SB 1075 requires the State Air Resources Board (state board) to develop a statewide strategy to reduce toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants in communities facing high cumulative exposure burdens, with particular priority for disadvantaged communities and sensitive receptors. The strategy must set criteria for identifying affected communities and for the creation of community emissions reduction programs (CERPs).
Once the state board selects locations for CERPs, the local air district must prepare and adopt a program in consultation with community stakeholders and affected sources. The bill builds enforceability into those local plans, requires regular updates and reporting, and funds technical-assistance grants to community-based organizations to support participation.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the state board to prepare a statewide strategy that establishes criteria for identifying high-burden communities and for designing community emissions reduction programs; the board will select locations and the local air district must craft the CERP in consultation with community groups and regulated sources.
Who It Affects
Affects the California Air Resources Board, local air districts, stationary and mobile source operators in selected communities, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and community-based organizations (CBOs) in disadvantaged communities and near sensitive receptors.
Why It Matters
Creates a formal, statewide-to-local pipeline for targeting pollution where exposure is highest, makes CERPs enforceable by agencies, and funds community participation—shifting from ad hoc local plans to a standardized, accountable approach for environmental justice hotspots.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1075 tasks the State Air Resources Board with drafting a statewide strategy — developed in consultation with the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants, OEHHA, districts, community groups, industry and other stakeholders — that establishes the criteria and methodology for finding communities with high cumulative pollution burdens. The statute requires the board to use the best available modeling and monitoring data, public health inputs from OEHHA, and the monitoring results required by Section 42705.5 to prioritize disadvantaged communities and sensitive receptor locations.
When the board finalizes its assessment, it selects specific locations for CERPs at the same time as the statewide strategy and may select more locations annually afterward. For each selected location, the local air district must prepare and adopt a community emissions reduction program in consultation with residents, community groups, affected facilities, and local government.
The law sets a process-driven timeline: the district must adopt a program within a statutory window after selection (with a negotiated one-year extension possible), and the program must include clear emissions-reduction targets, specific measures, an implementation schedule, and an enforcement plan.The state board plays an active review role. District-submitted programs go to the board for review and approval; the bill requires prompt resubmission of rejected programs and authorizes the board to open a public process to resolve approvability issues.
While that public process runs, the board will develop and implement the mobile-source elements of the draft program so reductions can begin. Districts and the board must each carry out measures consistent with their legal authorities, and districts must publish annual reports summarizing actions and any updates made to keep CERPs consistent with updates to the statewide strategy.SB 1075 also inserts a facility-level trigger: the statewide strategy must include a method to assess contributors and estimate relative contributions, and districts must determine whether a facility’s existing risk reduction audit and emissions reduction plan (under Section 44391) should be updated when a facility causes or significantly contributes to a material impact on a sensitive receptor or disadvantaged community.
Finally, the bill authorizes grants to community-based organizations to provide technical assistance so affected residents can participate meaningfully in program development and implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The state board must update the statewide strategy at least once every five years.
For each location the state board selects, the local air district must adopt a community emissions reduction program within one year of selection; the district may extend that deadline by up to one additional year with the state board’s agreement and a majority of the district’s designated participants.
The state board reviews submitted CERPs and requires programs to be sent to the board for review and approval; rejected programs must be resubmitted within 30 days, and the board will run a public process and begin implementing mobile-source measures while approvability issues are resolved.
CERPs must include emissions reduction targets, specific measures, an implementation schedule, an enforcement plan, and must demonstrably produce emissions reductions in the community based on monitoring or other data.
The bill provides grants to community-based organizations for technical assistance to support community participation in the development and implementation of CERPs and related monitoring work.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions: disadvantaged communities and sensitive receptors
This subsection pins down the statute’s key terms. It adopts the existing statutory definition of "disadvantaged community" (cross-referencing Section 39711) and reuses the "sensitive receptors" locations already described elsewhere in statute (Section 42705.5). That linkage matters because the bill leans on prior mappings and monitoring duties instead of creating new definitions, which accelerates implementation but also imports prior methodological choices into the new program.
Statewide strategy: assessment criteria and control measures inventory
This is the technical heart of the bill. The state board must produce a statewide strategy in consultation with scientific and community stakeholders and include criteria to locate high-burden communities using best-available modeling, existing monitoring, OEHHA health data, and monitoring from Section 42705.5. The strategy must also lay out how to assess source contributions (stationary and mobile) and catalog available control options (BAT, BART-style retrofit technology, and toxic-specific BAT). Practically, the strategy creates the standardized assessment tools districts will use to identify target communities and to estimate each source category’s relative contribution.
Community emissions reduction programs: selection, adoption, review, and enforcement
This lengthy subsection creates the pipeline from statewide strategy to enforceable local plans. The state board selects locations concurrently with the strategy and may add locations annually. Districts must adopt CERPs in consultation with community stakeholders, with a statutory adoption window that can be extended one year if the state board and a majority of designated participants agree. Submissions go to the state board for review; the statute sets short resubmission deadlines for rejected plans and requires the board to open a public process to resolve approvability issues while implementing mobile-source elements immediately. The provision also makes CERP compliance enforceable by the district and the state board and requires annual district reporting on progress and strategy alignment.
Community grants for technical assistance
The state board must award grants to community-based organizations to build technical capacity and support participation in CERP development and the monitoring duties set out elsewhere. The grants are targeted to ensure that community stakeholders—who typically lack technical resources—can engage effectively in emissions identification, control selection, and oversight.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents in disadvantaged communities and near sensitive receptors — they receive prioritized assessments, enforceable local plans targeting the pollution burden where they live, and technical-assistance funding to participate in planning.
- Community-based organizations — the bill funds capacity-building grants so CBOs can analyze data, engage in technical workshops, and help shape enforceable local measures.
- Public health agencies and researchers — OEHHA and academic partners gain a standardized statewide assessment framework and clearer links between monitoring data and local reduction plans, easing program evaluation and prioritization.
Who Bears the Cost
- Stationary sources and permitted facilities in selected locations — they face assessments of relative contribution and potential updates to risk reduction audits and emissions reduction plans, and they may be required to implement control measures under enforceable local programs.
- Local air districts — they must develop, run public consultations for, adopt, and report on CERPs; carry out enforcement duties; and align local measures with the statewide strategy, which will require staff time and possibly new technical expertise.
- The State Air Resources Board — responsible for producing the strategy, selecting sites, reviewing and approving CERPs, running public processes to resolve approvability issues, implementing mobile-source elements, and managing grant programs, creating a significant administrative workload that will need funding.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to reconcile two legitimate objectives—speeding pollution reductions where exposure and health risk are highest, and doing so through robust, technically defensible plans that respect legal limits on agency authority and existing permitting structures. Pushing for rapid, enforceable local programs pressures regulated sources and agencies to act quickly, but overreliance on imperfect data or underfunded implementation can skew priorities, produce inconsistent outcomes, or invite legal challenge.
SB 1075 centralizes a lot of technical judgment at the state board while delegating plan development and enforcement to local districts. That design streamlines consistency across jurisdictions but raises practical questions about capacity and funding.
Districts will need modeling, monitoring, legal, and community-engagement resources to craft defensible CERPs; the statute funds community technical assistance but does not specify funding levels for district implementation or for the board’s expanded review responsibilities. Without dedicated funding, implementation timelines and program quality will vary.
The bill also rests heavily on modeling and existing monitoring to identify "high cumulative exposure" communities and to apportion relative contributions among sources. Modeling choices (resolution, emission inventories, meteorology) and gaps in monitoring coverage could materially affect which communities are selected and which sources are prioritized.
The statutory requirement that CERPs demonstrably reduce emissions "based on monitoring or other data" is sensible, but it will be operationally difficult where monitoring networks are sparse or where mobile sources dominate exposures. Finally, making CERPs enforceable raises legal questions about how they interface with existing permits, the timing and scope of required controls for individual facilities, and the potential for regulatory overlap or litigation challenging board or district authority.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.