Valley Air District releases 2025 Annual Report to the Community

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has just released a digital highlights summary of its 2025 Annual Report. You can access the report in English here and in Spanish here.

Photo Credit: SJVAPCD 2025 Annual Report

The report summarizes air quality progress, pollution levels, control efforts, and much more that has resulted in Valley air quality to be cleanest on record.

Said Samir Sheikh, Executive Director and Air Pollution Control Officer: "Based on air monitoring data collected throughout the region, 2025 was the cleanest year on record across numerous air quality metrics. For the first time, every federal reference monitoring site recorded levels below the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard. At the same time, we continued to make meaningful progress in reducing ozone concentrations with the lowest number of exceedances of ozone standards on record. Overall, the Valley continued to have more “Good” air quality days, and a record low number of only five “Unhealthy” days across all Valley counties, down from over 100 days just ten years ago, and hundreds of days twenty years ago. These improvements bring the Valley closer than ever to attaining the remaining federal health-based standards, and represents real improvements in the air we breathe and tangible health benefits for the communities we serve."

The report summarizes, permit actions, grants & incentives, partnerships, air quality monitoring, rewards, and general information about the Valley Air District.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District is made up of eight counties in California's Central Valley - San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin portion of Kern.

The Valley Air District is governed by a fifteen member Governing Board consisting of representatives from the Board of Supervisors of all eight counties, one Health and Science member, appointed by the Governor, one Physician, appointed by the Governor and five Valley city representatives.

Visit the agency's website to learn more about it, including rules and regulations, hearings and public meetings, current air quality data and alerts, employment, and other information.

Thinking of buying your first EV? California has some money for you!

If you live in California and were thinking about buying an electric vehicle for the first time, but, were put off by the pricing and the removal of certain federal EV credits by the Trump administration, then has California got a deal for you!

Photo Credit: MyFirstEV/CARB

This month, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that three automakers are now offering instant rebates through California's MyFirstEV program. As a result, buyers can walk into any Hyundai, Lucid, or Tesla dealer and buy or lease their first zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) and grab a discount of $3,500 on a new model or $1,750 on a used one. 

Half of the rebate will be provided by California and the other half by the vehicle manufacturer. Additionally, manufacturers headquartered in California who only make ZEVs, e.g., Lucid, are exempt from the price caps.

Ford, Rivian, Chevrolet, and Kia are planning to also join this program later this month, with Toyota/Lexus, Honda, Subaru, and Mitsubishi later this year. Additionally, Nissan and Volvo are still determining when they will join the program.

For more information and details in the program, check this link: California launches MyFirstEV instant rebate program for first-time buyers

EPA Grants Over $5.6 Million to California Tribes for Recycling Infrastructure Projects

Yesterday, July 29, 2026, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it was granting $5,683,158 to Native American Tribes within California. The funding will be distributed to five projects under the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling (SWIFR) program. The grants range from $100,000 to $1.5 million.

Tribal Lands in EPA Region IX

Photo Credit: USEPA, Region IX

SWIFR grants are used to improve local solid waste recycling management systems and ensure that they are stronger, more resilient, and cost-effective. According to EPA, the new grants will "... reduce the burden on landfill capacity, increase valuable materials for end-markets, establish collection services and composting programs, create new jobs, and improve quality of life."

These particular monies will be used for new and expanded recycling and composting facilities for the following Tribes: 

• Kashia Band of Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria
• Hoopa Valley Tribe
• Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian
• Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians
• Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians

Said EPA Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Michael Martucci: “Solid waste infrastructure is especially important in tribal and rural communities across the Pacific Southwest. These funds enable Tribes to build long-term waste management capacity and increase recycling and composting in their communities, diverting waste from landfills.”

Added Acting EPA Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management Thomas Croci: "These grants support the American economy by improving recycling, cutting disposal costs, extending landfill life, and creating local jobs. By improving tribal recycling infrastructure EPA supports the recovery of domestic sources of raw materials, local economies and provides tangible health benefits to communities across Indian Country."

More information on the program can be found here:  SWIFR Tribal grant program.

Should oil companies be sued for climate change damages?

Climate change or global warming, depending upon your preference, is real and due to human activities, primarily emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. (If you disagree, don’t bother arguing here, try arguing with the climate change experts at Skeptical Science. They have a rebuttal for every argument you can come up with, backed up by peer-reviewed science.)

The San Ardo Oil Field

Photo Credit: Loco Steve from Orpington, UK, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Regardless of whether you believe climate change is real or not, there have been several legal moves made to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for the damage caused by their products. Proponents say that the corporate polluters and producers of fossil fuels should be held financially accountable by legal court actions. Opponents say that climate policy belongs in legislatures and government rulemaking, not the courts.

Some of the arguments for and against legal action can be summarized as follows:

Pros:

Financial Accountability – This would shift the costs of dealing with climate change, for example building seawalls to protect against rising sea levels, from taxpayers to the corporations who profited from fossil fuels.

Corporate Deterrence – Deceptive marketing practices would be penalized and the financing of high-emission projects would be disincentivized.

Tobacco Precedent – Tobacco companies were successfully sued in the 1990s when internal documents were found that proved they knew the harm their product was causing. If fossil fuel companies have similar internal documents, similar lawsuits should follow.

Legal Discovery of Evidence -If lawsuits are filed, then court decisions may require the public disclosure of the aforementioned internal documents, revealing whether the companies purposefully employed disinformation campaigns about climate change.

Cons:

Separation of Powers – Those opposed to such lawsuits say that global climate policy should be set by elected lawmakers, not by unelected judges, especially if these companies were in compliance with all existing regulations that were in effect at the time.

Shared Responsibility – The fossil fuels in question were produced to meet global demand by consumers. Therefore, the consumption of these fuels due to this demand by society resulted in these problems. 

Economic Impacts on Industry and Society – The massive legal penalties that could result could bankrupt energy companies, cause consumer energy prices to rise dramatically, disrupt world-wide fuel supplies, and threaten jobs of those not only in the fossil fuel industry, but also in those industries that use and depend upon their products. 

Legal Causation Hurdles – It would be very difficult to prove that emissions from an individual company could be linked to specific climate events. 

Global ineffectiveness – Even if lawsuits were successful against private companies, they will not impact state-owned oil operations in other countries, which are very significant sources of the fuels that cause climate change. In other words, these lawsuits would not solve the global nature of these emissions. 

So, what do you think? Do you favor legal action against fossil fuel companies or do you prefer the legislative route, ensuring that sufficient regulations are developed to address this world-wide problem? Please let us know in the comments below.