An act to amend Section 42705.6 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to air resources.
SB 1039 would amend California Health and Safety Code Section 42705.6, which governs refinery-related community air monitoring systems and refinery fence-line monitoring systems. The bill keeps the existing requirement that petroleum refineries maintain fence-line monitoring, but it narrows what those systems may be required to monitor by directing district guidance not to require monitoring of substances that cannot be generated by the facility being monitored. It also adds a process for a refinery to submit substantial evidence to the local air district seeking exclusion of a pollutant from monitoring, and authorizes the district to grant that exclusion if the evidence shows the pollutant would not be released by the refinery’s routine or nonroutine operations, real-time monitoring is technologically infeasible, or other technical justifications support exclusion.
The bill also preserves the existing framework for community air monitoring near refineries, including district responsibility for designing and maintaining those systems, real-time data collection, and public access to monitoring data to the extent feasible. It continues to place primary responsibility for implementation costs on refinery owners or operators, while allowing cost-sharing if a community monitoring system is intentionally used to monitor non-refinery sources. The measure is framed as a local program mandate, but it states that no state reimbursement is required because local agencies may recover costs through fees or assessments.
The likely practical effect of SB 1039 is to give air districts and refineries more flexibility in deciding which pollutants must be monitored at refinery fence lines, while still preserving the broader monitoring and public disclosure structure already in law. In effect, it would limit overinclusive monitoring requirements and create a formal evidentiary pathway for excluding pollutants that are not relevant to a particular refinery or are not feasible to monitor in real time. This would affect regional air pollution control districts, air quality management districts, and petroleum refinery operators subject to the monitoring rules.
The available voting history suggests the bill has had some committee support, with a 4-0 do pass as amended vote on March 18, 2026, but it was later placed on the suspense file by a 7-0 vote on April 20, 2026 and was held in committee under submission. That pattern suggests general procedural support but also possible fiscal or policy caution. No committee transcript was provided, so the record does not show detailed public debate, but the bill’s structure indicates a policy balance between environmental monitoring and limiting requirements to pollutants actually associated with a refinery.
The main point of contention appears to be whether the bill weakens refinery monitoring requirements or simply makes them more scientifically and operationally tailored. Environmental advocates could view the exclusion process as a potential loophole that allows refineries to avoid monitoring, while refinery operators and local air districts may support the bill as a way to prevent unnecessary or technically impossible monitoring obligations. The bill’s emphasis on substantial evidence, technological feasibility, and district discretion suggests an attempt to mediate between those positions.
SB 1039 would amend Health and Safety Code Section 42705.6 to change how local air districts develop guidance for refinery fence-line monitoring systems. It would prohibit guidance from requiring monitoring of substances that cannot be generated by the monitored facility and would authorize districts to exclude pollutants from monitoring when substantial evidence shows the pollutant would not be released by the refinery, real-time monitoring is infeasible, or other technical justifications apply. The bill would therefore alter the regulatory standards used by air districts and refinery operators in implementing refinery monitoring programs, while leaving the broader community monitoring and public data requirements in place.
The available vote record suggests the bill received at least initial committee support, with a unanimous 4-0 do pass as amended vote, but later encountered caution when it was placed on the suspense file by a 7-0 vote. That pattern indicates the measure was not overtly controversial at the committee vote level, but it likely raised enough policy or fiscal questions to warrant further review. Because no transcripts were provided, there is no direct record of floor or committee debate, but the bill appears designed to appeal to those seeking more tailored monitoring requirements while still preserving public health protections.
The central contention is whether the bill appropriately limits unnecessary monitoring or creates opportunities to reduce refinery oversight. Supporters are likely to argue that districts should not require monitoring of pollutants a refinery cannot emit and that the bill adds a reasonable evidence-based process. Opponents, likely environmental or community health advocates, may worry that the exclusion process could be used to narrow monitoring too aggressively and reduce transparency around refinery emissions. Air districts may also be concerned about the added administrative burden of revising guidance and evaluating exclusion requests.