Environment

Advises affected jurisdictions to comply with the law and route trucks to minimize exposure to residences, schools, day cares, parks, playgrounds, and more

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued an enforcement advisory letter to eight jurisdictions in California’s warehouse concentration region that have not complied with their requirements under Assembly Bill (AB) 98 (Carrillo, Reyes, 2024) to amend their general plans to include truck routes that avoid residential areas and “sensitive receptors," such as schools, day cares, parks, playgrounds, nursing homes, and hospitals. As defined under the law, California’s warehouse concentration region consists of two Inland Empire counties, San Bernardino and Riverside County, and 12 cities within those counties. As part of the law’s requirements, these jurisdictions must also provide opportunities for heightened community engagement on truck route planning that reach all economic segments of the community. By identifying specific routes for trucks that avoid residential areas and sensitive receptors, jurisdictions can reduce burdens on communities that result from the pollution, noise, road deterioration, accidents, and other road hazards created by truck traffic. The enforcement advisory is directed to the eight jurisdictions that have not amended their general plans despite the law’s January 1, 2026, deadline: Chino, Moreno Valley, Perris, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Riverside, Ontario, and Riverside County.

“California is fighting for vulnerable communities and finding real solutions that help everyday people, like preventing pollution, noise, traffic, and potholes from trucks cutting through quiet neighborhoods where parents and children live, sleep, and go to school,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That’s why California law requires cities and counties to establish specific truck routes that minimize impacts in areas where communities would feel it the most. Everyone must do their part to make our communities better. With this advisory, we’re making sure California’s planning laws are followed, and helping ensure every community can enjoy the same prosperous quality of life that makes California the golden state to work and live in.”

“AB 98 was about making sure our communities are not forced to bear the health and safety burdens that come with heavy truck traffic. When trucks are routed through neighborhoods, past schools and day cares, and near other sensitive locations, families pay the price through increased pollution, noise, traffic hazards, and deteriorating roads," said Assemblymember Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale). "The law gave local jurisdictions clear requirements and a clear deadline. Today’s enforcement action reinforces that these protections are not optional. I appreciate Attorney General Bonta for holding jurisdictions accountable and ensuring that the communities most impacted by warehouse and truck traffic have a meaningful voice in how truck routes are planned. We worked hard to pass AB 98 because every family deserves to live, work, and raise their children in a community where public health and safety are taken seriously. I will continue working to make sure the law is implemented as intended and that residents have a seat at the table." 

“For decades, Inland Empire communities have carried an outsized share of the pollution and public health impacts that come with moving goods throughout California,” said Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Colton). “Families should not have to accept heavy truck traffic in front of their homes, and children should not have to breathe diesel exhaust on their way to school. We fought for stronger protections because the health and quality of life of our residents cannot continue to be treated as the cost of doing business. I am grateful to Attorney General Bonta for making clear that these protections are not optional. The law must be followed, and our communities deserve to feel the difference.”

Warehouse Concentration Region

California’s warehouse concentration region consists of two counties — Riverside and San Bernardino — and 12 cities within those counties — Chino, Colton, Fontana, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley, Perris, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ontario. The concentration region constitutes the area of the state with the highest concentration of warehouses, and, as a result, communities in the region experience some of the greatest exposures to truck pollution and other safety and quality of life issues that come with the significant truck traffic in the area. Trucks travelling to and from warehouses emit nitrogen oxide and diesel particulate matter, which contribute to smog formation and the development of health problems like asthma, cancer, and heart disease. Trucks can also create noise pollution and create safety issues like traffic jams, deterioration of road surfaces, and traffic accidents.

The eight jurisdictions in the warehouse concentration region that have not amended their general plans — Chino, Moreno Valley, Perris, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Riverside, Ontario, and Riverside County — have made varying degrees of progress toward compliance. The deadline to complete the amendments was January 1, 2026, and the statute provides for enforcement by the Attorney General, including a possible civil penalty of up to $50,000 every six months, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. While expeditious compliance with the law is important, it is also critically important that these noncompliant jurisdictions take the necessary steps to engage impacted communities and ensure the truck routes they ultimately adopt adequately protect sensitive receptors. 

Assembly Bill 98

AB 98, as amended by Senate Bill 415 (Reyes, 2025), requires that jurisdictions in the warehouse concentration region amend the circulation element of their general plans to include truck routes that minimize negative effects on sensitive receptors, including residences, schools, day cares, parks, playgrounds, nursing homes, and hospitals. To reduce the negative impacts of truck routes on communities, jurisdictions must establish truck routes that safely accommodate additional truck traffic; avoid residential areas and sensitive receptors; and maximize use of interstate highways, arterial roads, major thoroughfares, and roads that are predominantly commercial, agricultural, or industrial.

AB 98 also requires a heightened standard of community outreach, mandating that jurisdictions create engagement opportunities on the truck routes for all segments of the community. The proper implementation of AB 98, with thoughtfully planned truck routes and robust community engagement, will reduce impacts on environmental justice communities that bear the health and safety burdens of living near truck routes.

Truck Routing Requirements Outside of the Warehouse Concentration Region

AB 98’s requirement to create truck routes that avoid residential areas and sensitive receptors and conduct heightened community engagement applies to all California cities and counties. However, jurisdictions outside of the warehouse concentration region must adopt an ordinance, rather than a general plan amendment, to comply with AB 98. The deadline for jurisdictions outside the warehouse concentration region to adopt a truck route ordinance is either January 1, 2028, or January 1, 2030, depending on the jurisdiction’s population. While not the focus of this enforcement advisory, the advisory can be a useful reference for jurisdictions with future deadlines to adopt a truck route ordinance.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 26 states, counties, and cities in filing a lawsuit against the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) challenging its final rule weakening corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new passenger cars and light trucks. Historically, NHTSA’s standards have reduced consumer costs by improving fuel efficiency for vehicles, placed downward pressure on gas prices by reducing fuel consumption, protected the U.S. economy from global oil shocks, and reduced pollution from tailpipes and refineries. However, the final rule significantly weakens fuel economy standards and hurts consumers and the planet. In the lawsuit filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that NHTSA’s new rule is contrary to law and that NHTSA contravenes its mandate from Congress to set fuel-economy standards at their “maximum feasible” level. Far from “maximum feasible,” NHTSA’s backsliding standards for the next five years require less efficiency than what the U.S. fleet actually achieved in 2021. 

“The President started a war that has created volatility in oil markets, disrupted global energy supplies, and left families and businesses paying the price at the pump. Yet, the Trump Administration is attempting to gut fuel economy standards and force Americans to spend billions more on gas while poisoning the air in our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Let’s be clear: The Trump Administration is doing this to line the pockets of their Big Oil donors. California will not stand idly by, we will defend fuel economy standards that keep costs down, protect public health, and build a better, sustainable future.” 

In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which requires NHTSA to establish “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards for new vehicles that reflect technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the government, and the need to conserve energy. To set fuel economy standards, NHTSA first models the current fleet’s performance and then considers what, if any, additional actions manufacturers could take to improve their fuel economy in future model years above that. In past rulemakings, including during the first Trump Administration, NHTSA started from a realistic baseline fleet that included the millions of electric vehicles that already existed on our nation’s highways and roads and based fuel-economy standards on how additional technological improvements to gas-fueled cars could make that fleet more efficient. NHTSA never based fuel-economy standards on “mandating” automakers to produce more electric vehicles or requiring consumers to buy them.

The final rule misinterprets NHTSA’s statutory authority and improperly forces the agency to ignore the presence of millions of electric vehicles in the nation’s existing fleet, leading to a flawed, dramatically distorted analysis of the “maximum feasible” fuel economy level that the auto industry can achieve. Essentially, NHTSA’s novel reinterpretation of the law renders the federal fuel-economy program toothless, unable to protect consumers against rising gas prices or the ongoing global oil shock from President Trump’s war.

NHTSA has also utilized defective analyses of vehicle affordability and sales, fleet turnover, fuel savings, and vehicle safety to make a profoundly harmful and destructive rule look net-beneficial to society. For example, NHTSA tries to paper over nearly $220 billion in lost fuel savings — money that drivers would have saved at the pump under the previous fuel economy standards, which will instead benefit Big Oil. It also refuses to consider hundreds of billions of dollars in future damages from climate change-driven disasters, flouting the best science and research and effectively setting these costs at zero. Defying a longstanding and repeatedly affirmed Congressional mandate, NHTSA asserts that the United States does not need to conserve energy after all — treating the high gasoline prices and the instability of global oil markets as an acceptable trade for fossil fuel companies’ profits. Finally, NHTSA’s rule will end the CAFE credit trading program in 2028, which will significantly harm electric vehicle industries that employ Californians and support our economy.

In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that NHTSA’s final rule is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to advocating for and defending drivers, consumers, and the environment. This year, he secured a key victory after the Trump Administration conceded its attempt to impose conditions on Department of Transportation grant funding for California’s vital travel infrastructure was unlawful. He also co-led a coalition in filing lawsuits against the Trump Administration for unlawfully suspending two bipartisan grant programs for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Previously, he filed an amicus brief defending NHTSA’s stringent fuel economy standards under the Biden Administration.

In filing this lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta leads the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the City of Chicago, the City and County of Denver, the City of New York, and the City and County of San Francisco.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated Governor Gavin Newsom signing Assembly Bill (AB) 1457 into law. The new law, authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) and sponsored by Attorney General Bonta and the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE), amends Senate Bill (SB) 1000 (Leyva, 2016) to set a compliance deadline for local governments with disadvantaged communities in their planning areas to address environmental justice in their general plans and promote transparency and community engagement in the process. With this new law, Attorney General Bonta is proud to uplift community voices in local planning processes and ensure local governments consider environmental justice in their local planning so that no community is left behind in our fight for a healthier, more just future.

“California won’t stand idly by as our disadvantaged communities face significant environmental threats, including disproportionate exposure to polluted air, water, and soil. In 2016, SB 1000 promised that local planning would address the health burdens of communities living with the heaviest pollution burdens. Now, we’re building on that promise to make sure local governments do their part expeditiously and ensure the impacted communities have a voice in the process,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: When it comes to protecting our planet, we all have a part to play. A firm deadline means local governments cannot put this planning off, because every Californian should have the opportunity to live in a community that is healthy and safe.”

"Disadvantaged communities in California have been waiting over a decade to see a meaningful response to the environmental hazards impacting their lives and health on a daily basis,” said Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles). “AB 1457 ensures their voices will finally be heard." 

“The approval of AB 1457 is a resounding victory for environmental justice communities that have been waiting for a decade for the prioritization of their health,” said Alma Martinez, Policy Advocate, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. “Residents in these communities can now look forward to elevating their voice to ensure their neighborhoods’ wellbeing.”

AB 1457

AB 1457 requires local governments subject to SB 1000 that have not yet adopted an environmental justice element, or related policies, goals, and objectives in other general plan elements, to do so by June 30, 2031. It also expands transparency and public engagement requirements to ensure that local governments meaningfully involve impacted communities in the development of environmental justice elements and policies, including by providing opportunities for public input on drafts.

Under existing law, SB 1000 requires local governments with disadvantaged communities in their planning areas to adopt an environmental justice element (or related policies, goals, and objectives in other elements) in their general plans; however, that requirement is only triggered when a local government concurrently adopts two or more elements of its general plan. The last 10 years have shown that this is not an effective trigger. Local governments operate on different planning calendars and follow different processes for adopting general plan updates, and many with disadvantaged communities have yet to act. AB 1457 ensures that SB 1000 is fully realized so that marginalized communities are not left behind.  

BACKGROUND

Attorney General Bonta expanded the Bureau of Environmental Justice within the Department of Justice in 2021 to increase oversight and protect communities that endure a disproportionate share of environmental pollution and public health hazards. The Bureau of Environmental Justice has developed significant expertise in environmental justice considerations in land use planning and has been actively engaged in SB 1000 implementation through comment letters, enforcement action, and providing technical assistance through published SB 1000 guidance promoting environmental justice for marginalized communities across California. 

Attorney General Bonta remains committed to fighting for environmental justice so that all Californians have access to a healthier, more just future. This year, he sponsored additional environmental legislation to ensure that settlements of Proposition 65 violations provide public benefit and continues to challenge federal actions that perpetuate and worsen environmental injustice. In July, Attorney General Bonta secured a court order requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to move forward with the implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for soot. Previously, he submitted an amicus brief supporting Earthjustice, Public Rights Project, and Southern Environmental Law Center in their class action lawsuit against the EPA for unlawfully terminating the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program. He also previously issued multistate guidance affirming the necessity and legality of environmental justice initiatives despite the Trump Administration’s recent efforts to mislabel and undermine these critical efforts. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Air Resources Board today joined a coalition of 25 states, counties, and cities in filing a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rescission of three main aspects of EPA’s 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards (CPS) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The rule change repeals Biden Administration-era protections from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal, oil, and gas-fired power plants. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition ask the court to vacate EPA’s illegal rescission of the 2024 CPS and restore EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards.

“While California is focused on protecting the environment and the health of our loved ones, President Trump remains hell-bent on protecting the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. Rolling back emission standards for power plants is an affront to the American people,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “President Trump’s EPA continues to fail at protecting our environment. Let’s be clear: The President’s climate defeatism has no place in California. We won’t let these actions put our communities at risk. We’ve seen the impacts of climate change firsthand and will continue to fight back.”  

“Today California is challenging the federal government's latest public health rollback that abandons science-based limits on power plant pollution," said CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez. "We will use every legal tool available to defend the right to breathe clean air and hold the line on the climate progress.”

BACKGROUND

Fossil fuel-fired power plants in the United States are collectively one of the largest contributors to climate pollution in the world. The power sector is the largest stationary source and second-largest overall source of GHG emissions in the United States, accounting for a quarter of all domestic emissions. Failing to control the sector’s carbon dioxide emissions will exacerbate significant threats facing California, including intensifying and increasing heat waves, wildfires, severe storms, flooding, disease, air pollution, and harm to regional ecosystems. Last year, two of the most destructive fires in state history — the Palisades Fire and the Eaton Fire, both in Los Angeles County — killed at least 30 people, destroyed over 16,000 homes and other structures, and damaged over 37,000 acres. 

Meanwhile, President Trump and the EPA are moving to accelerate climate change and further endanger hundreds of millions of Americans — particularly communities that are disproportionately burdened by environmental harms. This includes the EPA’s illegal attempt to overrule science and abandon the Endangerment Finding that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that drives climate change and endangers public health and welfare, which has served as the legal basis under the Clean Air Act for limiting climate pollution from vehicles.

Now, in its amendments to the 2024 CPS, EPA repeals — and does not replace — the three main aspects of the CPS: (1) emission guidelines for existing coal, oil, and gas-fired steam generating units, (2) requirements for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification, and (3) carbon capture and storage-based requirements for new baseload natural gas combustion turbines. In doing so, the rule significantly undermines efforts to address climate change and exposes communities to greater environmental harm by undoing climate regulations on power plants. In the lawsuit, California and the coalition allege that EPA’s rescission of the 2024 CPS violates the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the coalition asks the court to vacate EPA’s illegal rescission of the 2024 CPS and restore EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards for these power plants. 

In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Mayors of New York City and Chicago, and the City and County of Denver.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) insufficient evaluation of the environmental consequences of commercial drone package delivery. Drone operations are subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the FAA violated the law’s requirement to take a hard look at the environmental consequences that may result from a more expansive rollout of drone delivery operations.

“When it comes to cutting-edge innovation, the Trump Administration should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. As the fourth largest economy in the world — built in large part on technological innovation and a commitment to protecting our communities — California is proving that an economic future doesn’t need to come at the cost of our environment. Allowing states to be responsive to innovation while still protecting our planet serves both industry and consumers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Unfortunately, FAA's programmatic environmental assessment falls far short of properly analyzing the environmental impacts that drone package delivery operations may have. At the California Department of Justice, we to stand firm that environmental justice and thoughtful innovation can and should go hand in hand. We will continue to uphold laws such as NEPA as a cornerstone of both.”

BACKGROUND

So far, drone delivery operations are already happening in states ranging from California to Arkansas and Florida to Utah. In 2022, Amazon initiated Prime Air deliveries in Lockeford, California and now seeks to expand those operations to additional cities like Tracy, California. These operations generally occur under 400 feet of altitude with packages that weigh less than five pounds. Packages are delivered via rope dropped down from the drone to a delivery location, dropped from a hover height, or by full stop landing. 

FAA purported to comply with NEPA by issuing a Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact, and Record of Decision. The PEA provides an overview of nationwide drone package deliveries to occur at future points in time without meaningful contextual information about the impacted communities or environment. It contemplates a dramatic expansion of package delivery by drones but does not adequately address the potential safety risks or other environmental impacts. NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action.” In doing so, the agency must take a hard look at the environmental impacts. Despite that, the PEA fails to adequately consider the environmental risks. Thus, Attorney General Bonta and the multistate coalition today filed a lawsuit challenging the FAA’s PEA, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Record of Decision for commercial drone package delivery.

Attorney General Bonta joins the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Harris County, Texas.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, alongside a multistate coalition of attorneys general, submitted a comment letter opposing the United States Forest Service’s (USFS) proposed revisions to the Travel Management Rule (TMR), aimed at opening the country’s National Forests to increased motorized vehicle use. The current TMR, established in 2005, provides guidelines and standards for where motorized vehicles can and cannot travel within National Forests, which reduces user conflicts and protects the environment. Now, the USFS is proposing to remove restrictions and open more roads (including dirt/gravel roads) and trails to motorized use, continuing its rollbacks of rules and safeguards that protect our National Forests. In today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition highlight how the Trump Administration’s proposed revisions threaten vulnerable ecosystems, undermine years of careful recreational planning, and jeopardize clean water resources and wildlife habitat. 

“The health and wellbeing of our protected lands will not be run over by the President’s overreaching political agenda. California is home to renowned forests and cherished ecosystems that must be preserved and shared responsibly,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The facts overwhelmingly show that more roadbuilding and motorized vehicle usage in our forests will fragment and destroy wildlife habitats, degrade water quality, and increase the risk of wildfires. We have a responsibility to preserve and protect the great outdoors, and we’re urging this Administration to immediately rethink its course of action.”

Established in 2005, the current TMR aims to protect the National Forests by designating roads, trails, and areas expressly open or closed to recreational vehicle use. Among other things, the rule was implemented to protect wildlife, promote clean watersheds, and reduce conflicts between visitors using passenger and off-road vehicles and visitors traveling on foot, bicycle, or horseback. The TMR further provided for public input and Tribal coordination in designating roads, trails, and areas open and closed to various types of recreation that are published in maps for each National Forest.

This August, in response to an Executive Order from the Trump Administration, the USFS announced its intent to revise this rule. The proposed revisions would open and remove restrictions on existing roads and establish new roads and trails for motorized vehicle use in the National Forests, including the 20 National Forests in California, the Sequoia National Forest and Tahoe National Forest included. The proposal also builds on the Trump Administration’s recent proposal to rescind the USFS’s Roadless Rule, which currently prevents road construction and timber harvesting in unfragmented stretches of National Forest land nationwide. The proposed rescission of both rules demonstrates a coordinated and flagrant attack on publicly-owned forest lands that would open millions of acres to road construction, logging, and other development.

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the USFS to rescind its proposal and assert that: 

• The USFS should examine a reasonable range of alternative strategies to its proposal.
• The USFS must comply with NEPA by considering all environmental impacts of revising the TMR in its Environmental Impact Statement.
• The USFS must comply with other statutory requirements, including under the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
• The USFS should provide for more public participation in this proposal, which would have broad, nationwide impacts on our National Forests.
• The USFS should not have initiated the TMR rulemaking at the same time it is proposing to roll back the Roadless Rule, because the USFS cannot assess the environmental impacts and implementation feasibility of the proposed revisions to the TMR until it has decided what action to take on the Roadless Rule.  

In sending today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Here is a copy of the comment letter. 

NEW YORK CITY — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Energy Commission (CEC) today filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration and Invenergy, a California offshore wind leaseholder, over the Administration’s unlawful buyout of Invenergy’s California offshore wind energy lease. Under the alleged settlement agreement announced on June 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) will unlawfully reallocate more than $111 million in federal taxpayer dollars to pay Invenergy to abandon its lease in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area off the Central California coast. The buyout also requires the company to cause its corporate affiliates to invest the same amount in out-of-state fossil fuel or geothermal projects that will do nothing to support California’s energy economy. If allowed to proceed, the taxpayer-funded buyout threatens to set back California’s offshore wind industry, undermining public investments in ports’ offshore wind capacity and damaging supporting industries and clean energy jobs that support working families. In the lawsuit, California argues that DOI’s buyout deal with Invenergy violates the Constitution and numerous federal laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Coastal Zone Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Judgment Fund Act, and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which is intended to give California a say in the offshore wind leasing program and prevent corrupt backroom deals.

“At a time when we need more reliable, clean energy, President Trump is trying to send $111 million to his fossil fuel industry friends and wants taxpayers and working families to cover the tab. This outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars will damage the offshore wind industry and create unnecessary obstacles to clean and reliable energy powering our homes and economies,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “During Climate Week and all year round, we’re focused on sustainable energy, mitigating environmental impacts, and taking action when our clean energy future is attacked. California is not here to foot the bill — we have the receipts and we’re asking the court to strike down this blatantly unlawful deal.”

“As leaders gather for Climate Week NYC to discuss the urgent need for clean, domestic energy, the Trump administration is unlawfully using taxpayer dollars to coerce companies to abandon it,” said California Energy Commission Chair David Hochschild. “California is challenging these reckless and illegal backroom deals and holding the companies that participate in them accountable. We will vigorously defend clean energy and the good-paying jobs and economic opportunity that are at stake for our communities.”

California’s offshore wind strategic plan calls for the state to develop 25 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2045, enough to power roughly 25 million homes and provide about 13% of the state’s electricity supply, to accelerate California’s clean energy transition, create local manufacturing jobs, and drive economic development. Since federal offshore wind energy development planning began off California's coast a decade ago, the state has worked with federal agencies, developers, tribes, labor groups, ports, fishermen, local governments, and communities to prepare for offshore wind development. California has invested more than $100 million to ready California’s ports, transmission systems, and industries to support offshore wind generation. Cancelled offshore wind projects threaten to deprive California of more than 174,750 jobs, infrastructure investment, and long-term economic development.

This agreement marks another step in the Trump Administration’s ongoing attempt to cancel offshore wind projects and replace them with fossil fuel energy projects, including lease buyout deals with Golden State Wind LLC and RWE U.S. Offshore. In 2022, after a competitive auction for offshore wind energy leases, Invenergy paid the U.S. over $111 million to purchase an offshore wind lease in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area off the Central California Coast for development of a project up to two gigawatts in capacity, with additional commitments of more than $30 million for workforce training, supply chain development, and benefits to local communities like fishermen’s associations. But on June 17, 2026, DOI announced it would cancel the lease through a taxpayer-funded agreement with Invenergy that purportedly “settles” litigation that Invenergy never brought, challenging action that DOI never took. DOI claims that unspecified national security concerns justified a lease cancellation, even though the federal government previously reviewed and approved the lease area after years of analysis and consultation with the U.S. Department of Defense. In July 2026, the California Department of Justice and CEC sent a Notice of Intent to Sue, which provided a 60-day window for DOI and Invenergy to cure any violations before California filed suit to stop this unlawful buyout.

In today’s lawsuit, California alleges that DOI’s buyout deal with Invenergy violates numerous federal laws, including the OCSLA and APA, because it uses a sham settlement to bypass the rules that Congress set down for the offshore energy leasing program, including stakeholder participation rights for affected states like California and a cap on how much the government can pay to a developer when it cancels a lease. California also argues that the deal violates the Judgment Fund Act, federal funding laws, and the Constitution because the $111 million payment was not a settlement to resolve an existing lawsuit. Instead, it was a fabricated arrangement designed to justify the unlawful cancellation of another offshore wind lease. California is asking the court to strike down the blatantly unlawful agreement and to stop the administration from implementing this illegal deal.

The attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont also filed two joint lawsuits today challenging additional lease buyouts. First, the states filed suit challenging lease buyouts between DOI and Invenergy subsidiaries that were announced at the same time as the California Invenergy buyouts and cover three leases off the coasts of New York, New Jersey and Maine at a total cost of over $653 million. The east coast states also filed a second suit challenging a $765 million lease buyout between DOI and Bluepoint Wind, LLC concerning a lease off the coast of New York and New Jersey.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta submitted a comment letter pointing out the many flaws in the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) that insufficiently evaluates the environmental consequences of an oil and gas lease sale covering nearly 36,000 acres in Central California. The proposed lease sale of 44 parcels — 43 in the Bakersfield Planning Area and one in the Central Coast Planning area — is the latest development in a long-running attempt to open new parts of California to oil and gas drilling. This proposed lease sale is subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but BLM violated the law’s requirement to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of leasing this land to oil and gas operators. In particular, BLM failed to consider the public health impacts of leasing parcels that are close to residences, schools, and hospitals and the impact on water supply and quality, air quality, and sensitive habitats and species. Attorney General Bonta asserts that this EA is another insufficient environmental review that puts politics and profits over legal requirements, to the further detriment of vulnerable communities.

“Once again, the Trump Administration is pushing to expand oil and gas development into additional areas of California, continuing a pattern that favors fossil fuel interests at the expense of public health and the environment. This lease sale would place a greater burden on communities that already experience severe air pollution, while ignoring the thorough environmental review required by law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California’s land belongs to the people, not to special interest groups seeking to profit from them. My office remains committed to protecting our communities and resources and will continue to call out any action that threatens our environment and jeopardizes public health.” 

Background

On July 2, 2026, BLM announced plans to hold an oil and gas lease sale in December 2026, of nearly 36,000 acres in Kern, Kings, Fresno, and San Luis Obispo Counties. On August 21, 2026, BLM published a Draft EA for the proposed lease sale. The Draft EA relies on prior planning documents and environmental analyses that would collectively open up around 2 million acres of land across 20 counties in California to oil and gas operations. The Attorney General commented in opposition to these plans in March 2026, also arguing that the environmental analyses for the plans were deficient. BLM finalized these plans in June.  

If finalized, the lease sale would impact some of the most pollution-burdened communities in California. Public health impacts include increased mortality and morbidity — particularly adverse perinatal and respiratory outcomes — as well as economic harms from medical costs and lost productivity. The Draft EA also assumes that some hydraulic fracturing will occur despite the technique being phased out in California and fails to consider state law that limits drilling near homes and schools, as well as state efforts to combat climate change. Approximately 16 of the parcels BLM proposes to lease fall within California’s 3,200-foot public health and safety setback, established under Senate Bill 1137 to protect the health of communities from the harmful effects of drilling near homes, schools, and other sensitive locations. Despite this, the Draft EA includes no discussion of the specific impacts that leasing these parcels may have on nearby communities. 

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta argues that the Draft EA for the 44-parcel lease sale is deficient for many reasons, including because BLM: 

• Based the Draft EA on other inadequate assessments that rely on flawed data and that do not analyze the specific impacts associated with the proposed lease sale.
• Failed to consider recent science and data or adequately analyze the harms from oil and gas development — especially those related to water quality and quantity, air pollution, and the outsized public health harms to communities near oil and gas operations, who are disproportionately low-income communities and communities of color.
• Failed to consider reasonable alternatives to its proposed actions, including those that would protect more public lands and limit or mitigate the harms to nearby communities.

Files motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with bipartisan support from 20 states and nine major municipalities

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, with the support of a bipartisan coalition of 20 attorneys general and nine major municipalities, today filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to stop Corteva Inc. — now the parent company of the chemicals manufacturer historically known as DuPont — from trying to move $39 billion of its assets and value to avoid paying its liabilities. Attorney General Bonta recently filed a second amended complaint in his existing lawsuit alleging that some of the nation’s largest chemical companies, including Corteva and DuPont, shifted assets to avoid liability and failed to warn the public about the dangers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS or “forever chemicals.” Now, in the latest stage of this scheme, Corteva plans to spin off the bulk of its assets and value from DuPont (its subsidiary) into a new independent company called Vylor in order to insulate those assets from the financial consequences of causing decades of harm from forever chemicals that have contaminated groundwater, bays, lakes, streams, rivers, wildlife, soil, and communities in California and throughout the country. Tellingly, Corteva’s CEO and many of its board members are fleeing Corteva — the company liable for these harms — for Vylor, which they say will be free of PFAS liability. Absent appropriate guardrails, the impending Vylor spinoff transaction increases the risk that states and municipalities, and by extension taxpayers, will be left to shoulder the massive financial burdens arising from historical DuPont operations. Filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, today’s motion seeks to freeze Corteva’s assets and stop its fraudulent attempt to avoid the consequences of its toxic legacy. 

“If you’re confused by these corporate machinations, that’s exactly what these chemical companies intended. This family of chemical manufacturers has been constantly changing hats and engaging in a decades-long campaign of deception to evade accountability for the widespread damage they caused to our environment and public health,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “We will be dealing with PFAS for generations, and these companies need to pay for the harms they’ve inflicted on Californians and our environment. Today, we’re asking the court to immediately freeze Corteva’s assets to stop these companies’ efforts to avoid accountability. Nobody can hide from the law.” 

“PFAS persist in the environment forever and present a clear public health risk. That’s why California continues to lead the way providing best-in-class science and research to protect our residents from these forever chemicals,” said Secretary for Environmental Protection Yana Garcia. “This lawsuit is proof that California will take aggressive steps to hold corporate polluters accountable for the harm that they have done and secure all available resources to clean up PFAS contamination.”

What Are PFAS? 

PFAS are widely used in consumer products, including food packaging, cookware, clothing, carpets, shoes, fabrics, polishes, waxes, paints, and cleaning products, as well as in firefighting foams designed to quickly smother liquid fuel fires. These so-called “forever chemicals” are stable in the environment, resistant to degradation, persistent in soil, and known to leach into groundwater. PFAS have been found in the blood of nearly all Californians tested for these dangerous chemicals. Human exposure to PFAS can occur from contaminated air, water, soil, food, and consumer products. PFAS can cause adverse health impacts, including developmental defects, liver, kidney, testicular, breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers, adverse pregnancy outcomes, infertility, reduced bone density in children, and impacts on the thyroid and immune system. 

For decades, PFAS manufacturers, including DuPont, were aware of these chemicals’ toxicity, persistence, and prevalence in humans, but chose to deliberately mislead the government and the public. For example, as early as the 1950s, companies began testing the physiological and toxicological properties of PFAS. Based on these internal studies, the manufacturers knew that PFAS were toxic to humans and the environment. By the 1960s, the manufacturers had confirmed that PFAS were leaching into groundwater and contaminating the environment, and by the 1970s, they had confirmed that PFAS bioaccumulate in humans. Rather than warn or change their products, DuPont doubled down, continuing to use PFAS in its products without warning the public or regulators for decades.

What Is Happening?

Attorney General Bonta recently filed a second amended complaint in his existing lawsuit against some of the nation’s largest chemical companies, alleging new wrongful conduct as part of the continuing fraudulent scheme that the historical DuPont, its successor New DuPont, Corteva, Chemours, and the recently created Qnity Electronics (together, the “DuPont Defendants”) engaged in. The amendment builds on Attorney General Bonta’s November 2022 lawsuit alleging that the manufacturers knew or should have known about the dangers of PFAS when they made and/or sold products containing them and that the manufacturers failed to warn the public and regulators about the dangers of PFAS, and in many cases concealed them.

To protect their assets from the many legitimate claims against them by those harmed by PFAS, the DuPont Defendants developed a complex, multi-step strategy to protect profits and reduce assets available to plaintiffs by selling assets and paying the proceeds to shareholders, leaving the public to deal with the environmental damage and serious health effects. Each step was designed to shield the DuPont Defendants’ assets from judgment: 

• 2015 Spin-off: The historical DuPont created a new company called Chemours and transferred its chemical business to it. DuPont tried to shift its massive PFAS liabilities onto Chemours to protect its own profitable business units from legal claims.
• 2017 Merger: DuPont merged with The Dow Chemical Company to form a temporary company named DowDuPont. This move was designed to protect DuPont’s remaining product lines.
• 2019 Corporate Splits: DowDuPont broke apart into new companies. Corteva was formed to handle the agricultural business (holding the original DuPont as a subsidiary), while Dow, Inc. took over its performance materials business. DowDuPont was renamed DuPont (“New DuPont”) to quietly sell off DuPont’s remaining assets and give the cash to shareholders.
• 2021 Financial Cap: The DuPont Defendants signed a cost-sharing agreement to pay for legacy PFAS claims, but New DuPont and Corteva capped their combined contribution at $2 billion. Chemours also capped its contribution at $2 billion. This limit of $4 billion is extremely low given the companies’ role in PFAS deception and pollution, the number and size of the legal claims against them, and their assets. Once the $4 billion limit is reached, Chemours will be legally forced to cover all remaining PFAS liabilities on its own, even though Chemours is the DuPont Defendant with the least amount of assets. 
• 2025 Insurance Agreement: Corteva and New DuPont paid Chemours $150 million to gain control over Chemours’ insurance payouts for PFAS damage. After Corteva and New DuPont recover that initial $150 million, Chemours will only receive half of any future insurance money, despite still being responsible for paying out the massive legal claims DuPont foisted upon it. 
• Now: On October 1, 2026, Corteva plans to spin off its highly profitable seed business into a new company called Vylor. Meanwhile, it intends to leave all its legacy PFAS liabilities behind with its pesticides division, the only remaining business line left with Corteva. If this corporate split happens as planned, Corteva will repeat the exact same pattern as New DuPont: It will severely diminish its total assets, lower its overall business value, and send billions of dollars out of reach of PFAS-related plaintiffs, like California and thousands of others.

In filing this motion, Attorney General Bonta is supported by the attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, along with the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, the City of San Diego, the City and County of San Francisco, Santa Clara County, the City of Fresno, the City of Denver, the City of Philadelphia, and King County, Washington. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a multistate coalition of attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) proposal to amend the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5). The NCA is a scientific document that provides an overview of the most current climate science and explores adaptation and mitigation strategies across a wide range of topics. USGCRP's flawed proposal seeks to retroactively modify the 2023 NCA5 to limit the interpretation and use by federal agencies of findings in the NCA5 that are based on certain worst-case, high emissions scenarios. If implemented, this proposal would put politics over peer-reviewed scientific findings to further the Trump Administration’s abandonment of the fight to protect the American public from the worst climate impacts. The comment letter explains that these changes are arbitrary and capricious and are therefore unlawful if ultimately adopted and relied on by federal agencies.

“The science doesn’t lie. Climate change is harming public health and causing devastating and ever-worsening disasters,” said Attorney General Bonta. “To restrict federal agencies from acknowledging or planning for these impacts is playing politics with people’s lives, and that’s exactly what President Trump is doing. This proposal will restrict federal agencies from relying on the NCA5’s worst-case projections, while at the same time the Trump Administration is doing everything it can to make those projections a reality. I will continue to support rigorous scientific findings backed by a peer review process, not wishful thinking or outright denialism, and I encourage the USGCRP to do the same by rescinding their proposal.” 

Federal law requires the USGCRP to prepare a National Climate Assessment (NCA) every four years. The most recent NCA, NCA5, was released in November 2023, under the Biden Administration. The Trump Administration has previously taken various steps to undermine NCA5, including canceling key contracts, dismissing scientists, gutting the USGCRP, and removing the NCAs from federal websites. This latest proposal continues to undermine NCA5 by attempting to downplay the gravity of climate change. 

On August 25, 2026, the USGCRP published a notice of its proposal to amend the NCA5 to limit federal agencies’ ability to utilize certain NCA5 results that depend on scenarios that outline a future where annual greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and a transition to renewables and other climate-mitigating policies does not occur. Along with representing a politically motivated attack on climate science, the proposed amendment also fails basic federal information quality requirements that apply NCAs. It fails to identify who prepared and reviewed it and has characteristics of a document developed using artificial intelligence, raising serious concerns about its reliability. It does not appear to have undergone peer review or to have been prepared with the involvement of the National Academies of Science. Engineering, and Medicine. The proposed amendment also improperly constrains public review and input, imposes a word limit on comments, provides a mere 15-day comment period on amendments to the 2,000 page NCA5, and asserts that comments will not receive a response. In sum, this proposed amendment is not a serious attempt to reflect changes in scientific understanding, but rather a rushed and politically motivated attempt to downplay the threat represented by climate change and hinder federal planning to address it.