To Reduce or Not to Reduce Emissions? That is the Question

By Jennifer Cohen, PMSA Vice President, Government Relations

PMSA has sponsored a bill for the past several years in the California state legislature to facilitate testing and piloting, at 100% private expense, of cargo handling equipment (CHE) technology that eliminates tailpipe greenhouse gas and diesel particulate matter emissions, and nearly eliminates nitrogen oxide emissions. But the bill has been stalled repeatedly by opposition from the most unlikely of parties: “air quality” advocates. 

This is the third time PMSA has run legislation to support the deployment, innovation and testing of CHE by California marine terminal operators looking to explore new technologies.  Previous iterations proposed mitigation fees and costs to be paid by terminals and equipment manufacturers, but these bills failed because they were hampered by cost concerns raised by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

This latest attempt in 2025, AB 605 by Assemblymember Muratsuchi, was intentionally crafted to address and eliminate all prior stated objections and costs.  Nonetheless, somehow air quality regulators and environmental advocates objected in new ways that belie their stated missions! This leads one to wonder, do they actually want to see private sector investment in the deployment of new emission reduction technologies?

The main technology that would be piloted by California marine terminals through AB 605 would be Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines, also known as “H2ICE,” which has the promise of fueling powerful cargo handling equipment without the CO2 or particulate matter emissions accompanying diesel equipment.  H2ICE meets the European Union’s definition for “Zero Emissions” (EU 2019/1242), producing zero greenhouse gases (GHG), no particulate matter, and 99.6% less NOx than diesel powered equipment.  However, this nascent technology is not widely commercially available and comes with a higher price tag than conventional CHE. Nonetheless, H2ICE technology has the potential to meet both industry and air quality needs and pilots and testing of this equipment should be incentivized to confirm whether it can deliver on its promise if it matures. 

H2ICE is permitted for use in California as it is cleaner than what CARB regulations currently require, yet few grants exist to support these costly investments.  To encourage the uptake and maturation of this technology, California should be hospitable to voluntary purchases of pieces of test equipment, like H2ICE, as they further the state’s climate goals.   Unfortunately, these types of investments are currently accompanied by the risk that a future CARB-rulemaking could make a more stringent CHE regulation that prematurely retires equipment.  AB 605 and our previous bills would have protected these private investments by precluding CARB from forcing this type of equipment from being taken out of service in advance of its useful life when being used in a pilot. 

All of the costs cited in prior iterations of this bill have been addressed and removed resulting in no foreseeable costs to the state or to any public entity; AB 605 required manufacturer and  a third party validation that the EU’s Zero-Emissions standards were met for this equipment, instead of CARB certification.  Administratively, there is nothing for CARB to do that they aren’t already doing in administering cargo handling equipment rules for the state. In summary, AB 605 incentivizes private entities to take a risk on procuring and testing new technology to eliminate greenhouse gases and other emissions at no cost to the state. 

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

So why did Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, the Climate Center, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) oppose this bill?  Their opposition letters grasp at straws.

One concern stated was that CARB would be hindered from making future regulations.  This is certainly not the case.  The whole premise of AB 605 anticipates that CARB will make a more stringent CHE regulation.  The only impact of this bill would be that in the event that this new regulation is so excessively strict that it could prematurely take the piloted equipment out of service, these specific pieces of equipment could still be used until the end of their pre-determined service lifep. To be clear, CARB has not made a new regulation for CHE since 2011, despite stating their intent in 2022 to adopt new CHE regulations requiring transition to ZE CHE by 2037.  To date they have yet to even initiate informal rulemaking. 

Ironically, these groups assert that the testing and piloting of H2ICE technology for CHE “jeopardizes significant progress California ports have made towards zero-emissions technologies and infrastructure”.  It is confusing how cleaner equipment would undo progress towards cleaner air. The SCAQMD opposition actually suggests that passage of this bill will result in higher emissions over the long-term.  Check my math, but how would testing a limited number of zero GHG, zero PM, and nearly zero NOx pieces of CHE constitute an increase over continued use of diesel equipment?

Finally, given the high cost of equipment and limited inventory, it is anticipated that this pilot would have likely resulted in no more than a few dozen pieces of equipment being purchased, but it could have also opened the door for more terminals to participate.  The goal of the bill was to create a safe haven for marine terminals so they could make these business decisions, weigh the risks in ZE investments such as limited inventory, immature technology, and deficient infrastructure, and power available to operate equipment, and guarantee a result with cleaner air regardless of whether they decided to participate or not.

But practically speaking, if a private company voluntarily invests in technology that reduces emissions in a lawful manner at no expense to taxpayers, whose business is it to intervene? Certainly the last place you would expect an objection would be from the groups demanding emission reductions….which begs the question, now that they’ve objected, do they really want emission reductions or do they only want emission reductions their way?

AB 605 was the third attempt at providing an expedient path to cleaner CHE, reduced GHG, PM and NOx , at no public cost. It was meticulously formulated to address all prior concerns and incentivize private investment in new and developing clean technology.  Supporting this bill was common sense. Opposing it and the resulting loss of three years of potential private investment in new and emerging clean technology and air emissions, is tragic.