The US House of Representatives has voted to strike down the federal waiver underpinning California’s At-Berth regulation, which requires ocean-going vessels to plug into shore power or capture their exhaust while docked at the state’s ports, according to Ship & Bunker.
Narrow Vote Sends Resolution to Senate
According to Ship & Bunker, House Joint Resolution 210, sponsored by California Republican Vince Fong, passed by a vote of 216 to 211 late on Tuesday, citing the House Clerk’s record. The outlet reports that 212 Republicans, three Democrats, and one independent voted in favour, while 210 Democrats and one Republican voted against.
The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act to disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency’s authorisation of the At-Berth rule, which the agency transmitted to Congress as a rule in July, Ship & Bunker notes. The measure now moves to the Senate, where Alaska Republican Dan Sullivan has filed a companion resolution, according to the report.
Ship & Bunker also states that the House is scheduled to vote Thursday on a separate resolution targeting California’s Commercial Harbor Craft rule, which has required tugs, ferries, and workboats in the state to run on renewable diesel since 2023.
Background on the At-Berth Rule
According to Ship & Bunker, the At-Berth rule has been phased in since 2014, with a 2020 update extending its scope to tankers and ro-ro vessels starting in 2025 and full enforceability from 2027. A successful repeal under the Congressional Review Act would also permanently bar the EPA from issuing a substantially similar waiver in the future, the outlet reports.
Opposing Views on Repeal
Pacific Environment, a campaign group that has led opposition to the resolutions, told Ship & Bunker in an emailed statement that California ports have invested more than $550 million in shore power and related electrification infrastructure at Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and San Diego. The group warns that repeal risks turning that investment into stranded assets, according to the report.
Teresa Bui, the group’s senior climate campaign director, was quoted by Ship & Bunker as saying, “Now all eyes turn to the Senate. We call on the Senate to uphold the waiver to protect the health of communities, state’s rights, and America’s ability to compete in the global economy.”
Ship & Bunker reports that Pacific Environment also argues Clean Air Act waivers should be classified as adjudicatory orders rather than rules, placing them outside the scope of the Congressional Review Act — a position the group says has been supported by the Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian. The outlet notes a federal judge in Washington has allowed California to add the At-Berth and harbor craft authorisations to existing litigation over other waivers.
On the other side, a coalition of 26 groups led by the American Energy Alliance wrote to Congress earlier this month arguing that California’s waiver authority “was never intended to turn the California Air Resources Board into a de facto national regulator,” according to Ship & Bunker, with the coalition contending the maritime waivers extend that model to ports handling a significant share of US imports.
Does This Matter to You?
This legislative development carries potential relevance for vessel operators calling at California ports, as well as terminal operators and port authorities who have invested in shore power infrastructure. Should the Senate pass the companion resolution and the repeal take effect, the compliance obligations tied to the At-Berth rule — including phased requirements for tankers and ro-ro vessels from 2025 and full enforceability from 2027 — could be affected, based on the timeline described by Ship & Bunker.
Charterers and fleet planners with California-bound itineraries may also want to monitor Senate action, given that the outcome could influence future emissions compliance planning at the affected ports. The direct financial or operational impact on shore power infrastructure investment, described by Pacific Environment as exceeding $550 million, is not yet clear pending the Senate vote.
Gulf Bunkering does not provide operational or security guidance. This article is for informational purposes only. Operators should consult flag state authorities, P&I clubs, and relevant advisories for decisions relating to transit planning.
Sources: Ship & Bunker
