The state lacks the capacity to make its at-berth emissions rule work, but it's happy to collect the fines.
California has some of the most restrictive environmental regulations in the country. The Golden State’s commitment to its climate goals has hamstrung its ability to build new housing, public transit, and infrastructure, imposing billions in compliance costs on businesses and residents.
Now, a little-known rule is adding $2.23 billion to that burden, spreading the effects of California’s self-defeating energy policies to the rest of the country. The state is forcing ships in its ports to connect to its failing green grid—or pay huge penalties.
In 2020, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)—the agency in charge of the state’s climate change and air pollution programs—proposed its At-Berth rule, requiring large ships like oil tankers and cargo vessels that docked in Southern California ports to cut their emissions by connecting to an already strained California electric grid or using CARB-approved clean-energy technologies.
States are preempted from imposing air pollution standards without federal permission. So, in 2023, California turned to the Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a special waiver to impose the rule under the Clean Air Act. The EPA gave the green light to enforce the At-Berth rule, which now affects 16.8 percent of U.S. trade and could increase national energy costs.
The EPA sidestepped Congressional review of California’s waiver by arguing it wasn’t a rule, despite federal courts consistently treating waivers as rules, finding in Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge v. Crombie (2007) that they have the same “stature as a federal regulation.”
Companies docking at California ports now face a tradeoff: slow operations and comply with regulations, or pay into a state Remediation Fund at rates up to $14,704 per hour. Expensive, but still cheaper than paying CARB’s noncompliance fines, which can reach $50,288 per violation per day.
Costs for retrofitting a ship to comply with California’s mandates range from $268,000 to $2 million. Even then, for some ships, compliance is simply unfeasible technologically. The state lacks the infrastructure for ships seeking to comply. California has already spent billions on investments in its ports, including $475 million on offshore wind technology—though state officials admit upgrades will cost $11-12 billion to complete.
To meet its 2045 carbon neutrality goals, the California Independent System Operator, the state’s grid operator, projects it will need “$45.8 to $63.2 billion” in investments. In the meantime, CARB expects large ships to connect to California’s 100-year-old grid infrastructure at a time when rolling blackouts continue to plague the state.
The At-Berth rule is legal extortion. California lacks the technology to ensure ships meet its clean energy requirements, making compliance through payment the only viable alternative. Of course, once the cost of regulations reaches a certain threshold, ships will simply avoid California ports when possible, leading to a decline in the energy imports the state needs to meet its growing demand.
Still, there’s a path to challenging California’s rule. Instead of allowing California to impose costly regulations unchecked, the Trump administration could submit the EPA's waiver to California to Congress for review.
In 2025, a bipartisan majority in Congress successfully used the Congressional Review Act to disapprove three EPA waivers for California electric-vehicle mandates. This June, the Trump administration submitted four additional California waivers to Congress that the agency says have “prospective, national effects” and the “force of federal law,” allowing the state to supplant federal authority.
California’s At-Berth rule functions no differently than its waivers on emissions standards for cars; the only difference is the target. The At-Berth rule risks allowing the state to weaponize its stranglehold over key ports, shifting the costs of its climate goals onto the entire country.
Every petroleum tanker forced to avoid a California port means less oil and higher energy costs for the nation. Under federalism, California is free to impose stringent clean-air and energy mandates on its residents. However, that does not mean we have to stand idly by while those policies spread their deleterious effects across the rest of the country.
Tosin Akintola is an assistant editor at Reason Magazine. His writing has appeared in The American Spectator, RealClearPolicy, Short Circuit, and more. He’s a graduate of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.