California Governor Vetoes Port Emissions Bill Over Fiscal Concerns
Mike Schuler October 15, 2025

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Senate Bill 34, legislation that would have imposed new requirements on the South Coast Air Quality Management District when regulating emissions from operations at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.

In his veto message, Newsom stated his opposition was rooted in fiscal responsibility rather than disagreement with the bill’s intent. “SB 34 would require an additional $100 million a year, forever, to be spent on CalWORKs grants, without regard to whether the budget can sustain the increase or whether that is the highest priority,” Newsom wrote.

The governor emphasized that the bill’s “unconditional, ongoing cost is not paired with any revenue or cost offset — meaning its mandates would force difficult trade-offs with other important priorities, including health, education, and public safety.”

SB 34, introduced by Senator Laura Richardson (D-South Bay), passed the California Senate in September by a vote of 35 to 5. The legislation would have required the South Coast Air Quality Management District to mandate impact assessments from the ports before imposing new emissions reduction requirements. These assessments would include evaluations of energy demand and supply, cost estimates, funding sources, workforce impacts, and environmental consequences.

The bill would also have created a process allowing the ports to request timeline extensions and prohibited the air quality district from imposing caps on cargo throughput or cruise ship passengers. The provisions were set to expire on January 1, 2031.

Rather than supporting SB 34’s approach, Newsom pointed to his administration’s budget, which includes $2.8 billion in CalWORKs cost-of-living increases for the 2025-26 fiscal year, a new $1,000 payment to SSI/SSP recipients totaling approximately $5.1 billion, and a $2 billion expansion of the Middle Class Tax Refund.

“This veto message is not intended to express any disagreement with the bill’s intent or with the need to help low-income families,” Newsom wrote. “But given the state’s revenue uncertainties, I cannot support a perpetual, unconditional spending mandate that would crowd out critical priorities and reduce flexibility in future years.”