow, Inc. took over its performance materials business. DowDuPont was renamed DuPont (“New DuPont”) to quietly sell off DuPont’s remaining assets and give the cash to shareholders.
• 2021 Financial Cap: The DuPont Defendants signed a cost-sharing agreement to pay for legacy PFAS claims, but New DuPont and Corteva capped their combined contribution at $2 billion. Chemours also capped its contribution at $2 billion. This limit of $4 billion is extremely low given the companies’ role in PFAS deception and pollution, the number and size of the legal claims against them, and their assets. Once the $4 billion limit is reached, Chemours will be legally forced to cover all remaining PFAS liabilities on its own, even though Chemours is the DuPont Defendant with the least amount of assets. 
• 2025 Insurance Agreement: Corteva and New DuPont paid Chemours $150 million to gain control over Chemours’ insurance payouts for PFAS damage. After Corteva and New DuPont recover that initial $150 million, Chemours will only receive half of any future insurance money, despite still being responsible for paying out the massive legal claims DuPont foisted upon it. 
• Now: On October 1, 2026, Corteva plans to spin off its highly profitable seed business into a new company called Vylor. Meanwhile, it intends to leave all its legacy PFAS liabilities behind with its pesticides division, the only remaining business line left with Corteva. If this corporate split happens as planned, Corteva will repeat the exact same pattern as New DuPont: It will severely diminish its total assets, lower its overall business value, and send billions of dollars out of reach of PFAS-related plaintiffs, like California and thousands of others.

In filing this motion, Attorney General Bonta is supported by the attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, along with the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, the City of San Diego, the City and County of San Francisco, Santa Clara County, the City of Fresno, the City of Denver, the City of Philadelphia, and King County, Washington. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a multistate coalition of attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) proposal to amend the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5). The NCA is a scientific document that provides an overview of the most current climate science and explores adaptation and mitigation strategies across a wide range of topics. USGCRP's flawed proposal seeks to retroactively modify the 2023 NCA5 to limit the interpretation and use by federal agencies of findings in the NCA5 that are based on certain worst-case, high emissions scenarios. If implemented, this proposal would put politics over peer-reviewed scientific findings to further the Trump Administration’s abandonment of the fight to protect the American public from the worst climate impacts. The comment letter explains that these changes are arbitrary and capricious and are therefore unlawful if ultimately adopted and relied on by federal agencies.

“The science doesn’t lie. Climate change is harming public health and causing devastating and ever-worsening disasters,” said Attorney General Bonta. “To restrict federal agencies from acknowledging or planning for these impacts is playing politics with people’s lives, and that’s exactly what President Trump is doing. This proposal will restrict federal agencies from relying on the NCA5’s worst-case projections, while at the same time the Trump Administration is doing everything it can to make those projections a reality. I will continue to support rigorous scientific findings backed by a peer review process, not wishful thinking or outright denialism, and I encourage the USGCRP to do the same by rescinding their proposal.” 

Federal law requires the USGCRP to prepare a National Climate Assessment (NCA) every four years. The most recent NCA, NCA5, was released in November 2023, under the Biden Administration. The Trump Administration has previously taken various steps to undermine NCA5, including canceling key contracts, dismissing scientists, gutting the USGCRP, and removing the NCAs from federal websites. This latest proposal continues to undermine NCA5 by attempting to downplay the gravity of climate change. 

On August 25, 2026, the USGCRP published a notice of its proposal to amend the NCA5 to limit federal agencies’ ability to utilize certain NCA5 results that depend on scenarios that outline a future where annual greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and a transition to renewables and other climate-mitigating policies does not occur. Along with representing a politically motivated attack on climate science, the proposed amendment also fails basic federal information quality requirements that apply NCAs. It fails to identify who prepared and reviewed it and has characteristics of a document developed using artificial intelligence, raising serious concerns about its reliability. It does not appear to have undergone peer review or to have been prepared with the involvement of the National Academies of Science. Engineering, and Medicine. The proposed amendment also improperly constrains public review and input, imposes a word limit on comments, provides a mere 15-day comment period on amendments to the 2,000 page NCA5, and asserts that comments will not receive a response. In sum, this proposed amendment is not a serious attempt to reflect changes in scientific understanding, but rather a rushed and politically motivated attempt to downplay the threat represented by climate change and hinder federal planning to address it.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 21 attorneys general in filing two lawsuits against the Trump Administration, one against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and one against the FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) over recent revisions to key regulations implementing the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The rules significantly weaken safeguards for our nation’s most vulnerable species by drastically reducing protections for listed fish and wildlife species’ habitat; establishing an unlawful process for excluding areas from critical habitat designations; and curtailing the ESA’s protections for newly listed threatened fish, wildlife, and plant species. Two of these regulatory rollbacks would reinstate the same unlawful ESA regulations adopted under the first Trump Administration, which were challenged in court before being reversed by the Biden Administration. In today’s lawsuits, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the rules violate the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

“Caring for our wildlife and our environment is part of caring for our future, yet President Trump seems to care only for himself and his industry friends. The Trump Administration has continuously sought to put our ecosystems in danger, which is why we continue to take them to court,” said Attorney General Bonta. “For over half a century, the ESA has stood as a bipartisan example of what it means to protect an irreplaceable part of our planet, but these new rules attempt to destroy longstanding and integral regulatory protections and open the door to further species decline and possible extinctions. Today, we are taking action to protect our environment and all those with whom we share the planet.”   

BACKGROUND

The ESA is one of the nation’s landmark environmental protection statutes and is vitally important for protecting hundreds of critically imperiled species and their habitats. For over 50 years, the ESA has protected thousands of iconic and threatened species, including the bald eagle, grizzly bear, and humpback whale. It is also responsible for many success stories within California, most notably the survival and recovery of the California condor and brown pelican. Enacted under the Nixon Administration in 1973, the ESA is intended — as the Supreme Court has described it — “to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.” The Trump Administration’s new rules would dramatically weaken current ESA protections and significantly reduce federal ESA enforcement, putting these imperiled species and their habitats at risk of extinction.

As a result of the three rules, known as the Harm Rule, the Habitat Exclusion Rule, and the 4(d) Rule, the Trump Administration has seriously undermined various protections for endangered and threatened species. Specifically, the Harm Rule alters the definition of the “harm” that the ESA prohibits, drastically weakening the ESA’s ability to protect against destruction of listed species’ breeding and feeding grounds, pollution or draining of critical water sources, or degradation of habitats, even if those actions lead to the death or injury of these species. The Habitat Exclusion Rule allows — and in some cases requires — the FWS to exclude areas from critical habitat designations based on third party costs and regulatory burdens and other non-biological considerations, thus limiting the FWS’s ability to protect and recover imperiled species by reducing the extent of critical habitat that is protected. The 4(d) Rule repeals longstanding automatic regulatory protections for newly listed threatened species, instead relying on the FWS to adopt species-specific regulations with no requirement or timeframe for doing so, leaving threatened species vulnerable to further declines. The 4(d) Rule also requires FWS to consider economic impacts prior to promulgating such species-specific rules.

In today's lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the multistate coalition argues that the court should vacate and set aside the Trump Administration’s rules, which significantly weaken protections for our nation’s most imperiled species, because they:

• Are contrary to law under the APA and ESA, as the rules ignore the plain language, purposes, structure, and legislative history of the ESA; numerous binding judicial precedents interpreting the ESA; and the law’s overall precautionary approach to protecting imperiled species and habitats.
• Are arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion under the APA because the Services do not provide a reasoned explanation for the changes. 
• Violate the APA and NEPA because the Services failed to consider and disclose the significant environmental effects of the rules prior to promulgating them. 

Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led the lawsuits alongside Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, and Washington Attorney General Nick Brown. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a preliminary injunction in the ongoing challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) attack on California's emission standards. In June 2026, President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin purported to reclassify four Clean Air Act preemption waivers — previously granted to California to improve air quality and protect public health — in an unlawful attempt to circumvent administrative procedure and attack state emissions rules. Shortly thereafter, Attorney General Bonta, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the reclassifications, but the EPA then moved to reclassify two additional preemption waivers before the court even had an opportunity to rule. Today, the district court rejected EPA’s “gamesmanship,” concluding it “may seem like a clever policy move, but undermines honest compliance with the law, which is what Americans should expect from executive branch agencies.” The court’s order requires EPA to withdraw or correct its unlawful reclassifications and refrain from giving them — or other reclassifications — any effect.

“When it comes to environmental integrity, posterity demands that we act. The bottom line is that California is taking many steps forward to protect the environment and public health while President Trump is taking six steps back,” said Attorney General Bonta. “For 50 years, both Democratic and Republican administrations have upheld California’s authority to enforce state emission standards, but this administration thinks it can roll back the clock and sow chaos even while our lawsuit plays out in court. Today’s decision is a key victory that rebuffs President Trump’s prior efforts. Federal emission standards should be a baseline to protect our future, not a ceiling to limit it.”

BACKGROUND

In June 2026, the EPA purported to reclassify four Clean Air Act preemption waiver orders into rules subject to congressional disapproval and sent them to Congress in apparent pursuit of such disapproval. The four waivers, which apply to emissions standards for cars and small offroad engines, enable California to enforce state-level emission standards to address air pollution. In July 2026, the EPA purported to reclassify two additional preemption waivers, specifically for emissions from ocean-going ships in port and commercial harbor craft, while the others were being challenged in court. In the more than 50 years since the Clean Air Act was enacted, waivers have never been considered rules subject to congressional disapproval. Nor have any other agency orders that adjudicate requests for permission, such as oil and gas leases or mining permits. However, the EPA purported to reclassify these waivers as rules and submitted them to Congress in an unlawful attempt to end-run administrative procedure and attack California’s authority to protect its own communities and environment.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set federal emission standards for air pollutants that endanger public health or welfare. The Act also allows California to adopt more stringent emission requirements independent of the EPA’s regulations, and the Act requires the EPA to approve preemption waivers for California’s requirements absent certain, limited circumstances not present here. Historically, the EPA — under both Republican and Democratic administrations — has granted California more than 75 preemption waivers for updates to the state’s emissions control programs. As Congress intended, these waivers have allowed California to improve those programs, which pre-existed the federal government’s efforts to regulate these emissions via the Act. Today’s preliminary injunction requires the EPA to restore the longstanding status quo by withdrawing or correcting its reclassifications and refraining from giving those actions any effect.  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Energy Commission (CEC) today sent a Notice of Intent to Sue targeting an unlawful agreement between the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and RWE U.S. Offshore (RWE) that would undermine California’s offshore wind energy development. Under the agreement, DOI will illegally reallocate $1.22 billion in federal taxpayer dollars to pay RWE to abandon its affiliates’ offshore wind energy leases in federal waters off the coasts of California, Louisiana, and New York, and require RWE to invest the same amount in out-of-state fossil-fuel projects that will do nothing to support California’s energy economy. If allowed to proceed, the lease buyout threatens to set back California’s burgeoning offshore wind industry, stranding public investments in ports’ offshore wind capacity, and damaging supporting industries and clean energy jobs. 

“Don’t be fooled, this agreement is just another ploy to kill offshore wind projects and slip millions of dollars into the hands of President Trump’s donors and business partners. Yet again, the Trump Administration is trying to thwart the clean energy industry, but when the President repeats his play, so will we,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Today, we’re putting the Trump Administration on notice that we intend to sue. Offshore wind investments create jobs, bolster our economy, and deliver reliable clean energy to Californians. Whenever the Trump Administration tries to attack clean energy, my office will be here to fight back.” 

“The Trump administration’s latest attack on California’s clean energy future will not go unanswered. We will vigorously contest these unlawful backroom deals that would redirect public funds from clean offshore wind to polluting fossil fuel projects owned by donors to Donald Trump’s campaign coffers,” said CEC Chair David Hochschild. “Our state has invested over $100 million to support offshore wind, which will strengthen energy independence, create good‑paying jobs, and build the clean energy future Californians demand. We will defend that progress every time it is threatened.”

BACKGROUND

California’s offshore wind strategic plan calls for the state to develop 25 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2045, enough to power roughly 25 million homes and provide about 13% of the state’s electricity supply, to accelerate California’s clean energy transition, create local manufacturing jobs, and drive economic development. Since federal offshore wind energy development planning began off California's coast a decade ago, the state has worked with federal agencies, developers, tribes, labor groups, ports, fishermen, local governments, and communities to prepare for offshore wind development. California has invested more than $100 million to ready California’s ports, transmission systems, and industries to support offshore wind generation.

This latest agreement is part of the Trump Administration’s ongoing attempt to cancel offshore wind projects and replace them with fossil-fuel energy projects, including deals with Golden State Wind LLC and Invenergy. On August 6, 2026, RWE announced a $1.22 billion agreement with DOI to cancel three offshore wind energy leases in federal waters off the coasts of California, Louisiana, and New York. The buyout is styled as an alleged settlement agreement that provides for DOI to cancel the wind lease, pay out the bid, and require RWE to fund liquefied natural gas infrastructure and natural gas projects across the country. Beyond that, it has been reported that a majority of the $1.22 billion in federal taxpayer dollars designated for offshore wind will be used by RWE to purchase a stake in a certain fossil-fuel project run by a major Trump donor and neighbor.

In the Notice of Intent to Sue sent to DOI and RWE today, California alleges that the buyout deal violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which is intended to give states like California a say in the offshore wind leasing program and prevent corrupt backroom deals. The Notice of Intent to Sue provides a 60-day window to cure the OCSLA violations before California files suit to put a stop to this unlawful buyout. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside the California Coastal Commission, the California Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (collectively, “California”), submitted a comment letter expressing grave concerns about the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) proposed rule that would broadly waive 13 U.S. environmental laws for a wide range of commercial space licenses and permits. Specifically, the proposed rule would allow the FAA to avoid complying with critical U.S. environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act, when approving licenses and permits for commercial space launches and operations. In the comment letter, California lays out its deep concerns with this ill-conceived proposed rule that would pave the way for increased, environmentally harmful space launch activity while eviscerating protections from environmental laws, leading to potential harms to public health. The rule would also drastically reduce opportunities for the public to engage with and be informed about space launch projects in California.

“California is the fourth largest economy in the world and home to roughly one-third of the world’s space companies. It is also home to a rich and diverse environment with extensive natural resources that sustain our communities. Responsible innovation and sound stewardship go hand in hand,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This proposed rule ignores the values that are a bedrock of our robust economy. Our letter lays out these concerns and urges the Trump Administration to rescind their rule.”  

California has a strong interest in space launches, as the state hosts these launches primarily at the Vandenburg Space Force Base on the coast north of Santa Barbara. California’s launch capabilities are extensive, with over 2,000 launches to date. A third of U.S. space technology companies call California home — this is a thriving sector of California’s economy, accounting for about $37 billion in the state’s annual gross domestic product and over 110,000 California jobs. California is also home to a rich and diverse environment with extensive natural resources, from the varied islands off the coastline and nine National Parks. It is the most biodiverse and ecologically diverse state in the United States. 

In the comment letter, California lays out the following concerns:  

• The proposed rule is illegal because the FAA does not have authority under the statute to waive compliance with 13 U.S. environmental laws for all commercial licenses to operate launch sites, reentry sites, operation of launch and reentry vehicles, and experimental permits. 
• The open-ended and unlimited scope of the waiver is so overbroad that the FAA has not, and could not, make a legally supportable determination. Commercial space launches are rapidly increasing, while the technology remains new with potential impacts that are not yet fully understood. 
• The FAA proposal violates NEPA because the FAA cannot reasonably conclude that the proposed action need not comply with 13 U.S. environmental laws without first ensuring it has first taken a hard look at the context-specific conditions of its proposed action and at necessary mitigation measures.
• The proposed rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act and is arbitrary and capricious.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined two multistate comment letters opposing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) proposals that would drastically reduce nuclear radiation protection regulations and reactor safety oversight. The proposed rulemakings are part of the NRC’s coordinated effort to reduce its oversight of nuclear energy projects and thereby remove accountability safeguards. In the comment letters, the coalition argues that the proposed changes violate the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), among others, and increase risks to public and nuclear energy worker safety and potential environmental impacts.

“Once again, the Trump Administration is more concerned with corporate interests than the health and safety of the American people. When it comes to nuclear energy, public safety should be priority one, two, and three,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These proposed changes allow industry to dodge early NRC review and would defer too many safety decisions to industry to self-regulate. It also would abandon the standard that the NRC has relied on for decades that requires the lowest radiation level achievable. I’m proud to join this coalition in opposing these changes, because we can pursue innovation without sacrificing safety.”

Nuclear energy is an important source of energy in many states, but the fundamental nature of this powerful technology involves environmental and public health risks. On July 15, 2026, NRC published a proposed rule that would allow increased allowable radiation exposure, reduce monitoring and reporting requirements, and revise air and water emission standards to create flexibility for industry and help accelerate deployment of nuclear technology in the U.S. The proposed rule would also eliminate NRC’s use of the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) standard to evaluate radiological protection measures at facilities and replace it with a graded approach that NRC fails to describe with particularity.

A day later, on July 16, 2026, NRC continued its wholesale revision of its long-standing regulations with a proposed rule that would dramatically narrow the ability for states and the public to meaningfully participate in the permitting and licensing processes for nuclear facilities and would change construction and oversight requirements to allow for faster build-out of nuclear facilities. Nuclear technologies can have significant impacts on communities, and the law requires meaningful opportunity for the public to weigh in during the process. The NRC should not reduce the public’s opportunity to participate in what affects their communities. And especially given the push to deploy novel nuclear technologies, more direct NRC oversight with greater transparency is needed; not less.

In the comment letters, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that, among other things, the proposed rulemaking changes would:

• Benefit the nuclear industry at the potential expense of the public, employees, and the environment, in violation of the NRC’s mandate to prioritize public health and safety and the environment.
• Grant too much latitude to licensees to self-regulate by allowing them to make underlying decisions that affect what actions are subject to NRC approval.
• Violate the AEA and NEPA by failing to provide meaningful opportunity for public comment before construction activities begin.  

In sending the comment letters, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) led a multistate comment letter opposing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to loosen regulations that control the emissions of smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) from semi-trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles. If finalized, EPA’s proposed rule would harm public health and welfare by contributing to air pollution that causes harmful health effects and generally contributes to poor air quality, particularly in environmental justice communities. In the comment letter, the coalition argues that EPA should withdraw its proposal, as it fails to comply with the statutory requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

“The EPA’s harmful rule is not only illegal, but it would put public health at risk by contributing to dangerous air pollution with serious health impacts. These impacts are especially concerning for communities of color and low-income communities, which too often bear a disproportionate share of pollution and its health consequences,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration should be strengthening protections against vehicle pollution, not weakening them. That’s why we are urging them to withdraw this illegal rule immediately.” 

The transportation sector is the largest source of NOx emissions in the United States, with heavy-duty vehicles being the second-largest contributor within that sector. Exposure to pollutants like NOx is associated with a range of adverse respiratory effects, including asthma, respiratory inflammation, and decreased lung function and growth. Communities of color and low-income communities, who disproportionately live, work, or attend school near major roadways and other NOx pollution sources like railyards, ports, and warehouses, are most vulnerable to this pollution and the resulting health impacts. 

In July 2026, EPA published its proposed rule, which, if finalized, would revise a number of emission regulations for heavy-duty vehicles published in 2023 under President Biden. EPA’s proposed rule specifically attempts to roll back key regulations that greatly reduce the emission of NOx from commercial vehicles. For example, the proposed rule would: 

• Shorten the emission warranty period for heavy-duty vehicles from 10 years to 5 years for model year (MY) 2027 and later vehicles, which by the agency’s own calculations would result in an additional 36,000 tons of NOx emissions annually. 
• Delay the implementation of the 2023 Rule’s longer regulatory useful life periods from MY 2027 to MY 2030. This change would result in increased NOx emissions by shortening the period over which emission standards apply to heavy-duty vehicles.
• Weaken key regulatory inducements that ensure that emission control systems are properly maintained and functioning. 

In the comment letter, the coalition explains that the proposed rule, if finalized, would violate the law by undermining separately-required emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles, impairing states' and cities’ efforts to meet federally-mandated air quality standards, and by failing to consider the health consequences of increased pollution from the rule. The coalition urges EPA to withdraw the proposed rule immediately.

In submitting the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and CARB lead the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, and the Chief Legal Officers of the City of Chicago, Illinois; the City and County of Denver, Colorado; the City of New York, New York; and the City and County of San Francisco, California. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a multistate comment letter in opposition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft risk evaluation for Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TBBPA is a flame-retardant widely used in consumer products, mainly plastic enclosures for electronics, and also in furniture and textile items and building and construction materials. Exposure to TBBPA may result in detrimental health impacts, including diseases associated with its neuro-, immuno-, and reproductive toxicities and cancer, and infants and children are particularly vulnerable to TBBPA exposure. In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that EPA’s deficient draft risk evaluation ignores the health risks of TBBPA exposure in consumer products, and, if adopted, would undermine existing protections several states have adopted to restrict the use of TBBPA to protect their residents against its harmful health effects.

“The Trump Administration’s draft risk evaluation would endanger consumers by resulting in weaker regulations that expose them to preventable health risks,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California will not stand for decisions that put the health and well-being of our residents and Americans nationwide at risk. We strongly urge the EPA to withdraw this draft risk evaluation immediately.”

Enacted in 1976, TSCA gives the EPA the authority to regulate chemical substances to protect human health and the environment and to require manufacturers and importers to provide information on chemical substances. TSCA allows the EPA to evaluate existing and new chemicals for safety and requires the EPA to restrict or ban chemicals that pose unreasonable risks of injury to human health or the environment. In 2019, the EPA designated TBBPA as “High-Priority Substance” for risk evaluation under TSCA. The EPA identified significant concerns that TBBPA may pose detrimental health risks through chronic exposures.

California has long recognized the need for strong protections against TBBPA exposure. In 2018, California passed Assembly Bill 2998, which restricted the sale and distribution of juvenile products, upholstered furniture, replacement components of reupholstered furniture, and the foam in mattresses, that contain certain flame-retardant chemicals, including TBBPA. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has also listed TBBPA on California’s Proposition 65 list of carcinogens because it is a probable human carcinogen. 

The coalition asserts that the EPA’s draft risk evaluation fails to:

• Include all the intended, known, or foreseeable uses of TBBPA in the conditions of use evaluated and makes separate risk determinations for workers, consumers, and the general population.
• Consider aggregate exposures and risks and evaluate TBBPA within a class of other flame retardants by using the best available science, as required by TSCA.
• Account for existing state regulations which may be impacted by EPA’s final risk evaluation for TBBPA. 

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York.

LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the creation of the first-of-its-kind Affordability Response Team within the California Department of Justice (DOJ). The Affordability Response Team will draw on the knowledge of experts from sections across the department, working together to find, investigate, and go after individuals and corporations deploying unlawful practices that are making life unaffordable for the people of California.

“Californians, we hear you: The cost of living is much too high. For many people in our state the cost of a week off work, a set of new tires, or a trip to the grocery store — let alone a mortgage or a visit to the emergency room — are not within reach,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, I am proud to announce the launch of my office’s Affordability Response Team. Comprised of legal experts from across DOJ, the Affordability Response Team will work to investigate and go after practices that are unlawfully raising costs. It will create a pipeline to tackle affordability from all angles — whether it be unlawful behavior by corporations, landlords, scammers, or policies that are driving up prices. Hardworking Californians deserve fair prices, deserve the ability to make enough to meet their basic needs — and also deserve to have the experiences, vacations, and joys that make life richer.”

Californians are facing an affordability crisis of epic proportion — and many cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel. Housing shortages, skyrocketing grocery prices, rising healthcare and childcare costs, predatory corporate behavior, and the federal government’s unstable economic policies are all making it difficult not only to cover the basics, but to enjoy many of the things hardworking Americans should be able to afford — like a family vacation or a dinner out. The affordability crisis disproportionately impacts low-income households, communities of color, individuals with disabilities, and young adults. In fact, 23% of California’s young adults ages 18–24 live in poverty. And seven in 10 Californians feel that healthcare expenses place a financial strain on their household.

Because these challenges are entrenched and complex, tackling the affordability crisis requires creative thinking and a willingness to attack the problem from all angles. As the top law enforcement officer of California, Attorney General Bonta has been engaged in work that goes after illegal conduct contributing to rising costs. The creation of the Affordability Response Team will amplify DOJ’s ongoing focus on affordability, to allow this work to continue, create a pipeline for continued enforcement, and signal to bad actors that California is zeroed in on this.

THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS 

Americans across the country are feeling squeezed by a wall of rising costs.

Already high food prices are predicted to increase by 3.4% over the next year and a growing number of people are skipping meals or relying on food banks because of rising food costs. Utility prices and gas prices have also increased, at the same time, wages have stagnated or declined for many workers. Since 1970’s, wages for the bottom 90% of earners have increased 44%, while wages for the top 1% of earners have risen more than 180%. More Americans are taking on debt because of the rising cost of necessities. Credit card debt in the U.S. by the end of 2025 hit a record of $1.28 trillion — and in the first quarter of this year, the percentage of credit-card balances that were at least 90 days delinquent rose to 13.12%, the highest level in 15 years.

Not all Americans are feeling the squeeze. As most households are trying to figure out how the numbers are supposed to add up for life in America, demand for luxury yachts and private jets is surging. The top 1% of Americans held 32% of America’s wealth and CEO compensation increased by almost 6% to $17.7 million as company boards rewarded their top executives for bigger profits. President Trump has said he doesn’t think about Americans financial situation and his Administration is walking the talk by exacerbating the affordability crisis with its polices. Policies like rolling back antitrust enforcement that holds large corporations accountable, pursuing international policy that leaves consumers feeling pain at the pump, prioritizing tax cuts for wealthier Americans, levying an illegal regime of tariffs, and destroying the agency responsible for protecting Americans from exploitation by big businesses who aren’t playing by the rules. All the while, the President and his own family are profiting wildly from holding public office.

FOCUS AREAS 

The Affordability Response Team will deploy DOJ's tools in these areas:

Keeping the Household Running: Grocery, Gas, and Utility Costs

From cable bills to grocery runs, the household bills Californians grapple with every month seem to be endlessly going up.

Affordability in Action:

• May 2026: Attorney General Bonta Secures End of Unlawful Meat Price Coordination, Announces Settlement with Agri Stats
• April 2026: Naming Names: Attorney General Bonta Secures Public Access to Evidence in Amazon Price Fixing Case

A Roof Over Your Head: Housing & Insurance Costs

Confronting California’s housing shortage, unlawful landlord behavior, and rising home insurance costs.

Affordability in Action:

• February 2026: Attorney General Bonta Announces Settlement with Redding Property Management Company for Violating Tenant Protection Act
• November 2025: Attorney General Bonta Announces $7 Million Settlement with Greystar for Participating in an Algorithmic Rent Alignment Scheme

Relief from Sickening Healthcare Costs

Tackling consolidation in the healthcare industry and the rising costs associated with going to the doctor and paying for prescriptions, so that all Californians can afford the care they need to be well.

Affordability in Action:

• May 2026: Attorney General Bonta Conditionally Approves Proposed Transaction to Ensure Continued Access to Senior Care Services in Fresno County
• March 2026: Attorney General Bonta Opposes Trump Administration’s Proposed Expansion of Catastrophic Health Insurance Plans 

Investing in Our Future: Childcare, Education, & Retirement

Ensuring Californians can care for their families, pursue a livelihood, invest in their future, and plan for every stage of their lives.

Affordability in Action:

• May 2026: Attorney General Bonta Opposes Plan to Weaken Federal Protections for Retirement Investments
• February 2026: Attorney General Bonta Defeats Trump Administration in Court Again, Continues Protecting Over $10 Billion in Child Care and Family Assistance Funding

All Work and Harder to Play: The High Cost of Enjoying Life

From planning a vacation to seeing your favorite band in concert, the joys of life are getting harder and harder to afford. The Affordability Response Team is tackling hidden fees and going after corporate practices hiking up prices for entertainment, tech, and trips.

Affordability in Action:

• April 2026: Attorney General Bonta Celebrates Historic Verdict in Live Nation/Ticketmaster Trial
• July 2024: Attorney General Bonta to Consumers: This Summer, Enjoy California — Without the Hidden Fees

Financial Protection: Protecting Your Hard-Earned Money

Protecting Californians by going after shady practices by big banks, lenders, and policies that unfairly penalize consumers and leave them worse off.

Affordability in Action:

• January 2026: Attorney General Bonta Helps Secure $425 Million Capital One Settlement
• January 2026: We're Going to Need a Bigger Boat: Attorney General Bonta Continues Championing Legislation to Protect California Veterans Against Claim Sharks, Financial Exploitation

Earning Less: Labor, Wages, and the Cost of Doing Business

Championing workers’ rights and maintaining a vibrant, profitable economy go hand in hand.

 Affordability in Action:

• March 2026: Attorney General Bonta Urges Congress to Fix Trump’s Tariff Mess, Refund Americans
• July 2025: Attorney General Bonta Announces Nearly $2 Million Settlement with Janitorial Franchising Companies Barring Use of Franchising to Misclassify Workers

Scams, Scams, Scams!

From social media investment scams to job scams and robocalls, cracking down and sounding the alarm on conduct preying on consumers’ pocketbooks.

Affordability in Action:

• April 2026: All That Glitters isn’t Gold: Attorney General Bonta Warns Californians of LA 2028 Olympic Games Ticket Scams
• August 2025: The Robocall Task Force Strikes Again! Attorney General Bonta Launches Operation Robocall Roundup

Click here to learn more about DOJ’s Recent Affordability Work.

RESOURCES — You Tell Us, What Corporations or Practices Should We Know About?

Housing: The Housing Justice Team reminds Californians that they can send complaints or tips related to housing to oag.ca.gov/report. Tenants who need legal help can find legal aid resources in their area at www.LawHelpCA.org.

Antitrust: Antitrust laws and their enforcement help protect consumers by ensuring businesses compete fairly, which often results in lower prices, higher quality goods, and more innovative products. Use DOJ’s Antitrust Complaint Form to report anticompetitive conduct — like price fixing, collusion, or monopolization concerns — that potentially violate the antitrust laws.

Consumer/Business/Healthcare: If you have a complaint about a business who is not complying with consumer protection or other laws, consumers can visit DOJ’s reporting page to submit a complaint.