SB13 imposes new transparency and reporting duties on three state agencies to reveal the climate and air‑quality footprint of moving oil into and within California. The measure directs the State Air Resources Board to produce an annual greenhouse‑gas assessment of oil transportation, requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to supply underlying petroleum data and to publish certain reports prominently on its website, and asks the Geologic Energy Management Division to link to transportation emissions data.
The bill matters because it shifts information about the upstream and transport-related environmental costs of petroleum into the public domain. That increased transparency could affect regulatory analysis, market narratives about imports, and public pressure on purchasing decisions — while creating operational challenges for agencies and questions about funding, methodology, and confidential business information.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates cross‑agency reporting duties: the State Air Resources Board must publish an annual assessment of greenhouse‑gas emissions attributed to transporting oil to and within California; the Energy Commission must provide data from its refinery reporting system and post reports on tanker‑import air‑quality impacts and refinery storage costs; and the Geologic Energy Management Division must link to transport emissions data on its website. The bill also requires gasoline price breakdown reports to include shipping costs and forbids using electric ratepayer funds to implement these tasks.
Who It Affects
State agencies (CARB, the Energy Commission, Geologic Energy Management Division) which must collect, analyze, and post new material; refiners and importers who supply data under the Petroleum Industry Information Reporting Act; shipping and logistics stakeholders whose activities will be analyzed publicly; and energy analysts, environmental advocates, and consumers who use the published information.
Why It Matters
It makes transport‑stage emissions and import‑related air‑quality risks visible in public agency products that inform policy and markets. The requirement to include shipping in price breakdowns embeds transport costs into public cost accounting, while the prohibition on using electric ratepayer funds forces agencies to find alternative budget sources for implementation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB13 adds three narrowly targeted statutory duties to existing agency responsibilities. First, it directs the State Air Resources Board to produce and publish an annual assessment of greenhouse‑gas emissions associated with moving oil from its point of origin to its final destination in California.
The assessment must estimate emissions for imported oil broken down by country of origin and for in‑state produced oil, describe the methods and assumptions used, and link to the underlying data.
Second, the bill relies on the Energy Commission’s existing refinery and petroleum reporting framework as the data source. It requires the commission to provide the data it collects under the Petroleum Industry Information Reporting Act to CARB for use in the assessment, while maintaining applicable confidentiality protections under that reporting statute.
The commission must also publish two specific reports on its website — one that analyzes air‑quality impacts if 5–10% of California’s gasoline were imported by tanker ships, and another that describes refinery storage costs — and place those reports prominently on its front page. Additionally, gasoline price‑breakdown reports prepared by the commission must incorporate the cost of shipping oil.Third, the Geologic Energy Management Division is asked to provide a simple navigational link on its website to the transportation emissions data, making it easier for stakeholders to find the new material.
The bill also contains a legislative-intent clause directing the Energy Commission to monitor foreign oil exporters and identify, on its website, those countries the United States Department of State has documented for human‑rights abuses and those with production standards lower than California’s.Two cross‑cutting constraints matter for implementation: the data transfer must respect existing confidentiality rules in Chapter 4.5 of the Public Resources Code, and the bill explicitly prohibits the Energy Commission from using electric ratepayer funds to carry out the new duties. The text leaves method choices (how to allocate emissions to origin, how to model tanker scenarios) to the agencies and requires them to disclose their methodology and source data links in the published assessment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 39619.9 to the Health and Safety Code requiring an annual CARB assessment of greenhouse‑gas emissions from oil transportation, with import estimates broken down by country of origin and a separate estimate for in‑state production.
The Energy Commission must annually provide to CARB the petroleum data it collects under Chapter 4.5 (starting with Section 25350 of the Public Resources Code) and ensure that those data transfers comply with existing confidentiality rules.
SB13 requires the Energy Commission to publish on its homepage a report on the air‑quality impact of importing 5–10% of California’s gasoline supply via tanker ships and a separate report describing refinery storage costs as determined by the commission.
The bill mandates that any commission report estimating gasoline price breakdowns and margins include the cost of shipping oil, explicitly folding transport costs into publicly posted price analyses.
The Geologic Energy Management Division must include on its website a link to air‑quality emissions data associated with transporting imported oil, and the Energy Commission is directed (by intent language) to identify on its site foreign oil exporters documented for human‑rights abuses or lower environmental standards.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Directs Energy Commission to monitor exporter countries and flag abuses or lower standards
This non‑mandatory intent clause instructs the Energy Commission to track which foreign oil exporters supply California and to identify exporters the U.S. Department of State has documented for human‑rights abuses and those whose production standards fall below California’s. Practically, the clause signals a policy aim to pair environmental reporting with reputational information about source countries; the clause itself creates no enforcement mechanism or data‑collection duty beyond the other statutory sections.
Requires CARB to publish an annual GHG assessment for oil transport and a tanker‑import air‑quality report
This section imposes a substantive analytic product on the State Air Resources Board: an annual greenhouse‑gas assessment covering transport emissions from origin to destination, with separate estimates for imported oil (broken out by country) and in‑state production. The section also requires CARB to post a report on the air‑quality impacts of importing 5–10% of the state’s gasoline via tanker ships. The statute obligates CARB to disclose methods, assumptions, and data links, which pushes agencies toward reproducible modeling but leaves the modeling approach choices to CARB. The section ties CARB’s work to Energy Commission data and includes a statement that the Energy Commission must provide the relevant petroleum reporting data, subject to confidentiality protections.
Requires Geologic Energy Management Division to link to transport emissions data
Section 3118 creates a simple web‑link duty: the Geologic Energy Management Division must provide a link on its website to the air‑quality emissions data associated with transporting imported oil. While minimal, this provision centralizes access for stakeholders who already visit the division’s site for well and production information, reducing friction for public review of transport emissions analyses.
Energy Commission must display tanker‑import and storage‑cost reports and include shipping in price breakdowns
This section directs the Energy Commission to prominently display two reports on its front page: the tanker‑import air‑quality impact analysis and a report describing refinery storage costs. It also amends reporting practice by requiring that any gasoline price‑breakdown and margin estimates produced by the commission explicitly include shipping costs. Finally, the section forbids the commission from using electric ratepayer funds for these obligations, a budgetary constraint that will shape how the commission funds staff time, modeling, and web publishing.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy 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
- Energy and environmental analysts — gain new, agency‑produced datasets and method disclosures that make it easier to quantify transport‑stage emissions and compare import sources.
- Environmental and public‑health advocates — obtain public reporting on the air‑quality risks of tanker imports and transport emissions that can be used in advocacy and regulatory comment.
- Consumers and local communities — receive clearer, agency‑vetted information about the environmental footprint and potential air‑quality impacts tied to gasoline supply choices and shipping.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies (CARB, Energy Commission, Geologic Energy Management Division) — must allocate staff time, modeling resources, and website resources to produce assessments, host reports, and maintain links; the prohibition on electric ratepayer funding shifts these costs onto other budgets.
- Energy Commission (specifically) — faces direct obligations to prepare and prominently post reports and to include shipping in price breakdowns, which may require new analytic work and data governance processes.
- Refiners, importers, and data reporters — while they already submit data under Chapter 4.5, they may face increased scrutiny, requests to resolve data quality questions, and potential reputational costs when country‑level import footprints are published.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB13 aims to increase public transparency about the environmental and human‑rights footprint of oil imports and transport, but it forces a trade‑off between the public’s interest in clear, country‑level disclosure and the practical limits of data accuracy, business confidentiality, and agency resources — a choice between transparency that may be imprecise or contentious and precision that may remain obscured behind proprietary data protections.
The bill presumes agencies can produce robust, country‑specific transport emission estimates from existing reporting, but it leaves key methodological choices unspecified. Allocating emissions to a country of origin is straightforward for direct, traceable shipments, but California’s fuel supply often moves through intermediaries, blends, and storage hubs, complicating origin attribution and raising the risk of misleading or contested estimates.
The statute requires method disclosure and data links, but it does not prescribe allocation rules, error margins, or how to handle blended cargoes.
Confidentiality and transparency are in tension here. The Energy Commission must provide data to CARB while complying with Chapter 4.5 confidentiality protections; the bill does not clarify how to balance transparency expectations (public data links and prominent website displays) against legally protected proprietary data.
The prohibition on using electric ratepayer funds is another practical constraint: it prevents one revenue source from covering implementation costs but does not identify alternative funding, which could delay or scale down agency work. Finally, the intent to flag foreign exporters for human‑rights abuses or lower standards relies on external determinations (U.S. Department of State citations and subjective comparisons to California standards) that may create diplomatic or market impacts without a clear appeals or verification mechanism.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.