State Air Resources Board: Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Vote required
Majority
Fiscal committee
No
Appropriation
No
Current location
Appropriations
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Create an account to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Progress
Where this bill stands in the legislative process.
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed Assembly
- To Governor
- Became Law
Overview
This bill requires the California Air Resources Board to review and revise the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce its financial impact on drivers in the state. Starting January 31, 2026, the board must analyze the costs passed on to drivers through carbon credits and prioritize policy changes that benefit drivers while aligning with environmental goals. The bill also mandates a thorough evaluation of the financial impact of any new policies or regulations affecting drivers.
Key provisions
- Requires the State Air Resources Board to reconsider and revise the Low Carbon Fuel Standard by January 31, 2026.
- Demands a complete analysis of the cost of carbon credits passed on to drivers.
- Prioritizes policy changes that directly benefit individual drivers.
- Evaluates the potential for in-state project prioritization within the LCFS framework.
- Requires an analysis of the impact of adjusting the credit price cap.
- Mandates a financial impact analysis for any new policies affecting drivers.
Who is affected
- California Drivers
- California Consumers
- State Air Resources Board
- Transportation Sector
- Fuel Producers
Notable changes
- Requires the Air Resources Board to explicitly consider the financial burden on drivers when revising the LCFS.
Bill text
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.
Text extraction is in progress. View the official source.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
1 on record
Primary sponsor
Arguments
Reasons offered for and against this legislation.
Arguments in favor
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
No arguments opposed have been submitted.
Submit yours