Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Port Decarbonization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee backs planning bill to prepare California ports for clean alternative marine fuels
Summary
SB 298 would direct the California Energy Commission to produce a collaborative plan for fueling and storage infrastructure at seaports to support zero‑ or low‑carbon fuels for ocean‑going vessels; sponsors and shipping industry representatives said the plan is needed to avoid falling behind global competitors.
Senator Caballero introduced SB 298, a measure directing the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop a collaborative plan by 2030 for infrastructure to store, transport and supply alternative fuels at California seaports. The plan is intended to be technology‑agnostic and to forecast demand and supply for fuels that enable ocean‑going vessels to achieve emissions reductions.
Mike Jacob of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, a witness in support, said the global fleet and ships on order are increasingly alternative‑fuel capable and that the binding constraint will be whether fuel supply and distribution are available at ports. "Our biggest constraint in the future is not gonna be the vessels...It's gonna be, can we actually provide the fuel to actually decarbonize?" he told the committee.
Supporters argued that ports handle a majority of inbound containers to the U.S. and that without infrastructure investment California risks losing competitiveness to ports abroad. The bill’s committee amendments removed references to permitting fuel infrastructure outside port facilities, clarified that the CEC should identify barriers and opportunities for deployment, require CARB to provide information to the CEC on fuels that meet CARB requirements, and add the State Lands Commission to the bill’s working group membership.
No formal opposition appeared in committee. Sponsors said they would continue to work with labor and industry to refine implementation. The committee passed the measure as amended; committee staff recorded the bill advancing to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
