An act to add Section 43018.12 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to air pollution.
AB 2635, the “Just Transition for Landscapers Act,” would add Section 43018.12 to the Health and Safety Code to create new state requirements tied to the transition away from gas-powered small off-road engine landscaping equipment. The bill directs large and medium air pollution control and air quality management districts, to the extent funding is available, to establish and maintain commercial voucher programs by January 1, 2028 to help landscapers purchase zero-emission equipment. Those programs must accept alternative documentation in place of a business license, provide language assistance, avoid collecting immigration or criminal-history information, and cover at least 85% of eligible costs, up to 100%.
The bill also limits local regulation of gas-powered landscaping equipment. Beginning January 1, 2027, a city, county, or city and county could not adopt or enforce an ordinance prohibiting the use of small off-road engine landscaping equipment unless the relevant air district offers the required voucher program or the local government creates its own qualifying incentive program. It further bars local governments from treating violations as infractions or misdemeanors, instead limiting enforcement to warnings and administrative fines with ability-to-pay protections and other relief options. These local-government restrictions would sunset on January 31, 2032.
In addition to the voucher and enforcement provisions, the bill contains findings that the regulation of gas-powered landscaping equipment is a matter of statewide concern and therefore applies to all cities, including charter cities. It also includes privacy-related findings to support limits on public access to participant information in the voucher programs, and it provides for state reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill creates reimbursable local costs. The measure is classified as a local program and fiscal committee bill, but it does not appropriate funds.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears favorable but not unanimous. The bill passed committee on a 11-2 vote with a “do pass as amended and be re-referred” recommendation, suggesting broad support for the bill’s environmental and worker-protection goals while still drawing some concern. The absence of committee transcript excerpts limits more detailed insight into debate, but the structure of the bill indicates a strong policy emphasis on helping landscapers transition to cleaner equipment rather than relying on penalties alone.
The main points of contention are likely to be the mandate on local air districts and the limits placed on local enforcement authority. Supporters appear to prioritize equity for immigrant and informal workers, access to rebates, and reduced air pollution, while potential opponents may object to state preemption of local ordinances, the cost and administrative burden on districts, and the requirement that voucher programs avoid asking for business-license, immigration, or criminal-history information. The bill’s requirement that local penalties be administrative rather than criminal also appears to be a notable policy shift that could generate debate.
AB 2635 would add a new section to the Health and Safety Code and create a state-mandated local program for large and medium air pollution control districts to administer commercial voucher programs for zero-emission landscaping equipment. It would also constrain local governments’ ability to ban gas-powered landscaping equipment unless transition assistance is available, and it would change how violations of such ordinances are enforced by limiting them to warnings and administrative fines. The bill would affect air districts, cities, counties, landscapers, and equipment users, while also creating privacy and reimbursement provisions tied to implementation costs.
The available record suggests the bill was received positively overall, with committee approval by a substantial margin and no recorded transcript opposition in the materials provided. The bill’s framing as a “just transition” measure indicates a policy goal of balancing air-quality regulation with worker access and economic stability, which likely contributed to support. At the same time, the amendments and the referral to Appropriations indicate that cost, implementation, and local-control issues remained important considerations.
The most notable contention centers on whether the state should require local air districts to run voucher programs and restrict local governments from enforcing gas-equipment bans until transition assistance is available. Supporters emphasize environmental justice, immigrant worker access, and avoiding punitive enforcement against landscapers who may lack formal business licenses or face language and immigration-related barriers. Potential critics are likely to focus on state preemption of local ordinances, the fiscal and administrative burden on districts and cities, and the bill’s limits on collecting identifying information or using criminal enforcement tools. The requirement that vouchers cover at least 85% of costs may also raise concerns about program expense and funding availability.