Environmental Assessment Adequately Analyzed Safety Hazards and Cumulative Impacts of CARB Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels

In Western States Petroleum Association v. California Air Resources Board, 108 Cal. App. 5th 938 (2025), the Court of Appeal upheld CARB’s Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels at Berth, rejecting arguments that the regulation was technologically infeasible, inadequately supported by evidence, or improperly evaluated under CEQA. 

CARB adopted a regulation requiring tankers and other vessels to reduce emissions while docked, using shore power or capture-and-control systems. The regulation expanded pre-existing shore-power requirements beyond container, reefer, and cruise ships to include tankers and other vessel, setting implementation deadlines of 2025 and 2027 depending on port location. WSPA sued to challenge the regulation, asserting that no approved tanker-specific capture-and-control technology existed, and that CARB relied on outdated emissions data and violated the APA and CEQA in adopting the regulation. 

The appellate court rejected WSPA’s argument that CARB violated the APA by failing to timely disclose a UC Riverside emissions study relied on in its analysis. Although CARB provided the study late in the rulemaking process, the court held that CARB substantially complied with the APA because all materials were ultimately made available in time for meaningful comment. Further, CARB reasonably discounted the report because it reflected only the newest tankers, represented a small percentage of the fleet, and had not been peer-reviewed. 

Addressing technological feasibility, the court found that CARB’s determination that compliance was achievable by 2025–2027 was supported by substantial evidence. CARB was permitted to adopt standards requiring technology that was not yet fully commercialized, so long as the record showed it could likely be achieved by the deadline. CARB relied on multiple demonstrations of barge-based and land-based capture-and-control systems, examples of successful pilot deployments, and the agency’s engineering evaluations of terminal retrofits. WSPA failed to show that CARB’s projections were arbitrary. 

Turning to CEQA, the court held that CARB’s Environmental Assessment adequately analyzed safety hazards and cumulative impacts. Because CARB was acting at a programmatic, statewide level, CEQA did not require project-level engineering studies for individual terminals. CARB’s cumulative-impact analysis—grounded in statewide emissions projections and the regulation’s expected reductions—satisfied the rule-of-reason standard. The court also rejected claims that CARB had to evaluate impacts arising from the regulation’s accelerated implementation timeline, explaining that CEQA does not require speculative analysis unsupported by evidence. 

Finally, the court rejected WSPA’s argument that CARB ignored economic and operational impacts on tanker operators. CARB conducted the required economic analyses and provided multiple compliance pathways to mitigate cost and logistical burdens. The court concluded that CARB acted within its broad quasi-legislative authority, supported its feasibility and safety determinations with substantial evidence, and complied with both CEQA and the APA.