Reposted from Deep Background
Grocery bills look different than they did a few years ago. Amazon packages cost more to ship and items that Americans purchase every day, from electronics to household goods, have quietly become more expensive. There are a lot of reasons for this, but there’s one you’ve almost certainly never heard of: the California Air Resources Board, or CARB.
While Washington fights over tariffs and the Iran conflict keeps oil prices elevated, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is running his own parallel energy policy, and it’s costing every American, whether they voted for it or not.
“This state-based agency… is imposing de facto national energy policy.”
As the old saying goes, “as California goes, so goes the nation.” When America’s largest continental state adopts a new policy, it tends to trickle outward. Still, there is usually at least a democratic process behind it. What CARB is doing is different. This state-based agency, which leads California’s “climate change programs and oversees all air pollution control efforts,” is imposing de facto national energy policy through regulatory waivers, bypassing Congress and bypassing voters in 49 other states who have no say in the matter.
The Big Picture:
The 2020 At-Berth Regulation requires cargo ships, tankers, and container vessels docked at California ports to shut down their diesel engines and either plug into the state’s already strained electrical grid or use emission-reducing technology. Non-compliance carries up to a $50,000-per-day penalty. California has already collected tens-of-millions of dollars in such penalty payments since 2025 as a result of ships who lack the required technology and are forced to pay into the state’s “remediation fund.”
CARB put it in writing in its own March 2020 proposal that this will cost $2.23 billion by 2032. The board called this “reasonable.” Whether you agree with that characterization depends on who you think should be paying it, and it’s not just California taxpayers who will foot the bill. Shipping companies forced to retrofit their vessels, pay penalties, or reroute around California’s standards don’t absorb these costs themselves. They will build them into freight rates, which flow into wholesale prices, which flow into what retailers charge at checkout. The $2.23 billion that CARB describes as reasonable gets distributed quietly and invisibly across the entire national supply chain, showing up as a few extra cents here or a few extra dollars there on goods shipped through ports that handle a fifth of everything America imports. You won’t see a line item for it but you will notice that things keep getting more expensive. California’s regulators are part of the reason why.
In addition to the cost, there is an issue of governance. California has repeatedly secured EPA waivers exempting it from the federal Clean Air Act, allowing the state to set its own, stricter standards. Those waivers have been used to enact costly electric vehicles mandates, ban diesel trucks, and now regulate the engines of ships docked at California ports. The At-Berth Regulation runs on a waiver obtained from the Biden administration in 2023. California’s voters may have broadly endorsed the ambitions of CARB but voters in Texas, Ohio, Georgia, and Virginia did not. They didn’t get a say. Their senators and representatives didn’t vote on it. It happened through administrative channels, insulated from democratic accountability and then the costs get distributed nationally.
A Path Forward:
The Congressional Review Act gives Congress the authority to review and repeal these waivers, and the current administration has already used it. Several Biden-era waivers have been rolled back in the past year with bipartisan congressional support. On June 12, the EPA announced four more waivers would be brought before Congress for review, noting that prior administrations had failed to submit them as the CRA requires.
Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, made the legal case explicitly in a June 2025 letter: these waivers function as rules of general applicability and are subject to congressional review. The current administration considers the Vessels At-Berth waiver eligible for CRA review.
The EPA should submit the At-Berth waiver to Congress in a new, standalone batch––separate from the current package––and it should do it now. The Trump administration has shown it has both the legal authority and the political will to act.
Americans are paying more for everything right now. We don’t need a state board that we didn’t elect adding billions more to our tab. Congress has the tools to act, there’s bipartisan precedent for using them, and the midterms are closer than they look. The question is whether anyone in Washington is paying attention to what the Newsom administration is quietly doing to the rest of the country.
California has been sinking down a rat hole taking clueless followers like Oregon and Washington with them. Insanity to allow “as California goes” to impact the nation.
Everything will be better when police, ICE, jails and prisons are abolished and borders are reopened.
Democrats have controlled the California Legislature since 1958. All revenue bills must originate in the Assembly. They are now so broke that they now propose a “billionaire” tax on assets that are already tax paid, in addition to a current “millionaire” income tax rate of 13.5%. The Billionaires have already fled the state and the population is still decreasing. Anyone unhappy with any results in California need look no further than democrat policy, because that is the reality.
As Margaret Thatcher once observed, “The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” California is proving that she was correct.
Ensenada is an alternate port for West Coast/CA/LA shipping and there’s been talk of expanding it. Now’s the time to start. CA bragging rights to its’ economy is going down hill and it’s about time to look for alternatives to doing any kind of business in the state. Texas has been a popular go to state for disillusioned CA companies.
Adding in Mexico as a middleman importer-exporter country would come with its own tariffs and added costs.
Deals can be made.
Even Mexico has to know that if they want the tonnage to go through their port, they have to keep costs below the CA ports and what it would cost to go through the Panama Canal.
You’re forgetting about how to get containers offloaded in Ensenada to customers in the US. In addition there is a lot of warehouse infrastructure in the LA area that would need to be duplicated.
Ensenada would be a poor choice, as it is relatively isolated and has no trunk line rail service to the US. Even if there were such a rail line, the border crossing would be into California, which would defeat the purpose of having an alternate Pacific port.
The ideal Pacific Coast port in Mexico would be the Port of Lázaro Cárdenas, which has the capacity to expand and already has solid rail service to Texas and interior US via border crossing at Laredo. For many US destinations this would be the preferred lower cost and shorter time option. For other central and eastern US destinations, shipping via the Panama Canal to Gulf of America or East Coast ports could be cheaper.
There is good news:
The recent SCOTUS ruling on Bayer liability Round-up Label case is a win for sanity and will reel-in some of the California stupidity (driven by the tort bar).
In the landmark case Monsanto v. Durnell , SCOTUS held that that federal regulations override state-level failure-to-warn claims. Claims that were driven by hungry ambulance chasing tort bar.
The Court ruled in Bayer’s favor based on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which dictates that states cannot impose labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal standards
The only surprise in this case was Neil Gorsuch dissenting from the majority, in agreement with the law-challenged Ketanji Jackson Brown.
errata: should be Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Our DEI hire on the Supreme Court, dumber than a post.
I wonder if there are any good harbors on Mexico’s Pacific coast?
Regardless, CA is making the newly widened Panama Canal look better by the day.
Now if we can just keep the Chinese away from it…the sneaky bsturds are everywhere-esp in Cali.
The 40 million humans in California exhale about 40 million kgs of CO2 everyday. To this should be added all the CO2 exhaled by all the domestic animals ranging from cattle to canaries. If I were the captain of a cargo ship in port, I would ask CARB: Why do the people and animals get a free pass on CO2 emissions and my cargo ship does not?
As a cargo ship captain, I would also ask CARB: Why does soda pop, beer, California sparkling wines and French champagne get a free pass on carbon dioxide emissions?
This “charge” could be viewed as a tax on the citizens of other states and a restraint of interstate trade. Both of which the supreme court won’t look kindly on.
Perhaps they could call it a tariff which as Trump has said so often is paid by the importers and not by US citizens. That way everyone would become richer as a result.
Why do other countries put tariffs on US goods 😉
“When America’s largest continental state”
Isn’t that Alaska?
If you meant the lower 48, that would still be Texas.
CONUS does not include Alaska or Hawaii.
CONUS is Continental United States.
It’s CONtiguous United States
Both, actually.
“CONUS most commonly stands for the “Continental United States” or “Contiguous United States.” It refers to the 48 adjoining U.S. states on the continent of North America (including the District of Columbia), effectively excluding Alaska and Hawaii.”
I learned it decades ago as continental. I was unaware of the additional definition, continguous.
Where are all those stock litigation firms that go after public companies every time earnings falter or a stock price goes down? After the damage award against Green Peace, it’s time to go after CARB.
I am frankly sick and tired of California, they may have some leeway screwing their own people but I say no right to screw the rest of us. If California can’t find a way to operate without screwing the rest of the nation then its authority should be restricted. I suggest all fossil fuel production and processing should be put up for bid to private enterprises to federal standards. California will have no say, no right to tax or charge fees, no control at any level. Now it appears the same should be done with the docks. The sooner the better.
It’s not just the rest of the US. California’s insane regulations across the board influence the cost of a whole host of things all over the planet because of the size of the Californian market.
If a manufacturer wants to sell into that market they have to produce things with the added extra costs of meeting California’s over the top regulations and it’s not viable to produce one range for California and one for everybody else.
So everybody, all over the world, end up paying more because of the crazies in Sacramento.
California is hardly alone here since Canada may have dropped its carbon tax on everything consumers bought with last year’s change of government except for one not-so-little catch: much of that tax was shifted onto manufacturers who promptly raised the prices of their goods. So in the end the consumers wound up absorbing the costs regardless.
Premier Mark Carney just slapped an “industrial carbon tax” of $95 per tonne of
CO2 equivalent on CO2 emission from the heavy industries for 2026. The tax will increase by increments every year to $130 by 2036, and go to $140 by 2040.
The five companies of the Oil Sand Alliance which process Alberta tar sand bitumen into gas and diesel fuels say this tax would put them out of business and are fighting the tax. Diesel is life blood agriculture and commercial transportation for many commodities especially foods. The cost of food is going up. This tax will increase the cost of exports such as lumber and minerals such as copper, steel and aluminum.
An industrial carbon tax is like a severance tax and in the case of energy commodity producers it’s a tax on exporters. Energy producers in Alberta are already low margin because of extraction cost and logistics. They obviously don’t care back east in the urban centers far removed from reality. Better combine all the extraction industries including farming to fight back, or leave.
More reason for Alberta to declare Independence!
The post states that
“The $2.23 billion that CARB describes as reasonable gets distributed quietly and invisibly across the entire national supply chain, showing up as a few extra cents here or a few extra dollars there on goods shipped through ports that handle a fifth of everything America imports. “
Looking at the numbers they say something different. US Imports were 3.4 trillion in 2025. Which means that for the 12 year timeframe indicated (2020 to 2032) the 2.23 billion cost would increase the average price of goods by 0.03 cents. Which is about 100 times less than the lower estimate given about and is unlikely to cause any appreciably rise in inflation. It will however improve the air quality at Californian docks.
Furthermore the estimate of 0.03 cents is a considerable over-estimate since it assumes that the entire cost of retrofitting the vessels is paid by US importers rather than shared by every country the ships travel too over its lifetime.
I’m in California and my average cost of goods shipped to me has gone from $5.95 to $6.95 per order sooo…not 0.03¢ as you errantly suggest.
And where is the evidence that that is due to this regulation rather than other facts like for instance the war on Iran?
It is possible to excuse any expenditure or fee by saying it “gets distributed quietly and invisibly.” Last time I looked, $2.23 billion was still a lot of money.
CARB rules continue to principally focus on local air quality with respect to criteria pollutants, with greenhouse gases as secondary concerns. Even after more than half a century of increasing controls, the Los Angeles basin continues to be the most polluted air in the United States, especially with respect to ozone and particulate matter. Continued growth in California port traffic as well as the neighboring population explosions, is offsetting gains from criteria pollutant emission rules.
As for cost impacts, it will be practically imperceptible for the ultimate consumers of products shipped through California ports. However, California is at the same time, increasing pressures and costs on the shipping industry due to their climate related policies unrelated to local air quality.
The commercial transport industry is always looking for the least cost, most efficient means of getting cargo from the supplier to the customer. If the combination of regulatory factors make shipping via California ports overly expensive, shippers will look for cheaper and more efficient alternatives that bypass California altogether. They are already doing so.
“The commercial transport industry is always looking for the least cost, most efficient means of getting cargo from the supplier to the customer. If the combination of regulatory factors make shipping via California ports overly expensive, shippers will look for cheaper and more efficient alternatives that bypass California altogether. They are already doing so.”
In which case there will be no additional cost to the consumer and thus nothing to worry about.
There would be, because California has historically offered most competitive cost intermodal shipping for Asian goods shipped over the Pacific Ocean. Alternative as will appear, the higher cost, and less efficiently. That will affect the cost of goods east of the Rocky Mountains.
However, it will be Californians’ own goal. They will pay the steepest price for their self imposed regulatory stranglehold.
U.S. imports do not all come in via California.
The 0.03c number uses the stated fact that only 1/5 of the imports come in through California.
Story Tip.
AC Feudalism: Eurocrats Stay Cool While Staff Swelter In Brussels Heatwave – Climate Change Dispatch
How “socialist/marxist” of them !
If California were to follow through on its plans to ban diesel-electric locomotives and diesel trucks as part of its drive to “net zero,” California ports would lose their competitive edge on intermodal shipping costs compared to shipping via the Panama Canal to Gulf Coast and East Coast ports. The marginal cost to ultimate consumers would be tiny for individual products, but California will have effectively turned itself into an economic island, isolated by more than simply geography. With its tax the rich attitude and sanctuary cities, much of the state will become a Third World hellhole, a feudal system of wealthy elites in their heavily guarded compounds, governing an impoverished population.