The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

CEQA authorizes the Governor to certify projects meeting certain requirements as infrastructure projects and provide those certified projects with certain streamlining benefits, including requiring the lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings concurrently with the environmental review process and requiring the resolution of an action or proceeding challenging the certification of an EIR for certified projects or the granting of any project approvals, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the filing of the record of proceedings with the court, as specified. Existing law requires the lead agency, within 10 days of the certification of an infrastructure project, to provide a public notice of the certification, as provided. If a lead agency fails to approve a project certified as an infrastructure project before January 1, 2033, existing law specifies that the certification is no longer valid.

This bill would authorize the Governor to certify up to 3 sustainable aviation fuel projects, as defined, meeting certain requirements, as infrastructure projects, thereby providing the above streamlining benefits to those projects. By expanding the duties of a lead agency as they relate to infrastructure projects and to sustainable aviation fuel projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

CEQA authorizes the Governor to certify projects meeting certain requirements as infrastructure projects and provide those certified projects with certain streamlining benefits, including requiring the lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings concurrently with the environmental review process and requiring the resolution of an action or proceeding challenging the certification of an EIR for certified projects or the granting of any project approvals, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the filing of the record of proceedings with the court, as specified. Existing law requires the lead agency, within 10 days of the certification of an infrastructure project, to provide a public notice of the certification, as provided. If a lead agency fails to approve a project certified as an infrastructure project before January 1, 2033, existing law specifies that the certification is no longer valid.

This bill would authorize the Governor to certify up to 3 sustainable aviation fuel projects, as defined, meeting certain requirements, as infrastructure projects, thereby providing the above streamlining benefits to those projects. By expanding the duties of a lead agency as they relate to infrastructure projects and to sustainable aviation fuel projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

CEQA authorizes the Governor to certify projects meeting certain requirements as infrastructure projects and provide those certified projects with certain streamlining benefits, including requiring the lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings concurrently with the environmental review process and requiring the resolution of an action or proceeding challenging the certification of an EIR for certified projects or the granting of any project approvals, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the filing of the record of proceedings with the court, as specified. Existing law requires the lead agency, within 10 days of the certification of an infrastructure project, to provide a public notice of the certification, as provided. If a lead agency fails to approve a project certified as an infrastructure project before January 1, 2033, existing law specifies that the certification is no longer valid.

This bill would authorize the Governor to certify up to 3 sustainable aviation fuel projects, as defined, meeting certain requirements, as infrastructure projects, thereby providing the above streamlining benefits to those projects. By expanding the duties of a lead agency as they relate to infrastructure projects and to sustainable aviation fuel projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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 prohibits an airport operator or aviation retail establishment, as defined, from selling, distributing, or otherwise making available leaded aviation gasoline to consumers on or after January 1, 2031.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation that facilitates the development of infrastructure for sustainable aviation fuel in California.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 839 (Blanca Rubio) - California Environmental Quality Act: expedited judicial review: sustainable aviation fuel projects

Bill Summary:

This bill would provide for expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for up to three sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) facilities that don’t increase air pollution – providing for expedited (270 days, if feasible) judicial review for projects certified by the governor, approved by the lead agency on or before January 1, 2033, and meeting specified environmental and labor requirements.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) estimates ongoing costs of $102,000 annually until 2032 (General Fund) to update LCI’s judicial streamlining program guidance.

Background:

Jet engines emit CO2, water vapor, NOx, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants, with 90% released above 3,000 feet and the remaining 10% during taxiing, takeoff, and landing. California consumed roughly 59 million barrels (about 2.5 billion gallons) of jet fuel in 2020 per the U.S. Energy Information Administration; international aviation accounts for about 2% of global GHG emissions and about 13% of U.S. transportation emissions, though only 1% of California's transportation-related emissions. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is a biofuel with properties similar to conventional jet fuel that blends with it and runs on existing infrastructure, and depending on feedstock and production technology can cut life cycle GHG emissions — some pathways potentially net-negative — but remains much costlier than fossil jet fuel. CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan envisions 10% of aviation fuel demand met by electricity or hydrogen in 2045, with SAF supplying most or all of the remainder, though the pathways to reach that outcome are not defined. Under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which sets a declining carbon intensity benchmark for transportation fuels, CARB approved changes in 2018 allowing alternative aviation fuels to generate credits without incurring deficits as gasoline and diesel do; participation is voluntary, and SAF reportedly makes up less than 1% of the LCFS credit market.

California has three operating SAF refineries — in Paramount, Rodeo, and Martinez — all full or partial conversions of existing petroleum refineries, plus a proposed facility in Riverbank near Modesto at a former Army ammunition plant and Superfund site that has been locally approved and cleared CEQA. All are sited in communities with decades of industrial pollution that rank near the top of CalEnviroScreen metrics for air pollution and/or toxics. These facilities refine SAF from largely imported fats, oils, and greases, with commercial feedstocks including tallow, used cooking oil, distiller's corn oil, seed oils, and palm oil refining byproducts; approved LCFS pathways include refineries in Louisiana and Montana using fats shipped from Southeast Asia and South America, though recently adopted LCFS amendments will bar palm-based oils going forward. No existing commercial refinery uses agricultural or forest waste, as producing SAF from cellulosic waste is more complex and expensive than refining fats, which is itself already significantly more expensive than conventional fossil jet fuel.

Proposed Law:

This bill would:

1. Authorize the governor to certify up to three SAF projects for streamlining pursuant to SB 149, and meeting the same labor, mitigation, and net zero GHG standards as private energy and semiconductor projects under SB 149.
2. Define “sustainable aviation fuel project” as a project that:
   1. Is either:
      1. A new construction, conversion of an existing facility, or an expansion of an existing SAF facility;
      2. Used to manufacture, process, store, distribute, or transport SAF or feedstock used for the production of SAF; or
      3. A new construction, conversion, or expansion of an existing facility to manufacture electrochemical components used in the production of SAF;
   2. And that meets all of the following requirements:
      1. The project uses a “skilled and trained” workforce for all construction work and requires contractors and subcontractors to pay to all construction workers employed in the execution of the project at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages;
      2. If the project involves the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source (i.e., major sources of air pollution, including refineries), the project will reduce emissions of air pollutants compared to the baseline environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as determined by the applicable air district; and
      3. If the project does not involve the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source, the project will not cause a significant effect on the environment attributable to any air pollutant, as determined by the applicable air district.
3. Define “sustainable aviation fuel” as hydrocarbon fuel that meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standard D7566 for aviation turbine fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons and can be used as alternative jet fuel, as defined in, and meeting the requirements of, the LCFS regulation.

Related Legislation:

AB 1322 (R. Rivas, 2021) would have required CARB, to develop an incentives-based plan to promote the use of SAF and other alternatives to jet fuel to reduce the impact of commercial aviation on climate change. AB 1322 was vetoed by Governor Newsom.

SB 149 (Caballero, Chapter 60, Statutes of 2023) established new expedited (270 days, if feasible) judicial review procedures for four categories of public and private “infrastructure” projects.

Staff Comments:

The Judicial Council remains in opposition to judicial streamlining efforts for specified CEQA matters as, according to Judicial Council, these matters are often complicated legislation that take dedicated courtrooms and diverts judicial resources and creates access to justice issues for other civil litigants awaiting their day in court. However, as the bill does include a requirement for the applicant to pay the higher filling fees associated with Rule of Court 3.2440, the council does not have fiscal concerns with the bill.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 839 (Author:Blanca Rubio)

Version: May 26, 2026

Hearing Date: June 30, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

California Environmental Quality Act: expedited judicial review: sustainable aviation fuel projects

DIGEST

The bill authorizes the Governor to certify up to three sustainable aviation fuel projects, as defined, that meet certain requirements, as infrastructure projects, thereby providing the certified projects with an expedited administrative and 270-day judicial review process for litigation involving the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Existing law authorizes the Governor to certify projects that meet certain criteria as infrastructure projects that receive certain streamlining benefits, such as accelerated CEQA review. Any judicial challenges arising from that process are, to the extent feasible, to be resolved within 270 days of the filing of the administrative record. These provisions are intended to expedite beneficial development, but entail potential tradeoffs with respect to the sufficiency of environmental review, the burden on courts, and access to justice for other litigants, a concern magnified by the judicial backlog arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.^[1] This bill authorizes the Governor to certify up to three sustainable aviation fuel projects as infrastructure projects, thereby providing for expedited CEQA administrative and 270-day judicial review.

The bill is author sponsored and supported by various companies and organizations representing the aviation industry, including Boeing and United Airlines. The bill is opposed by several environmental advocacy organizations and the Judicial Council of California. The bill passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on a vote of 5 to 1.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines). (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100 et seq.)^[2]
   
2. Sets requirements relating to the preparation, review, comment, approval and certification of environmental documents, as well as procedures relating to an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul various actions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA. (§§ 21165 et seq.)
3. Established the Jobs and Economic Improvement through Environmental Leadership Act (Act), which established CEQA administrative and judicial review procedures for an “environmental leadership” project. These provisions sunset on January 1, 2034. (§§ 21178 et seq.)
   1. These projects include, among others, certain energy infrastructure projects, a semiconductor or microelectronic project, a transportation-related project, and a water-related project, as defined. (§ 21189.81(e).)
4. Authorizes certain transit projects to be eligible for expedited administrative and judicial review under CEQA. (§ 21168.6.9.)
5. Authorizes certain environmental leadership media campus projects to be eligible for expedited administrative and judicial review under CEQA. (§ 21168.6.6.)

This bill:

1. Authorizes the Governor to certify up to three sustainable aviation fuel projects under the Act if the project meets certain existing requirements, which would make the project eligible for expedited CEQA administrative review and 270-day judicial review.
2. Requires the Governor to ensure all of the following:
   1. the applicant agrees to pay the costs of the trial court and the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case challenging a lead agency’s action on a certified project, including payment of the costs for the appointment of a special master if deemed appropriate by the court, in a form and manner as provided in the rule of court adopted by the Judicial Council;
   2. the applicant agrees to pay the costs of preparing the record of proceedings for the project concurrent with the review and consideration of the project under this division, in a form and manner specified by the lead agency for the project; and
   3. the applicant demonstrates that the record of proceedings is being prepared as required under the Act for a project for which environmental review has commenced.
3. Provides that the Governor may only certify a sustainable aviation fuel project if the project does not result in any net additional emission of greenhouse gases, including greenhouse gas emissions from employee transportation. A project is deemed to meet this requirement if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Governor that the applicant has a binding commitment that it will mitigate impacts resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases, if any, as provided.
4. Defines “sustainable aviation fuel project” to mean a project for the new construction, conversion, or expansion of a facility to manufacture, process, store, distribute, or transport sustainable aviation fuel or feedstock used for the production of sustainable aviation fuel, or to manufacture electrochemical components used for the production of sustainable aviation fuel, that meets all of the following:
   1. existing requirements under the Act related to public works;
   2. does not use fossil fuels in its production process;
   3. the project will reduce emissions of air pollutants compared to the baseline environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as determined by the applicable air district, if the project involves the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source, as defined in Section 39053.5 of the Health and Safety Code;
   4. the project will not cause a significant effect on the environment attributable to any air pollutant, as determined by the applicable air district, if the project does not involve the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source, as defined in Section 39053.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
5. Defines “sustainable aviation fuel” to mean hydrocarbon fuel that meets the ASTM International (ASTM) standard D7566 for aviation turbine fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons and can be used as alternative jet fuel, as defined in Section 95481 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, that meets the requirements of Subarticle 7 (commencing with Section 95480) of Article 4 of Subchapter 10 of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
6. Makes various findings and declarations of the Legislature.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

AB 839 will provide an essential tool for California to draw investment for and production of sustainable aviation fuel in California. SAF production jobs are well-paying, highly skilled jobs (both in construction/retooling of facilities, and in production). California has 27 commercial airports, and two major international gateways (LAX and SFO). The State Scoping Plan requires that at least 3.2 billion gallons of SAF be used 20 years – by 2045. It is in our economic interest and our environmental interest that we do all we can to draw production of SAF to California. Commercial airlines and airports have been working for 10 years to bring SAF to the forefront of our policies that impact aviation in California. Research and development of SAF has been ongoing for decades, with in-flight testing first occurring in 2008. R & D continues on the use of desirable feedstocks, including municipal solid waste and woody biomass. SAF is and will be the step between conventional jet fuel use and electric technologies for larger aircraft, estimated to be 40 to 50 years away. This is a smart step and a smart policy for California.

1. CEQA

Enacted in 1970, CEQA requires state and local agencies to follow a set protocol to disclose and evaluate the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and to adopt feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA itself applies to projects undertaken or requiring approval by public agencies, and, if more than one agency is involved, CEQA requires one of the agencies to be designated as the “lead agency.” The environmental review process required by CEQA consists of: (1) determining if the activity is a project; (2) determining if the project is exempt from CEQA; and (3) performing an initial study to identify the environmental impacts and, depending on the findings, preparing either a Negative Declaration (for projects with no significant impacts), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (for projects with significant impacts but that are revised in some form to avoid or mitigate those impacts), or an EIR (for projects with significant impacts).

An EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Before approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings pertaining to the project’s environmental impact and any associated mitigation measures. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures. To enforce the requirements of CEQA, a civil action may be brought under several code sections to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency for noncompliance with the act.

“CEQA operates, not by dictating proenvironmental outcomes, but rather by mandating that ‘decision makers and the public’ study the likely environmental effects of contemplated government actions and thus make fully informed decisions regarding those actions. … In other words, CEQA does not care what decision is made as long as it is an informed one.” (Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 577.)

1. Expedited judicial review under CEQA

Unlike other environmental laws specific to air resources, water resources, or the control of toxic substances, there is no statewide bureaucracy charged with enforcement of CEQA. Rather, it is enforced through citizen participation and litigation if necessary. Arguably, this makes the implementation of CEQA more efficient and expeditious than if a state agency were created to administer the law. Thus, CEQA litigation could more appropriately be characterized as mere enforcement.

Several provisions streamline judicial review of challenges to projects under CEQA, including:

• discovery is generally not allowed, as CEQA cases are generally restricted to review of the record;^[3]
• concurrent preparation of the record of proceedings to enable judicial review to occur sooner;^[4]
• counties with a population of over 200,000 must designate one or more judges to develop expertise on CEQA and hear CEQA cases (§ 21167.1 (b));
• both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal must give CEQA lawsuits preference over all other civil actions (§ 21167.1(a)); and
• if feasible, the Court of Appeal must hear a CEQA appeal within one year of filing (§ 21167.1(a)).

Additionally, several bills have provided for a 270-day judicial review period for environmental leadership projects,^[5] as well as for specified stadium projects,^[6] a San Diego transit and transportation facilities project,^[7] and the Capitol Annex.^[8]

The principal framework associated with these provisions is AB 900 (Buchanan, Ch. 354, Stats. 2011), which were extended and revised by SB 7 (Atkins, Ch. 19; Stats. 2021) and SB 149 (Caballero, Ch. 60, Stats. 2023). These provisions establish procedures for 270-day expedited judicial review for “environmental leadership” projects with a minimum investment of $100,000,000 that are certified by the Governor and meet specified conditions. Such projects include clean renewable energy projects, clean energy manufacturing projects, and LEED Gold-certified infill site projects with transportation efficiency 15 percent greater than comparable projects and zero net additional GHG emissions, and housing development projects with a minimum investment of $15,000,000. In 2023, SB 149 made additional infrastructure projects eligible for expedited judicial review, including an energy infrastructure project, a semiconductor or microelectronic project, a transportation-related project, and a water-related project, as defined.

A 2019 report entitled Review of Environmental Leadership Development Projects from the Senate Office of Research reviewed litigation under AB 900 and SB 743 (Steinberg, Ch. 386, Stats. 2013), which provided for 270-day review for the Sacramento Kings arena. The report found the following timelines, which under then-existing law began when the administrative record was certified^[9] and include the trial court, court of appeal, and the Supreme Court’s denial of review, for those cases:

The report concluded that these projects were reviewed under a faster timeline than normally would apply, benefiting the developers and providing upfront financial security. The report also stated that “the impacts to the court from such a short timeline also should be taken into consideration when determining how fast the Legislature would like [AB 900] cases resolved,” and suggested a longer timeline may be appropriate.^[10] In 2021, the Legislature enacted SB 44 (Allen, Ch. 663, Stats. 2021) to make certain transit projects eligible for expedited administrative and judicial review under CEQA within 365 calendar days, to the extent feasible. Last year, AB 3265 (Bryan, Ch. 255, Stats. 2024) was enacted to make certain environmental leadership media campus projects eligible for expedited administrative and judicial review under CEQA within 365 calendar days, to the extent feasible. SB 676 (Limón, Ch 550, Stats. 2025) made projects that are located in a geographic area that was damaged by a fire for which the Governor declared a state of emergency on or after January 1, 2023, eligible for expedited administrative and judicial review under CEQA.

1. Expedited judicial review entails tradeoffs, including potentially burdening the courts and affecting access to justice for other litigants

As described above, the Legislature has continually expanded projects that qualify for expedited judicial review under CEQA. Additionally, the Legislature has begun applying expedited judicial review to other areas of the law as well. For example, SB 808 (Caballero, Ch. 527, Stats. 2025) established an expedited writ of mandate procedure for judicial review of a local agency decision denying approval of a housing development project, as defined.^[11] This Committee will be considering three CEQA expedited judicial review bills this legislative session. (see Pending Legislation Section.)

Under existing law, certain parties are entitled to calendar preference, including a party that is at least 70 years old and in ill health, a party in a personal injury or wrongful death matter who is under the age of 14, or a party that is unlikely to survive beyond another six months. (Code Civ. Proc. § 36). Additionally, certain actions receive calendar preference, including appeals in probate proceedings, contested election cases, and actions for libel or slander by a person who holds any elective public office or a candidate for any such office alleged to have occurred during the course of an election campaign. (Code Civ. Proc. § 44.) Additionally, existing law already provides that the superior court and appeals courts are to give CEQA lawsuits preference over all other civil actions. (Gov. Code § 21167.1(a).) These expedited CEQA judicial review bills taken as one-offs may not seem to cause a major concern for the courts and are intended to expedite beneficial development. However, when taken as a whole, these bills entail potential tradeoffs with respect to not only the sufficiency of environmental review, but increasing pressure on court dockets and access to justice for other litigants. These concerns have only been magnified by the judicial backlog arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.^[12]

In this regard, the Judicial Council of California writes in opposition to the bill, stating:

[…] Imposing the 270-day expedited judicial review timeline on top of existing calendar preferences [for CEQA cases] is arbitrary and likely to be unworkable in practice. This limited timeframe is especially restrictive if the court of appeal or the California Supreme Court must also decide some portion of a CEQA case. Even assuming that no extensions of time are granted for any aspect of the proceedings, it takes an estimated six months to get a case to hearing in the superior court, plus the additional time for the judge to decide and issue a decision.

When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. The courts are overwhelmed with their tasks of managing complicated calendars with myriad cases—each of which often comes with delays due to extension requests by counsel—but with finite resources and finite hours in the day. As with other legislation creating or prioritizing calendaring preferences, the expedited judicial review requirements proposed by AB 839 will likely have an adverse impact on other compelling cases in the courts, so setting a timeline for deciding hand-picked CEQA cases has the practical effect of pushing other cases on a court’s docket to the back of the line. This means that the other cases—including statutorily mandated calendar preferences, such as juvenile cases, criminal cases, civil cases in which a party is at risk of dying, wage theft cases, election issues—will likely take longer to be calendared and adjudicated.

1. Statements in support

United Airlines writes in support, stating:

[…] This measure is critical to facilitate and scale up the levels of SAF needed for the commercial aviation industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Until zero emission technologies are developed and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, SAF offers the most significant means of reducing GHG emissions, particulate matter and other criteria pollutants in the coming decades.

United Airlines is the largest airline in the world with over 100,000 employees serving 125 million customers annually through 360 destinations worldwide. United has been a strong global leader in working to advance new SAF technologies through investments and participation in research and development, and ultimately, production. We were the first U.S. airline to test SAF in 2009 and in 2016, we were the first U.S. airline to use SAF consistently in regularly scheduled flights.

SAF can be produced with the use of multiple feedstocks and technologies, including oils, fats and greases, hydrogen, agriculture and forest woody biomass and residue, solid waste and even captured carbon. Emissions in manufacturing are well below those emissions of fossil fuel refineries., and over the fuel’s lifecycle (from production to in-flight use) carbon emissions are reduced by up to 85%; particulate matter can be reduced by approximately 50% (up to 90%), and sulfur by 100%.[…]

1. Statements in opposition

A coalition of environmental organizations write in opposition, including Californians Against Waste and Earthjustice, stating:

[…] This bill would curtail judicial review of broadly defined “Sustainable Available Fuel (SAF) projects,” which undermines the rights of Californians impacted at all stages of the SAF supply chain by heightening and prolonging their exposure to harmful pollution.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases are inherently complex, and the wide-ranging environmental harms caused by the production and transportation of SAF and its feedstocks adds to that complexity. These impacts warrant careful scrutiny to ensure they are avoided and mitigated. Moreover, the climate and health benefits of SAF are overstated because feedstocks are not always derived from waste materials. They can include virgin, crop-based oils, and increased demand for such oils raises the price of food and causes deforestation and climate impacts. Unfettered SAF growth thus runs the risk of increasing both greenhouse gas emissions—directly counter to its very purpose—and global hunger., SAF producers already enjoy subsidies from California consumers through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and, according to recent LCFS data, SAF production increased 590% between 2023 and 2024.

Production further increased in 2025. This growth, combined with already existing refinery capacity, puts the industry on track to meeting the state’s SAF goals.1 Finally, the recent amendments to the bill reward SAF that is produced using fossil fuels, directly counter to State climate policy and the critical transition away from fossil fuel dependence.

The opposition coalition argues that curtailed review of SAF projects poses risks to refinery-adjacent communities and does not limit the bill to projects that do not increase gases, food prices, and deforestation.

SUPPORT

Aerospace and Defense Alliance of California

Association of California Airports

Bay Area Council

Boeing Company

California Airports Council

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

Green Hydrogen Coalition

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego

Neste Us

Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

San Francisco International Airport

Twelve

United Airlines

OPPOSITION

350 Bay Area Action

Active San Gabriel Valley

Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)

BiofuelWatch

California Communities Against Toxics

California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) Action

California Environmental Voters

Californians Against Waste

Center for Biological Diversity

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment

Communities for a Better Environment

EarthJustice

Interfaith Climate Action Network of Contra Costa County

Judicial Counsel of California

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

San Francisco Baykeeper

San Francisco Baykeeper

Sierra Club California

Sunflower Alliance

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation:

AB 2152 (Mark González, 2026) makes essential local fire station project eligible for streamlining and expedited judicial review under CEQA, as provided. AB 2152 is set to be heard in this Committee on the same day as this bill.

AB 2231 (Ahrens, 2026) makes an environmental leadership hospital campus project eligible for streamlined administrative and expedited judicial review under CEQA, as provided. AB 2231 is set to be heard in this Committee on the same day as this bill.

Prior Legislation:

SB 676 (Limón, Ch 550, Stats. 2025) see Comment 3), above.

AB 3265 (Bryan, Ch. 255, Stats. 2024) see Comment 3), above.

SB 149 (Caballero, Ch. 60; Stats. 2023 see Comment 4), above.

SB 7 (Atkins, Ch. 19; Stats. 2021) see Comment 3), above.

SB 44 (Allen, Ch. 663; Stats. 2021) see Comment 3), above.

AB 900 (Buchanan, Ch. 354, Stats. 2011) see Comment 3), above.

PRIOR VOTES

Senate Environmental Quality Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 1)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 71, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

Assembly Natural Resources Committee (Ayes 14, Noes 0)

**************

1. Joint Informational Hearing of Ass. and Sen. Comm. on Judiciary: COVID and the Courts: Assessing the Impact on Access to Justice, Identifying Best Practices, and Plotting the Path Forward (Feb. 23, 2021) Background Paper, https://sjud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sjud.senate.ca.gov/files/background_paper_-_ajud_and_sjud_feb_23_2021_joint_informational_hearing_-_covid_and_the_courts.pdf. ↑

2. All further references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise indicated. ↑

3. See Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle, LP (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 122. ↑

4. SB 122 (Jackson, Ch. 476, Stats. 2016). ↑

5. AB 900 (Buchanan, Ch. 354, Stats. 2011); SB 7 (Atkins, Ch. 19; Stats. 2021); (Caballero, Ch. 60; Stats. 2023). ↑

6. SB 292 (Padilla, Ch. 353, Stats. 2011); SB 743 (Steinberg, Ch. 386, Stats. 2013) (see Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 837, 855-856); AB 734 (Bonta, Ch. 959, Stats. 2018); AB 987 (Kamlager-Dove, Ch. 961, Stats. 2018). ↑

7. AB 2731 (Gloria, Ch. 291, Stats. 2020). ↑

8. SB 174 (Committee on Budget, Ch. 74, Stats. 2024.) ↑

9. See Id. at pp. 6-8 (noting some uncertainties in the calculation methodology). ↑

10. Id. at p. 15. ↑

11. Dept. of Finance, Delta Conveyance Project, (updated 5/14/25), available at https://trailerbill.dof.ca.gov/public/trailerBill/pdf/1263 (as of June 24, 2025). ↑

12. Joint Informational Hearing of Ass. and Sen. Comm. on Judiciary: COVID and the Courts: Assessing the Impact on Access to Justice, Identifying Best Practices, and Plotting the Path Forward (Feb. 23, 2021) Background Paper, https://sjud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sjud.senate.ca.gov/files/background_paper_-_ajud_and_sjud_feb_23_2021_joint_informational_hearing_-_covid_and_the_courts.pdf. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Blakespear, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 839

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: expedited judicial review: sustainable aviation fuel projects

DIGEST: This bill provides for expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for up to three sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) facilities that don’t increase air pollution – providing for expedited (270 days, if feasible) judicial review for projects certified by the governor, approved by the lead agency on or before January 1, 2033, and meeting specified environmental and labor requirements.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. CEQA requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines). (Public Resources Code (PRC) 21000 et seq.)
   
2. Authorizes judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or approve the project. Challenges alleging improper determination that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, or alleging an EIR does not comply with CEQA, must be filed in the superior court within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval. The courts are required to give CEQA actions preference over all other civil actions. Requires the court to regulate the briefing schedule so that, to the extent feasible, hearings commence within one year of the filing of the appeal. Requires the plaintiff to request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition. Requires the court to establish a briefing schedule and a hearing date, requires briefing to be completed within 90 days of the plaintiff’s request for hearing, and requires the hearing, to the extent feasible, to be held within 30 days thereafter. (PRC 21167 et seq.)
3. Establishes, pursuant to SB 149 (Caballero), Chapter 60, Statutes of 2023, procedures for expedited administrative review (i.e., concurrent preparation) and judicial review (i.e., requiring the courts to resolve lawsuits within 270 days, to the extent feasible) for four categories of public and private “infrastructure” projects, including specified energy, transportation, water, and semiconductor/microelectronic projects.
   
4. Authorizes the governor to certify each of the four project types, provided the applicant agrees to pay the costs of the trial court and the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case challenging a lead agency’s action on a certified project.
   
5. Requires additional greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation for energy infrastructure and semiconductor/microelectronic projects, requiring the project does not result in any net additional GHG emissions. A project is deemed to meet these requirements if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the governor that the applicant has a binding commitment that it will mitigate impacts resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases, if any, in accordance with PRC 21183.6.
   
6. Requires an applicant for certification of an infrastructure project to do all of the following:
   1. Avoid or minimize significant environmental impacts in any disadvantaged community, as defined;
   2. If measures are required pursuant to CEQA to mitigate significant environmental impacts in a disadvantaged community, mitigate those impacts consistent with CEQA. Requires mitigation measures to be undertaken in, and directly benefit, the affected community; and
   3. Enter into a binding and enforceable agreement to comply with these community mitigation requirements in its application to the Governor and to the lead agency prior to the agency’s certification of the EIR for the project. (Public Resources Code (PRC) 21189.80 et seq.)
7. Sets, pursuant to Executive Order S-01-07, a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity (CI) of California's transportation fuels and requires ARB to consider adopting a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) to implement this goal. In 2009, ARB adopted the LCFS as a regulation. The LCFS attributes CI values to a variety of fuels based on direct and indirect GHG emissions. The LCFS permits producers of certain low CI fuels to opt in to LCFS regulation for the purpose of generating credits, which can be banked and used for compliance, sold to regulated parties, and purchased and retired by regulated parties. In addition, LCFS credits can be exported to other GHG emission reduction programs. (17 CCR 95840 et seq.)
   

This bill:

1. Authorizes the governor to certify up to three SAF projects for streamlining pursuant to SB 149, and meeting the same labor, mitigation, and net zero GHG standards as private energy and semiconductor projects under SB 149.
   
2. Defines “sustainable aviation fuel project” as a project that is either:
   1. A new construction, conversion of an existing facility, or an expansion of an existing SAF facility;
   2. Used to manufacture, process, store, distribute, or transport SAF or feedstock used for the production of SAF; or
   3. A new construction, conversion, or expansion of an existing facility to manufacture electrochemical components used in the production of SAF;

And that meets all of the following requirements:

• 1. The project uses a “skilled and trained” workforce for all construction work and requires contractors and subcontractors to pay to all construction workers employed in the execution of the project at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages;
  2. If the project involves the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source (i.e., major sources of air pollution, including refineries), the project will reduce emissions of air pollutants compared to the baseline environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as determined by the applicable air district; and
  3. If the project does not involve the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source, the project will not cause a significant effect on the environment attributable to any air pollutant, as determined by the applicable air district.
     

1. Defines “sustainable aviation fuel” as hydrocarbon fuel that meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standard D7566 for aviation turbine fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons and can be used as alternative jet fuel, as defined in, and meeting the requirements of, the LCFS regulation.

Background

1. California’s aviation emissions landscape. Aircraft jet engines emit a mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, and other pollutants. 90% of the emissions from a flight occur at altitudes above 3,000 feet, with the remaining 10% being released during taxiing, takeoff, and landing. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California’s total 2020 jet fuel consumption was about 59 million barrels, or roughly 2.5 billion gallons. The international aviation market is responsible for about 2% of the world’s GHG emissions. Nationwide, aviation emissions make up about 13% of transportation GHG emissions. In California, aviation accounts for 1% of all transportation-related GHG emissions.
   
   SAF is an aircraft biofuel that has similar properties to conventional jet fuel; it is blended with conventional jet fuel and can work in the same conventional jet fuel infrastructure. Depending on the feedstock and technologies used to produce it, SAF can reduce life cycle GHG emissions compared to conventional jet fuel, and some SAF pathways may have a net-negative GHG footprint. Given the technology is still relatively new and being developed, SAF is currently much more expensive than conventional jet fuel.
   
   CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan outlines a scenario that achieves GHG emission reductions that exceed levels expected based on existing policies, and keep the state on track to achieve the GHG reduction target for 2030 and to become carbon neutral no later than 2045. This scenario assumes 10% of aviation fuel demand is met by electricity (batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045. The scenario also assumes SAF meets most or the rest of the aviation fuel demand that has not already transitioned to hydrogen or batteries. While the scenario goals are clear, the pathways to accomplish these goals are not.
   
   The LCFS sets a declining carbon intensity benchmark for transportation fuels used in California. In 2018, CARB approved changes to LCFS that authorized alternative, or renewable, aviation fuels to generate LCFS credits; these fuels do not generate deficits like gasoline and diesel do. Producers of alternative aviation fuels are permitted to voluntarily opt into the LCFS program. SAF remains a small part of the LCFS credit market, reportedly less than 1%.
   
2. Electrochemical components. Recent amendments expanded the scope of eligible SAF projects to include new construction, conversion, or expansion of an existing facility to manufacture electrochemical components used in the production of SAF. This appears to be intended to include so-called “e-SAF” which is similar to SAF in that it is a drop-in aviation fuel substitute, but it differs in the feedstock and method for its production.
   
   Whereas most SAF today is produced from fats and oils or other conversion processes, if successfully deployed e-SAF would involve building the fuel molecule from scratch, as it were. The carbon that goes into e-SAF is captured from the atmosphere (either through carbon capture or, presumably, direct air capture), and then synthesized into fuel through an electrochemical process using clean electricity. According to Twelve, a Berkeley-headquartered carbon capture and technology company, “Unlike biofuels, which are constrained by land use and deforestation risks, [e-SAF] is electrochemically produced from CO2, water, and renewable energy. Compared to biofuels, it uses up to 1,000 times less water and 30 times less land, with up to 30% more reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions compared to bio-based SAF.”^[1]
   
   The trade-off for this lower-carbon intensity and resource requirements is, understandably, increased cost. The first commercial e-SAF plant is currently under development in Washington, and reports an intended 50,000 gallon/year capacity and projected carbon intensity of its e-SAF that is roughly 7% that of conventional aviation fuel and 9% that of SAF.
   
3. The state of SAF production in California. Currently, there are three operating SAF refineries in California that are conversions, or partial conversions, of existing petroleum refineries. These refineries are located in Paramount, Rodeo, and Martinez. In addition, there is a proposed SAF refinery in Riverbank, near Modesto, at the site of a former Army ammunition plant/Superfund site, which has been approved by Riverbank and completed the CEQA process. All of these SAF refineries are in communities that have lived with industrial pollution for decades and rank near the top of CalEnviroScreen metrics for air pollution and/or toxics.
   
   These facilities refine SAF from fats, oils, and/or greases (FOGs), which are primarily imported. Commercial SAF feedstocks include tallow, used cooking oil, distiller’s corn oil (a byproduct of corn ethanol production), seed oils, and byproducts of palm oil refining. SAF production with approved LCFS pathways includes refineries in Louisiana and Montana and fats shipped from Southeast Asia and South America. Recently-adopted amendments to the LCFS will prohibit palm-based oils going forward.
   
   None of the existing commercial refineries use agricultural or forest waste. Producing SAF from cellulosic waste—like from captured carbon and clean electricity—is more complex and expensive than refining fats, which is already significantly more expensive than conventional, fossil jet fuel.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “AB 839 will provide an essential tool for California to draw investment for and production of sustainable aviation fuel in California. SAF production jobs are well-paying, highly skilled jobs (both in construction/retooling of facilities, and in production). California has 27 commercial airports, and two major international gateways (LAX and SFO). The State Scoping Plan requires that at least 3.2 billion gallons of SAF be used 20 years – by 2045. It is in our economic interest and our environmental interest that we do all we can to draw production of SAF to California. Commercial airlines and airports have been working for 10 years to bring SAF to the forefront of our policies that impact aviation in California. Research and development of SAF has been ongoing for decades, with in-flight testing first occurring in 2008. R & D continues on the use of desireable feedstocks, including municipal solid waste and woody biomass. SAF is and will be the step between conventional jet fuel use and electric technologies for larger aircraft, estimated to be 40 to 50 years away. This is a smart step and a smart policy for California.”
   
2. Cleanliness is in the eye of the beholder. In the same way diet soda and water cannot meet the same biological needs despite both being zero calories, carbon intensity alone does not capture the full environmental impact of a fuel’s production. While the scale-up of SAF to meet California’s goals is laudable on the basis of global GHG emission reductions, it should not be thought to solve all pollution problems associated with the production and use of aviation fuel. That does not mean we should stop producing SAF, it just means we should not think of it as a silver bullet.
   
   All three operational SAF plants today are full or partial conversions of petroleum refineries. Although SAF production facilities could of course be constructed anew elsewhere (and would be eligible for ELDP certification under this bill), the economic incentives today seem to be best aligned when an existing liquid fuel resource (i.e. petroleum refineries) is converted to SAF production. While this does reduce the associated carbon intensity and move California towards achieving its SAF goals, this nevertheless keeps pollutive industries in communities where they have historically been.
   
   This bill includes commendable provisions regarding air pollution from eligible projects; conversions from existing Title V facilities (such as petroleum refineries) must result in reduced emissions from the existing baseline, and new construction must not cause a significant effect on the environment from any air pollutant. The devil may well be in the details on these provisions, and they can never provide the certainty of emission reductions that not having a fuel production facility at all would provide, but they do send a clear signal about the expectations around these projects.
   
3. Discernment, discretion, and direction. The scale-up that will be required for the SAF industry to achieve its Scoping Plan goals is massive. Even with parallel actions, such as the partnership in place between this bill’s sponsor and CARB^[2], there is much work to be done. Awarding ELDP status to three SAF projects will not be sufficient to reach California’s stated goals.
   
   This bill does not explicitly specify every detail of an eligible SAF project, opting instead to set guardrails in place (such as a decrease or no effect in air pollution). Still, non-waste feedstocks could be used. Facilities that otherwise might have been closed could be given a new life as a slightly-less polluting SAF factory. Various factors across the fuels’ life cycle could increase deforestation, lead to risk of spills or accidents, or even increase life cycle emissions as compared for fossil fuels.
   
   Nevertheless, in deciding which eligible projects to certify, the Governor would be expected to weigh the myriad factors and considerations surrounding the projects. By limiting the scope of this bill to three projects, the hope is that projects that are less aligned with California’s goals (e.g. high CI feedstocks, undue impacts on fence line communities, etc.) will not receive certification and the benefits the ELDP designation provides. Ultimately, it is challenging to strike the right balance between statutory prescriptiveness and ease of implementation. The guardrails in this bill are laudable, but cannot be perfect.
   
   Although the scope of this bill may be narrow, the Committee should still consider the bar that is being set for eligible projects. It is reasonable to imagine future actions to promote SAF being conditioned on the criteria set here. As California charts a path to phasing down fossil fuels and increasing the production of alternatives, the ever-changing context will have to be considered each time further action is taken.
   

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1322 (R. Rivas, 2021) would have required CARB, to develop an incentives-based plan to promote the use of SAF and other alternatives to jet fuel to reduce the impact of commercial aviation on climate change. AB 1322 was vetoed by Governor Newsom.

SB 149 (Caballero, Chapter 60, Statutes of 2023) established new expedited (270 days, if feasible) judicial review procedures for four categories of public and private “infrastructure” projects.

SOURCE:

Airlines for America

SUPPORT:

Aerospace and Defense Alliance of California
Airlines for America (A4A).
Association of California Airports
Bay Area Council
Boeing Company; the
California Airports Council
California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance (CCEEB)
California Hydrogen Business Council
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Green Hydrogen Coalition
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego
Neste Us, INC.
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
San Francisco International Airport
Twelve
United Airlines, INC.

OPPOSITION:

350 Bay Area Action
Active San Gabriel Valley
Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
Biofuelwatch
California Communities Against Toxics
California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) Action
California Environmental Voters
Californians Against Waste
Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Communities for a Better Environment
Earthjustice
Interfaith Climate Action Network of Contra Costa County
Judicial Council of California
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
San Francisco Baykeeper
Sierra Club California
Sunflower Alliance

-- END --

1. Twelve Benefit Corporation. E-Jet SAF FAQ. https://www.twelve.co/post/e-jet-saf-faq ↑

2. CARB, 10/30/2024 “CARB and nation’s leading airlines announce landmark partnership for a sustainable aviation future” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-and-nations-leading-airlines-announce-landmark-partnership-sustainable-aviation-future ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 839

Author:(Blanca Rubio)

As Amended Ver:April 11, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Provides for expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for up to three sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) facilities that don't use fossil fuels or increase air pollution – providing for expedited (270 days, if feasible) judicial review for projects certified by the governor, approved by the lead agency on or before January 1, 2033, and meeting specified environmental and labor requirements.

Major Provisions

1. Authorizes the governor to certify up to three SAF projects for streamlining pursuant to SB 149 (Caballero), Chapter 60, Statutes of 2023, and meeting the same labor, mitigation, and net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) standards as private energy and semiconductor projects under SB 149.
2. Defines "sustainable aviation fuel project" as a project to manufacture, process, store, distribute, or transport SAF or feedstock used for the production of SAF that meets all of the following requirements:
   1. The project uses a "skilled and trained" workforce for all construction work and requires contractors and subcontractors to pay to all construction workers employed in the execution of the project at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages.
   2. The project does not use fossil fuels in its production process.
   3. If the project involves the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source (i.e., major sources of air pollution, including refineries), the project will reduce emissions of air pollutants compared to the baseline environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as determined by the applicable air district.
   4. If the project does not involve the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source, the project will not cause a significant effect on the environment attributable to any air pollutant, as determined by the applicable air district.
3. Defines "sustainable aviation fuel" as hydrocarbon fuel that meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standard D7566 for aviation turbine fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons and can be used as alternative jet fuel, as defined in, and meeting the requirements of, the LCFS regulation.

COMMENTS

Aircraft jet engines emit a mixture of carbon dioxide (CO₂), water vapor, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, and other pollutants. 90% of the emissions from a flight occur at altitudes above 3,000 feet, with the remaining 10% being released during taxiing, takeoff, and landing. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California's total 2020 jet fuel consumption was about 59 million barrels, or roughly 2.5 billion gallons. The international aviation market is responsible for about 2% of the world's GHG emissions. Nationwide, aviation emissions make up about 13% of transportation GHG emissions. In California, aviation accounts for 1% of all transportation-related GHG emissions.

SAF is an aircraft biofuel that has similar properties to conventional jet fuel; it is blended with conventional jet fuel and can work in the same conventional jet fuel infrastructure. Depending on the feedstock and technologies used to produce it, SAF can reduce life cycle GHG emissions compared to conventional jet fuel, and some SAF pathways may have a net-negative GHG footprint. Given the technology is still relatively new and being developed, SAF is currently much more expensive than conventional jet fuel.

The Air Resources Board (ARB) 2022 Scoping Plan outlines a scenario that achieves GHG emission reductions that exceed levels expected based on existing policies, and keep the state on track to achieve the GHG reduction target for 2030 and to become carbon neutral no later than 2045. This scenario assumes 10% of aviation fuel demand is met by electricity (batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045. The scenario also assumes SAF meets most or the rest of the aviation fuel demand that has not already transitioned to hydrogen or batteries. While the scenario goals are clear, the pathways to accomplish these goals are not.

ARB's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulation sets a declining carbon intensity benchmark for transportation fuels used in California. In 2018, ARB approved changes to LCFS that authorized alternative, or renewable, aviation fuels to generate LCFS credits; these fuels do not generate deficits like gasoline and diesel do. Producers of alternative aviation fuels are permitted to voluntarily opt into the LCFS program. SAF remains a small part of the LCFS credit market, reportedly less than 1%.

Currently, there are three operating SAF refineries in California that are conversions, or partial conversions, of existing petroleum refineries. These refineries are located in Paramount, Rodeo, and Martinez. In addition, there is a proposed SAF refinery in Riverbank, near Modesto, at the site of a former Army ammunition plant/Superfund site, which has been approved by Riverbank and completed the CEQA process. All of these SAF refineries are in communities that have lived with industrial pollution for decades and rank near the top of CalEnviroScreen metrics for air pollution and/or toxics.

These facilities refine SAF from fats, oils, and/or greases (FOGs), which are primarily imported. Commercial SAF feedstocks include tallow, used cooking oil, distiller's corn oil (a byproduct of corn ethanol production), seed oils, and byproducts of palm oil refining. SAF production with approved LCFS pathways includes refineries in Louisiana and Montana and fats shipped from Southeast Asia and South America. Recently-adopted amendments to the LCFS will prohibit palm-based oils going forward.

None of the existing commercial refineries use agricultural or forest waste. Producing SAF from cellulosic waste is more complex and expensive than refining fats, which is already significantly more expensive than conventional, fossil jet fuel.

The author and proponents do not identify any specific projects in connection to this bill. However, there is speculation that additional petroleum refineries may convert or partially convert to SAF (and/or renewable diesel) production, which makes sense given much of the equipment and process is similar. This bill's scope of eligible project types is broad, including projects to manufacture, process, store, distribute, or transport SAF or SAF feedstock. Rather than being more limited about the SAF projects that are eligible, this bill limits streamlining to the first three projects certified by the governor.

According to the Author

AB 839 will provide an essential tool for California to draw investment for and production of sustainable aviation fuel in California. SAF production jobs are well-paying, highly skilled jobs (both in construction/retooling of facilities, and in production). California has 27 commercial airports, and two major international gateways (LAX and SFO). The State Scoping Plan requires that at least 3.2 billion gallons of SAF be used 20 years – by 2045. It is in our economic interest and our environmental interest that we do all we can to draw production of SAF to California. Commercial airlines and airports have been working for 10 years to bring SAF to the forefront of our policies that impact aviation in California. Research and development of SAF has been ongoing for decades, with in-flight testing first occurring in 2008. R&D continues on the use of desirable feedstocks, including municipal solid waste and woody biomass. SAF is and will be the step between conventional jet fuel use and electric technologies for larger aircraft, estimated to be 40 to 50 years away. This is a smart step and a smart policy for California.

Arguments in Support

According to United Airlines, this bill provides prospective SAF producers with certainty around the CEQA process "by setting a reasonable timeline for the review of claims that may be filed in response to the Final [EIR]." The airline argues that, under current law, the projects could be subject to multiyear delays due to court processes, and that this uncertainty weighs heavily against California as an appropriate state to host facilities that produce SAF because, "other states or their municipalities may permit a facility in less than one year – even in just months – without the environmental review and mitigation valued here in California."

Arguments in Opposition

According to a coalition of environmental justice organizations, "this bill would result in rushed conversions of aging oil refineries in frontline communities, fast track pipeline mega-projects that crisscross the length and width of the state, and push feedstock production and pretreatment projects that are certain to have negative local impacts…A strong CEQA and complete CEQA process is critical for allowing environmental justice or disadvantaged communities to have a meaningful voice in local planning decisions in order to protect the environmental health of their neighborhoods. This is even more true given the enormous scale of projects included in the extremely broad definitions in AB 839 as to what may be streamlined as a SAF project."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, potential cost pressure (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown amount to the courts to process and hear challenges to a certified SAF project's environmental review on an expedited timeline. Expedited cases generally create costs and staffing pressures on the courts, as each review typically requires a judicial officer, research attorneys, and staff. However, under existing rules of court, these reviews would be subject to a $180,000 filing fee. With this filing fee, Judicial Council does not anticipate increased costs as a result of this bill.

VOTES

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 14-0-0

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

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-1

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Macedo, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

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

UPDATED

VERSION: April 11, 2025

CONSULTANT: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0000430

Date of Hearing: May 14, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 839

Author:(Blanca Rubio) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2025

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

SUMMARY:

This bill provides for expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for up to three sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) projects that meet specified criteria.

Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1. Authorizes the Governor to certify up to three SAF projects for streamlining pursuant to SB 149 (Caballero), Chapter 60, Statutes of 2023, if the following is satisfied:
   1. The applicant agrees to pay the costs of the trial court and the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case challenging a lead agency’s action on a certified project, including payment of the costs for the appointment of a special master if deemed appropriate by the court, in a form and manner as provided in the Rules of Court adopted by the Judicial Council.
   2. The applicant agrees to pay the costs of preparing the record of proceedings for the project concurrent with the review and consideration of the project, in a form and manner specified by the lead agency for the project.
   3. For a project for which environmental review has commenced, the applicant demonstrates the record of proceedings is being prepared, as specified.
2. Defines a “sustainable aviation fuel project” as a project to manufacture, process, store, distribute, or transport sustainable aviation fuel or feedstock used for the production of SAF that meets all of the following requirements:
   1. The project utilizes a skilled and trained workforce in accordance with a project labor agreement, as specified.
   2. The project does not use fossil fuels in its production process.
   3. If the project involves the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source, as defined, the project will reduce emissions of air pollutants compared to the baseline environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as determined by the applicable air district.
   4. If the project does not involve the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source, as defined, the project will not cause a significant effect on the environment attributable to any air pollutant, as determined by the applicable air district.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Potential cost pressure (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown amount to the courts to process and hear challenges to a certified SAF project's environmental review on an expedited timeline. Expedited cases generally create costs and staffing pressures on the courts, as each review typically requires a judicial officer, research attorneys, and staff. However, under existing rules of court, these reviews would be subject to an $180,000 filing fee. With this filing fee, Judicial Council does not anticipate increased costs as a result of this bill.

COMMENTS:

1) Background. SAF. Aircraft jet engines emit a mixture of carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California’s total 2020 jet fuel consumption was about 59 million barrels, or roughly 2.5 billion gallons. The international aviation market is responsible for about 2% of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

SAF is an aircraft biofuel that has similar properties as conventional jet fuel. It is blended with conventional jet fuel and can work in the same infrastructure. Depending on the feedstock and technologies used to produce it, SAF can reduce life cycle GHG emissions compared to conventional jet fuel, and some SAF pathways may have a net-negative GHG footprint. Given the technology is still relatively new, SAF is currently much more expensive than conventional jet fuel.

To achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, the Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan assumes 10% of the state’s aviation fuel demand is met by electricity (batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045, and that SAF meets most of the state’s remaining aviation fuel demand.

There are three operating SAF refineries in California that are conversions, or partial conversions, of existing petroleum refineries. In addition, there is a proposed SAF refinery in Riverbank, near Modesto. Because refinery retrofits are deemed “projects” for purposes of CEQA, all refinery retrofit projects must undergo environmental review before project approvals and permits can be issued.

SB 149. SB 149 authorized the Governor to certify a project that meets certain requirements as an “infrastructure project” and provides the project with certain CEQA streamlining benefits, including requiring the lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings at the same time as the environmental review process. Additionally, resolution of an action or proceeding challenging the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the certified project or the granting of any project approvals must, to the extent feasible, be completed within 270 days of the filing of the record of proceedings with the court, as specified. This bill authorizes the Governor to certify up to three SAF projects meeting certain requirements as infrastructure projects, providing these streamlining benefits to those projects.

2) Support and Opposition. Writing in support of this bill, United Airlines notes it was the first U.S. airline to test SAF in 2009 and to use SAF consistently in regularly scheduled flights starting in 2016. United Airlines contends this bill provides prospective SAF producers with certainty around the CEQA process “by setting a reasonable timeline for the review of claims that may be filed in response to the Final [EIR].” The airline argues that, under current law, the projects could be subject to multiyear delays due to court processes, and that this uncertainty weighs heavily against California as an appropriate state to host facilities that produce SAF because, “other states or their municipalities may permit a facility in less than one year – even in just months – without the environmental review and mitigation valued here in California.”

Writing in opposition, a coalition of environmental justice and other organizations states:

If passed, this bill would result in rushed conversions of aging oil refineries in frontline communities, fast track pipeline mega-projects that crisscross the length and width of the state, and push feedstock production and pretreatment projects that are certain to have negative local impacts…A strong CEQA and complete CEQA process is critical for allowing EJ or disadvantaged communities to have a meaningful voice in local planning decisions in order to protect the environmental health of their neighborhoods. This is even more true given the enormous scale of projects included in the extremely broad definitions in AB 839 as to what may be streamlined as a SAF project.

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

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 839

Author:(Blanca Rubio) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2025

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: expedited judicial review: sustainable aviation fuel projects

KEY ISSUE: should three sustainable aviAtion projects be eligible for expedited judicial review for claims arising from alleged non-compliance with the california environmental quality act?

SYNOPSIS

Jet engines are some of the most efficient engines ever developed. However, because jets emit greenhouse gas pollutants directly into the upper levels of the atmosphere, these engines can have an outsized impact on the emissions of climate warming pollutants. Seeking to lessen the climate impact of air travel, the commercial aviation industry is seeking to transition to sustainable aviation fuels. Sustainable aviation fuels are made from non-petroleum feedstocks and can reduce the carbon intensity of jet fuel between 50 and 85 percent throughout the fuel’s lifecycle. In order to produce sustainable aviation fuel, existing oil refineries are being retrofitted to produce new aviation fuels. Because refinery retrofits are deemed “projects” for the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act, all refinery retrofit projects must undergo environmental review before project approvals and permits can be issued.

Given that many developers and other project proponents fear protracted litigation related to the California Environmental Quality Act, over the past decade, the Legislature has approved several measures that permit cases involving the California Environmental Quality Act to obtain preferred, fast-track treatment in the courts. Although only four of the roughly 30 projects that have been eligible to utilize streamlined review have availed themselves of this privilege, the Legislature continues to approve measures expediting review under the California Environmental Quality Act. This bill seeks to adopt similar streamlined environmental review for sustainable aviation fuel projects. However, unlike many of the other projects previously receiving streamlined environmental review, sustainable aviation fuel projects have already been subject to litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act, and thus this bill actually seeks to provide project proponents legal clarity and not simply address hypothetical litigation risks.

This bill is supported by several commercial airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and several airports. The proponents highlight the environmental benefits of sustainable aviation fuels and the need to avoid protracted litigation surrounding sustainable aviation fuel projects. The bill is opposed by a coalition of environmental justice advocates who highlight the impact on fence line communities posed by keeping refineries open and operational. Unique to most California Environmental Quality Act bills, both the proponents and opponents of this measure raise and advance legitimate environmental interests. While the sustainable aviation fuel refineries will have localized impacts, it is also critical to move toward a more sustainable future for commercial aviation. This measure was previously heard and unanimously approved by the Committee on Natural Resources.

SUMMARY: Authorizes the Governor to certify three sustainable aviation fuel projects to be eligible for expedited judicial review as “infrastructure projects” thus requiring any challenge to the projects brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to be adjudicated within 270 days, if feasible. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes the Governor to certify up to three sustainable aviation fuel projects for expedited judicial review of California Environmental Quality Act claims if the following is satisfied:
   1. The applicant agrees to pay the costs of the trial court and the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case challenging a lead agency’s action on a certified project, including payment of the costs for the appointment of a special master if deemed appropriate by the court, in a form and manner as provided in the Rules of Court adopted by the Judicial Council;
   2. The applicant agrees to pay the costs of preparing the record of proceedings for the project concurrent with the review and consideration of the project, in a form and manner specified by the lead agency for the project; and
   3. For a project for which environmental review has commenced, the applicant demonstrates that the record of proceedings is being prepared, as specified.
2. Defines a “sustainable aviation fuel project” as a project to manufacture, process, store, distribute, or transport sustainable aviation fuel or feedstock used for the production of sustainable aviation fuel that meets all of the following requirements:
   1. The project utilizes a skilled and trained workforce in accordance with a project labor agreement, as specified;
   2. The project does not use fossil fuels in its production process;
   3. If the project involves the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source, as defined, the project will reduce emissions of air pollutants compared to the baseline environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as determined by the applicable air district; and
   4. If the project does not involve the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source, as defined, the project will not cause a significant effect on the environment attributable to any air pollutant, as determined by the applicable air district.
3. Defines “sustainable aviation fuel” as hydrocarbon fuel that meets the ASTM International (ASTM) standard D7566 for aviation turbine fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons and can be used as alternative jet fuel, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the California Environmental Quality Act that, generally, requires a public agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and to certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have significant effects. (Public Resources Code Section 21100 et seq.)
2. Defines a “project” for the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act as an activity that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and includes any of the following:
   1. An activity directly undertaken by any public agency;
   2. An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies; or
   3. An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)
3. Provides that an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act may be commenced when it is alleged that:
   1. A public agency is carrying out or has approved a project that may have a significant effect on the environment without having determined whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment;
   2. A public agency has improperly determined whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment;
   3. An environmental impact report prepared by, or caused to be prepared by, a public agency does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
   4. A public agency has improperly determined that a project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act; or
   5. Any other act or omission of a public agency does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. (Public Resources Code Section 21167.)
4. Requires the superior court and court of appeal to provide lawsuits related to the California Environmental Quality Act preference over all other civil actions therein, in the matter of setting the same for hearing or trial, and in hearing the same, to the end that the action or proceeding shall be quickly heard and determined. (Public Resources Code Section 21167.1 (a).)
5. Provides for categorical exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act for actions that include the following:
   1. Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies;
   2. Emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service;
   3. Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor;
   4. Specified actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency;
   5. Actions undertaken by a public agency relating to any thermal power plant site or facility, as specified;
   6. Activities or approvals necessary to the bidding for, hosting or staging of, and funding or carrying out of, an Olympic games under the authority of the International Olympic Committee, except for the construction of facilities necessary for the Olympic games;
   7. The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, or other charges by public agencies, as specified;
   8. A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rail or highway rights-of-way already in use, including modernization of existing stations and parking facilities;
   9. A project for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter service on high-occupancy vehicle lanes already in use, including the modernization of existing stations and parking facilities; and
   10. A project for the development of a regional transportation improvement program, the state transportation improvement program, or a congestion management program. (Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b).)
6. Provides that any action or proceeding brought to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the certification of an environmental impact report for an “infrastructure project” certified by the Governor, as specified, including any potential appeals to the court of appeal or the Supreme Court, shall be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court. (Public Resources Code Section 21189.85 (a).)
7. Authorizes the Governor to certify specified “infrastructure projects” for expedited judicial review for matters arising under the California Environmental Quality Act if the following conditions are satisfied:
   1. The applicant agrees to pay the costs of the trial court and the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case challenging a lead agency’s action on a certified project, including payment of the costs for the appointment of a special master if deemed appropriate by the court, in a form and manner as provided in the rule of court adopted by the Judicial Council;
   2. The applicant agrees to pay the costs of preparing the record of proceedings for the project concurrent with the review and consideration of the project under this division, in a form and manner specified by the lead agency for the project; and
   3. For a project for which environmental review has commenced, the applicant demonstrates that the record of proceedings is being prepared, as specified by law. (Public Resources Code Section 21189.82.)
8. Requires specified projects eligible for expedited review of California Environmental Quality Act claims to utilize a skilled and trained workforce, as specified, in the construction of the project. (Public Resources Code Section 21183.5.)
9. Defines a “Title V source” as a stationary source of air pollutants required by federal law to be included in an operating permit program under the federal Clean Air Act. (Health and Safety Code Section 39053.5.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: Due to the unique nature of jet engines, airplanes require specifically refined fuels to operate. In the United States, most commercial aircraft utilize “Jet A” fuel. Jet A fuels have higher combustion points than traditional hydrocarbon fuels, making Jet A safer and more reliable for use in large commercial aircraft. However, because aircraft engines spend 90 percent of their operating time at altitude, commercial jets emit the byproduct of the internal combustion process directly into sensitive portions of the atmosphere. Typically, jet engines emit a mixture of carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants directly into the stratosphere, thus heightening the greenhouse gas impacts of jet emissions.

Seeking to lower the environmental impact of jet engines, many airlines are seeking to move toward the use of sustainable aviation fuel. According to the United States Department of Energy, sustainable aviation fuel is made from non-petroleum feedstocks and can reduce the carbon intensity of jet fuel between 50 and 85 percent throughout the fuel’s lifecycle. (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/sustainable-aviation-fuel.) California is quickly emerging as a leading producer of sustainable aviation fuels. Although three sustainable aviation fuel refineries already operate in California, this bill would provide for a streamlined review of three additional projects, should the projects be challenged for non-compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In support of the bill, the author writes:

AB 839 will provide an essential tool for California to draw investment for and production of sustainable aviation fuel in California. SAF production jobs are well-paying, highly skilled jobs (both in construction/retooling of facilities, and in production). California has 27 commercial airports, and two major international gateways (LAX and SFO). The State Scoping Plan requires that at least 3.2 billion gallons of SAF be used 20 years – by 2045. It is in our economic interest and our environmental interest that we do all we can to draw production of SAF to California. Commercial airlines and airports have been working for 10 years to bring SAF to the forefront of our policies that impact aviation in California. Research and development of SAF has been ongoing for decades, with in-flight testing first occurring in 2008. R & D continues on the use of desireable feedstocks, including municipal solid waste and woody biomass. SAF is and will be the step between conventional jet fuel use and electric technologies for larger aircraft, estimated to be 40 to 50 years away. This is a smart step and a smart policy for California.

Sustainable aviation fuel is critical to helping California and America’s major airlines meet their greenhouse gas reduction goals. In 2022, the California Air Resources Board released a scoping plan detailing how California can reach carbon neutrality by 2045. (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/11/16/california-releases-worlds-first-plan-to-achieve-net-zero-carbon-pollution/.) Given the state’s role as a hub for global tourism and commerce, reducing the emissions impacts of the state’s aviation industry is a critical factor in reaching the 2045 goal. To that end, several airlines with a large presence in the state have committed to moving toward using sustainable aviation fuel, which can achieve 85 percent fewer carbon emissions over its lifecycle compared with Jet A fuel. (Our sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) program, United Airlines, available at: https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/responsibility/sustainable-aviation-fuel.html.) Indeed, in 2024, United Airlines, the second largest airline in the state by seating capacity, signed an agreement with the California Air Resources Board to utilize 200 million gallons of sustainable aviation fuel in California operations by 2035. (Ibid.)

According to the aviation industry, unlike Jet A fuel which is refined from hydrocarbons, sustainable aviation fuel is refined from feedstock, used food oils, processed fats, and other food greases. (Ibid.) According to the analysis of this measure by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, due to California’s history of environmental leadership, the state already has three refineries producing sustainable aviation fuel with an additional refinery having received all local permits and approvals, including a completed Environmental Impact Report. (Assem. Com. on Natural Resources, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 839 (Reg. Session 2024-25), as amended Apr. 11, 2025, p. 3.) Given that the existing facilities largely serve only San Francisco and Los Angeles International Airports, additional sustainable aviation fuel refining facilities are likely needed to meet the state’s environmental goals.

The CEQA process and potential court challenges. At its core, CEQA seeks to ensure that public agencies do not approve projects without considering the negative impacts a project may inflict on the environment. Although CEQA is too often, and incorrectly, viewed as a tool to skew outcomes in a manner that favors environmentalists and deters development, in reality, “CEQA operates, not by dictating proenvironmental outcomes, but rather by mandating that ‘decision makers and the public’ study the likely environmental effects of contemplated government actions and thus make fully informed decisions regarding those actions.” (Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 577.) Thus, the primary objective of the environmental review required by CEQA is to steer agency decision makers into approving projects in a manner that utilizes feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project’s impact on the environment. The consideration of the impacts of a project is to be analyzed in the agency’s environmental impact report. The failure to properly consider a project’s impacts is what typically results in litigation.

The process of finalizing an environmental impact report requires several steps. First, the local lead agency must determine if a project qualifies for one of the many exemptions to CEQA provided in statute and the Office of Planning and Research’s regulations, more commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. If no exemption exists, the lead agency must then begin to initially study the project in order to determine the scope of the project and associated environmental review. At this point if the agency believes no environmental impacts exist they may opt to file a negative declaration stating as much and proceed to approve the project. Once the scope of the project and review is properly determined, the environmental review is conducted and a draft environmental impact report is submitted for public comment. A lead agency must respond to all written comments on the environmental impact report received during the public comment period, and revise the environmental impact report as necessary. The responses to comments should explain why the comments are rejected by the agency, or if the comment resulted in the adoption of a mitigation measure. Once the public review is completed, the agency can certify the final environmental impact report.

Once a final environmental impact report is certified, and a project is subsequently approved, any litigation over the environmental review of the project can begin. Courts require an environmental impact report to make a good faith effort at fully disclosing the impacts of the project; provide a detailed set of information about project impacts; and serving as the foundation for agency review. The court must review the environmental impact report in two ways. First, a court must determine if the environmental impact report was prepared in a procedurally sufficient manner, as described above, and contains the proper content as required by law. Secondly, the court must determine the substantive aspect of its review and determine whether the conclusions and decisions made by the lead agency are based on substantial evidence in the record. (Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.)

Believing that CEQA slows development, several litigation streamlining measures have been enacted over the past decade. The Legislature’s first foray into expediting the review of CEQA cases was the passage of AB 900 (Buchanan) Chap. 354, Stats. 2011. That measure provided that “environmental leadership” projects, projects meeting specified environmental and labor requirements, would be granted immediate appellate-level review within 175 days of a case being filed. Those provisions were ultimately struck down as unconstitutional. (Planning and Conservation League v. State of California (2012) RG12626904 (Alameda Sup. Ct.).) Moving away from the strict timeline and original appellate jurisdiction provisions, the Legislature began adopting project-specific CEQA streamlining bills that adopted a 270-day hearing timeline at the superior courts if such a timeline was “feasible.” (See, e.g. SB 743 (Steinberg) Chap. 386, Stats. 2013.) In addition to the project-specific CEQA exemptions, the Legislature has repeatedly reenacted provisions of AB 900 adopting the “if feasible” 270-day timeline approach. Indeed, an extension of the AB 900 framework was just adopted with the passage of SB 7 (Atkins) Chap. 19, Stats. 2021.

When examining both “environmental leadership” bills and those for specific projects, since 2011, at least a dozen CEQA litigation streamlining bills have been adopted by the Legislature, with dozens more having been introduced for favored projects. These bills simply boost the idea that CEQA, and related litigation stifles development and innovation. However, research suggests that actual CEQA litigation is exceedingly rare. Between 2002 and 2015 no single year saw more than 250 CEQA-related cases filed statewide. (BAE Urban Economics, CEQA in the 21st Century (Aug. 2016), p. 19, available at https://rosefdn.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CEQA-in-the-21st-Century.pdf.) Additionally, a 2012 study by the Attorney General’s office suggests that the actual rate of litigation over matters related to CEQA may be as low as 0.3 percent of all projects approved in California. (Office of the Attorney General, Quantifying the Rate of Litigation Under the California Environmental Quality Act: A Case Study (2012).) Given the low rate at which projects subject to CEQA are actually litigated, it appears that the real deterrence to large-scale development in California is more likely local zoning laws, land use policies, construction costs, and the general lack of open space in this state’s largest cities. Nonetheless, the Legislature continues to pass CEQA streamlining measures. Most recently, in response to a high pressure budget request from the Governor, the Legislature approved SB 149 (Caballero) Chap. 60, Stats. 2023, to authorize the Governor to approve various energy reliability and large infrastructure projects for judicial streamlining.

Despite their purported benefits, in reality expedited CEQA review procedures are rarely utilized and do not always prevent a project from being terminated. As noted above less than one percent of all projects reviewed pursuant to CEQA result in litigation. Similarly, data suggests projects that have been given CEQA-streamlining by the Legislature, much like projects overall, rarely are litigated in court. Based on data provided by the Judicial Council, of the 30 projects that have qualified for expedited CEQA review since 2011, only four projects have needed expedited legal review to defend against a lawsuit. Of those four cases, three were high-profile stadium projects that, in some cases, utilized taxpayer money to build a private facility. Notably, in addition to the relatively low-rate of litigation, of those 19 projects that qualified for expedited review another four were either terminated or withdrawn, and thus never built, due to financial or other business considerations and not environmentally-related legal exposure. (California Senate Office of Research, Review of Environmental Leadership Projects, (Apr. 2019) at p. 5.) Of these four, none were projects made eligible for expedited review by SB 149. Accordingly, despite the Legislature’s use of CEQA-streamlining, an equal number of qualified projects benefited from these laws as those that failed under the weight of their own financial difficulties.

This bill would provide for expedited review of sustainable aviation fuel projects. Recognizing the need to deploy more refining capacity if California is to transition its aviation industry to sustainable aviation fuels, this bill would authorize the Governor to certify three sustainable aviation fuel projects to be eligible for expedited judicial review as “infrastructure projects” thus rendering the project eligible for expedited review should the project face litigation surrounding compliance CEQA. Like prior bills authorizing specific projects for expedited CEQA review, the bill requires sustainable aviation fuel projects to utilize a skilled and trained workforce in order to obtain CEQA streamlining and to pay the overwhelming majority of litigation expenses.

Unlike most projects provided streamlined CEQA review, sustainable aviation fuel projects have faced litigation as a result of a poorly composed Environmental Impact Report. As noted above, three sustainable aviation fuel refineries have already been constructed in California, located in Paramount, Rodeo, and Martinez. An additional facility in Riverbank, near Modesto, has already obtained all necessary permits and environmental reviews. However, the Paramount project had to overcome a CEQA challenge before proceeding. (Communities for a Better Environment, et al. v. City of Paramount, et al., (2024) Los Angeles Co. Superior Court- Case No. 22STCP01875) In the Paramount case, the local community successfully alleged the original Environmental Impact Report used faulty baseline environmental assumptions, thus rendering the consideration of the environmental impact of converting the Paramount refinery from a crude oil facility to sustainable aviation fuel facility inadequate. Although the project eventually moved forward, it was delayed because of an inadequately prepared Environmental Impact Report. (Hillel Aron, Judge inclined to halt Los Angeles biofuel refinery expansion, siding with environmental groups, Courthouse News Service (Nov. 17, 2023), available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-inclined-to-halt-los-angeles-biofuel-refinery-expansion-siding-with-environmental-groups/.)

The inadequacy of the City of Paramount’s Environmental Impact Report highlights the importance of CEQA. Without a full and robust CEQA review, the refinery would have been constructed in an economically disadvantaged, environmental justice community without adequate study. Although the current structure of CEQA streamlining bills, like this measure, provide that the expedited timeline must be meet only to “the extent feasible” these measures do place time pressures on the court. While, in accordance with the separation of powers, the courts retain full authority to take as much time as necessary to review a CEQA case, the Legislature must consider the impact to environmental justice communities when approving measures to fast-track environmental reviews. Unlike most CEQA streamlining bills heard by this Committee, this bill presents two highly valid, yet conflicting, environmental priorities; the need to protect environmental justice communities versus the need to decarbonize the aviation industry. Given that this bill does not completely undermine environmental review and still permits environmental justice communities to have their day in court, the bill is not entirely without merit.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is supported by a coalition of airports, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and other industry representatives. In support of this measure, as the foremost US air carrier to adopt the use of sustainable aviation fuels, United Airlines writes:

United has been a strong global leader in working to advance new SAF technologies through investments and participation in research and development, and ultimately, production. We were the first U.S. airline to test SAF in 2009 and in 2016, we were the first U.S. airline to use SAF consistently in regularly scheduled flights.

SAF can be produced with the use of multiple feedstocks and technologies, including oils, fats and greases, hydrogen, agriculture and forest woody biomass and residue, solid waste and even captured carbon. Emissions in manufacturing are well below those emissions of fossil fuel refineries., and over the fuel’s lifecycle (from production to in-flight use) carbon emissions are reduced by up to 85%; particulate matter can be reduced by approximately 50% (up to 90%), and sulfur by 100%.

As you know, AB 839 would authorize SAF projects to be approved through the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Leadership Act, with a streamlined administrative and judicial review and approval process for “sustainable aviation fuel projects” that will produce, distribute or store SAF. These projects will generate hundreds – potentially thousands – of full-time well-paying jobs during construction and additional permanent jobs in a green industry once they are operational.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: This measure is opposed by a coalition of environmental justice advocates, including several of the plaintiffs in the City of Paramount case. The opposition coalition jointly writes:

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is California’s quintessential public participation and environmental protection law. For many low-income and Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) residents in our state, CEQA is an important tool for achieving environmental justice (EJ) in their neighborhoods. CEQA supports the rights of residents who have been disproportionately impacted by pollution and poverty over time, and is one of the only ways in which the public can provide input on and suggest alternatives to projects that are being proposed for their neighborhoods. These residents deserve the full protections of and opportunities for public participation under CEQA. Meanwhile, their communities experience greater water, air, and soil pollution and are more likely to be sited next to toxic cleanup sites than other parts of California. A strong CEQA and complete CEQA process is critical for allowing EJ or disadvantaged communities to have a meaningful voice in local planning decisions in order to protect the environmental health of their neighborhoods. This is even more true given the enormous scale of projects included in the extremely broad definitions in AB 839 as to what may be streamlined as a SAF project.

Given the challenges in decarbonizing the aviation sector, some of California’s aging oil refineries will likely be converted solely to produce SAF among a much-reduced suite of outputs, as gasoline and diesel demand dwindle according to California Air Resources Board projections. SAF stands to be the biggest threat to refinery fenceline communities for uniquely prolonging the lifecycle of these toxic facilities by decades. These projects, then, at the very least, should undergo the most robust environmental review process possible. This is especially true given that the differences in criteria air pollutants between petroleum refining and biofuels refining is “small” according to analysis of individual units previously converted at refineries, meaning air pollution impacts for surrounding communities will continue to be significant

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Airlines for America
BPM
California Airports Council
California Hydrogen Business Council
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Climate Resolve
Neste US, Inc.
Rural County Representatives of California
San Francisco International Airport

The Boeing Company
United Airlines, Inc.

Opposition

Biofuelwatch
California Environmental Justice Alliance
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Communities for a Better Environment
Earthjustice
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 21, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Isaac G. Bryan, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 839 (

Author:Blanca Rubio) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2025

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: expedited judicial review: sustainable aviation fuel projects

SUMMARY: Provides for expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for up to three sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) facilities that don’t use fossil fuels or increase air pollution – providing for expedited (270 days, if feasible) judicial review for projects certified by the governor, approved by the lead agency on or before January 1, 2033, and meeting specified environmental and labor requirements.

EXISTING LAW:

1. CEQA requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines). (Public Resources Code (PRC) 21000 et seq.)
2. Authorizes judicial review of CEQA actions taken by public agencies, following the agency's decision to carry out or approve the project. Challenges alleging improper determination that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, or alleging an EIR does not comply with CEQA, must be filed in the superior court within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval. The courts are required to give CEQA actions preference over all other civil actions. Requires the court to regulate the briefing schedule so that, to the extent feasible, hearings commence within one year of the filing of the appeal. Requires the plaintiff to request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition. Requires the court to establish a briefing schedule and a hearing date, requires briefing to be completed within 90 days of the plaintiff’s request for hearing, and requires the hearing, to the extent feasible, to be held within 30 days thereafter. (PRC 21167 et seq.)
   
3. SB 149 (Caballero), Chapter 60, Statutes of 2023, establishes procedures for expedited administrative review (i.e., concurrent preparation) and judicial review (i.e., requiring the courts to resolve lawsuits within 270 days, to the extent feasible) for four categories of public and private “infrastructure” projects, including specified energy, transportation, water, and semiconductor/microelectronic projects.
   1. Authorizes the governor to certify each of the four project types, provided the applicant agrees to pay the costs of the trial court and the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case challenging a lead agency’s action on a certified project.
   2. Requires additional greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation for energy infrastructure and semiconductor/microelectronic projects, requiring the project does not result in any net additional GHG emissions. A project is deemed to meet these requirements if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the governor that the applicant has a binding commitment that it will mitigate impacts resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases, if any, in accordance with PRC 21183.6.
   3. Requires an applicant for certification of an infrastructure project to do all of the following:
      1. Avoid or minimize significant environmental impacts in any disadvantaged community, as defined.
      2. If measures are required pursuant to CEQA to mitigate significant environmental impacts in a disadvantaged community, mitigate those impacts consistent with CEQA. Requires mitigation measures to be undertaken in, and directly benefit, the affected community.
      3. Enter into a binding and enforceable agreement to comply with these community mitigation requirements in its application to the Governor and to the lead agency prior to the agency’s certification of the EIR for the project.

(Public Resources Code (PRC) 21189.80 et seq.)

1. Pursuant to Executive Order S-01-07, sets a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity (CI) of California's transportation fuels and requires ARB to consider adopting a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) to implement this goal. In 2009, ARB adopted the LCFS as a regulation. The LCFS attributes CI values to a variety of fuels based on direct and indirect GHG emissions. The LCFS permits producers of certain low CI fuels to opt in to LCFS regulation for the purpose of generating credits, which can be banked and used for compliance, sold to regulated parties, and purchased and retired by regulated parties. In addition, LCFS credits can be exported to other GHG emission reduction programs. (17 CCR 95840 et seq.)

THIS BILL:

1. Authorizes the governor to certify up to three SAF projects for streamlining pursuant to SB 149, and meeting the same labor, mitigation, and net zero GHG standards as private energy and semiconductor projects under SB 149.
2. Defines “sustainable aviation fuel project” as a project to manufacture, process, store, distribute, or transport SAF or feedstock used for the production of SAF that meets all of the following requirements:
   1. The project uses a “skilled and trained” workforce for all construction work and requires contractors and subcontractors to pay to all construction workers employed in the execution of the project at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages.
   2. The project does not use fossil fuels in its production process.
   3. If the project involves the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source (i.e., major sources of air pollution, including refineries), the project will reduce emissions of air pollutants compared to the baseline environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as determined by the applicable air district.
   4. If the project does not involve the conversion or replacement of an existing Title V source, the project will not cause a significant effect on the environment attributable to any air pollutant, as determined by the applicable air district.
3. Defines “sustainable aviation fuel” as hydrocarbon fuel that meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standard D7566 for aviation turbine fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons and can be used as alternative jet fuel, as defined in, and meeting the requirements of, the LCFS regulation.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Aircraft jet engines emit a mixture of carbon dioxide (CO₂), water vapor, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, and other pollutants. 90% of the emissions from a flight occur at altitudes above 3,000 feet, with the remaining 10% being released during taxiing, takeoff, and landing. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California’s total 2020 jet fuel consumption was about 59 million barrels, or roughly 2.5 billion gallons. The international aviation market is responsible for about 2% of the world’s GHG emissions. Nationwide, aviation emissions make up about 13% of transportation GHG emissions. In California, aviation accounts for 1% of all transportation-related GHG emissions.

SAF is an aircraft biofuel that has similar properties to conventional jet fuel; it is blended with conventional jet fuel and can work in the same conventional jet fuel infrastructure. Depending on the feedstock and technologies used to produce it, SAF can reduce life cycle GHG emissions compared to conventional jet fuel, and some SAF pathways may have a net-negative GHG footprint. Given the technology is still relatively new and being developed, SAF is currently much more expensive than conventional jet fuel.

ARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan outlines a scenario that achieves GHG emission reductions that exceed levels expected based on existing policies, and keep the state on track to achieve the GHG reduction target for 2030 and to become carbon neutral no later than 2045. This scenario assumes 10% of aviation fuel demand is met by electricity (batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045. The scenario also assumes SAF meets most or the rest of the aviation fuel demand that has not already transitioned to hydrogen or batteries. While the scenario goals are clear, the pathways to accomplish these goals are not.

The LCFS sets a declining carbon intensity benchmark for transportation fuels used in California. In 2018, CARB approved changes to LCFS that authorized alternative, or renewable, aviation fuels to generate LCFS credits; these fuels do not generate deficits like gasoline and diesel do. Producers of alternative aviation fuels are permitted to voluntarily opt into the LCFS program. SAF remains a small part of the LCFS credit market, reportedly less than 1%.

1. The state of SAF production in California. Currently, there are three operating SAF refineries in California that are conversions, or partial conversions, of existing petroleum refineries. These refineries are located in Paramount, Rodeo, and Martinez. In addition, there is a proposed SAF refinery in Riverbank, near Modesto, at the site of a former Army ammunition plant/Superfund site, which has been approved by Riverbank and completed the CEQA process. All of these SAF refineries are in communities that have lived with industrial pollution for decades and rank near the top of CalEnviroScreen metrics for air pollution and/or toxics.

These facilities refine SAF from fats, oils, and/or greases (FOGs), which are primarily imported. Commercial SAF feedstocks include tallow, used cooking oil, distiller’s corn oil (a byproduct of corn ethanol production), seed oils, and byproducts of palm oil refining. SAF production with approved LCFS pathways includes refineries in Louisiana and Montana and fats shipped from Southeast Asia and South America. Recently-adopted amendments to the LCFS will prohibit palm-based oils going forward.

None of the existing commercial refineries use agricultural or forest waste. Producing SAF from cellulosic waste is more complex and expensive than refining fats, which is already significantly more expensive than conventional, fossil jet fuel.

1. What are the new SAF projects? The author and proponents do not identify any specific projects in connection to this bill. However, there is speculation that additional petroleum refineries may convert or partially convert to SAF (and/or renewable diesel) production, which makes sense given much of the equipment and process is similar. This bill’s scope of eligible project types is broad, including projects to manufacture, process, store, distribute, or transport SAF or SAF feedstock. Rather than being more limited about the SAF projects that are eligible, this bill limits streamlining to the first three projects certified by the governor.
2. Double referral. This bill has been double-referred to the Judiciary Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Boeing Company
BPM
California Airports Council
California Hydrogen Business Council
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Climate Resolve
Neste US
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
San Francisco International Airport
United Airlines

Opposition

Biofuelwatch
California Environmental Justice Alliance
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Communities for a Better Environment
Earthjustice
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. /