Lawmakers question whether California’s climate rules are raising costs nationwide

Could California port rules raise costs?

The next time you order something online, buy groceries, or shop for a new product, part of the supply chain may include ships carrying those goods through U.S. ports.

California’s Vessel At Berth regulation is now part of a national debate over shipping costs and port pollution. The Trump administration’s EPA says the requirements increase maritime costs and supply-chain pressure, while California regulators say they reduce harmful emissions near port communities.

The rule targets ships at California ports

California’s Vessel At Berth regulation focuses on emissions from ocean-going ships while they are docked. The state requires covered vessels to use approved ways to control emissions instead of simply running their engines as usual.

That can include connecting to shore power or using other approved emission-control strategies. The goal is to reduce pollution around busy port communities. The California Air Resources Board says the rules are designed to reduce harmful pollutants and improve air quality near the coast.

Why the ports matter to everyone

California is home to two of the country’s busiest container ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach. That makes the state an important gateway for products arriving from overseas. The issue goes far beyond California because goods moving through these ports can travel to stores and customers across the country.

The EPA said in July that California’s marine-vessel waiver rules could affect shipping costs and supply-chain pressures nationwide. That is why a dispute over a state environmental rule has attracted attention in Washington.

Ships still need power while docked

A large ship does more than move across the ocean. Even while docked, it may need electricity for lighting, refrigeration, communications and other onboard systems.

California’s regulation requires covered visits to use a CARB-approved emissions-control strategy, such as shore power or an approved capture-and-control system. Regulated ports and terminals must submit plans describing their compliance strategies and any infrastructure modifications needed by applicable deadlines.

Where the cost argument comes from

The Trump administration’s EPA argues that compliance expenses associated with California’s regulation can increase shipping costs and supply-chain pressure. Businesses could potentially pass some transportation expenses along to customers, although EPA has not provided a specific estimate of the effect on retail prices.

Shoppers would not see a separate climate tax on their receipts. Any effect would be indirect and would depend on cargo, routes, freight contracts, compliance methods and numerous other supply-chain costs.

Violations can lead to major penalties

California can impose substantial penalties for violations of its vessel-emissions rules. In 2023, Matson Navigation agreed to pay approximately $2.2 million over alleged power-reduction and operating-time violations recorded from 2020 through 2022.

The current regulation also provides limited Vessel Incident Event and Terminal Incident Event options when emissions cannot be controlled during particular visits. Compliance expenses or penalties could affect transportation costs, but the amount passed to consumers would depend on many factors.

Little-known fact: CARB says its earlier at-berth rules had already cut emissions from covered vessel fleets by 80% by 2020.

The EPA gave California authority

California cannot simply create every emissions standard for ships on its own. Certain state rules require federal authorization under the Clean Air Act. The Biden administration granted California authority connected to its ocean-going vessel at berth regulation.

In July 2026, the EPA transmitted the marine-vessel waiver rule to Congress for review under the Congressional Review Act. The EPA said the waiver gave California authority to impose its own emission standards for marine vessels and ports.

Congress can review the authorization

The Trump administration’s EPA transmitted California’s Vessel At Berth authorization to Congress on July 22, 2026. EPA maintains that the authorization is a rule eligible for review and possible rejection under the Congressional Review Act.

California officials and environmental advocates dispute that interpretation, arguing that Clean Air Act authorizations have historically not been treated as rules subject to congressional cancellation. They say the regulation protects communities near busy ports from harmful ship pollution.

Congressional action remains uncertain

EPA’s transmittal gives Congress an opportunity to consider whether California’s Vessel At Berth authorization should be rejected under the Congressional Review Act. As of Aug. 13, 2026, no verified House or Senate resolution specifically targeting this marine-vessel authorization was identified in the sources reviewed.

The broader dispute concerns whether one state’s environmental standards can affect shipping companies and supply chains beyond its borders, and whether Congress may use the Congressional Review Act to overturn EPA’s authorization.

Environmental groups see a different goal

The regulation was created for a reason that has little to do with grocery prices. California has some of the nation’s busiest ports, and ships operating near populated areas produce air pollution.

CARB says its At Berth program is intended to reduce harmful emissions, including particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. The agency reported that its earlier rules had already reduced emissions from certain vessel types. The newer requirements were designed to expand those environmental benefits to additional ships and port visits.

The infrastructure debate matters too

One major question is whether California’s ports have enough infrastructure to support every ship covered by the requirements. Shore power can allow a vessel to connect to electricity at the dock instead of relying on its engines for many onboard needs.

But installing and operating that equipment takes money, planning, and coordination between terminals and shipping companies. CARB’s enforcement guidance specifically addresses responsibilities for terminal operators and vessel operators, showing how much infrastructure and planning can be involved.

Fun fact: The Port of Los Angeles opened the world’s first container terminal to use shore power in 2004.

The fight could set a wider precedent

The dispute could shape how the Congressional Review Act applies to EPA decisions authorizing California emissions standards. California argues that these authorizations are not rules subject to congressional cancellation, while the Trump administration’s EPA takes the opposite position.

California holds unique authority under the Clean Air Act to seek permission for standards that differ from federal requirements. In certain circumstances, other states may adopt standards identical to California’s authorized rules, increasing their effect beyond California.

Discover why California refiners are warning that stricter climate rules could threaten the state’s remaining refineries and potentially put more pressure on fuel supplies and prices.

What happens next could affect shoppers

EPA’s transmittal gives Congress an opportunity to review California’s Vessel At Berth authorization under the Congressional Review Act. Whether lawmakers will introduce and pass a resolution targeting it remains uncertain, and California disputes EPA’s authority to treat Clean Air Act authorizations as reviewable rules.

EPA argues that the regulation raises shipping and supply-chain costs, while CARB estimates that its public-health benefits exceed its compliance costs. No reliable estimate currently shows how much the regulation may add to prices paid by individual shoppers.

Find out why California’s iconic Highway 1 is facing growing threats from coastal erosion, extreme weather, and other climate-related damage along the shoreline.

Do you think California’s shipping rules will protect the environment or raise costs for shoppers? Share your take in the comments.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• California’s climate crackdown on big businesses is already falling apart

• Concerns grow over how California’s climate policies may affect public safety

• Climate advocates challenge California’s $4 billion proposal tied to major industrial polluters and costs