Existing law establishes an accidental release prevention program for the state. Under that law, stationary sources subject to the accidental release prevention program may be required to prepare and submit a risk management plan (RMP) to prevent accidental releases of certain substances. Existing law imposes criminal penalties upon a stationary source that knowingly violates the requirements of the accidental release prevention program.

This bill would state findings and declarations concerning refinery closures in California. The bill would establish the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries and addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries, with membership, as specified, appointed and commencing service no later than January 1, 2028. The bill would require the task force, no later than June 1, 2029, to present to the Legislature and make available online to the public a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, for ensuring safe operation in the event of understaffing, and for transitioning oil and gas workers into sectors that match their skills and experience. The bill would repeal the task force provisions on January 1, 2030.

Existing law establishes an accidental release prevention program for the state. Under that law, stationary sources subject to the accidental release prevention program may be required to prepare and submit a risk management plan (RMP) to prevent accidental releases of certain substances. Existing law imposes criminal penalties upon a stationary source that knowingly violates the requirements of the accidental release prevention program.

This bill would state findings and declarations concerning refinery closures in California. The bill would create establish the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries and addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries, with membership, as specified, appointed and commencing service no later than January 1, 2028. The bill would require the task force, no later than June 1, 2029, to present to the Legislature and make available online to the public a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, for ensuring safe operation in the event of understaffing, and for transitioning oil and gas workers into sectors that match their skills and experience. The bill would repeal the provisions that would create the task force provisions on January 1, 2030.

Existing law establishes an accidental release prevention program for the state. Under that law, stationary sources subject to the accidental release prevention program may be required to prepare and submit a risk management plan (RMP) to prevent accidental releases of certain substances. Existing law imposes criminal penalties upon a stationary source that knowingly violates the requirements of the accidental release prevention program.

This bill would state findings and declarations concerning refinery closures in California. The bill would create the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries and addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries, with membership, as specified, appointed and commencing service no later than January 1, 2028. The bill would require the task force, no later than June 1, 2029, to present to the Legislature and make available online to the public a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, for ensuring safe operation in the event of understaffing, and for transitioning oil and gas workers into sectors that match their skills and experience. The bill would repeal the provisions that would create the task force on January 1, 2030.

Existing law establishes an accidental release prevention program for the state. Under that law, stationary sources subject to the accidental release prevention program may be required to prepare and submit a risk management plan (RMP) to prevent accidental releases of certain substances. Existing law imposes criminal penalties upon a stationary source that knowingly violates the requirements of the accidental release prevention program.

This bill would state findings and declarations concerning refinery closures in California. The bill would create the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop a set of standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries and addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries, with membership, as specified, appointed and commencing service no later than January 1, 2028. The bill would require the task force, no later than June 1, 2029, to present to the Legislature and make available online a set of standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries and managing understaffing, and to the public a report documenting the facts, analysis, and investigation upon which the standards are based. documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, for ensuring safe operation in the event of understaffing, and for transitioning oil and gas workers into sectors that match their skills and experience. The bill would repeal the provisions that would create the task force on January 1, 2030.

This bill would require the California Environmental Protection Agency, by January 1, 2028, to adopt regulations that require all refineries, as specified, to develop safe staffing management plans to address staffing risks associated with anticipated refinery closure or long-term idling. The bill would require that the plans, within 6 months following presentation to the Legislature by the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force of the standards and best practices described above, or by January 1, 2030, whichever is earlier, be required by the regulations, at minimum, to adhere to those standards and best practices, unless the refinery operator presents evidence sufficient to justify deviating from those standards and best practices. The bill would require the regulations to require the plans to be updated periodically and upon announcement of a refinery closure or long-term idling, as specified. The bill would require the regulations to make the plans subject to public comment and presentation to the agency for approval. The bill would make the agency responsible for conducting inspections and investigations to ensure implementation of the refinerys plan, addressing noncompliance through all available and necessary enforcement authority, and posting the drafts, comments, plans, and updates on its internet website, as specified. Because the bill would expand the scope of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, the California Refinery and Chemical Plant Worker Safety Act of 1990, the purpose of which is to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, flammable, or explosive chemicals and eliminate the risks to which workers are exposed in refineries, requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to propose, and the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to consider for adoption, regulations implementing provisions for refineries, that, among other things, require an employer to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting process or business activities.

This bill would require the division, by January 1, 2028, to propose, and the board to consider for adoption, regulations that require refinery employers to develop safe staffing management plans to address staffing risks associated with anticipated refinery closure or long-term idling. The bill would require that the plans, within 6 months following presentation to the Legislature by the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force of the standards and best practices described above, or by January 1, 2030, whichever is earlier, be required by the regulations, at minimum, to adhere to those standards and best practices, unless the refinery operator presents evidence sufficient to justify deviating from those standards and best practices. The bill would require the regulations to require the plans to be updated periodically and upon announcement of a refinery closure or long-term idling, as specified. The bill would require the regulations to make the plans subject to public comment and presentation to the division for approval. The bill would make the division responsible for conducting inspections and investigations to ensure implementation of an employers plan, addressing noncompliance through all available and necessary enforcement authority, and posting the drafts, comments, plans, and updates on its internet website, as specified.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, upon the appropriation of funds by the Legislature, requires the State Air Resources Board to allocate funds on a competitive basis for projects that are shown to achieve the greatest emission reductions from each emission source identified, as specified, from activities related to the movement of freight along Californias trade corridors, commencing at the states airports, seaports, and land ports of entry.

This bill would enact the Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment at Seaports and Intermodal Yards Program. Pilot program. As part of the pilot program, the state board would be prohibited from adopting a future regulation that prohibits or disallows for the use of its entire useful life from the date of delivery any cargo handling equipment, as defined, that is purchased pursuant to the pilot program before December 31, 2027. 2027, as specified. The bill would provide that a piece of cargo handling equipment has qualified for participation in and is subject to the pilot program when specified actions have occurred between the time the cargo handling equipment is purchased and the cargo handling equipment is delivered, including that the manufacturer has certified that the equipment meets the emission specifications of less than 1 g CO2/kWh or less than 1 g CO2/km and that the manufacturer labels the equipment, as specified. The bill would require that a piece of cargo handling equipment subject to the pilot program include, at the time of delivery, a description, warrant, or both, of the useful life of the equipment from the manufacturer, and would prohibit the useful life from exceeding a specified number of years, as provided.

Existing law, upon the appropriation of funds by the Legislature, requires the State Air Resources Board to allocate funds on a competitive basis for projects that are shown to achieve the greatest emission reductions from each emission source identified, as specified, from activities related to the movement of freight along Californias trade corridors, commencing at the states airports, seaports, and land ports of entry.

This bill would enact the Lower Emissions Equipment at Seaports and Intermodal Yards Program. As part of the program, the state board would be prohibited from adopting a future regulation that prohibits or disallows for the use of its entire useful life any cargo handling equipment, as defined, that is purchased pursuant to the program before December 31, 2027.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 605

Author:(Muratsuchi)

As Enrolled Ver:September 4, 2026

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Establishes in the state government the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (task force) consisting of employee representatives, employer representatives, representatives from organizations committed to worker and community safety, and public members. Requires the task force, by June 1, 2029, to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report with a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention prior to refinery closures.

Senate Amendments

1) Delete the prior version of the bill.

2) Establish in the state government the task force consisting of the following members:

1. Three representatives of unions representing proprietary employees at refineries, as defined, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) Process Safety Management (PSM) Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
2. Three representatives of unions representing building trades whose members serve as contractors at refineries, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
3. Three representatives of refinery employers appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
4. Three representatives of nongovernmental organizations whose mission relates to the well-being of workers and refinery communities, one each appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
5. Two members of the public with expertise in refinery process safety, to be appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
6. Require all members to be appointed and begin serving on the task force no later than January 1, 2028.
7. Require the task force to do all of the following:

a) Select one of its members to be its chair.

b) Have all of its responsibilities, powers, and duties set forth herein.

c) Consult with, and may utilize, the staff of the DIR PSM Unit.

1. State that the purpose of the task force is to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.
2. Require, no later than June 1, 2029, the task force to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, including, without limitation, any of the following:

a) Extended severance periods.

b) Paid job training.

c) Extended job placement assistance.

d) Priority transfer to other refineries.

e) Financial and logistical assistance.

1. Provide that the recommendations of the task force may be considered in collective bargaining but are not binding.
2. State that the above provisions become inoperative on July 1, 2029, and, as of January 1, 2030, are repealed.

Governor's Veto Message

"I am returning Assembly Bill 605 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force, composed of employer and employee organization representatives, to report to the Legislature by June 1, 2029, on strategies for employee retention prior to refinery closures.

I support the author's intent to identify strategies to protect and support workers displaced by refinery closures, and the state needs a real, long-term plan. This bill, however, establishes a task force supported by staff from the Division of Occupational Safety and Health's Process Safety Management Unit, which primarily inspects refineries and chemical plants that handle large quantities of toxic and flammable materials. This Unit is also charged with enforcing health and safety standards intended to prevent catastrophic explosions, fires, and releases of dangerous chemicals.

I am concerned that diverting these specialized inspectors to support the task force envisioned by this bill—without any identified resources—will diminish their ability to focus on holding refineries accountable for meeting required health and safety standards, potentially putting refinery workers at greater risk.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill."

COMMENTS

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the state had about 100,000 workers in the fossil fuel industry in 2025. Refineries, however, have been closing across the country and California has experienced a number of closures in just the last five years. First, "the Marathon refinery in Contra Costa County [closed] in 2020, which put hundreds of people out of work before the plant converted to renewable fuels with a fraction of the former workforce. Then Phillips 66 began shifting one of its Contra Costa County refineries to renewables and closed an affiliated plant on the Central Coast.^[1]" Just last April, workers at the Marathon facility went on strike over safety concerns and understaffing and are currently locked out of work.

In the 2022 Budget Act, California allocated $30 million to help displaced oil and gas workers gain reemployment through a pilot program. Targeted regions for the assistance have been Kern County, Contra Costa County, and Los Angeles County. To date, approximately 518 individuals have been served with the goal of helping over 1,700 individuals' total. Overall, about 27.7 million dollars has been awarded and of that, 4.8 million dollars has been spent by the awardees.

According to the Author

According to the author, "When California refineries begin procedures to close or enter long-term idling, employees are often laid off or leave to seek new opportunities. While understandable, these staffing shortages result in health and safety risks to both refinery employees and the surrounding communities.

AB 605 addresses this issue by establishing a 14-member Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop and publish potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries and addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.

AB 605 takes a proactive approach to protecting worker and community safety by establishing a task force to promote safe staffing and ensure employees are safely operating and maintaining highly hazardous processes."

Arguments in Support

California Labor for Climate Jobs and United Steelworkers Local 675 are in support and state, "Refineries handle volatile and highly hazardous substances where mistakes can have catastrophic consequences. California's refinery safety framework – including the Process Safety Management standard and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program – recognizes that organizational chanes can affect safety. However, existing regulations do not explicitly address the unique risks created during refinery closure or long-term idling, nor do they require employers to proactively plan for the staffing challenges that accompany these transitions...

Importantly, AB 605 creates a balanced Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, and community organizations to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and those most affected by refinery incidents."

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of business groups, including the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, are opposed and state, "The bill inserts a new government task force into matters that are already addressed through collective bargaining, employer workforce planning, and established workforce development programs. This duplicative approach risks creating conflicting requirements and further complicating workforce decisions at a time when refinery operators are already facing unprecedented economic and regulatory pressure."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, "DIR would potentially incur costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to convene the Task Force."

VOTES

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 15-0-1

YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, Ransom, Rogers, Ward

ABS, ABST OR NV: Papan

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 14-0-0

YES: Bryan, Alanis, Connolly, Ellis, Flora, Garcia, Haney, Hoover, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Schultz, Wicks, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-1

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Celeste Rodriguez

SENATE FLOOR: 29-11-0

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

ASM LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT: 4-2-1

YES: Ortega, Kalra, Lee, Ward

NO: Alanis, Chen

ABS, ABST OR NV: Elhawary

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-18-10

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Connolly, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Rogers, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Stefani, Valencia, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO: Alanis, Castillo, Chen, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Carrillo, Krell, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Soria

UPDATED

VERSION: September 4, 2026

CONSULTANT: Megan Lane / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0004579

1. CalMatters, "Oil refinery closures leave workers searching for a job that 'just doesn't exist." October 8, 2025. ↑

Date of Hearing: August 30, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Liz Ortega, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 605 (

Author:Muratsuchi) – As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

SUBJECT: Employment: refineries: task force

SUMMARY: Establishes in the state government the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (task force) consisting of employee representatives, employer representatives, representatives from organizations committed to worker and community safety, and public members. Requires the task force, by June 1, 2029, to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report with a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention prior to refinery closures. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations regarding staffing shortages caused by the announcement of refinery closures.
2. Establishes in the state government the task force consisting of the following members:
3. Three representatives of unions representing proprietary employees at refineries, as defined, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) Process Safety Management (PSM) Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
4. Three representatives of unions representing building trades whose members serve as contractors at refineries, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
5. Three representatives of refinery employers appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
6. Three representatives of nongovernmental organizations whose mission relates to the well-being of workers and refinery communities, one each appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
7. Two members of the public with expertise in refinery process safety, to be appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
8. Requires all members to be appointed and begin serving on the task force no later than January 1, 2028.
9. Requires the task force to do all of the following:

a) Select one of its members to be its chair.

b) Have all of its responsibilities, powers, and duties set forth herein.

c) Consult with, and may utilize, the staff of the DIR PSM Unit.

1. States that the purpose of the task force is to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.
2. Requires, no later than June 1, 2029, the task force to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, including, without limitation, any of the following:

a) Extended severance periods.

b) Paid job training.

c) Extended job placement assistance.

d) Priority transfer to other refineries.

e) Financial and logistical assistance.

1. Provides that the recommendations of the task force may be considered in collective bargaining but are not binding.
2. States that the above provisions become inoperative on July 1, 2029, and, as of January 1, 2030, are repealed.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to, among other things, propose, administer, and enforce occupational safety and health standards. Labor Code §6300 et seq.
2. Establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board), within DIR, to promote, adopt, and maintain reasonable and enforceable standards that will ensure a safe and healthful workplace for workers. Labor Code §140-147.6.
3. Requires Cal/OSHA to issue a citation to an employer that it believes, upon inspection or investigation, has violated specified workplace health and safety laws or any standard, rule or order pursuant to them. Each citation must be in writing and must describe the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision of the code, standard, rule, regulation, or order alleged to have been violated. The citation must also include a reasonable time for the abatement of the alleged violation. The period specified for abatement shall not commence running until the date the citation or notice is received or the date the return is made to the post office. Labor Code § 6317.
4. Directs the Standards Board and Cal/OSHA, in accordance with the California Refinery and Health Standards Board Act of 1990, to promote worker safety through implementation of training and process safety management (PSM) practices in refineries and chemical plants and other facilities deemed appropriate. Labor Code §7852(a).
5. Defines “refinery” as an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. Labor Code §7853(c).
6. Defines “process safety management” as the application of management programs, which are not limited to engineering guidelines, when dealing with the risks associated with handling or working near hazardous chemicals. PSM is intended to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of acutely hazardous, flammable, or explosive chemicals. Labor Code §7853(b).
7. Directs the Standards Board to adopt, by March 31, 2014, process safety management standards for refineries, chemical plants, and other manufacturing facilities, as specified. Labor Code §7856(a).
8. Directs Cal/OSHA to propose, and the Standards Board to consider for adoption, regulations to implement PSM standards for refineries by January 1, 2026. (Labor Code §7856(b).
9. Establishes the California Accidental Release Prevention program (CalARP) with the goal of reducing regulated hazardous substances accident risks and eliminating duplication of regulatory programs. CalARP implements the federal risk management program, as provided in the federal Clean Air Act and as promulgated by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, in the state, with certain amendments that are specific to the state. Health & Safety Code §25531 et seq.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, “DIR would potentially incur costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to convene the Task Force.”

COMMENTS: According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the state had about 100,000 workers in the fossil fuel industry in 2025. Refineries, however, have been closing across the country and California has experienced a number of closures in just the last five years. First, “the Marathon refinery in Contra Costa County [closed] in 2020, which put hundreds of people out of work before the plant converted to renewable fuels with a fraction of the former workforce. Then Phillips 66 began shifting one of its Contra Costa County refineries to renewables and closed an affiliated plant on the Central Coast.^[1]” Just last April, workers at the Marathon facility went on strike over safety concerns and understaffing and are currently locked out of work.

In the 2022 Budget Act, California allocated $30 million to help displaced oil and gas workers gain reemployment through a pilot program. Targeted regions for the assistance have been Kern County, Contra Costa County, and Los Angeles County. To date, approximately 518 individuals have been served with the goal of helping over 1,700 individuals’ total. Overall, about 27.7 million dollars has been awarded and of that, 4.8 million dollars has been spent by the awardees.

According to the author, “When California refineries begin procedures to close or enter long-term idling, employees are often laid off or leave to seek new opportunities. While understandable, these staffing shortages result in health and safety risks to both refinery employees and the surrounding communities.

AB 605 addresses this issue by establishing a 14-member Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop and publish potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries and addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.

AB 605 takes a proactive approach to protecting worker and community safety by establishing a task force to promote safe staffing and ensure employees are safely operating and maintaining highly hazardous processes.”

Arguments in Support

California Labor for Climate Jobs and United Steelworkers Local 675 are in support and state, “Refineries handle volatile and highly hazardous substances where mistakes can have catastrophic consequences. California's refinery safety framework – including the Process Safety Management standard and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program – recognizes that organizational changes can affect safety. However, existing regulations do not explicitly address the unique risks created during refinery closure or long-term idling, nor do they require employers to proactively plan for the staffing challenges that accompany these transitions...

Importantly, AB 605 creates a balanced Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, and community organizations to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and those most affected by refinery incidents.”

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of business groups, including the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, are opposed and state, “The bill inserts a new government task force into matters that are already addressed through collective bargaining, employer workforce planning, and established workforce development programs. This duplicative approach risks creating conflicting requirements and further complicating workforce decisions at a time when refinery operators are already facing unprecedented economic and regulatory pressure.”

Related Legislation

SB 966 (Gonzalez) of 2026 would require an employer, in consultation with employees and employee representatives, to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan to effectively provide for employee participation in all process safety management elements. The bill would also require, on or before April 1, 2027, an employer, in consultation with employee and employee representatives, to develop and implement stop work procedures and procedures for reporting and responding to hazards, as specified. The bill is on the Assembly Floor.

AB 1259 (Blaskespear) of 2026 would require, no later than December 31, 2028, every refiner, as defined, to submit to CalEPA a retirement plan setting forth information concerning decommissioning and site remediation for every refinery it owns, operates, or controls, as provided. The bill would require the CalEPA, no later than 6 months following the submission of the retirement plan, to review the retirement plan for completeness and reasonableness and to make a determination as to whether the retirement plan complies with the requirements imposed by the bill. This bill is on the Assembly Floor.

AB 2157 (Connolly) of 2026 would eliminate the July 1, 2027, sunset on the Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Pilot Program (program) established to address employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries. This bill is on the Senate Floor.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

United Steelworkers District 12 (Sponsor)
California Labor for Climate Jobs
The Climate Center
United Steelworkers Local 675

Opposition

California Manufacturers & Technology Association 
Coastal Energy Alliance
Colab Ventura County
Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce
Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
Harbor Association of Industry and Commerce 
Industrial Environmental Association
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles County Business Federation 
Moorpark Chamber of Commerce
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce
Sage
Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Advocacy Center
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
Tri County Chamber Alliance
Vica
Western States Petroleum Association
Wilmington Chamber of Commerce

Other

Air Products and Chemicals, INC.

Analysis Prepared by: Megan Lane / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091

1. CalMatters, “Oil refinery closures leave workers searching for a job that ‘just doesn’t exist.” October 8, 2025. ↑

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 605

Author:(Muratsuchi)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Original Committee of Reference: Labor and Employment

Establishes in the state government the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (task force) consisting of employee representatives, employer representatives, representatives from organizations committed to worker and community safety, and public members. Requires the task force, by June 1, 2029, to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report with a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention prior to refinery closures.

Senate Amendments

Current Committee Recommendation: Concur

1) Delete the prior version of the bill.

2) Establish in the state government the task force consisting of the following members:

1. Three representatives of unions representing proprietary employees at refineries, as defined, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) Process Safety Management (PSM) Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
2. Three representatives of unions representing building trades whose members serve as contractors at refineries, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
3. Three representatives of refinery employers appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
4. Three representatives of nongovernmental organizations whose mission relates to the well-being of workers and refinery communities, one each appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
5. Two members of the public with expertise in refinery process safety, to be appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
6. Require all members to be appointed and begin serving on the task force no later than January 1, 2028.
7. Require the task force to do all of the following:
   1. Select one of its members to be its chair.
   2. Have all of its responsibilities, powers, and duties set forth herein.
   3. Consult with, and may utilize, the staff of the DIR PSM Unit.
8. State that the purpose of the task force is to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.
9. Require, no later than June 1, 2029, the task force to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, including, without limitation, any of the following:
   1. Extended severance periods.
   2. Paid job training.
   3. Extended job placement assistance.
   4. Priority transfer to other refineries.
   5. Financial and logistical assistance.
10. Provide that the recommendations of the task force may be considered in collective bargaining but are not binding.
11. State that the above provisions become inoperative on July 1, 2029, and, as of January 1, 2030, are repealed.

COMMENTS

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the state had about 100,000 workers in the fossil fuel industry in 2025. Refineries, however, have been closing across the country and California has experienced a number of closures in just the last five years. First, "the Marathon refinery in Contra Costa County [closed] in 2020, which put hundreds of people out of work before the plant converted to renewable fuels with a fraction of the former workforce. Then Phillips 66 began shifting one of its Contra Costa County refineries to renewables and closed an affiliated plant on the Central Coast.^[1]" Just last April, workers at the Marathon facility went on strike over safety concerns and understaffing and are currently locked out of work.

In the 2022 Budget Act, California allocated $30 million to help displaced oil and gas workers gain reemployment through a pilot program. Targeted regions for the assistance have been Kern County, Contra Costa County, and Los Angeles County. To date, approximately 518 individuals have been served with the goal of helping over 1,700 individuals' total. Overall, about 27.7 million dollars has been awarded and of that, 4.8 million dollars has been spent by the awardees.

According to the Author

According to the author, "When California refineries begin procedures to close or enter long-term idling, employees are often laid off or leave to seek new opportunities. While understandable, these staffing shortages result in health and safety risks to both refinery employees and the surrounding communities.

AB 605 addresses this issue by establishing a 14-member Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop and publish potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries and addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.

AB 605 takes a proactive approach to protecting worker and community safety by establishing a task force to promote safe staffing and ensure employees are safely operating and maintaining highly hazardous processes."

Arguments in Support

California Labor for Climate Jobs and United Steelworkers Local 675 are in support and state, "Refineries handle volatile and highly hazardous substances where mistakes can have catastrophic consequences. California's refinery safety framework – including the Process Safety Management standard and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program – recognizes that organizational changes can affect safety. However, existing regulations do not explicitly address the unique risks created during refinery closure or long-term idling, nor do they require employers to proactively plan for the staffing challenges that accompany these transitions...

Importantly, AB 605 creates a balanced Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, and community organizations to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and those most affected by refinery incidents."

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of business groups, including the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, are opposed and state, "The bill inserts a new government task force into matters that are already addressed through collective bargaining, employer workforce planning, and established workforce development programs. This duplicative approach risks creating conflicting requirements and further complicating workforce decisions at a time when refinery operators are already facing unprecedented economic and regulatory pressure."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, "DIR would potentially incur costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to convene the Task Force."

VOTES

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 15-0-1

YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, Ransom, Rogers, Ward

ABS, ABST OR NV: Papan

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 14-0-0

YES: Bryan, Alanis, Connolly, Ellis, Flora, Garcia, Haney, Hoover, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Schultz, Wicks, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-1

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Celeste Rodriguez

SENATE FLOOR: 29-11-0

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

ASM LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT: 4-2-1

YES: Ortega, Kalra, Lee, Ward

NO: Alanis, Chen

ABS, ABST OR NV: Elhawary

UPDATED

VERSION: August 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Megan Lane / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0004503

1. CalMatters, "Oil refinery closures leave workers searching for a job that 'just doesn't exist." October 8, 2025. ↑

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 605

Author:(Muratsuchi)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes in the state government the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (task force) consisting of employee representatives, employer representatives, representatives from organizations committed to worker and community safety, and public members. Requires the task force, by June 1, 2029, to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report with a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention prior to refinery closures.

Senate Amendments

1. Delete the prior version of the bill.
2. Establish in the state government the task force consisting of the following members:
   1. Three representatives of unions representing proprietary employees at refineries, as defined, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) Process Safety Management (PSM) Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
   2. Three representatives of unions representing building trades whose members serve as contractors at refineries, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
   3. Three representatives of refinery employers appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
   4. Three representatives of nongovernmental organizations whose mission relates to the well-being of workers and refinery communities, one each appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
   5. Two members of the public with expertise in refinery process safety, to be appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
3. Require all members to be appointed and begin serving on the task force no later than January 1, 2028.
4. Require the task force to do all of the following:
   1. Select one of its members to be its chair.
   2. Have all of its responsibilities, powers, and duties set forth herein.
   3. Consult with, and may utilize, the staff of the DIR PSM Unit.
5. State that the purpose of the task force is to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.
6. Require, no later than June 1, 2029, the task force to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, including, without limitation, any of the following:
7. Extended severance periods.
8. Paid job training.
9. Extended job placement assistance.
10. Priority transfer to other refineries.
11. Financial and logistical assistance.
12. Provide that the recommendations of the task force may be considered in collective bargaining but are not binding.
13. State that the above provisions become inoperative on July 1, 2029, and, as of January 1, 2030, are repealed.

COMMENTS

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the state had about 100,000 workers in the fossil fuel industry in 2025. Refineries, however, have been closing across the country and California has experienced a number of closures in just the last five years. First, "the Marathon refinery in Contra Costa County [closed] in 2020, which put hundreds of people out of work before the plant converted to renewable fuels with a fraction of the former workforce. Then Phillips 66 began shifting one of its Contra Costa County refineries to renewables and closed an affiliated plant on the Central Coast.^[1]" Just last April, workers at the Marathon facility went on strike over safety concerns and understaffing and are currently locked out of work.

In the 2022 Budget Act, California allocated $30 million to help displaced oil and gas workers gain reemployment through a pilot program. Targeted regions for the assistance have been Kern County, Contra Costa County, and Los Angeles County. To date, approximately 518 individuals have been served with the goal of helping over 1,700 individuals' total. Overall, about 27.7 million dollars has been awarded and of that, 4.8 million dollars has been spent by the awardees.

According to the Author

According to the author, "When California refineries begin procedures to close or enter long-term idling, employees are often laid off or leave to seek new opportunities. While understandable, these staffing shortages result in health and safety risks to both refinery employees and the surrounding communities.

AB 605 addresses this issue by establishing a 14-member Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop and publish potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries and addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.

AB 605 takes a proactive approach to protecting worker and community safety by establishing a task force to promote safe staffing and ensure employees are safely operating and maintaining highly hazardous processes."

Arguments in Support

California Labor for Climate Jobs and United Steelworkers Local 675 are in support and state, "Refineries handle volatile and highly hazardous substances where mistakes can have catastrophic consequences. California's refinery safety framework – including the Process Safety Management standard and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program – recognizes that organizational changes can affect safety. However, existing regulations do not explicitly address the unique risks created during refinery closure or long-term idling, nor do they require employers to proactively plan for the staffing challenges that accompany these transitions...

Importantly, AB 605 creates a balanced Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, and community organizations to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and those most affected by refinery incidents."

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of business groups, including the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, are opposed and state, "The bill inserts a new government task force into matters that are already addressed through collective bargaining, employer workforce planning, and established workforce development programs. This duplicative approach risks creating conflicting requirements and further complicating workforce decisions at a time when refinery operators are already facing unprecedented economic and regulatory pressure."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, "DIR would potentially incur costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to convene the Task Force."

VOTES:

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 15-0-1

YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, Ransom, Rogers, Ward

ABS, ABST OR NV: Papan

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 14-0-0

YES: Bryan, Alanis, Connolly, Ellis, Flora, Garcia, Haney, Hoover, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Schultz, Wicks, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-1

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Celeste Rodriguez

UPDATED

VERSION: August 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Megan Lane / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0004436

1. CalMatters, "Oil refinery closures leave workers searching for a job that 'just doesn't exist." October 8, 2025. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 605

Author: Muratsuchi (D)

Amended: 8/21/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/24/26

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Cortese, Durazo, Laird

NOES: Strickland

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 7/1/26

AYES: Blakespear, Allen, Gonzalez, Menjivar

NOES: Valladares, Dahle

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/4/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Employment: refineries: task force

SOURCE: United Steelworkers District 12

DIGEST:

This bill establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries, as specified.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/21/26 1) shift two of the fourteen appointments on the Task Force from legislative to gubernatorial appointments, specifically the amendments task the Governor with appointing all three refinery employer representatives; and 2) provide that the Task Force’s recommendations may be considered in collective bargaining but are not binding.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, under the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, an employer to:
2. Furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful.
3. Furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, as well as adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and processes that are reasonably adequate to render employment and the place of employment safe and healthful.
4. Do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of employees.(Labor Code §6300 et seq.)
5. Establishes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to, among other things, propose, administer, and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (Labor Code §6300 et seq.)
6. Directs the Standards Board and Cal/OSHA, in accordance with the California Refinery and Health Standards Board Act of 1990, to promote worker safety through implementation of training and process safety management (PSM) practices in refineries and chemical plants and other facilities deemed appropriate. (Labor Code §7852(a))
7. Defines “refinery” as an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. (Labor Code §7853(c))
8. Defines “process safety management” as the application of management programs, which are not limited to engineering guidelines, when dealing with the risks associated with handling or working near hazardous chemicals. PSM is intended to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of acutely hazardous, flammable, or explosive chemicals. (Labor Code §7853(b))

This bill:

1. Establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) consisting of the following members:
2. Three representatives of unions representing proprietary employees at refineries, as specified, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
3. Three representatives of unions representing building trades whose members serve as contractors at refineries, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
4. Three representatives of refinery employers appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
5. Three representatives of nongovernmental organizations whose mission relates to the well-being of workers and refinery communities, one each appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
6. Two members of the public with expertise in refinery process safety, to be appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
7. Requires all members of the Task Force to be appointed and begin serving no later than January 1, 2028.
8. Provides that the members of the Task Force shall serve without compensation, except that they shall receive, upon appropriation of funds for this purpose, their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, including traveling expenses.
9. Requires the Task Force to select one of its members to be its chair. Provides that the Task Force shall have all of the responsibilities, powers, and duties set forth in these provisions.
10. Provides that the Task Force shall consult with, and may utilize, the staff of the DIR PSM Unit.
11. Provides that the purpose of the Task Force shall be to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.
12. Requires, no later than June 1, 2029, the Task Force to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, including, without limitation, any of the following:
13. Extended severance periods.
14. Paid job training.
15. Extended job placement assistance.
16. Priority transfer to other refineries.
17. Financial and logistical assistance.
18. Requires the report in 7) to consider a wide range of methods and strategies for ensuring safe operation in the event of understaffing and include potential methods and strategies for transitioning oil and gas workers into sectors that match their skills and experience.
19. Provides that the recommendations of the Task Force may be considered in collective bargaining but are not binding.
20. Provides that the above provisions shall be inoperative on July 1, 2029, and shall be repealed as of January 1, 2030.
21. Makes various findings and declarations related to California’s refinery industry and refinery workers.

Background

Refinery Safety. The PSM Unit within Cal/OSHA is responsible for inspecting

refineries and chemical plants that handle large quantities of toxic and flammable

materials. Generally, refinery safety rules are built around the concept of process

safety, which requires refineries to identify and fix hazards before accidents occur

and involve workers directly in investigations when they do. The first safety

standard enforced by the PSM Unit was adopted in 1990 under the California

Refinery and Health Act and was substantially similar to the federal one.

Following a 2012 chemical release and fire at the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Refinery in

Richmond, however Cal/OSHA and the Legislature moved to strengthen safety

standards. An interagency working group, consisting of Cal/OSHA, CalEPA, and

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, identified serious

concerns with Chevron’s PSM procedures and expressed the need for stronger

preventative safeguards. On May 18, 2017, the Standards Board unanimously

adopted an updated PSM standard that requires refinery employers to conduct

damage mechanism reviews, apply rigorous safeguard protection analyses,

integrate human factors and culture assessments into safety planning, involve

front-line employees in decision-making, and perform comprehensive process

hazard analyses.

Specifically, refinery employers are required to include an analysis of human factors, where relevant, in major changes, incident investigations, process hazard analyses, and management of organizational change (MOOC) assessments. Human factor analysis must evaluate the following: staffing levels; the complexity of tasks; the length of time needed to complete tasks; the level of training, experience and expertise of employees; the human-machine and human-system interface; the physical challenges of the work environment in which the task is performed; employee fatigue and other effects of shiftwork and overtime; communication systems; and the understandability and clarity of operating and maintenance procedures. Before an employer can reduce staffing levels or change shift duration, they must conduct a MOOC assessment. The MOOC assessment is required for changes with a duration exceeding 90 calendar days affecting operations, engineering, maintenance, health and safety, or emergency response. All MOOC assessments must include an analysis of human factors.

In 2024, the Legislature expanded the definition of “refinery” to include an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. The current PSM standard covers approximately 1,500 facilities in the state that handle or process certain hazardous chemicals, including 11 refineries which produce approximately two million barrels of crude oil per day into gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and chemical feedstocks.^[1]

Ongoing Changes to the PSM Standard. In 2019, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) filed two lawsuits regarding the 2017 PSM safety standard (CCR §5789.1).^[2] In a complaint filed in Sacramento Superior Court, WSPA alleged that the standard 1) did not meet requirements under the California Administrative Procedure Act; 2) was invalid; 3) was unenforceable because it was inconsistent with governing statues; and 4) was neither reasonably necessary nor sufficiently clear.^[3] Additionally, in a complaint filed in the Eastern District of California, WSPA alleged that the standard was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.^[4]

As part of a 2024 settlement to resolve these lawsuits, Cal/OSHA and the Standards board agreed to engage in rulemaking to amend the PSM safety standard to address WSPA’s concerns. Specifically, Cal/OSHA agreed to propose and to support amendments to the PSM standard that would:

• Amend and clarify the definitions of highly hazardous material, major change, and employee representative;
• Amend and clarify the requirements pertaining to the Hierarchy of Hazard Control Analysis; and
• Amend and clarify, with respect to employee participation in PSM activities, how employers will allow for effective participation by employees engaged in such activities.

The revised standard must be adopted in accordance with the California Administrative Procedure Act. On November 28, 2025, the Standards Board published its notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the PSM standard. The first public hearing was held on January 15, 2026. The Standards Board is in the process of soliciting and responding to stakeholder feedback. It’s unclear when the updated PSM standard will be adopted by the Standards Board and filed with the Secretary of State.

Over the last several years, California has experienced a wave of petroleum refinery closures and conversions. In turn, the in-state refining sector has significantly consolidated, with in-state refining capacity declining since at least 1982.^[5] California’s remaining refineries are located primarily in populated urban areas, including four in Los Angeles County and three in the Bay Area. Several of these refineries were built over one hundred years ago.^[6]

This bill. This bill establishes the Task Force to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries. The Task Force would, no later than June 1, 2029, present to the Legislature, and make available online, a report documenting its findings.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 966 (Gonzalez, 2026) would codify specified provisions of Cal/OSHA’s PSM safety standard related to employee participation in PSM activities. Specifically, the bill would require an employer, in consultation with employees and employee representatives, to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan providing for employee participation in all PSM elements, as specified. The bill is pending on the Assembly Floor.

AB 2157 (Connolly, 2026) would remove the July 1, 2027, sunset date for the Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Pilot Program, making the program permanent. The bill is pending on the Senate Floor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

“DIR would potentially incur costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to convene the Task Force.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/26)

United Steelworkers District 12 (Source)

California Labor for Climate Jobs

The Climate Center

United Steelworkers Local 675

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/26)

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Coastal Energy Alliance

Colab Ventura County

Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce

Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce

Harbor Association of Industry and Commerce

Industrial Environmental Association

Inland Empire Economic Partnership

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles County Business Federation

Moorpark Chamber of Commerce

Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce

Sage

Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Advocacy Center

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

Tri County Chamber Alliance

Vica

Western States Petroleum Association

Wilmington Chamber of Commerce

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the United Steelworkers District 12:

“AB 605 also creates a Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, regulators, and community stakeholders to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will help ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and by those most affected by refinery incidents…

“AB 605 also creates a Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, regulators, and community stakeholders to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will help ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and by those most affected by refinery incidents.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to a coalition of opponents, including the Western States Petroleum Association:

“AB 605 Creates More Uncertainty for California’s Remaining Refineries

California’s refining industry is under unprecedented pressure, with refinery closures and production reductions already limiting in-state fuel production. AB 605 adds new mandates and uncertainty when the Legislature should be focused on preserving refining capacity and reliable, affordable fuel supplies.

“AB 605 Creates a Politically Appointed Task Force

The task force would address severance, job training, placement, worker assistance, refinery transfers, and strategies for transitioning oil and gas employees into other industries issues traditionally addressed through collective bargaining, employer workforce planning, and existing workforce programs. Creating a politically appointed body to direct these workforce decisions adds unnecessary government involvement and uncertainty for employers and workers…

“AB 605 Undermines Existing Workforce and Labor Processes

The bill inserts a new government task force into matters that are already addressed through collective bargaining, employer workforce planning, and established workforce development programs. This duplicative approach risks creating conflicting requirements and further complicating workforce decisions at a time when refinery operators are already facing unprecedented economic and regulatory pressure.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/4/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Emma Bruce / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

8/24/26 11:02:19

**** END ****

1. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Refineries. “Initial Statement of Reasons” 2025. ↑

2. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Facilities. “Notice/Informative Digest” 2025. ↑

3. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and California Environmental Protection Agency (Sacramento Super. Ct., Case No. 34-2019-00260210). ↑

4. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health

   Standards Board, et al. (E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:19-cv-1270) ↑

5. Hersbach, Thomas J.P. “The Writing on the Wall: Why California Refineries are Closing.” Stanford Climate & Energy Policy Program. February 11, 2026. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 605

Author: Muratsuchi (D)

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/24/26

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Cortese, Durazo, Laird

NOES: Strickland

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 7/1/26

AYES: Blakespear, Allen, Gonzalez, Menjivar

NOES: Valladares, Dahle

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/4/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Employment: refineries: task force

SOURCE: United Steelworkers District 12

DIGEST:

This bill establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, under the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, an employer to:
2. Furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful.
3. Furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, as well as adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and processes that are reasonably adequate to render employment and the place of employment safe and healthful.
4. Do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of employees.

(Labor Code §6300 et seq.)

1. Establishes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to, among other things, propose, administer, and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (Labor Code §6300 et seq.)
2. Directs the Standards Board and Cal/OSHA, in accordance with the California Refinery and Health Standards Board Act of 1990, to promote worker safety through implementation of training and process safety management (PSM) practices in refineries and chemical plants and other facilities deemed appropriate. (Labor Code §7852(a))
3. Defines “refinery” as an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. (Labor Code §7853(c))
4. Defines “process safety management” as the application of management programs, which are not limited to engineering guidelines, when dealing with the risks associated with handling or working near hazardous chemicals. PSM is intended to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of acutely hazardous, flammable, or explosive chemicals. (Labor Code §7853(b))

This bill:

1. Establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) consisting of the following members:
2. Three representatives of unions representing proprietary employees at refineries, as specified, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
3. Three representatives of unions representing building trades whose members serve as contractors at refineries, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
4. Three representatives of refinery employers, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
5. Three representatives of nongovernmental organizations whose mission relates to the well-being of workers and refinery communities, one each appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
6. Two members of the public with expertise in refinery process safety, to be appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
7. Requires all members of the Task Force to be appointed and begin serving no later than January 1, 2028.
8. Provides that the members of the Task Force shall serve without compensation, except that they shall receive, upon appropriation of funds for this purpose, their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, including traveling expenses.
9. Requires the Task Force to select one of its members to be its chair. Provides that the Task Force shall have all of the responsibilities, powers, and duties set forth in these provisions.
10. Provides that the Task Force shall consult with, and may utilize, the staff of the DIR PSM Unit.
11. Provides that the purpose of the Task Force shall be to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.
12. Requires, no later than June 1, 2029, the Task Force to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, including, without limitation, any of the following:
13. Extended severance periods.
14. Paid job training.
15. Extended job placement assistance.
16. Priority transfer to other refineries.
17. Financial and logistical assistance.
18. Requires the report in 7) to consider a wide range of methods and strategies for ensuring safe operation in the event of understaffing and include potential methods and strategies for transitioning oil and gas workers into sectors that match their skills and experience.
19. Makes the provisions that establish the Task Force, 1) through 7) above, inoperative on July 1, 2029, and repeals them as of January 1, 2030.
20. Make various findings and declarations related to California’s refinery industry and refinery workers.

Background

Refinery Safety. The PSM Unit within Cal/OSHA is responsible for inspecting

refineries and chemical plants that handle large quantities of toxic and flammable

materials. Generally, refinery safety rules are built around the concept of process

safety, which requires refineries to identify and fix hazards before accidents occur

and involve workers directly in investigations when they do. The first safety

standard enforced by the PSM Unit was adopted in 1990 under the California

Refinery and Health Act and was substantially similar to the federal one.

Following a 2012 chemical release and fire at the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Refinery in

Richmond, however Cal/OSHA and the Legislature moved to strengthen safety

standards. An interagency working group, consisting of Cal/OSHA, CalEPA, and

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, identified serious

concerns with Chevron’s PSM procedures and expressed the need for stronger

preventative safeguards. On May 18, 2017, the Standards Board unanimously

adopted an updated PSM standard that requires refinery employers to conduct

damage mechanism reviews, apply rigorous safeguard protection analyses,

integrate human factors and culture assessments into safety planning, involve

front-line employees in decision-making, and perform comprehensive process

hazard analyses.

Specifically, refinery employers are required to include an analysis of human factors, where relevant, in major changes, incident investigations, process hazard analyses, and management of organizational change (MOOC) assessments. Human factor analysis must evaluate the following: staffing levels; the complexity of tasks; the length of time needed to complete tasks; the level of training, experience and expertise of employees; the human-machine and human-system interface; the physical challenges of the work environment in which the task is performed; employee fatigue and other effects of shiftwork and overtime; communication systems; and the understandability and clarity of operating and maintenance procedures. Before an employer can reduce staffing levels or change shift duration, they must conduct a MOOC assessment. The MOOC assessment is required for changes with a duration exceeding 90 calendar days affecting operations, engineering, maintenance, health and safety, or emergency response. All MOOC assessments must include an analysis of human factors.

In 2024, the Legislature expanded the definition of “refinery” to include an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. The current PSM standard covers approximately 1,500 facilities in the state that handle or process certain hazardous chemicals, including 11 refineries which produce approximately two million barrels of crude oil per day into gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and chemical feedstocks.^[1]

Ongoing Changes to the PSM Standard. In 2019, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) filed two lawsuits regarding the 2017 PSM safety standard (CCR §5789.1).^[2] In a complaint filed in Sacramento Superior Court, WSPA alleged that the standard 1) did not meet requirements under the California Administrative Procedure Act; 2) was invalid; 3) was unenforceable because it was inconsistent with governing statues; and 4) was neither reasonably necessary nor sufficiently clear.^[3] Additionally, in a complaint filed in the Eastern District of California, WSPA alleged that the standard was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.^[4]

As part of a 2024 settlement to resolve these lawsuits, Cal/OSHA and the Standards board agreed to engage in rulemaking to amend the PSM safety standard to address WSPA’s concerns. Specifically, Cal/OSHA agreed to propose and to support amendments to the PSM standard that would:

• Amend and clarify the definitions of highly hazardous material, major change, and employee representative;
• Amend and clarify the requirements pertaining to the Hierarchy of Hazard Control Analysis; and
• Amend and clarify, with respect to employee participation in PSM activities, how employers will allow for effective participation by employees engaged in such activities.

The revised standard must be adopted in accordance with the California Administrative Procedure Act. On November 28, 2025, the Standards Board published its notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the PSM standard. The first public hearing was held on January 15, 2026. The Standards Board is in the process of soliciting and responding to stakeholder feedback. It’s unclear when the updated PSM standard will be adopted by the Standards Board and filed with the Secretary of State.

Over the last several years, California has experienced a wave of petroleum refinery closures and conversions. In turn, the in-state refining sector has significantly consolidated, with in-state refining capacity declining since at least 1982.^[5] California’s remaining refineries are located primarily in populated urban areas, including four in Los Angeles County and three in the Bay Area. Several of these refineries were built over one hundred years ago.^[6]

This bill. AB 605 establishes the Task Force to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries. The Task Force would, no later than June 1, 2029, present to the Legislature, and make available online, a report documenting its findings.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 966 (Gonzalez, 2026) would codify specified provisions of Cal/OSHA’s PSM safety standard related to employee participation in PSM activities. Specifically, the bill would require an employer, in consultation with employees and employee representatives, to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan providing for employee participation in all PSM elements, as specified. This bill is pending on the Assembly Floor.

AB 2157 (Connolly, 2026) would remove the July 1, 2027, sunset date for the Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Pilot Program, making the program permanent. This bill is pending on the Senate Floor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

“DIR would potentially incur costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to convene the Task Force.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/26)

United Steelworkers District 12 (Source)

California Labor for Climate Jobs

The Climate Center

United Steelworkers Local 675

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/26)

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Coastal Energy Alliance

Colab Ventura County

Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce

Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce

Harbor Association of Industry and Commerce

Industrial Environmental Association

Inland Empire Economic Partnership

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles County Business Federation

Moorpark Chamber of Commerce

Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce

Sage

Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Advocacy Center

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

Tri County Chamber Alliance

Vica

Western States Petroleum Association

Wilmington Chamber of Commerce

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the United Steelworkers District 12:

“AB 605 also creates a Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, regulators, and community stakeholders to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will help ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and by those most affected by refinery incidents…

AB 605 also creates a Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, regulators, and community stakeholders to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will help ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and by those most affected by refinery incidents.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Western States Petroleum Association:

“California is already facing a fuel supply crisis of its own making. The state continues to lose refining capacity while demand for transportation fuels remains significant, yet policymakers continue to pile on new mandates, new costs, and new uncertainty for the few remaining refiners still willing to operate here. AB 605 moves California further in the wrong direction by making an already hostile business environment even more punitive and unstable.

AB 605 is not a targeted safety measure. It is a duplicative, burdensome, and highly politicized proposal that layers new regulatory requirements and labor mandates on top of refinery closure and idling decisions that are already heavily regulated under existing state and federal law.”

*The letters cited above reference an earlier version of AB 605, which directed the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to adopt regulations that require all refineries to develop safe staffing management plans.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/4/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Emma Bruce / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

8/19/26 9:59:36

**** END ****

1. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Refineries. “Initial Statement of Reasons” 2025. ↑

2. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Facilities. “Notice/Informative Digest” 2025. ↑

3. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and California Environmental Protection Agency (Sacramento Super. Ct., Case No. 34-2019-00260210). ↑

4. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health

   Standards Board, et al. (E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:19-cv-1270) ↑

5. Hersbach, Thomas J.P. “The Writing on the Wall: Why California Refineries are Closing.” Stanford Climate & Energy Policy Program. February 11, 2026. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 605

Author: Muratsuchi (D)

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/24/26

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Cortese, Durazo, Laird

NOES: Strickland

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 7/1/26

AYES: Blakespear, Allen, Gonzalez, Menjivar

NOES: Valladares, Dahle

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/4/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Employment: refineries: task force

SOURCE: United Steelworkers District 12

DIGEST:

This bill establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, under the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, an employer to:
2. Furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful.
3. Furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, as well as adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and processes that are reasonably adequate to render employment and the place of employment safe and healthful.
4. Do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of employees.

(Labor Code §6300 et seq.)

1. Establishes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to, among other things, propose, administer, and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (Labor Code §6300 et seq.)
2. Directs the Standards Board and Cal/OSHA, in accordance with the California Refinery and Health Standards Board Act of 1990, to promote worker safety through implementation of training and process safety management (PSM) practices in refineries and chemical plants and other facilities deemed appropriate. (Labor Code §7852(a))
3. Defines “refinery” as an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. (Labor Code §7853(c))
4. Defines “process safety management” as the application of management programs, which are not limited to engineering guidelines, when dealing with the risks associated with handling or working near hazardous chemicals. PSM is intended to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of acutely hazardous, flammable, or explosive chemicals. (Labor Code §7853(b))

This bill:

1. Establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) consisting of the following members:
2. Three representatives of unions representing proprietary employees at refineries, as specified, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
3. Three representatives of unions representing building trades whose members serve as contractors at refineries, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
4. Three representatives of refinery employers, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
5. Three representatives of nongovernmental organizations whose mission relates to the well-being of workers and refinery communities, one each appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
6. Two members of the public with expertise in refinery process safety, to be appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
7. Requires all members of the Task Force to be appointed and begin serving no later than January 1, 2028.
8. Provides that the members of the Task Force shall serve without compensation, except that they shall receive, upon appropriation of funds for this purpose, their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, including traveling expenses.
9. Requires the Task Force to select one of its members to be its chair. Provides that the Task Force shall have all of the responsibilities, powers, and duties set forth in these provisions.
10. Provides that the Task Force shall consult with, and may utilize, the staff of the DIR PSM Unit.
11. Provides that the purpose of the Task Force shall be to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.
12. Requires, no later than June 1, 2029, the Task Force to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, including, without limitation, any of the following:
13. Extended severance periods.
14. Paid job training.
15. Extended job placement assistance.
16. Priority transfer to other refineries.
17. Financial and logistical assistance.
18. Requires the report in 7) to consider a wide range of methods and strategies for ensuring safe operation in the event of understaffing and include potential methods and strategies for transitioning oil and gas workers into sectors that match their skills and experience.
19. Makes the provisions that establish the Task Force, 1) through 7) above, inoperative on July 1, 2029, and repeals them as of January 1, 2030.
20. Make various findings and declarations related to California’s refinery industry and refinery workers.

Background

Refinery Safety. The PSM Unit within Cal/OSHA is responsible for inspecting

refineries and chemical plants that handle large quantities of toxic and flammable

materials. Generally, refinery safety rules are built around the concept of process

safety, which requires refineries to identify and fix hazards before accidents occur

and involve workers directly in investigations when they do. The first safety

standard enforced by the PSM Unit was adopted in 1990 under the California

Refinery and Health Act and was substantially similar to the federal one.

Following a 2012 chemical release and fire at the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Refinery in

Richmond, however Cal/OSHA and the Legislature moved to strengthen safety

standards. An interagency working group, consisting of Cal/OSHA, CalEPA, and

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, identified serious

concerns with Chevron’s PSM procedures and expressed the need for stronger

preventative safeguards. On May 18, 2017, the Standards Board unanimously

adopted an updated PSM standard that requires refinery employers to conduct

damage mechanism reviews, apply rigorous safeguard protection analyses,

integrate human factors and culture assessments into safety planning, involve

front-line employees in decision-making, and perform comprehensive process

hazard analyses.

Specifically, refinery employers are required to include an analysis of human factors, where relevant, in major changes, incident investigations, process hazard analyses, and management of organizational change (MOOC) assessments. Human factor analysis must evaluate the following: staffing levels; the complexity of tasks; the length of time needed to complete tasks; the level of training, experience and expertise of employees; the human-machine and human-system interface; the physical challenges of the work environment in which the task is performed; employee fatigue and other effects of shiftwork and overtime; communication systems; and the understandability and clarity of operating and maintenance procedures. Before an employer can reduce staffing levels or change shift duration, they must conduct a MOOC assessment. The MOOC assessment is required for changes with a duration exceeding 90 calendar days affecting operations, engineering, maintenance, health and safety, or emergency response. All MOOC assessments must include an analysis of human factors.

In 2024, the Legislature expanded the definition of “refinery” to include an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. The current PSM standard covers approximately 1,500 facilities in the state that handle or process certain hazardous chemicals, including 11 refineries which produce approximately two million barrels of crude oil per day into gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and chemical feedstocks.^[1]

Ongoing Changes to the PSM Standard. In 2019, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) filed two lawsuits regarding the 2017 PSM safety standard (CCR §5789.1).^[2] In a complaint filed in Sacramento Superior Court, WSPA alleged that the standard 1) did not meet requirements under the California Administrative Procedure Act; 2) was invalid; 3) was unenforceable because it was inconsistent with governing statues; and 4) was neither reasonably necessary nor sufficiently clear.^[3] Additionally, in a complaint filed in the Eastern District of California, WSPA alleged that the standard was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.^[4]

As part of a 2024 settlement to resolve these lawsuits, Cal/OSHA and the Standards board agreed to engage in rulemaking to amend the PSM safety standard to address WSPA’s concerns. Specifically, Cal/OSHA agreed to propose and to support amendments to the PSM standard that would:

• Amend and clarify the definitions of highly hazardous material, major change, and employee representative;
• Amend and clarify the requirements pertaining to the Hierarchy of Hazard Control Analysis; and
• Amend and clarify, with respect to employee participation in PSM activities, how employers will allow for effective participation by employees engaged in such activities.

The revised standard must be adopted in accordance with the California Administrative Procedure Act. On November 28, 2025, the Standards Board published its notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the PSM standard. The first public hearing was held on January 15, 2026. The Standards Board is in the process of soliciting and responding to stakeholder feedback. It’s unclear when the updated PSM standard will be adopted by the Standards Board and filed with the Secretary of State.

Over the last several years, California has experienced a wave of petroleum refinery closures and conversions. In turn, the in-state refining sector has significantly consolidated, with in-state refining capacity declining since at least 1982.^[5] California’s remaining refineries are located primarily in populated urban areas, including four in Los Angeles County and three in the Bay Area. Several of these refineries were built over one hundred years ago.^[6]

This bill. AB 605 establishes the Task Force to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries. The Task Force would, no later than June 1, 2029, present to the Legislature, and make available online, a report documenting its findings.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 966 (Gonzalez, 2026) would codify specified provisions of Cal/OSHA’s PSM safety standard related to employee participation in PSM activities. Specifically, the bill would require an employer, in consultation with employees and employee representatives, to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan providing for employee participation in all PSM elements, as specified. This bill is pending on the Assembly Floor.

AB 2157 (Connolly, 2026) would remove the July 1, 2027, sunset date for the Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Pilot Program, making the program permanent. This bill is pending on the Senate Floor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

“DIR would potentially incur costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to convene the Task Force.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)

United Steelworkers District 12 (Source)

California Labor for Climate Jobs

The Climate Center

United Steelworkers Local 675

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)

Western States Petroleum Association

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the United Steelworkers District 12:

“AB 605 also creates a Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, regulators, and community stakeholders to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will help ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and by those most affected by refinery incidents…

AB 605 also creates a Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, regulators, and community stakeholders to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will help ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and by those most affected by refinery incidents.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Western States Petroleum Association:

“California is already facing a fuel supply crisis of its own making. The state continues to lose refining capacity while demand for transportation fuels remains significant, yet policymakers continue to pile on new mandates, new costs, and new uncertainty for the few remaining refiners still willing to operate here. AB 605 moves California further in the wrong direction by making an already hostile business environment even more punitive and unstable.

AB 605 is not a targeted safety measure. It is a duplicative, burdensome, and highly politicized proposal that layers new regulatory requirements and labor mandates on top of refinery closure and idling decisions that are already heavily regulated under existing state and federal law.”

*The letters cited above reference an earlier version of AB 605, which directed the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to adopt regulations that require all refineries to develop safe staffing management plans.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/4/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Emma Bruce / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

8/18/26 15:58:55

**** END ****

1. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Refineries. “Initial Statement of Reasons” 2025. ↑

2. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Facilities. “Notice/Informative Digest” 2025. ↑

3. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and California Environmental Protection Agency (Sacramento Super. Ct., Case No. 34-2019-00260210). ↑

4. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health

   Standards Board, et al. (E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:19-cv-1270) ↑

5. Hersbach, Thomas J.P. “The Writing on the Wall: Why California Refineries are Closing.” Stanford Climate & Energy Policy Program. February 11, 2026. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 605

Author: Muratsuchi (D)

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/24/26

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Cortese, Durazo, Laird

NOES: Strickland

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 7/1/26

AYES: Blakespear, Allen, Gonzalez, Menjivar

NOES: Valladares, Dahle

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/4/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Employment: refineries: task force

SOURCE: United Steelworkers District 12

DIGEST:

This bill establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, under the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, an employer to:
2. Furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful.
3. Furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, as well as adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and processes that are reasonably adequate to render employment and the place of employment safe and healthful.
4. Do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of employees.

(Labor Code §6300 et seq.)

1. Establishes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to, among other things, propose, administer, and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (Labor Code §6300 et seq.)
2. Directs the Standards Board and Cal/OSHA, in accordance with the California Refinery and Health Standards Board Act of 1990, to promote worker safety through implementation of training and process safety management (PSM) practices in refineries and chemical plants and other facilities deemed appropriate. (Labor Code §7852(a))
3. Defines “refinery” as an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. (Labor Code §7853(c))
4. Defines “process safety management” as the application of management programs, which are not limited to engineering guidelines, when dealing with the risks associated with handling or working near hazardous chemicals. PSM is intended to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of acutely hazardous, flammable, or explosive chemicals. (Labor Code §7853(b))

This bill:

1. Establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) consisting of the following members:
2. Three representatives of unions representing proprietary employees at refineries, as specified, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
3. Three representatives of unions representing building trades whose members serve as contractors at refineries, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
4. Three representatives of refinery employers, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
5. Three representatives of nongovernmental organizations whose mission relates to the well-being of workers and refinery communities, one each appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
6. Two members of the public with expertise in refinery process safety, to be appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
7. Requires all members of the Task Force to be appointed and begin serving no later than January 1, 2028.
8. Provides that the members of the Task Force shall serve without compensation, except that they shall receive, upon appropriation of funds for this purpose, their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, including traveling expenses.
9. Requires the Task Force to select one of its members to be its chair. Provides that the Task Force shall have all of the responsibilities, powers, and duties set forth in these provisions.
10. Provides that the Task Force shall consult with, and may utilize, the staff of the DIR PSM Unit.
11. Provides that the purpose of the Task Force shall be to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries.
12. Requires, no later than June 1, 2029, the Task Force to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, a report documenting a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, including, without limitation, any of the following:
13. Extended severance periods.
14. Paid job training.
15. Extended job placement assistance.
16. Priority transfer to other refineries.
17. Financial and logistical assistance.
18. Requires the report in 7) to consider a wide range of methods and strategies for ensuring safe operation in the event of understaffing and include potential methods and strategies for transitioning oil and gas workers into sectors that match their skills and experience.
19. Makes the provisions that establish the Task Force, 1) through 7) above, inoperative on July 1, 2029, and repeals them as of January 1, 2030.
20. Make various findings and declarations related to California’s refinery industry and refinery workers.

Background

Refinery Safety. The PSM Unit within Cal/OSHA is responsible for inspecting

refineries and chemical plants that handle large quantities of toxic and flammable

materials. Generally, refinery safety rules are built around the concept of process

safety, which requires refineries to identify and fix hazards before accidents occur

and involve workers directly in investigations when they do. The first safety

standard enforced by the PSM Unit was adopted in 1990 under the California

Refinery and Health Act and was substantially similar to the federal one.

Following a 2012 chemical release and fire at the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Refinery in

Richmond, however Cal/OSHA and the Legislature moved to strengthen safety

standards. An interagency working group, consisting of Cal/OSHA, CalEPA, and

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, identified serious

concerns with Chevron’s PSM procedures and expressed the need for stronger

preventative safeguards. On May 18, 2017, the Standards Board unanimously

adopted an updated PSM standard that requires refinery employers to conduct

damage mechanism reviews, apply rigorous safeguard protection analyses,

integrate human factors and culture assessments into safety planning, involve

front-line employees in decision-making, and perform comprehensive process

hazard analyses.

Specifically, refinery employers are required to include an analysis of human factors, where relevant, in major changes, incident investigations, process hazard analyses, and management of organizational change (MOOC) assessments. Human factor analysis must evaluate the following: staffing levels; the complexity of tasks; the length of time needed to complete tasks; the level of training, experience and expertise of employees; the human-machine and human-system interface; the physical challenges of the work environment in which the task is performed; employee fatigue and other effects of shiftwork and overtime; communication systems; and the understandability and clarity of operating and maintenance procedures. Before an employer can reduce staffing levels or change shift duration, they must conduct a MOOC assessment. The MOOC assessment is required for changes with a duration exceeding 90 calendar days affecting operations, engineering, maintenance, health and safety, or emergency response. All MOOC assessments must include an analysis of human factors.

In 2024, the Legislature expanded the definition of “refinery” to include an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. The current PSM standard covers approximately 1,500 facilities in the state that handle or process certain hazardous chemicals, including 11 refineries which produce approximately two million barrels of crude oil per day into gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and chemical feedstocks.^[1]

Ongoing Changes to the PSM Standard. In 2019, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) filed two lawsuits regarding the 2017 PSM safety standard (CCR §5789.1).^[2] In a complaint filed in Sacramento Superior Court, WSPA alleged that the standard 1) did not meet requirements under the California Administrative Procedure Act; 2) was invalid; 3) was unenforceable because it was inconsistent with governing statues; and 4) was neither reasonably necessary nor sufficiently clear.^[3] Additionally, in a complaint filed in the Eastern District of California, WSPA alleged that the standard was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.^[4]

As part of a 2024 settlement to resolve these lawsuits, Cal/OSHA and the Standards board agreed to engage in rulemaking to amend the PSM safety standard to address WSPA’s concerns. Specifically, Cal/OSHA agreed to propose and to support amendments to the PSM standard that would:

• Amend and clarify the definitions of highly hazardous material, major change, and employee representative;
• Amend and clarify the requirements pertaining to the Hierarchy of Hazard Control Analysis; and
• Amend and clarify, with respect to employee participation in PSM activities, how employers will allow for effective participation by employees engaged in such activities.

The revised standard must be adopted in accordance with the California Administrative Procedure Act. On November 28, 2025, the Standards Board published its notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the PSM standard. The first public hearing was held on January 15, 2026. The Standards Board is in the process of soliciting and responding to stakeholder feedback. It’s unclear when the updated PSM standard will be adopted by the Standards Board and filed with the Secretary of State.

Over the last several years, California has experienced a wave of petroleum refinery closures and conversions. In turn, the in-state refining sector has significantly consolidated, with in-state refining capacity declining since at least 1982.^[5] California’s remaining refineries are located primarily in populated urban areas, including four in Los Angeles County and three in the Bay Area. Several of these refineries were built over one hundred years ago.^[6]

This bill. AB 605 establishes the Task Force to develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, and for addressing employment dislocations associated with oil, gas, and related industries. The Task Force would, no later than June 1, 2029, present to the Legislature, and make available online, a report documenting its findings.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 966 (Gonzalez, 2026) would codify specified provisions of Cal/OSHA’s PSM safety standard related to employee participation in PSM activities. Specifically, the bill would require an employer, in consultation with employees and employee representatives, to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan providing for employee participation in all PSM elements, as specified. This bill is pending on the Assembly Floor.

AB 2157 (Connolly, 2026) would remove the July 1, 2027, sunset date for the Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Pilot Program, making the program permanent. This bill is pending on the Senate Floor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

“DIR would potentially incur costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to convene the Task Force.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)

United Steelworkers District 12 (Source)

California Labor for Climate Jobs

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

The Climate Center

United Steelworkers Local 675

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)

Western States Petroleum Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the United Steelworkers District 12:

“AB 605 also creates a Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, regulators, and community stakeholders to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will help ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and by those most affected by refinery incidents…

AB 605 also creates a Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, regulators, and community stakeholders to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will help ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and by those most affected by refinery incidents.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Western States Petroleum Association:

“California is already facing a fuel supply crisis of its own making. The state continues to lose refining capacity while demand for transportation fuels remains significant, yet policymakers continue to pile on new mandates, new costs, and new uncertainty for the few remaining refiners still willing to operate here. AB 605 moves California further in the wrong direction by making an already hostile business environment even more punitive and unstable.

AB 605 is not a targeted safety measure. It is a duplicative, burdensome, and highly politicized proposal that layers new regulatory requirements and labor mandates on top of refinery closure and idling decisions that are already heavily regulated under existing state and federal law.”

*The letters cited above reference an earlier version of AB 605, which directed the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to adopt regulations that require all refineries to develop safe staffing management plans.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/4/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Emma Bruce / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

8/15/26 16:03:15

**** END ****

1. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Refineries. “Initial Statement of Reasons” 2025. ↑

2. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Facilities. “Notice/Informative Digest” 2025. ↑

3. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and California Environmental Protection Agency (Sacramento Super. Ct., Case No. 34-2019-00260210). ↑

4. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health

   Standards Board, et al. (E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:19-cv-1270) ↑

5. Hersbach, Thomas J.P. “The Writing on the Wall: Why California Refineries are Closing.” Stanford Climate & Energy Policy Program. February 11, 2026. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 605 (Muratsuchi) - Employment: refineries: task force: safe staffing management plans

Bill Summary:

AB 605 would (1) establish the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries, and (2) direct the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), to adopt regulations that require all refineries to develop safe staffing management plans, as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 13, 2026

Fiscal Impact:

DIR would potentially incur costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to convene the Task Force.

Committee Amendments:

Strike Sections 2 and 3 of the bill.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 605 (Muratsuchi) - Employment: refineries: task force: safe staffing management plans

Bill Summary:

AB 605 would (1) establish the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries, and (2) direct the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), to adopt regulations that require all refineries to develop safe staffing management plans, as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 13, 2026

Fiscal Impact:

DIR would potentially incur costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to convene the Task Force.

Committee Amendments:

Strike Section 2 of the bill.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 605 (Muratsuchi) - Employment: refineries: task force: safe staffing management plans

Bill Summary:

AB 605 would (1) establish the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries, and (2) direct the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), to adopt regulations that require all refineries to develop safe staffing management plans, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• DIR indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $1.8 million to $2.2 million, and $1.7 million to $2.0 million annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill. Additionally, the bill would result in a one-time cost of $100,000 to conduct the Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment as part of the rulemaking project (Occupation Safety and Health Fund).
• CalEPA estimates that the bill would result in one-time and annual costs of $2.5 million to conduct rulemaking and enforcement (General Fund).

Background:

The Process Safety Management (PSM) Unit within Cal/OSHA regulates workplace safety at refineries and other facilities that handle large quantities of hazardous chemicals. California's refinery safety regulations are based on the principle of process safety, which requires employers to identify and address hazards before accidents occur and to involve employees in safety reviews and investigations.

California adopted refinery-specific PSM regulations in 1990 under the California Refinery and Chemical Plant Worker Safety Act, largely mirroring federal standards. Following the 2012 Chevron refinery fire and chemical release in Richmond, an interagency review led by Cal/OSHA, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified shortcomings in Chevron's safety practices and recommended stronger preventive measures. In response, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board) adopted comprehensive revisions to the PSM regulations in 2017.

The revised standards require refinery employers to conduct more rigorous process hazard analyses, including damage mechanism reviews, safeguard protection analyses, and evaluations of human factors and organizational safety culture. Employers must also involve frontline employees in safety reviews and complete management of organizational change (MOOC) assessments before implementing certain operational changes lasting more than 90 days, including staffing reductions or changes to employee schedules.

In 2024, the Legislature expanded the definition of "refinery" to include facilities producing transportation fuels or biofuels from crude oil or alternative feedstocks. The PSM standard now applies to approximately 1,500 facilities statewide that handle hazardous chemicals, including 11 petroleum refineries.

In 2019, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) challenged portions of the 2017 regulations in state and federal court, alleging procedural deficiencies and conflicts with federal labor law. Under a 2024 settlement agreement, Cal/OSHA and the Standards Board agreed to pursue regulatory amendments to clarify selected provisions, including definitions, hazard control requirements, and employee participation standards. The proposed amendments remain in the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process following a public hearing in January 2026.

Despite California's refinery safety standards, enforcement challenges remain. A July 2025 California State Auditor report found that Cal/OSHA relied heavily on correspondence rather than onsite inspections, experienced significant delays in initiating inspections, did not consistently document penalty reductions, and faced a vacancy rate of approximately 32 percent in fiscal year 2023-24. Federal oversight has also diminished following staffing reductions at the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Recent refinery explosions in Martinez and El Segundo in 2025 underscore the continued importance of effective safety oversight.

The Standards Board is responsible for adopting and amending occupational safety and health regulations through the Administrative Procedure Act. The seven-member board, appointed by the Governor, includes representatives from labor, management, occupational safety, occupational health, and the public. The Board must adopt standards at least as effective as federal OSHA requirements while maintaining California-specific protections where appropriate.

CalEPA administers the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, which seeks to prevent accidental releases of hazardous substances and minimize their impacts. Following the 2012 Chevron incident, the state also established the Interagency Refinery Task Force, led by CalEPA and including Cal/OSHA and other federal, state, and local agencies, to coordinate refinery oversight and support implementation of CalARP Program 4 for petroleum refineries.

Proposed Law:

This bill, among other things, would do the following:

• Establish the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force to develop strategies for:
  • Maximizing employee retention during periods preceding refinery closures or long-term idling.
  • Addressing employment dislocations associated with the oil, gas, and related industries.
  • Ensuring safe refinery operations during periods of potential understaffing.
  • Transitioning displaced oil and gas workers into sectors that align with their skills and experience.
• Require the Task Force to:
  • Be appointed and operational by January 1, 2028.
  • Submit a report to the Legislature and make the report publicly available by June 1, 2029, identifying potential methods and strategies related to refinery staffing, safety, and workforce transitions.
  • Sunset on January 1, 2030.
• Require CalEPA to adopt regulations by January 1, 2028, requiring refineries to develop safe staffing management plans to address staffing risks associated with anticipated refinery closures or long-term idling.
• Require refinery safe staffing management plans to:
  • Be periodically updated and revised following announcements of refinery closures or long-term idling.
  • Be subject to public review and comment.
  • Be submitted to CalEPA for approval.
• Require CalEPA to:
  • Conduct inspections and investigations to ensure compliance with approved staffing plans.
  • Enforce violations using available enforcement authority.
  • Publish draft plans, public comments, approved plans, and updates on its website.
• Require Cal/OSHA and the Standards Board to establish similar safe staffing requirements under the California Refinery and Chemical Plant Worker Safety Act of 1990 by:
  • Requiring Cal/OSHA to propose, and the Standards Board to consider, regulations requiring refinery employers to develop safe staffing management plans.
  • Requiring plans to address staffing risks associated with anticipated refinery closures or long-term idling.
  • Requiring plans to be periodically updated and revised following closure or idling announcements.
  • Subjecting plans to public comment and review by Cal/OSHA.
  • Requiring Cal/OSHA to conduct inspections and investigations, enforce compliance, and publish related documents online.

Related Legislation:

• SB 966 (Gonzalez) would codify specified provisions of Cal/OSHA’s PSM safety standard related to employee participation in PSM activities. Specifically, the bill would require an employer, in consultation with employees and employee representatives, to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan providing for employee participation in all PSM elements, as specified. The bill is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
• AB 2157 (Connolly) would remove the July 1, 2027, sunset date for the Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Pilot Program, making the program permanent. This bill is currently pending in this Committee.
• AB 3258 (Bryan, Chapter 978, Statutes of 2024) expanded the scope of the California Refinery and Chemical Plant Worker Safety Act of 1990 by revising the definition of “refinery” and directed the Standards Board to consider for adoption, regulations that implement process safety management standards for the revised definition of refinery, as specified.
• AB 3138 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2018) restructured civil and administrative penalties for CalARP violations.
• SB 1300 (Hancock, Chapter 519, Statutes of 2014) required every petroleum refinery employer to, every September 15, submit to the Cal/OSHA a full schedule for the following calendar year of planned turnarounds, and to inspect, test, and replace process materials and equipment, as specified. The bill also required a petroleum refinery employer, upon the request of Cal/OSHA, to provide onsite access and specified documentation.

Staff Comments:

Any local government costs resulting from the mandate in this measure are not state-reimbursable because the mandate only involves the definition of a crime or the penalty for conviction of a crime.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Blakespear, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 605

SUBJECT: Employment: refineries: task force: safe staffing management plans

DIGEST: This bill establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) to develop standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries and directs the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to adopt regulations that require all refineries to develop safe staffing management plans, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the California Accidental Release Prevention program (CalARP) with the goal of reducing regulated hazardous substances accident risks and eliminating duplication of regulatory programs. CalARP implements the federal risk management program, as provided in the federal Clean Air Act and as promulgated by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, in the state, with certain amendments that are specific to the state. (Health & Safety Code §25531 et seq.)
2. Requires, under the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, an employer to: furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful; furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, as well as adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and processes that are reasonably adequate to render employment and the place of employment safe and healthful; and do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of employees. (Labor Code §6300 et seq.)
3. Establishes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to, among other things, propose, administer, and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (Labor Code §6300 et seq.)
4. Establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board), within DIR, to promote, adopt, and maintain reasonable and enforceable standards that will ensure a safe and healthful workplace for workers. (Labor Code §140-147.6)
5. Directs the Standards Board and Cal/OSHA, in accordance with the California Refinery and Health Standards Board Act of 1990, to promote worker safety through implementation of training and process safety management (PSM) practices in refineries and chemical plants and other facilities deemed appropriate. (Labor Code §7852(a))
6. Defines “refinery” as an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. (Labor Code §7853(c))
7. Defines “process safety management” as the application of management programs, which are not limited to engineering guidelines, when dealing with the risks associated with handling or working near hazardous chemicals. PSM is intended to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of acutely hazardous, flammable, or explosive chemicals. (Labor Code §7853(b))
8. Directs the Standards Board to adopt, by March 31, 2014, process safety management standards for refineries, chemical plants, and other manufacturing facilities, as specified. (Labor Code §7856(a))
9. Directs Cal/OSHA to propose, and the Standards Board to consider for adoption, regulations to implement PSM standards for refineries by January 1, 2026. (Labor Code §7856(b))
   
10. Requires the operator of any refinery in California to report to the California Energy Commission at least twelve months in advance if that refinery operator intends to permanently shut down, shut down to reconfigure, or sell a refinery in a transaction that may result in a refinery shutting down or reconfiguring. (Public Resources Code §25354(p))
    

This bill:

1. Establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) consisting of the following members: Three representatives of unions representing proprietary employees at refineries, as specified, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively; Three representatives of unions representing building trades whose members serve as contractors at refineries, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively; Three representatives of refinery employers, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively; Three representatives of nongovernmental organizations whose mission relates to the well-being of workers and refinery communities, one each appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively; and Two members of the public with expertise in refinery process safety, to be appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
2. Requires all members of the Task Force to be appointed and begin serving no later than January 1, 2028, and prescribes details for its operations, including but not limited to compensation, chairing the Task Force, access to staff, and purpose.
3. Requires the Task Force, no later than June 1, 2029, to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, both of the following:
4. A set of standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries and managing understaffing during, and especially in the time period preceding, an announced or anticipated refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery.
5. A report documenting the facts, analysis, and investigation upon which the standards are based. The report should consider and evaluate the standards and best practices referenced above, including, as appropriate, a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, including, without limitation, extended severance periods, paid job training, extended job placement assistance, priority transfer to other refineries, and financial and logistical assistance; and should further consider a wide range of methods and strategies for ensuring safe operation in the event of understaffing.
6. Makes the provisions that establish the Task Force inoperative on July 1, 2029, and repeals them as of January 1, 2030.
7. Requires CalEPA, by January 1, 2028, to adopt regulations that require all of the following:
8. All refineries, including, without limitation, all facilities subject to the California Accidental Release Prevention Program 4 regulations, shall develop safe staffing management plans, pursuant to a timeline specified by the agency, to address staffing risks associated with anticipated refinery closure or long-term idling. Each plan shall be required to include the maximum amount of reasonably feasible employee retention strategies and procedures to address risks associated with understaffing.
9. Within six months following the Task Force’s presentation to the Legislature on standards and best practices, or by January 1, 2030, whichever is earlier, the plans shall be required to, at minimum, adhere to the standards and best practices, unless the refinery operator presents evidence sufficient to justify deviating from those standards and best practices.
10. Requires CalEPA, following an announcement of closure or long-term idling, and periodically thereafter, to conduct inspections and investigations to ensure implementation of the refinery’s plan and to address noncompliance through all available and necessary enforcement authority.
11. Authorizes CalEPA to, upon a determination of noncompliance with these provisions, issue a citation to the operator of the subject of the refinery. This citation is in addition to existing penalties authorized under the California Accidental Release Prevention program. The citation shall be in writing, describing with particularity the nature of the violation, and fixing a reasonable time for abatement of the alleged violation.
12. Requires Cal/OSHA, by January 1, 2028, to propose, and the Standards Board to consider for adoption, regulations that require all of the following:
13. All refinery employers shall develop safe staffing management plans, pursuant to a timeline specified by the division, to address staffing risks associated with anticipated refinery closure or long-term idling. Each plan shall be required to include the maximum amount of reasonably feasible employee retention strategies and procedures to address risks associated with understaffing.
14. Within six months following the Task Force’s presentation to the Legislature on standards and best practices, or by January 1, 2030, whichever is earlier, the plans shall be required to, at minimum, adhere to the standards and best practices, unless the refinery operator presents evidence sufficient to justify deviating from those standards and best practices.
15. The plans shall be updated periodically and upon announcement of refinery closure or long-term idling pursuant to subdivision (p) Section 25354 of the Public Resources Code, or other applicable law.
16. Requires, following an announcement of closure or long-term idling, and periodically thereafter, Cal/OSHA to conduct inspections and investigations to ensure implementation of the employer’s plan, and to address noncompliance through all available and necessary enforcement authority, including, without limitation, citations.

Background

1. A brief history of refinery safety in California. Generally, refinery safety rules are built around the concept of process safety, which requires refineries to identify and fix hazards before accidents occur and to involve workers directly in investigations when they do. The first safety standard enforced by the PSM Unit was adopted in 1990 under the California Refinery and Health Act and was substantially similar to the federal one.
   
   Following a 2012 chemical release and fire at the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Refinery in Richmond, however Cal/OSHA and the Legislature moved to strengthen safety standards. An interagency working group, consisting of Cal/OSHA, CalEPA, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, identified serious concerns with Chevron’s PSM procedures and expressed the need for stronger preventative safeguards.
   
   On May 18, 2017, the Standards Board unanimously adopted an updated PSM standard that requires refinery employers to conduct damage mechanism reviews, apply rigorous safeguard protection analyses, integrate human factors and culture assessments into safety planning, involve front-line employees in decision-making, and perform comprehensive process hazard analyses.
   
2. Program Four. CalEPA oversees the statewide implementation of the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program, which aims to prevent accidental releases of extremely hazardous substances that pose the greatest risk of immediate harm to the public and the environment, minimize the damage if releases do occur, and to satisfy community right-to-know laws.
   
   Following the 2012 Chevron Refinery Fire, California created an Interagency Refinery Task Force (IRTF) headed by CalEPA with participation from Department of Industrial Relations and 11 other federal, state, and local agencies and other departments. The purpose of Program 4 is to prevent major incidents at petroleum refineries in order to protect the health and safety of communities and the environment.
   
3. Lawsuits against PSM regulations. In 2019, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) filed two lawsuits regarding the 2017 PSM safety standard (CCR §5789.1).^[1] In a complaint filed in Sacramento Superior Court, WSPA alleged that the standard 1) did not meet requirements under the California Administrative Procedure Act; 2) was invalid; 3) was unenforceable because it was inconsistent with governing statues; and 4) was neither reasonably necessary nor sufficiently clear.^[2] Additionally, in a complaint filed in the Eastern District of California, WSPA alleged that the standard was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.^[3]

The two lawsuits were ultimately settled. Some union leaders and community advocates — who were excluded from the settlement negotiations despite the United Steelworkers’ (the sponsors for AB 605) standing as an intervenor in the lawsuits — said the changes would put workers and the public at greater risk.

1. Recent amendments to Program Four. Part of the settlement agreement with WSPA was that Cal/OSHA and CalEPA must update their regulations to their respective programs. To comply with the terms of the settlement, CalEPA recently amended the CalARP regulations to: Amend and clarify the definitions of highly hazardous material, process, major change, and employee representative; Amend and clarify the requirements pertaining to the Hierarchy of Hazard Control Analysis; Amend and clarify, with respect to employee participation in Accidental Release Prevention element activities, how owners and operators will allow for effective participation by employees engaged in such activities; and, Amend a footnote to address an error in a reference citation. These amendments were approved by the Office of Administrative Law in April and become effective today (July 1, 2026).

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “When California refineries begin procedures to close or enter long-term idling, employees are often laid off or leave to seek new opportunities. While understandable, these staffing shortages result in health and safety risks to both refinery employees and the surrounding communities.
   
   “AB 605 addresses this issue by requiring refineries to develop safe staffing management plans to address staffing risks associated with anticipated refinery closure or long-term idling. Each plan shall be required to include the maximum amount of reasonably feasible employee retention strategies and procedures to address risks associated with understaffing. In addition, AB 605 establishes a task force that will provide additional recommendations on ensuring maximum employee retention.
   
   “AB 605 takes a proactive approach to protecting worker and community safety by promoting safe staffing and requiring refineries to plan ahead of closures and long-term idling.”
   
2. Committed committee amendments. This bill was heard last week in the Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee on June 24^th, 2026, where it passed 4-1 with a commitment to take amendments in this committee. Those amendments, briefly:
   1. Reframes the Task Force’s roles to have them develop potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention and a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention, rather than develop a set of standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing;
   2. Strike the requirement for CalEPA to adopt regulations that adhere to the standards and practices described by the Task Force; and
   3. Strike the requirement for Cal/OSHA to adopt regulations that adhere to the standards and practices described by the Task Force.
      

These amendments will be processed as part of this committee’s actions on this bill. There will be no further amendments suggested by this committee’s staff, although the author is encouraged to evaluate whether the timings required by the Agency and Board for developing their regulations are sensible and appropriate, in light of the significant changes to the bill.

1. There’s no refining without workers. Owing to the challenges faced by the State and local communities when a refinery closes, the special session legislation from 2023, SBX1-2 (Skinner, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2023) created a requirement for refineries to give one year’s notice if they intend to close or otherwise cease operations. This has provided some advanced warning to allow the state and local governments to respond, although transparency has still stymied efforts by government to best adapt to the changing state fuel supply and local and regional economies.
   
   One very tangible impact the one-year notice requirement has had is on worker retention. In describing the situation at the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery after the notice of intent to close was provided, a recent report commissioned by the Asian Pacific Environmental Network and Communities for a Better Environment stated:^[4]
   

An immediate consequence of the closure announcement, coupled with workers’ deep ap­prehension concerning the availability of replacement jobs, has been the steep and rapid loss of qualified workers at the Refinery, as workers facing job loss seek out other opportunities. The result has been severe strain on Refinery operations — and an associated heightened risk of preventable accidents. As of this writing, the remaining workers have been pushed into working lengthy shifts over long stretches of days. One Refinery insider reported that in March of 2025, employees were working 18-hour shifts. These hours were eventually scaled back to 12-hour days, worked 13 days on and one day off, which is expected to remain their schedule for the duration of the Refinery’s operation through its fourth-quarter 2025 closure.

There is clearly a thorny mismatch of wants and needs between refineries, their workers, and the state and local governments’ best interests. Although AB 605 does not prescribe a solution to this conundrum, it does task impacted and knowledgeable stakeholders about how to address one portion: worker retention. Given the importance of workers in continuing safe, stable operations at refineries, this bill may provide useful insights into how those workers can be retained and made whole, even as their workplace and industry shift around them.

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

This measure was heard in Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee on June 24^th, 2026, and passed out of committee with a vote of 4-1.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 966 (Gonzalez, 2026) would codify specified provisions of Cal/OSHA’s PSM safety standard related to employee participation in PSM activities. Specifically, the bill would require an employer, in consultation with employees and employee representatives, to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan providing for employee participation in all PSM elements, as specified. This bill is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2157 (Connolly, 2026) would remove the July 1, 2027, sunset date for the Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Pilot Program, making the program permanent. This bill is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SOURCE:

United Steelworkers District 12

SUPPORT:

Air Products and Chemicals, INC.
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
The Climate Center

OPPOSITION:

None received

-- END --

1. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Facilities. “Notice/Informative Digest” 2025. ↑

2. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and California Environmental Protection Agency (Sacramento Super. Ct., Case No. 34-2019-00260210). ↑

3. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health

   Standards Board, et al. (E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:19-cv-1270) ↑

4. Alexander, Ann. Before the Last Drop: Lessons from the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Closure. 2025. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 605 Hearing Date: June 24, 2026

SUBJECT: Employment: refineries: task force: safe staffing management plans

KEY ISSUE

This bill establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) to develop standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries and directs the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to adopt regulations that require all refineries to develop safe staffing management plans, as specified.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Requires, under the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, an employer to:
2. Furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful.
3. Furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, as well as adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and processes that are reasonably adequate to render employment and the place of employment safe and healthful.
4. Do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of employees.

(Labor Code §6300 et seq.)

1. Establishes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to, among other things, propose, administer, and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (Labor Code §6300 et seq.)
2. Establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board), within DIR, to promote, adopt, and maintain reasonable and enforceable standards that will ensure a safe and healthful workplace for workers. (Labor Code §140-147.6)
3. Requires Cal/OSHA to issue a citation to an employer who it believes, upon inspection or investigation, has violated specified workplace health and safety laws or any standard, rule or order pursuant to them. Each citation must be in writing and must describe the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision of the code, standard, rule, regulation, or order alleged to have been violated. The citation must also include a reasonable time for the abatement of the alleged violation. The period specified for abatement shall not commence running until the date the citation or notice is received or the date the return is made to the post office. (Lab. Code § 6317)
4. Directs the Standards Board and Cal/OSHA, in accordance with the California Refinery and Health Standards Board Act of 1990, to promote worker safety through implementation of training and process safety management (PSM) practices in refineries and chemical plants and other facilities deemed appropriate. (Labor Code §7852(a))
5. Defines “refinery” as an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. (Labor Code §7853(c))
6. Defines “process safety management” as the application of management programs, which are not limited to engineering guidelines, when dealing with the risks associated with handling or working near hazardous chemicals. PSM is intended to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of acutely hazardous, flammable, or explosive chemicals. (Labor Code §7853(b))
7. Directs the Standards Board to adopt, by March 31, 2014, process safety management standards for refineries, chemical plants, and other manufacturing facilities, as specified. (Labor Code §7856(a))
8. Directs Cal/OSHA to propose, and the Standards Board to consider for adoption, regulations to implement PSM standards for refineries by January 1, 2026. (Labor Code §7856(b))
9. Establishes the California Accidental Release Prevention program (CalARP) with the goal of reducing regulated hazardous substances accident risks and eliminating duplication of regulatory programs. CalARP implements the federal risk management program, as provided in the federal Clean Air Act and as promulgated by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, in the state, with certain amendments that are specific to the state. (Health & Safety Code §25531 et seq.)

This bill:

1. Establishes the Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force (Task Force) consisting of the following members:
2. Three representatives of unions representing proprietary employees at refineries, as specified, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
3. Three representatives of unions representing building trades whose members serve as contractors at refineries, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
4. Three representatives of refinery employers, one each appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
5. Three representatives of nongovernmental organizations whose mission relates to the well-being of workers and refinery communities, one each appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules, respectively.
6. Two members of the public with expertise in refinery process safety, to be appointed by the Governor or their appointed DIR PSM Unit regional manager.
7. Requires all members of the Task Force to be appointed and begin serving no later than January 1, 2028.
8. Provides that the members of the Task Force shall serve without compensation, except that they shall receive, upon appropriation of funds for this purpose, their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, including traveling expenses.
9. Requires the Task Force to select one of its members to be its chair. Provides that the Task Force shall have all of the responsibilities, powers, and duties set forth in these provisions.
10. Provides that the Task Force shall consult with, and may utilize, the staff of the DIR PSM Unit.
11. Provides that the purpose of the Task Force shall be to develop a set of standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, a refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, based upon thorough research and investigation.
12. Requires the Task Force, no later than June 1, 2029, to present to the Legislature, and make available online to the public, both of the following:
13. A set of standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries and managing understaffing during, and especially in the time period preceding, an announced or anticipated refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery.
14. A report documenting the facts, analysis, and investigation upon which the standards are based. The report should consider and evaluate the standards and best practices referenced above, including, as appropriate, a wide range of potential methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery, including, without limitation, extended severance periods, paid job training, extended job placement assistance, priority transfer to other refineries, and financial and logistical assistance; and should further consider a wide range of methods and strategies for ensuring safe operation in the event of understaffing.
15. Makes the provisions that establish the Task Force, 1) through 7) above, inoperative on July 1, 2029, and repeals them as of January 1, 2030.
16. Requires CalEPA, by January 1, 2028, to adopt regulations that require all of the following:
17. All refineries, including, without limitation, all facilities subject to the California Accidental Release Prevention Program 4 regulations, shall develop safe staffing management plans, pursuant to a timeline specified by the agency, to address staffing risks associated with anticipated refinery closure or long-term idling. Each plan shall be required to include the maximum amount of reasonably feasible employee retention strategies and procedures to address risks associated with understaffing.
18. Within six months following the Task Force’s presentation to the Legislature on standards and best practices, or by January 1, 2030, whichever is earlier, the plans shall be required to, at minimum, adhere to the standards and best practices, unless the refinery operator presents evidence sufficient to justify deviating from those standards and best practices.
19. The plans shall be updated periodically and upon announcement of refinery closure or long-term idling pursuant to subdivision (p) Section 25354 of the Public Resources Code, or other applicable law.
20. The plans, and all updates thereto, shall be presented to CalEPA in draft for review and approval, and shall be subject to a public comment period of at least 30 days. CalEPA shall approve a plan after responding substantively in writing to all public comments received concerning it, and shall reject, and require prompt amendment to, any draft plan that does not comply with the standards defined in a) and b).
21. Requires CalEPA, following an announcement of closure or long-term idling, and periodically thereafter, to conduct inspections and investigations to ensure implementation of the refinery’s plan and to address noncompliance through all available and necessary enforcement authority.
22. Authorizes CalEPA to, upon a determination of noncompliance with these provisions, issue a citation to the operator of the subject of the refinery. This citation is in addition to existing penalties authorized under the California Accidental Release Prevention program. The citation shall be in writing, describing with particularity the nature of the violation, and fixing a reasonable time for abatement of the alleged violation.
23. Provides that the plans, draft plans, draft updates to the plans, final updates to the plans, and all comments on the draft plans by CalEPA shall be promptly posted on the CalEPA’s website. Trade secret claims concerning the contents of the plans shall be addressed, as specified.
24. Requires Cal/OSHA, by January 1, 2028, to propose, and the Standards Board to consider for adoption, regulations that require all of the following:
25. All refinery employers shall develop safe staffing management plans, pursuant to a timeline specified by the division, to address staffing risks associated with anticipated refinery closure or long-term idling. Each plan shall be required to include the maximum amount of reasonably feasible employee retention strategies and procedures to address risks associated with understaffing.
26. Within six months following the Task Force’s presentation to the Legislature on standards and best practices, or by January 1, 2030, whichever is earlier, the plans shall be required to, at minimum, adhere to the standards and best practices, unless the refinery operator presents evidence sufficient to justify deviating from those standards and best practices.
27. The plans shall be updated periodically and upon announcement of refinery closure or long-term idling pursuant to subdivision (p) Section 25354 of the Public Resources Code, or other applicable law.
28. The plans, and all updates thereto, shall be presented to Cal/OSHA in draft for review and approval, and shall be subject to a public comment period of at least 30 days. Cal/OSHA shall approve a plan after responding substantively in writing to all public comments received concerning it, and shall reject, and require prompt amendment to, any draft plan that does not comply with the standards defined in a) and b).
29. Requires, following an announcement of closure or long-term idling, and periodically thereafter, Cal/OSHA to conduct inspections and investigations to ensure implementation of the employer’s plan, and to address noncompliance through all available and necessary enforcement authority, including, without limitation, citations.
30. Provides that the plans, draft plans, draft updates to the plans, final updates to the plans, and all comments on the draft plans by Cal/OSHA shall be promptly posted on Cal/OSHA’s website. Trade secret claims concerning the contents of the plans shall be addressed, as specified.

COMMENTS

1. Background:

This analysis is limited to AB 605’s Cal/OSHA and Task Force provisions. This bill is double referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee for an analysis of its CalEPA and CalARP provisions.

Refinery Safety

The PSM Unit within Cal/OSHA is responsible for inspecting refineries and chemical plants that handle large quantities of toxic and flammable materials. Generally, refinery safety rules are built around the concept of process safety, which requires refineries to identify and fix hazards before accidents occur and to involve workers directly in investigations when they do. The first safety standard enforced by the PSM Unit was adopted in 1990 under the California Refinery and Health Act and was substantially similar to the federal one. Following a 2012 chemical release and fire at the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Refinery in Richmond, however Cal/OSHA and the Legislature moved to strengthen safety standards. An interagency working group, consisting of Cal/OSHA, CalEPA, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, identified serious concerns with Chevron’s PSM procedures and expressed the need for stronger preventative safeguards. On May 18, 2017, the Standards Board unanimously adopted an updated PSM standard that requires refinery employers to conduct damage mechanism reviews, apply rigorous safeguard protection analyses, integrate human factors and culture assessments into safety planning, involve front-line employees in decision-making, and perform comprehensive process hazard analyses.

Specifically, refinery employers are required to include an analysis of human factors, where relevant, in major changes, incident investigations, process hazard analyses, and management of organizational change (MOOC) assessments. Human factor analysis must evaluate the following: staffing levels; the complexity of tasks; the length of time needed to complete tasks; the level of training, experience and expertise of employees; the human-machine and human-system interface; the physical challenges of the work environment in which the task is performed; employee fatigue and other effects of shiftwork and overtime; communication systems; and the understandability and clarity of operating and maintenance procedures. Before an employer can reduce staffing levels or change shift duration, they must conduct a MOOC assessment. The MOOC assessment is required for changes with a duration exceeding 90 calendar days affecting operations, engineering, maintenance, health and safety, or emergency response. All MOOC assessments must include an analysis of human factors.

In 2024, the Legislature expanded the definition of “refinery” to include an establishment that produces gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, or biofuel through the processing of crude oil or alternative feedstock. The current PSM standard covers approximately 1,500 facilities in the state that handle or process certain hazardous chemicals, including 11 refineries which produce approximately two million barrels of crude oil per day into gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and chemical feedstocks.^[1]

Ongoing Changes to the PSM Standard

In 2019, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) filed two lawsuits regarding the 2017 PSM safety standard (CCR §5789.1).^[2] In a complaint filed in Sacramento Superior Court, WSPA alleged that the standard 1) did not meet requirements under the California Administrative Procedure Act; 2) was invalid; 3) was unenforceable because it was inconsistent with governing statues; and 4) was neither reasonably necessary nor sufficiently clear.^[3] Additionally, in a complaint filed in the Eastern District of California, WSPA alleged that the standard was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.^[4]

As part of a 2024 settlement to resolve these lawsuits, Cal/OSHA and the Standards board agreed to engage in rulemaking to amend the PSM safety standard to address WSPA’s concerns. Specifically, Cal/OSHA agreed to propose and to support amendments to the PSM standard that would:

• Amend and clarify the definitions of highly hazardous material, major change, and employee representative;
• Amend and clarify the requirements pertaining to the Hierarchy of Hazard Control Analysis; and
• Amend and clarify, with respect to employee participation in PSM activities, how employers will allow for effective participation by employees engaged in such activities.

The revised standard must be adopted in accordance with the California Administrative Procedure Act. On November 28, 2025, the Standards Board published its notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the PSM standard. The first public hearing was held on January 15, 2026. The Standards Board is in the process of soliciting and responding to stakeholder feedback. It’s unclear when the updated PSM standard will be adopted by the Standards Board and filed with the Secretary of State.

Enforcement Challenges

Despite having some of the nation’s toughest refinery safety rules, California has struggled with enforcement. Cal/OSHA is the entity tasked with protecting and improving the health and safety of California workers by 1) setting and enforcing labor standards; 2) providing outreach, education, and assistance to employers and employees; and 3) issuing permits, licenses, certifications, registrations and approvals. As part of their enforcement responsibilities, Cal/OSHA investigates complaints of workplace hazards filed by employees, employee representatives, and others, as well as investigating reports of serious injury and illness or death.

In July 2025, the California State Auditor released an audit report on Cal/OSHA finding, among other things, that process deficiencies and staffing shortages have limited its ability to protect workers.^[5] Among the audits key findings were that:

• Cal/OSHA did not inspect some complaints and accidents, despite evidence that an inspection may have better protected workers.
  • During fiscal year 2023-24, Cal/OSHA classified 13 % of the complaints it received as invalid and investigated 82% of the valid complaints it received with a letter instead of an on-site inspection.
• When it does conduct on‑site inspections, Cal/OSHA’s process has critical weaknesses. The audit found:
  • Cal/OSHA took weeks or even months to initiate some complaint and accident

inspections, which can hinder its ability to gather relevant evidence and identify

violations that have put workers at risk.

• • Cal/OSHA did not always document rationales or evidence supporting its reduction of employer’s fines.
• Cal/OSHA must address shortcomings in its staffing levels and oversight.
  • Staffing shortages and process deficiencies—such as out‑of‑date policies— are root causes for many of the concerns identified by the audit. Cal/OSHA had a 32 percent vacancy rate in fiscal year 2023–24, and its vacancy rate was higher for certain district offices and inspector positions.

In addition to Cal/OSHA’s challenges, the Trump administration has weakened the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, which investigates refinery accidents.

When safety monitoring is inadequate, there are serious consequences. Refineries in Martinez and El Segundo both experienced explosions in 2025. These were only the latest in a string of nearly a dozen major refinery explosions and fires over the past decade.

Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board)

The Standards Board, within Cal/OSHA, is the only agency in the state authorized to adopt, amend, or repeal occupational safety and health standards or orders. Its mission is to promote, adopt, and maintain reasonable and enforceable standards that ensure a safe and healthful workplace. The Standards Board consists of seven members appointed by the Governor. Two members are selected from labor, two members from management, one member from occupational safety, one member from occupational health, and one member from the general public. Among other responsibilities, the Standards Board 1) adopts and maintains standards; 2) considers petitions for new or revised standards proposed by any interested person; and 3) grants permanent variances from standards. To carry out its duties, the Standards Board holds monthly meetings throughout California.

The Standards Board must adopt standards at least as effective as federal ones for all health and safety issues that have federal standards promulgated under the Occupational Safety and health Act of 1970. Additionally, the Standards Board maintains standards unique to the state, like those for amusement rides, aerial passenger tramways, and heat illness.

The Administrative Procedure Act governs the public hearing and adoption process. After a rulemaking action is deemed necessary, proposed standard changes are developed by either the Standard Board's staff or Cal/OSHA’s staff, generally with the assistance and recommendations of an advisory committee. Advisory committees consist of representatives from industry, labor, the public, and other interested groups. If the changes are related to federal standards, the proposal is reviewed by Federal OSHA staff. The proposal is then scheduled for hearing at one of the Board's monthly meetings, so that written and oral testimony can be solicited. Following the public hearing, all testimony is returned to the originating staff (either the Standards Board staff or Cal/OSHA) for review. When all comments and testimony have been addressed by either modifying the proposal or providing a satisfactory explanation for rejection of suggested changes, the Standards Board's staff schedules the proposed standard for consideration and adoption at its next meeting. Following adoption, a copy of the rulemaking file is sent to the Office of Administrative Law. After approval, the standards are published in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. Committee Comments:

AB 605 would establish the Task Force and task it with developing a set of standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels at refineries, during, and especially in the time period preceding, an announced or anticipated refinery closure or long-term idling of a refinery. The Task Force would, no later than June 1, 2029, present to the Legislature, and make available online, its set of standards and a report documenting the facts upon which the standards are based. Additionally, the bill would direct CalEPA and Cal/OSHA, by January 1, 2028, to adopt regulations that require all refineries to develop safe staffing management plans. The regulations would be required to, at minimum, adhere to the standards and best practices established by the Task Force. Lastly, the bill would require each refinery’s plan to be presented to CalEPA and Cal/OSHA for review and approval and be subject to a public comment period of at least 30 days.

Over the last several years, California has experienced a wave of petroleum refinery closures and conversions. In turn, the in-state refining sector has significantly consolidated, with in-state refining capacity declining since at least 1982.^[6] California’s remaining refineries are located primarily in populated urban areas, including four in Los Angeles County and three in the Bay Area. Several of these refineries were built over one hundred years ago.^[7]

While the committee recognizes the importance of maintaining safe staffing levels at refineries, the author may wish to consider the following:

• The Task Force, which is composed of representatives of unions, refinery employers, nongovernmental organizations, and PSM experts, would be directed to develop a set of standards and best practices for retaining safe staffing levels based upon thorough research and investigation. The Standards Board, as described above, would consult the same people in the process of developing a safe staffing standard. Would the Task Force needlessly duplicate the work the Standards Board is already required to do?
• The Standards Board would be required to incorporate the Task Force’s standards and best practices into its safe staffing standard. The Task Force would have until June 1, 2029, to issue those standards and best practices, but the Standards Board would need to consider for adoption its safe staffing standard by January 1, 2028. It can take years for the Standards Board to adopt a new safety standard. Would waiting for the Task Force delay the adoption of a safe staffing standard? Would this require the Standards Board to adjust its timeline?
• The Task Force would also include in its report methods and strategies for ensuring maximum employee retention in the time period preceding refinery closure, including extended severance periods, paid job training, and priority transfer to other refineries. Should the Task Force focus on strategies for employee retention and preparations for worker displacement rather than developing standards and best practices for safe staffing?
• The bill would require each refinery to present its plan to Cal/OSHA for review and approval and for each plan to be subject to a public comment period of 30 days. This presentation requirement is unique to safe staffing plans. Employers are not required to present and obtain approval of their injury and illness prevention plans or workplace violence prevention plans.
• Cal/OSHA would be required to respond in writing to all public comments before approving a refinery’s safe staffing plan. Given Cal/OSHA’s staffing difficulties, is this requirement feasible?

3. Need for this bill?

According to the author:

“There are two related issues surrounding refinery closures that this bill seeks to remedy.

1) Requirements that a refinery announce closure a year in advance pursuant to Section 25354(p) of the Public Resources Code have resulted in staffing shortages. The shortages lead to remaining workers working extraordinarily long shifts, impacting their performance and the ability to retain what experienced staff remain. Without competent, healthy staff, the risk of accidents increases, which can injure workers and the surrounding community members. Staff retention policies such as extended job placement assistance, expanded severance packages, and paid job training could help address staff shortages, but refinery operators have not provided sufficient incentives.

2) The Department of Industrial Relations’ Process Safety Management for Petroleum Refineries regulations and the CalEPA Accidental Release Prevention Program should encompass plans for refinery closures. However, those requirements have not been enforced in the context of closure. Additionally, the requirements do not directly address issues of worker safety and refinery safety surrounding refinery closure nor do they require participation or oversight by enforcement authorities.”

4. Proponent Arguments:

The sponsor of the measure, United Steelworkers District 12, argues:

“Refineries handle volatile and highly hazardous substances every day, where even minor errors can have catastrophic consequences for workers, surrounding communities, and the environment. California’s existing refinery safety framework-including Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements and the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program- recognizes that organizational changes can affect safety. However, current regulations do not specifically address the unique risks created during refinery closures or long-term idling, nor do they require employers to proactively plan for the staffing challenges that accompany these transitions.

AB 605 fills this critical gap by requiring refinery employers to develop Safe Staffing Management Plans that identify and mitigate risks associated with understaffing during closure or idling. The bill appropriately emphasizes employee retention strategies, recognizing that experienced workers possess invaluable institutional knowledge that is essential to maintaining safe operations, preserving emergency preparedness, and responding effectively to incidents. By requiring these plans to be reviewed by regulators, updated as conditions change, and subject to public input, AB 605 establishes meaningful accountability and transparency.

Importantly, AB 605 also creates a Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force that brings together labor representatives, refinery employers, process safety experts, regulators, and community stakeholders to develop evidence-based standards and best practices. This collaborative approach will help ensure that future requirements are informed by those with direct experience operating refineries safely and by those most affected by refinery incidents.”

5. Opponent Arguments:

None received.

6. Dual Referral:

The Senate Rules Committee referred this bill to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

7. Prior Legislation:

SB 966 (Gonzalez, 2026) would codify specified provisions of Cal/OSHA’s PSM safety standard related to employee participation in PSM activities. Specifically, the bill would require an employer, in consultation with employees and employee representatives, to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan providing for employee participation in all PSM elements, as specified. This bill is set for hearing in the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee.

AB 2157 (Connolly, 2026) would remove the July 1, 2027, sunset date for the Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Pilot Program, making the program permanent. This bill is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 3258 (Bryan, Chapter 978, Statutes of 2024) expanded the scope of the California Refinery and Chemical Plant Worker Safety Act of 1990 by revising the definition of “refinery” and directed the Standards Board to consider for adoption, regulations that implement process safety management standards for the revised definition of refinery, as specified.

AB 3138 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2018) restructured civil and administrative penalties for CalARP violations.

SB 1300 (Hancock, Chapter 519, Statutes of 2014) required every petroleum refinery employer to, every September 15, submit to the Cal/OSHA a full schedule for the following calendar year of planned turnarounds, and to inspect, test, and replace process materials and equipment, as specified. The bill also required a petroleum refinery employer, upon the request of Cal/OSHA, to provide onsite access and specified documentation.

AB 3672 (Elder, Chapter 1632, Statutes of 1990) established the California Refinery and Chemical Plant Worker Safety Act of 1990, which includes PSM standards to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, flammable, or explosive chemicals.

SUPPORT

United Steelworkers District 12 (Sponsor)

California Labor for Climate Jobs

Climate Center, The

United Steelworkers Local 675

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

1. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Refineries. “Initial Statement of Reasons” 2025. ↑

2. OSHSB, Process Safety Management for Petroleum Facilities. “Notice/Informative Digest” 2025. ↑

3. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and California Environmental Protection Agency (Sacramento Super. Ct., Case No. 34-2019-00260210). ↑

4. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Occupational Safety and Health

   Standards Board, et al. (E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:19-cv-1270) ↑

5. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health: Process Deficiencies and Staffing Shortages Limit Its Ability to Protect Workers. California State Auditor. ↑

6. Hersbach, Thomas J.P. “The Writing on the Wall: Why California Refineries are Closing.” Stanford Climate & Energy Policy Program. February 11, 2026. ↑

7. Ibid. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 605

Author:(Muratsuchi)

As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Creates the Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) Pilot program to allow for emissions certified CHE deployment under the program, and requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to not prohibit its use prior to the end of its useful life.

Major Provisions

1. Qualifies as a piece of CHE for participation in the Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment Pilot when all of the following have occurred between the time of purchase and delivery:
2. The manufacturer has certified that the equipment meets the emission specifications of less than 1g CO2/km or less than 1g CO2/kWh, the purchase requirements of this bill, and the date of delivery of the piece of equipment;
3. The manufacturer has procured an opinion of an independent third party to validate that the certification rendered meets the emissions rate of less than 1g CO2/km or less than 1g CO2/kWh;
4. The manufacturer physically affixes a label to the CHE, or otherwise makes a note, in a prominent and readily viewable location on the CHE, that contains both of the following:
5. A description that reads, ″Purchased pursuant to the Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment Pilot″; and,
6. The dates of purchase and expected delivery.
7. The manufacturer produces written copies confirming and containing the manufacturer certification, third-party validation of certification, and proof of equipment labeling or marking pursuant to this section.
8. Requires that at all times post-delivery a piece of CHE shall maintain its labeling or notation as a piece of pilot technology equipment.
9. Requires that a piece of CHE subject to this bill shall include, at the time of delivery, a description, warrant, or both, of the useful life of the piece of CHE from the manufacturer. If a piece of cargo handling equipment subject to this bill does not have a description, warrant, or both, of the useful life of the CHE shall not be protected by the terms of this bill.
10. Prohibits the useful life of a piece of CHE subject to this bill from exceeding the average useful life in years for port or rail operations provided for any specific equipment type as designated in the Emission Estimation Methodology for Cargo Handling Equipment Operating at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards in California, Table II-6, as prepared by CARB in support of adoption of Section 2479 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.
11. Prohibits CARB from adopting future regulations that prohibit or disallow a piece of CHE subject to this bill from utilizing the entire useful life from the date of delivery that is purchased pursuant to this bill prior to December 31, 2027.
12. Defines ″cargo handling equipment″ as any off-road, self-propelled vehicle, or equipment used at a port or intermodal railyard to lift or move container cargo that meets the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission performance standard of less than 1g CO₂/km or less than 1g CO₂/kWh.
13. Specifies that CHE includes, but is not limited to, top handlers, side handlers, straddle carriers, reach stackers, forklifts, loaders, and aerial lifts. CHE does not include any equipment that is licensed as an on -road vehicle. CHE does not include any excavators or dozers.
14. States that CHE does not mean any fully automated cargo handling equipment, including equipment that is remotely operated and remotely monitored with or without the exercise of human intervention or control.
15. States that this bill is not intended to prescribe or otherwise preclude the application of any future emission standards by CARB, except as specified.
16. States that this bill is self-executing and does not require any implementing or interpretive rulemaking by CARB or any other agency to become operative.

COMMENTS

Mobile source emissions refers to air pollution generated by vehicles, engines, and equipment that can be moved from one location to another. The fossil fuels that power mobile sources are the largest contributors to the formation of ozone, GHG emissions, fine particulate matter (PM_2.5), and toxic diesel particulate matter. In California, they are responsible for approximately 80% of smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions. They also represent about 50% of GHGs when including emissions from fuel production, and more than 95% of toxic diesel particulate matter emissions. Statewide, more than 21 million out of over 39 million Californians live in areas that exceed the federal ozone standards; within these areas, there are many low-income and disadvantaged communities that are exposed to not only ozone, but also particulate and toxic, pollutant levels significantly higher than the federal standards which have immediate and detrimental health effects.

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act of 1970 instructs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set primary NAAQS to protect public health, and secondary NAAQS to protect plants, forests, crops and materials from damage due to exposure to six air pollutants. These pollutants include: particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and lead.

Federal law (42 United States Code 7409 and 7410) requires that all states attain the NAAQS and develop State Implementation Plans (SIP) for nonattainment areas to attain the NAAQS, and attainment areas to maintain attainment. Failure of a state to reach attainment of the NAAQS by the target date can trigger penalties, including withholding of federal highway funds.

Under State law (Health and Safety Code (HSC) 39602), CARB is responsible for developing the SIP emission reduction strategies for cars, trucks, and other mobile sources to meet the requirements in the Clean Air Act. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is the State agency responsible for controlling pesticide emissions. Local air districts are primarily responsible for controlling emissions from stationary sources such as factories and power plants. CARB coordinates closely with the local air districts in the development of attainment plans which are then incorporated into the SIP.

Shipping and CHE. Most port equipment is powered by diesel or gasoline. Emissions from ports contribute to poor air quality that affects not only port workers, but also those who live and work in neighboring communities. Often these are low-income or disadvantaged communities.

CARB adopted the Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment Regulation on December 8, 2005 and amended it in 2011, to reduce toxic and criteria emissions to protect public health and it was fully implemented by the end of 2017. The regulation requires CHE to use the Best Available Control Technology and has achieved a 91% reduction in diesel particulate matter and a 74% reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NO_x). CARB staff are currently assessing the availability and performance of zero-emission technology as an alternative to all combustion-powered cargo equipment and evaluating additional solutions that may include efficiency improvements.

CARB plans to amend its regulation to transition CHE to zero-emission. The regulatory amendments would propose an implementation schedule for new equipment and facility infrastructure requirements, with effective dates beginning in 2026. CARB has not yet initiated the rulemaking process.

Powering CHE. Increasingly, CHE may be powered by cleaner, alternative fuels, such as electricity, hydrogen, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Cleaner alternative power sources are developing and more will be available in the future.

Hydrogen for CHE. In October 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awarded $1.2 billion to California′s Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES) through the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Program created under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. ARCHES is a statewide public-private partnership to produce and create a market for renewable hydrogen.

Federal funding for ARCHES is currently facing uncertainty. On March 26, 2025, Politico reported that a list circulating internally at the DOE suggested cutting funding to ARCHES, along with the three other hydrogen hubs located in democratic leaning states. Politico adds ″The funding cuts are under consideration amid President Donald Trump′s directive to cut government waste and eliminate climate-focused spending enacted during the Biden administration. Previous submissions for spending cuts from DOE offices included potentially eliminating federal funding for all seven of the hydrogen hub projects.″

Unlike H₂ FC technology, however, H₂ ICEs would not be considered zero-emission under existing state regulations, since the high operating temperatures of H₂ ICEs generate NO_x and trace carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions (from engine oil). However, H₂ ICEs produce significantly lower levels of other pollutant species compared to diesel-powered engines, and using optimized combustion processes and catalytic conversion after-treatment systems, tailpipe NO_x emissions from H₂ ICEs can be reduced to near zero.

Some studies have shown that the CO₂ emissions profile of hydrogen internal combustion engine technology may not be substantially less than diesel if emissions from hydrogen generation are included. Currently, hydrogen is largely produced from methane, with limited production of ″green hydrogen″ using cleaner solar or wind energy. The CO₂ emissions from hydrogen generation similarly apply to H₂ FC technology.

Committee comments: The transition of CHE at seaports and intermodal railyards to zero-emission is challenged by a lack of zero-emission CHE combined with the difficulty of providing enough transmission infrastructure or hydrogen supply chains to support this equipment. This bill proposes to address that challenge by providing a useful life reassurance on new hydrogen–powered CHE, and more specifically, H₂ ICE-powered CHE, that would cumulatively decrease emissions over the regulatory baseline, while also providing a transitional technology to convert port operations to hydrogen fuel cells.

Though there is no prohibition on the use of H₂ ICE-powered CHE today, H₂ ICE-powered CHE are currently in development and may not be available to use for several years. The useful life of traditional CHE can be up to 24 years, so this bill will likely result in front loading the purchases of ′not quite zero′ emission cargo equipment that would then be in service for up to 24 years, assuming a comparable useful life of hydrogen-powered CHE to diesel CHE. To address concerns related to the non-zero emissions from H₂ ICE technology, the author may wish to add provisions to this bill, such as requiring covered equipment to use renewable hydrogen (or hydrogen not derived from fossil fuels) or grant CARB discretion to require purchase of GHG offsets for any future emissions by hydrogen-powered CHE in excess of regulatory requirements for zero emission.

With the next CHE amendment on the horizon, this bill may pose a complicated endeavor for only a short-term window of opportunity. It is possible that by the time CARB establishes guidelines, there will be a zero-emission cargo handling regulation in development and soon to be implemented. As an alternative to the bill, CARB could consider incorporating useful life provisions into the future zero-emission cargo handling regulation.

In addition, this bill could have secondary impacts on ports′ efforts to upgrade their infrastructure in preparation for cleaner technologies. Specifically, because hybrid and transitional technologies allow for equipment to partially continue to operate as it always has, these technologies may not necessitate ports to completely upgrade their infrastructure in preparation for fully zero-emission hydrogen equipment. Allowing for ″transitional technologies″ to operate at the ports could delay necessary infrastructure upgrades, delay ports′ transition to fully zero-emission technologies, and delay expected cost decreases in zero-emission CHE that would result from increased adoption and manufacturing economies of scale.

The current landscape of federal funding uncertainty for ARCHES and other hydrogen hubs will likely delay the buildout of hydrogen infrastructure in California and possibly nationwide. The consequences will not only effect the pace at which hydrogen supply reaches the ports, it will also likely keep the cost of hydrogen at elevated prices, undercutting the cost effectiveness of equipment covered in this bill.

Additionally, while it is technologically feasible to ensure minimal NO_x emissions from H₂ ICE, this bill does not contain standards for NO_x emissions. The author may consider including a NO_x emission standard to align with California′s definition of zero-emissions or add requirements for combustion optimization processes and the inclusion of catalytic conversion after-treatment systems on equipment deployed under the provisions in this bill.

According to the Author

″California must reduce emissions from Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) while ensuring ports remain competitive in global trade. However, operators hesitate to invest in lower-emission equipment due to concerns about future regulations that could phase it out before the end of its useful life. AB 605 addresses this by allowing transitional CHE that meets EU decarburization standards to be used for its full lifespan, ensuring near-term emissions reductions while paving the way for a full transition to zero-emission (ZE) technology. By providing regulatory certainty, the bill accelerates emissions reductions in disadvantaged communities near ports while supporting the state′s long-term climate goals.″

Arguments in Support

The South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce writes, ″AB 605 establishes the Lower Emissions Equipment at Seaports and Intermodal Yards Program, incentivizing ports to adopt transitional low-emission cargo-handling equipment—like cranes and forklifts—while zero-emission technologies mature. Crucially, it prohibits the State Air Resources Board from restricting equipment purchased under this program before December 31, 2027, offering businesses regulatory certainty. By aligning with EU emission standards, the bill ensures California ports remain competitive globally, preventing cargo diversion to less-regulated regions.″

Arguments in Opposition

Writing in a position of oppose unless amended, the South Coast Air Quality Management District writes, ″While characterized as a pilot program, the program proposed in this bill would instead establish a long-term grandfathering in of non zero-emission (ZE) CHE. This is because the bill does not set a limit on the number of equipment that could be purchased, and the useful life of CHE can be up to 22 years. Further, under AB 605, CHE′s useful life time period would begin when the CHE is delivered, not upon the date of purchase. This would allow for the advance purchase of CHE with delayed delivery dates, resulting in increased emissions over the long term. The bill would therefore allow non-ZE equipment to evade regulatory efforts to reduce emissions decades into the future.

Allowing the purchase of equipment that meets the GHG emission standards could result in equipment that emits increased emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). The South Coast AQMD fails to meet multiple federal air quality standards, and the key pollutant that must be controlled to meet these standards is NOx. CHE that emits more NOx than permitted by CARB regulation could further hamper South Coast AQMD′s efforts to reduce air pollution and protect public health.″

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, ongoing costs of an unknown amount, likely in excess of $150,000, for ARB to comply with this bill (General Fund or special fund). While the bill states the pilot program is self-executing and does not require rulemaking or interpretation by any agency, ARB is ultimately responsible for regulating CHE emissions in the state. Therefore, ARB may need to do any or all of the following: (a) modify its monitoring, inspection, and enforcement protocols for mobile CHE at ports and intermodal railyards to account for the new framework in the bill; (b) make necessary adjustments to its existing CHE regulations to align with this bill; (c) confirm the equipment purchased under the pilot program meets European Union emission standards throughout its useful life; (d) learn about the certification process being undertaken by manufacturers and third-party verifiers; (e) determine which equipment is eligible for inclusion in the pilot program in order to stipulate what will be exempt from future regulation; (f) potentially develop guidance on a consistent labeling scheme; (g) respond to stakeholders that may seek ARB′s guidance on the pilot program; and (h) other possible tasks.

VOTES

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 15-0-1

YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Carrillo, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, Ransom, Rogers, Ward

ABS, ABST OR NV: Papan

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 14-0-0

YES: Bryan, Alanis, Connolly, Ellis, Flora, Garcia, Haney, Hoover, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Schultz, Wicks, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

UPDATED

VERSION: April 10, 2025

CONSULTANT: Aaron Kurz / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000504

Date of Hearing: May 7, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 605

Author:(Muratsuchi) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill creates the Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) Pilot Program (pilot program) and, as part of the pilot program, prohibits the Air Resources Board (ARB) from adopting a future regulation that prohibits or disallows for the use of its entire useful life from the date of delivery any CHE purchased pursuant to the requirements of the pilot program before December 31, 2027.

Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1. Provides that a piece of CHE has qualified for participation in the pilot program and is subject to this bill when specified conditions are met and specified actions have occurred between the time the CHE is purchased and the time the CHE is delivered. This includes a certification by the manufacturer that the equipment meets specified emission standards.
2. Requires a piece of CHE subject to this bill to include, at the time of delivery, a description, warrant, or both, of the useful life of the piece of CHE from the manufacturer.
3. Provides that, under no circumstances, shall the useful life of the piece of CHE that qualifies for the pilot program created by this bill exceed the average useful life in years for port or rail operations provided for any specific equipment type as designated in a specified methodology.
4. Prohibits ARB from adopting a future regulation that prohibits or disallows for the use of its entire useful life from the date of delivery any CHE purchased pursuant to the terms of this bill before December 31, 2027, and subsequently certified, operated, and maintained pursuant to the terms of the bill for the duration of its entire useful life.
5. Provides that this bill is not intended to prescribe or otherwise preclude the application of any future emission standards by ARB.
6. Provides that this bill is self-executing as adopted and does not require any implementing or interpretive rulemaking by ARB or any other agency to become operative.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Ongoing costs of an unknown amount, likely in excess of $150,000, for ARB to comply with this bill (General Fund or special fund). While the bill states the pilot program is self-executing and does not require rulemaking or interpretation by any agency, ARB is ultimately responsible for regulating CHE emissions in the state. Therefore, ARB may need to do any or all of the following: (a) modify its monitoring, inspection, and enforcement protocols for mobile CHE at ports and intermodal railyards to account for the new framework in the bill; (b) make necessary adjustments to its existing CHE regulations to align with this bill; (c) confirm the equipment purchased under the pilot program meets European Union emission standards throughout its useful life; (d) learn about the certification process being undertaken by manufacturers and third-party verifiers; (e) determine which equipment is eligible for inclusion in the pilot program in order to stipulate what will be exempt from future regulation; (f) potentially develop guidance on a consistent labeling scheme; (g) respond to stakeholders that may seek ARB’s guidance on the pilot program; and (h) other possible tasks.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

California must reduce emissions from Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) while ensuring ports remain competitive in global trade. However, operators hesitate to invest in lower-emission equipment due to concerns about future regulations that could phase it out before the end of its useful life. AB 605 addresses this by allowing transitional CHE that meets EU…standards to be used for its full lifespan, ensuring near-term emissions reductions while paving the way for a full transition to zero-emission (ZE) technology.

2) Background. ARB’s CHE regulation, which it adopted in 2005 to reduce toxic and criteria emissions and protect public health, remains in effect until amended or superseded with new requirements. ARB plans to amend its regulation and notes it is assessing the availability and performance of zero-emission technology to further reduce emissions. Although ARB previously suggested effective dates beginning in 2026, it has not yet initiated the rulemaking process.

According to the Assembly Transportation Committee’s analysis of this bill, the transition of CHE at seaports and intermodal railyards to zero-emission is challenged by a lack of zero-emission CHE combined with the difficulty of providing enough transmission infrastructure or hydrogen supply chains to support this equipment. The bill proposes to address this challenge by providing a useful life reassurance on new hydrogen-powered CHE, and more specifically, CHE powered by hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines (H₂-ICE), that would cumulatively decrease emissions over the regulatory baseline, while also providing a transitional technology to convert port operations to hydrogen fuel cells.

To be eligible under the pilot program, CHE must be certified by the manufacturer, and verified by a third party, as meeting the emission specifications of one gram (g) of carbon dioxide (CO₂) per kilowatt hour (kWh) or less than one g CO₂/ kilometer. Certified CHE is protected from future regulation mandating lower emissions than the covered CHE produces, but the CHE purchased under the pilot cannot remain in use beyond the average useful life of the piece of equipment as designated in the Emission Estimation Methodology for CHE operating at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards in California, as stablished in the California Code of Regulations.

The useful life of CHE can be up to 22 years, and ARB regulations are expected to have zero-emission deadlines sooner than 22 years from now. Therefore, this bill prohibits ARB from adopting a future regulation that prohibits or disallows for the use of its entire useful life any CHE, as defined, that is purchased pursuant to the program before December 31, 2027.

The committee notes that H₂-ICE CHE may take several more years to become commercially available. As the useful life of the CHE in the program would not start until date of delivery of the equipment, this bill could potentially delay full zero-emission implementation to 2050 or later as some CHE types can last more than 25 years. While the bill is attempting to provide operators with a stepping stone to compliance with more stringent requirements, investing in expensive near-zero-emission equipment in spite of the state’s goals to achieve carbon neutrality may fly in the face of ARB’s impending regulatory update.

Writing in support of the bill, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association argues the bill does not impose any new or additional program administration costs on ARB or on any other state agency. PMSA writes:

ARB’s existing mobile Cargo Handling Equipment regulation, as amended in 2011, already establishes regulatory reporting, recordkeeping, and enforcement controls for cargo handling equipment that operates at California’s ports and intermodal rail yards. As adopted by AB 605, the new reporting and recordkeeping standards are only imposed on those private OEMs and purchasers of this equipment that opt to participate, not for CARB… CARB’s enforcement against CHE, if it occurs, is not a new cost, because any piece of equipment purchased under AB 605 remains subject to the existing CHE enforcement standards in current law.

As noted previously, given its role in regulating CHE emissions and implementing and enforcing CHE regulations, it is likely ARB will incur some added workload as a result of this bill, even if the scope and extent of that increased workload is unknown to this committee at this time.

3) Prior Legislation. AB 2760 (Muratsuchi), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have established the Lower-Emissions at Seaports and Intermodal Yards Program, administered by ARB, to certify CHE that reduces cumulative emissions compared to current regulatory baseline as “covered equipment” under the program, and would have prohibited ARB from requiring the mandatory retirement, replacement, retrofit, or repowering of covered equipment until the end of its useful life. AB 2760 was held on this committee’s suspense file.

AB 1743 (Bennett), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have enacted the Lower-Emissions Transition Program and would have required ARB to approve projects that reduce cumulative emissions from CHE at seaports during the transition period to zero-emissions requirements. AB 1743 was held on this committee’s suspense file.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 28, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Isaac G. Bryan, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 605 (

Author:Muratsuchi) – As Amended April 10, 2025

SUBJECT: Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment Pilot program

SUMMARY: Enact the Lower Emissions Equipment at Seaports and Intermodal Yards Program.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health and Safety Code (HSC) 38500 et seq.):
   1. Establishes Air Resources Board (ARB) as the state agency responsible for monitoring and regulating sources emitting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
   2. Requires the GHG emissions reduction limit, pursuant to AB 1279 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022) to be at least 85% below the 1990 level by 2045, and establishes a goal of zero net carbon emissions by 2045, commonly known as carbon neutrality.
   3. Requires ARB to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions from sources or categories of sources of GHGs. Requires ARB to consult with all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHGs. Requires the Scoping Plan to identify and make recommendations on direct GHG emissions reduction measures, among other things. Requires ARB to update Scoping Plan for at least once every five years.
2. Establishes the Charge Ahead California Initiative that, among other things, includes the goal of placing at least one million zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) and near-zero emission vehicles into service by January 1, 2023, and increasing access to these vehicles for disadvantaged, low-income, and moderate income communities and consumers. (HSC 22458)
3. Requires ARB to allocate funds on a competitive basis for projects that are shown to achieve the greatest emission reductions from each emission source identified as specified, from activities related to the movement of freight along California’s trade corridors, commencing at the state’s airports, seaports, and land ports of entry. (HSC 39625.5)
4. Establishes the Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards Regulation to reduce toxic and criteria emissions. (Title 13 California Code of Regulations 2479)

THIS BILL:

1. Establishes the Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment Pilot program (pilot program).
2. Establishes the intent of the Legislature to encourage the purchase of equipment and vehicles that are built to existing decarbonization standards adopted by other jurisdictions, including the European Union (EU), prior to the state’s adoption of its own zero-emission standards.
3. Finds and declares that all emission reductions generated by the deployment of zero-emission cargo handling equipment (CHE) and prior to the adoption of regulations by ARB will result in a cumulative reduction in diesel toxic air contaminants, a cumulative reduction of nitrogen oxides emissions, and a cumulative reduction of GHG emissions for the life of the equipment being approved when compared to the current diesel engine standards.
4. Defines “cargo handling equipment” as any off-road, self-propelled vehicle, or equipment used at a port or intermodal railyard to lift or move container cargo that meets the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission performance standard of less than 1 gram (g) CO₂/kWh or less than 1 g CO₂/km. Provides that CHE includes but is not limited to, top handlers, side handlers, straddle carriers, reach stackers, forklifts, loaders, and aerial lifts. Excludes any equipment that is licensed as an on-road vehicle, excavators, or dozers.
5. States that CHE does not mean any fully automated CHE, including equipment that is remotely operated and remotely monitored with or without the exercise of human intervention or control.
6. Provides that a piece of CHE has qualified for participation in the pilot program when all of the following have occurred between the time the CHE is purchased and the CHE is delivered:
   1. The manufacturer has certified that the equipment meets the emission specifications of less than 1 g CO₂/kWh or less than 1 g CO₂/km, the purchase requirement of this bill, and the date of delivery of the piece of equipment;
   2. The manufacturer procures the opinion of an independent third party to validate that the certification rendered in this bill meets the emissions rate of less than 1g CO₂/kWh or less than 1g CO₂/km;
   3. The manufacturer physically affixes a label to the CHE, or otherwise makes a note, in a prominent and readily viewable location on the CHE, that contains both of the following:
      1. A description that reads, “Purchased pursuant to the Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment Pilot program;” and,
      2. The dates of purchase and expected delivery.
7. Requires the manufacturer to produce written copies confirming and containing the manufacturer certification, third-party validation of certification, and proof of equipment labeling or marking pursuant to this bill.
8. Requires, at all times, post-delivery a piece of pilot technology equipment to maintain its labeling or notation as a piece of pilot technology equipment.
9. Requires a piece of CHE subject to this bill to include, at the time of delivery, a description, warrant, or both, of the useful life of the piece of CHE from the manufacturer. A piece of CHE that does not have a description, warrant, or both, of the useful life of the CHE shall not be protected by the terms of this bill.
10. Provides that, under no circumstances, the useful life of the piece of equipment to exceed the average useful life in years for port or rail operations provided for any specific equipment type as designated in the Emission Estimation Methodology for Cargo Handling Equipment Operating at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards in California, Table II-6, as prepared by the board in support of adoption of Section 2479 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.
11. Prohibits ARB from adopting a future regulation that prohibits or disallows for the use of its entire useful life from the date of delivery any CHE that is purchased pursuant to the terms of this bill before December 31, 2027, and subsequently certified, operated, and maintained for the duration of its entire useful life.
12. Provides that this bill is not intended to prescribe or otherwise preclude the application of any future emission standards by ARB.
13. Provides that this bill is self-executing as adopted and does not require any implementing or interpretive rulemaking by ARB or any other agency to become operative.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Air quality at California’s ports. California has 12 ports, through which large volumes of goods are both imported and exported internationally. These ports process about 40% of all containerized imports and 30% of all exports in the United States.  CHE such as yard trucks (hostlers), rubber-tired gantry cranes, container handlers, and forklifts are central to port operations. Historically, most port equipment has been powered by diesel or gasoline. In recent years, California’s ports have faced several challenges, including congestion and air pollution from associated facilities and vehicles. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach remain some of the largest sources of air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin. These ports are responsible for about 10% of the basin’s total nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.

Communities that neighbor ports face the highest exposure of air pollutants from port operations. As a result, these communities tend to experience a disproportionate share of the pollution burden in the state. For example, nearly all of the census tracts that surround the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are ranked in the top one-third of the most pollution burdened in the state, according to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool, a tool which assesses communities’ pollution burden and vulnerability.

1. Cargo Handling Equipment Regulation to Transition to Zero-Emissions. Mobile CHE is any motorized vehicle used to handle cargo or perform routine maintenance activities at California’s ports and intermodal rail yards. The type of equipment includes off-road, self-propelled vehicle or equipment used at a port or intermodal rail yard to lift or move container, bulk, or liquid cargo carried by ship, train, or another vehicle, or used to perform maintenance and repair activities that are routinely scheduled or that are due to predictable process upsets. Equipment includes, but is not limited to, rubber-tired gantry cranes, yard trucks, top handlers, side handlers, reach stackers, forklifts, loaders, aerial lifts, excavators, and dozers.

ARB’s CHE Regulation was adopted in 2005 to reduce toxic and criteria emissions to protect public health and was fully implemented by the end of 2017; it remains in full effect until amended or superseded by new requirements.

ARB resolution 17-8 adopted in March 2017 directed ARB staff to develop new regulatory requirements for CHE that will require up to 100% zero-emissions technologies at ports and intermodal railyards by 2030. In March 2018, ARB staff presented a plan to begin development of a regulation to minimize emissions and community health impacts from CHE. Staff would assess the availability and performance of zero-emission technology as an alternative to all combustion-powered cargo equipment and evaluate additional solutions that may include efficiency improvements.  Proposed regulatory amendments would establish an implementation schedule for new equipment and facility infrastructure requirements, with effective dates beginning in 2026.  In this potential action, all mobile equipment at ports and rail yards, including but not limited to: diesel, gasoline, natural gas, and propane-fueled equipment, would be subject to new requirements.  ARB staff would also consider opportunities to prioritize the earliest implementation in or adjacent to the communities most impacted by air pollution. No changes to the regulations have been adopted by ARB.

If the staff proposal is ever adopted, this action could potentially achieve emission reductions of criteria pollutants, air toxics, and GHGs, beginning in 2026, with more than 90% penetration of zero-emission equipment by 2036. The proposed changes to the CHE Regulation are in line with the 2022 Scoping Plan, which calls for 100% of CHE be zero-emission by 2037 and 100% of drayage trucks are zero emission by 2035.

1. Challenges to state regulations. California has aggressively adopted GHG reduction targets to reduce the state’s portfolio of climate emissions and hope to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. That goal includes phasing out fossil fuels and requiring all new cars to be zero-emission by 2035, requiring cleaner trucks, locomotives, commercial ships, and off-road diesel vehicles, like tractors and construction equipment.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, states must comply with the federal air quality attainment standards for air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. In 1967, Congress gave California the authority to set its own standards for cars and other vehicles through a waiver to the Federal Clean Act Air. Each of California’s emission standards must be granted a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) before it can take effect.

With the election of President Trump, who was expected to deny or try to revoke all of the waivers that California has been seeking to enforce its clean air standards, the state moved to withdraw from the U.S. EPA application requests for the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation and In-Use Locomotive Regulation, as well as limited aspects of the Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation and Transportation Refrigeration Units regulation. (The state does not need a waiver from the U.S. EPA for the CHE regulations, and, arguably, the pause in enforcement of the other air quality regulations creates pressure to advance other ambitious GHG reduction regulations, like the CHE regulation.)

Further, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) 2022 Overview of California’s Ports, identified several barriers that impede ports’ progress in pursuing emissions reductions, including: (1) certain electric vehicles and equipment are not yet widely available, (2) costs are high, and (3) current battery reliability may not suit port operations. The LAO suggested that given the scope of the types of equipment and vehicles that will need to be electrified across all California ports, the costs could easily reach billions of dollars.

1. Pilot program. This bill sets up a pilot program for lower-emission (near zero-emission) CHE technologies that are purchased before December 31, 2027.

To be eligible under the pilot, CHE must be certified by the manufacturer, and verified by a third party, as meeting the emission specifications of less than 1 g CO₂/kWh or less than 1 g CO₂/km. Certified CHE is protected from future regulation mandating lower emissions than the covered CHE produces, but the CHE purchased under the pilot cannot remain in use beyond the average useful life of the piece of equipment as designated in the Emission Estimation Methodology for CHE operating at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards in California, as established in the California Code of Regulations.

1. Eligible technologies. Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines (H2ICE) is a potential CHE equipment technology that the sponsors of the bill envision as eligible as covered equipment under this bill. H2ICE combusts hydrogen in a traditional internal combustion engine and uses existing CHE architecture and supply chains. It is recognized that it is not a replacement for battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell technology, but the sponsors of this bill see it as a complimentary technology that can become a major part of the solution. The H2ICE equipment is not yet available. It is believed that there is likely an 18-24 month lead-time for equipment orders as they are not yet in full production.
2. To invest or not to invest in lower-emission equipment: that is the question. The useful life of CHE can be up to 22 years, and ARB regulations are expected to have earlier zero emission deadlines. To address that, this bill prohibits ARB from adopting a future regulation that prohibits or disallows for the use of its entire useful life any CHE, as defined, that is purchased pursuant to the program before December 31, 2027. Investing in expensive equipment in spite of the state’s goals to achieve carbon neutrality may fly in the face of ARB’s impending regulatory update, but the bill is attempting to provide a stepping stone to compliance with zero emission requirements. Also, the pilot program will be voluntary, so investments would only be made in new equipment if an entity chose to do so.
3. Double referral. This bill was heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 21 and approved by a vote of 15-0.
4. Related legislation:
   1. AB 2760 (Muratsuchi, 2024) would have enacted, until January 1, 2032, the Lower Emissions Equipment at Seaports and Intermodal Yards Program at ARB to approve as covered equipment applicable CHE that will reduce cumulative emissions at seaports and intermodal yards in the state. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   2. AB 1743 (Bennett, 2023) would have enacted the Lower Emissions Transition Program and required ARB to approve projects that reduce cumulative emissions from CHE, and sources at seaports in the state during the transition period to zero-emissions CHE requirements. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Cleanearth4kids.org
International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 13
International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 63
International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 94
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
The Climate Reality Project Orange County Chapter
The Climate Reality Project, California State Coalition
The Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
The Climate Reality Project, San Diego Chapter
The Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley CA Chapter

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Paige Brokaw / NAT. RES. /

Date of Hearing: April 21, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Lori D. Wilson, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 605 (

Author:Muratsuchi) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

SUBJECT: Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment Pilot program

SUMMARY: Creates the Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) Pilot program to allow for emissions certified CHE deployment under the program, and requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to not prohibit its use prior to the end of its useful life. Specifically, this bill:

1. Qualifies as a piece of CHE for participation in the Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment Pilot when all of the following have occurred between the time of purchase and delivery:
2. The manufacturer has certified that the equipment meets the emission specifications of less than 1g CO2/km or less than 1g CO2/kWh, the purchase requirements of this bill, and the date of delivery of the piece of equipment;
3. The manufacturer has procured an opinion of an independent third party to validate that the certification rendered meets the emissions rate of less than 1g CO2/km or less than 1g CO2/kWh;
4. The manufacturer physically affixes a label to the CHE, or otherwise makes a note, in a prominent and readily viewable location on the CHE, that contains both of the following:
5. A description that reads, “Purchased pursuant to the Lower Emissions Cargo Handling Equipment Pilot”; and,
6. The dates of purchase and expected delivery.
7. The manufacturer produces written copies confirming and containing the manufacturer certification, third-party validation of certification, and proof of equipment labeling or marking pursuant to this section.
8. Requires that at all times post-delivery a piece of CHE shall maintain its labeling or notation as a piece of pilot technology equipment.
9. Requires that a piece of CHE subject to this bill shall include, at the time of delivery, a description, warrant, or both, of the useful life of the piece of CHE from the manufacturer. If a piece of cargo handling equipment subject to this bill does not have a description, warrant, or both, of the useful life of the CHE shall not be protected by the terms of this bill.
10. Prohibits the useful life of a piece of CHE subject to this bill from exceeding the average useful life in years for port or rail operations provided for any specific equipment type as designated in the Emission Estimation Methodology for Cargo Handling Equipment Operating at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards in California, Table II-6, as prepared by CARB in support of adoption of Section 2479 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.
11. Prohibits CARB from adopting future regulations that prohibit or disallow a piece of CHE subject to this bill from utilizing the entire useful life from the date of delivery that is purchased pursuant to this bill prior to December 31, 2027.
12. Defines “cargo handling equipment” as any off-road, self-propelled vehicle, or equipment used at a port or intermodal railyard to lift or move container cargo that meets the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission performance standard of less than 1g CO₂/km or less than 1g CO₂/kWh.
13. Specifies that CHE includes, but is not limited to, top handlers, side handlers, straddle carriers, reach stackers, forklifts, loaders, and aerial lifts. CHE does not include any equipment that is licensed as an on -road vehicle. CHE does not include any excavators or dozers.
14. States that CHE does not mean any fully automated cargo handling equipment, including equipment that is remotely operated and remotely monitored with or without the exercise of human intervention or control.
15. States that this bill is not intended to prescribe or otherwise preclude the application of any future emission standards by CARB, except as specified.
16. States that this bill is self-executing and does not require any implementing or interpretive rulemaking by CARB or any other agency to become operative.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes CARB as the air pollution control agency in California and requires CARB, among other things, to control emissions from a wide array of mobile sources and coordinate with local air districts to control emission from stationary sources in order to implement the Federal Clean Air Act. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) 39602; HSC 39602.5)
2. Requires CARB, pursuant to California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32 (Núñez) Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) to adopt a statewide Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions limit equivalent to 1990 levels by 2020 and to develop a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost effective reductions in GHGs. (HSC 38500)
3. Requires, pursuant to SB 32 (Pavley) Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016 that CARB ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. (HSC 38566)
4. Provides, pursuant to the California Climate Crisis Act (AB 1279 (Muratsuchi) Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022) that it is the policy of the state to do both of the following:
   1. Achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible but no later than 2045; and,
   2. Ensure that by 2045, GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85% below 1990 levels.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Mobile source emissions refers to air pollution generated by vehicles, engines, and equipment that can be moved from one location to another. The fossil fuels that power mobile sources are the largest contributors to the formation of ozone, GHG emissions, fine particulate matter (PM_2.5), and toxic diesel particulate matter. In California, they are responsible for approximately 80% of smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions. They also represent about 50% of GHGs when including emissions from fuel production, and more than 95% of toxic diesel particulate matter emissions. Statewide, more than 21 million out of over 39 million Californians live in areas that exceed the federal ozone standards; within these areas, there are many low-income and disadvantaged communities that are exposed to not only ozone, but also particulate and toxic, pollutant levels significantly higher than the federal standards which have immediate and detrimental health effects.

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act of 1970 instructs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set primary NAAQS to protect public health, and secondary NAAQS to protect plants, forests, crops and materials from damage due to exposure to six air pollutants. These pollutants include: particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and lead.

Federal law (42 United States Code 7409 and 7410) requires that all states attain the NAAQS and develop State Implementation Plans (SIP) for nonattainment areas to attain the NAAQS, and attainment areas to maintain attainment. Failure of a state to reach attainment of the NAAQS by the target date can trigger penalties, including withholding of federal highway funds.

Under State law (Health and Safety Code (HSC) 39602), CARB is responsible for developing the SIP emission reduction strategies for cars, trucks, and other mobile sources to meet the requirements in the Clean Air Act. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is the State agency responsible for controlling pesticide emissions. Local air districts are primarily responsible for controlling emissions from stationary sources such as factories and power plants. CARB coordinates closely with the local air districts in the development of attainment plans which are then incorporated into the SIP.

Shipping and CHE. A shipping container is a large standardized container designed to be used across different modes of transport—from ship to rail to truck—without unloading or reloading the cargo. Container ports are facilities where cargo or shipping containers are transferred between different vehicles and machinery to move goods, both containerized and bulk. CHE such as yard trucks (hostlers), container handlers, and forklifts are central to port operations.

Most port equipment is powered by diesel or gasoline. Emissions from ports contribute to poor air quality that affects not only port workers, but also those who live and work in neighboring communities. Often these are low-income or disadvantaged communities. Diesel- and gasoline powered port equipment also produces GHGs, contributing to climate change. In recent years, several ports have set goals to become zero-emission, or “green” ports, including the Port of Hueneme, and the larger Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.

CARB adopted the Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment Regulation on December 8, 2005 and amended it in 2011, to reduce toxic and criteria emissions to protect public health and it was fully implemented by the end of 2017. The regulation requires CHE to use the Best Available Control Technology and has achieved a 91% reduction in diesel particulate matter and a 74% reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NO_x). CARB staff are currently assessing the availability and performance of zero-emission technology as an alternative to all combustion-powered cargo equipment and evaluating additional solutions that may include efficiency improvements.

CARB plans to amend its regulation to transition CHE to zero-emission. According to a proposal from CARB in 2018: “Staff would assess the availability and performance of zero-emission technology as an alternative to all combustion-powered cargo equipment and evaluate additional solutions that may include efficiency improvements. The regulatory amendments would propose an implementation schedule for new equipment and facility infrastructure requirements, with effective dates beginning in 2026. CARB staff would also consider opportunities to prioritize the earliest implementation in or adjacent to the communities most impacted by air pollution.” In CARB’s potential action, all mobile equipment at ports and rail yards would be subject to new requirements for zero-emission. Although CARB previously suggested effective dates beginning in 2026, CARB has not yet initiated the rulemaking process.

Powering CHE. Increasingly, CHE may be powered by cleaner, alternative fuels, such as electricity, hydrogen, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The table below shows the types of fuel that various types of power CHE can use today. Cleaner alternative power sources are developing and more will be available in the future.

Source: Argonne National Laboratory, Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports, March 2022

Hydrogen for CHE. In October 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awarded $1.2 billion to California’s Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES) through the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Program created under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. ARCHES is a statewide public-private partnership to produce and create a market for renewable hydrogen. The ARCHES program is expected to focus on hydrogen infrastructure projects in support of three hard-to-decarbonize sectors: heavy-duty vehicles, power plants, and ports.

Federal funding for ARCHES is currently facing uncertainty. On March 26, 2025, Politico reported that a list circulating internally at the DOE suggested cutting funding to ARCHES, along with the three other hydrogen hubs located in democratic leaning states. Politico adds “The funding cuts are under consideration amid President Donald Trump’s directive to cut government waste and eliminate climate-focused spending enacted during the Biden administration. Previous submissions for spending cuts from DOE offices included potentially eliminating federal funding for all seven of the hydrogen hub projects.”

Although most hydrogen strategies have focused on zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell (H₂FC) technology, there has been renewed interest in hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines (H₂ ICEs). Over the last few years both the public and private sector have explored H₂ ICEs for heavy-duty trucking and CHE applications. The DOE recently awarded $10.5 million total, with individual awards of $3.5 million each, to PACCAR Inc., Cummins Inc. and MAHLE Powertrain LLC to develop hydrogen combustion engines for medium- and heavy-duty applications. A number of heavy-duty engine manufacturers and light-duty car makers have also announced H₂ ICE prototypes in the works, as government regulations require them to decarbonize.

H₂ ICEs are an old pre-commercial technology. Due to similarities with traditional gasoline and diesel internal combustion engines, H₂ ICEs are much cheaper than H₂ FC technology in terms of manufacturing cost. H₂ ICEs can operate flexibly as bi-fuel systems, using either diesel or hydrogen, and can run on much less purified hydrogen as compared to H₂ FC systems, which require high purity hydrogen.

Unlike H₂ FC technology, however, H₂ ICEs would not be considered zero-emission under existing state regulations, since the high operating temperatures of H₂ ICEs generate NO_x and trace carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions (from engine oil). However, H₂ ICEs produce significantly lower levels of other pollutant species compared to diesel-powered engines, and using optimized combustion processes and catalytic conversion after-treatment systems, tailpipe NO_x emissions from H₂ ICEs can be reduced to near zero.

Some studies have shown that the CO₂ emissions profile of hydrogen internal combustion engine technology may not be substantially less than diesel if emissions from hydrogen generation are included. Currently, hydrogen is largely produced from methane, with limited production of “green hydrogen” using cleaner solar or wind energy. The CO₂ emissions from hydrogen generation similarly apply to H₂ FC technology.

The state has prioritized advancement of zero-emission technologies as part of its climate goals. Among the fuel types listed above, only electric and fuel cell are considered to be zero-emission technologies. However, in Europe, H₂ ICE-equipped heavy duty vehicles are sanctioned as a “zero-emission” technology as long as they satisfy CO₂ emissions limits of less than 1 g CO₂/kWh or less than 1g CO₂/km. Hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines are the only known internal combustion engine that meet these EU regulations.

Committee comments: The transition of CHE at seaports and intermodal railyards to zero-emission is challenged by a lack of zero-emission CHE combined with the difficulty of providing enough transmission infrastructure or hydrogen supply chains to support this equipment. This bill proposes to address that challenge by providing a useful life reassurance on new hydrogen–powered CHE, and more specifically, H₂ ICE-powered CHE, that would cumulatively decrease emissions over the regulatory baseline, while also providing a transitional technology to convert port operations to hydrogen fuel cells.

Though there is no prohibition on the use of H₂ ICE-powered CHE today, H₂ ICE-powered CHE are currently in development and may not be available to use for several years. The useful life of traditional CHE can be up to 24 years, so this bill will likely result in front loading the purchases of ‘not quite zero’ emission cargo equipment that would then be in service for up to 24 years, assuming a comparable useful life of hydrogen-powered CHE to diesel CHE. To address concerns related to the non-zero emissions from H₂ ICE technology, the author may wish to add provisions to this bill, such as requiring covered equipment to use renewable hydrogen (or hydrogen not derived from fossil fuels) or grant CARB discretion to require purchase of GHG offsets for any future emissions by hydrogen-powered CHE in excess of regulatory requirements for zero emission.

With the next CHE amendment on the horizon, this bill may pose a complicated endeavor for only a short-term window of opportunity. It is possible that by the time CARB establishes guidelines, there will be a zero-emission cargo handling regulation in development and soon to be implemented. As an alternative to the bill, CARB could consider incorporating useful life provisions into the future zero-emission cargo handling regulation.

In addition, this bill could have secondary impacts on ports’ efforts to upgrade their infrastructure in preparation for cleaner technologies. Specifically, because hybrid and transitional technologies allow for equipment to partially continue to operate as it always has, these technologies may not necessitate ports to completely upgrade their infrastructure in preparation for fully zero-emission hydrogen equipment. Allowing for “transitional technologies” to operate at the ports could delay necessary infrastructure upgrades, delay ports’ transition to fully zero-emission technologies, and delay expected cost decreases in zero-emission CHE that would result from increased adoption and manufacturing economies of scale.

The current landscape of federal funding uncertainty for ARCHES and other hydrogen hubs will likely delay the buildout of hydrogen infrastructure in California and possibly nationwide. The consequences will not only effect the pace at which hydrogen supply reaches the ports, it will also likely keep the cost of hydrogen at elevated prices, undercutting the cost effectiveness of equipment covered in this bill.

Additionally, while it is technologically feasible to ensure minimal NO_x emissions from H₂ ICE, this bill does not contain standards for NO_x emissions. The author may consider including a NO_x emission standard to align with California’s definition of zero-emissions or add requirements for combustion optimization processes and the inclusion of catalytic conversion after-treatment systems on equipment deployed under the provisions in this bill.

According to the author. “California must reduce emissions from Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE) while ensuring ports remain competitive in global trade. However, operators hesitate to invest in lower-emission equipment due to concerns about future regulations that could phase it out before the end of its useful life. AB 605 addresses this by allowing transitional CHE that meets EU decarburization standards to be used for its full lifespan, ensuring near-term emissions reductions while paving the way for a full transition to zero-emission (ZE) technology. By providing regulatory certainty, the bill accelerates emissions reductions in disadvantaged communities near ports while supporting the state’s long-term climate goals.”

Arguments in support. The South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce writes, “AB 605 establishes the Lower Emissions Equipment at Seaports and Intermodal Yards Program, incentivizing ports to adopt transitional low-emission cargo-handling equipment—like cranes and forklifts—while zero-emission technologies mature. Crucially, it prohibits the State Air Resources Board from restricting equipment purchased under this program before December 31, 2027, offering businesses regulatory certainty. By aligning with EU emission standards, the bill ensures California ports remain competitive globally, preventing cargo diversion to less-regulated regions.”

Double referral. This bill is double referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and will be heard by that Committee as it relates to issues under its jurisdiction.

Related legislation. AB 2760 (Muratsuchi) would have established the Lower Emissions at Seaports and Intermodal Yards Program, administered by CARB, to certify CHE that reduces cumulative emissions compared to current regulatory baseline as “covered equipment” under the program, and further prohibits CARB from requiring the mandatory retirement, replacement, retrofit, or repowering of covered equipment until the end of its useful life. AB 2760 died in Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 1743 (Bennett, Legislative Session 2023-2024) would have established the Lower Emissions Transition Program, requiring CARB to establish guidelines and methodologies for approving project applications for CHE having lower cumulative emissions as compared to regulatory baseline and prohibiting CARB from requiring CHE under an approved project to be replaced or retrofitted with zero-emission technology before the end of useful life of the CHE. AB 1743 died in Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1 (Beall) Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017, in addition to increasing taxes and fees to raise $50 billion over ten years in new transportation revenues, provides owners of commercial motor vehicles certainty about the useful life of engines certified by CARB and other applicable agencies to meet required environmental standards for sale in the state.

AB 998 (Lowenthal), Chapter 821, Statutes of 2003 establishes the Non-Toxic Dry Cleaning Incentive Program (AB 998 Program), which provides incentives for dry cleaners in the state to transition from systems using perchloroethylene (Perc), a toxic air contaminant and potential human carcinogen to non-toxic, non-smog forming systems. AB 998 assesses a per gallon fee on Perc distributors, which then funds grants for dry cleaners to adopt dry cleaning systems using non-toxic and non-smog forming technologies.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Cleanearth4kids.org

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association

South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce

The Climate Reality Project Orange County Chapter

The Climate Reality Project, California State Coalition

The Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter

The Climate Reality Project, San Diego Chapter

The Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley CA Chapter

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Aaron Kurz / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093