Assembly BillIntroducedHealth and Safety
AB 2752: Bay Area Air Quality Management District and South Coast Air Quality Management District: policies: oil refineries.
What AB 2752 does, verified April 22, 2026
The bill aims to amend air pollution regulations for the Bay Area and South Coast air quality management districts. It requires these districts to analyze and minimize potential impacts on consumers, state and local tax revenue, refinery employment, and the statewide gasoline supply by 2027 and 2028, respectively. The bill also expands the definition of "socioeconomic impact" to include these additional factors and requires districts to actively consider and minimize adverse impacts before adopting or changing rules related to oil refineries. Additionally, the bill establishes a special statute for the districts and provides for reimbursement of mandated costs to local agencies and school districts.
Bill journey
1IntroducedCurrent
2In CommitteePending
3First Chamber FloorPending
4Second ChamberPending
5GovernorPending
6ChapteredPending
Last action: In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken. (2026-04-20)Alert me
Author and sponsors
Full contact details, staff, and committees with Connect, $16/moUnlockRecent actions8 total · showing 5
| Apr. 20, 2026 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken. |
| Apr. 07, 2026 | Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES. |
| Apr. 06, 2026 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar. 23, 2026 | Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES. |
| Mar. 19, 2026 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. Read second time and amended. |
Latest bill textAmended version, April 6, 2026 · 1,304 words
| Amended IN Assembly April 06, 2026 |
| Amended IN Assembly March 19, 2026 |
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Bill
No. 2752
| Introduced by Assembly Member Ávila Farías |
February 20, 2026 |
An act to amend Section 40728.5 of, and to add Section 40004.5 to to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to air pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2752, as amended, Ávila Farías. Bay Area Air Quality Management District and South Coast Air Quality Management District: policies: oil refineries.
Existing law establishes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which is vested with the authority to regulate air emissions located in the boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara and portions of the Counties of Solano and Sonoma.
Under existing law, the Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act establishes the South Coast Air Quality Management District in those portions of the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino included within the South Coast Air Basin as the local agency with the responsibility for comprehensive air pollution control within the basin.
This bill would require the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the South Coast Air Quality Management District District, on or before December 31, 2027, to analyze all of their policies that have been adopted and all future policies that they are considering adopting that impact oil refineries located in their districts and specified policies to determine the cost of compliance, potential cost to consumers, impacts on state and local tax revenue, and refinery employment. refinery employment, and impacts on the statewide gasoline supply, as provided. The bill would also require those districts, on or before January 1, 2028, to make a good faith effort to minimize any adverse impacts identified pursuant to that requirement. By requiring a higher level of service of local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires, whenever a district intends to propose the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulation that will significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations, that district to perform an assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the rule or regulation. Existing law defines “socioeconomic impact” for these purposes.
With respect to the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulation related to oil refineries by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the bill would expand the definition of ”socioeconomic impact” to also mean the cost to consumers, impacts on state and local tax revenue, and impacts on the statewide gasoline supply. The bill would also require those districts to actively consider those additional socioeconomic impacts and make a good faith effort to minimize any adverse impacts, as provided, before adopting, amending, or repealing a rule or regulation related to oil refineries.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) With one oil refinery closed in 2025 and another scheduled to close in April 2026, safe, reliable, and affordable fuel supply is of statewide importance for the 26,800,000 gasoline-powered vehicles registered in California, the state’s residents, and California’s economy.
(b) In April 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom sent a letter to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CEC) directing the CEC to work closely with oil refineries on short-term and long-term planning to ensure Californians have access to affordable and reliable supply of transportation fuels.
(c) In June 2025, the CEC responded to the Governor’s letter with several recommendations to stabilize gasoline supply. The report highlighted inconsistencies and high compliance costs of California’s system to allow the state, local governments, and regional air quality districts to adopt regulations that impact oil refineries. To address this, the letter recommended that the Legislature strategically align regulations and permitting processes across all levels of government to achieve state policy goals.
(d) With more than 30 oil refineries in California in the 1980s having been reduced to six major refineries serving 28 million California drivers, an adequate supply of gasoline is of statewide importance.
(e) Restrictive state regulations and legislative policies that have been adopted over the past decades have resulted in oil refineries leaving the state. In addition, regional and local governments have adopted restrictive policies that impose significant compliance costs on refineries, impeding their ability to meet the demand for California drivers. Specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have adopted policies and requirements over the last six years that have cost refineries between $4,500,000,000 and $6,600,000,000.
SEC. 2.
Section 40004.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:40004.5.
(a)(1) Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 3 fees.
(2) Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 6 Rule 5.
(3) South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulation III fees.
(4) South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1109.1.
(b) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, on or before January 1, 2028, shall make a good faith effort to minimize any adverse impacts identified pursuant to subdivision (a).
SEC. 3.
Section 40728.5 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:40728.5.
(a) Whenever a district intends to propose the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulation that will significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations, that agency shall, to the extent data are available, perform an assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the rule or regulation. The district board shall actively consider the socioeconomic impact of regulations and make a good faith effort to minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts, as defined below. This section does not apply to the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any rule or regulation that results in any less restrictive emissions limit if the action does not interfere with the district’s adopted plan to attain ambient air quality standards, or does not result in any significant increase in emissions.(b) (1) For purposes of this section, “socioeconomic impact” means the following:
(1)
(A)
The type of industries or business, including small business, affected by the rule or regulation.(2)
(B)
The impact of the rule or regulation on employment and the economy of the region affected by the adoption of the rule or regulation.(3)
(C)
The range of probable costs, including costs to industry or business, including small business, of the rule or regulation.(4)
(D)
The availability and cost-effectiveness of alternatives to the rule or regulation being proposed or amended.(5)
(E)
The emission reduction potential of the rule or regulation.Text of AB 2752 as amended, from the official record. Connect Plus keeps every version and highlights what changed.Compare versions