Here’s a round up of a few recent articles relating to California’s EPA Clean Air Act waivers, which let us set our own auto rules and other policies to improve air quality. On one hand, President-elect Trump wants to get rid of California’s ability to set its own rules, and the Supreme Court is going to hear a lawsuit against them. On the other hand, a couple of waiver requests were just granted and more could come before Trump is sworn in, and there are reasons to be optimistic that they could stay in place.

Congress gave California the unique power to enforce its own vehicle (and nonroad engine/vehicle) air quality standards in 1967 because it already regulated emissions before the law’s passage. Other states can decide to follow California or federal policy [1]. These rules have to be granted a waiver by the EPA before they can be enforced. At the time of this year’s election, the EPA was reviewing eight waiver requests, some as old as 2020 [2]. Earlier this month, the EPA granted two of these waivers [3]:

• The Advanced Clean Cars II rule, adopted in 2022, requires an increasing percentage of new cars sold by California auto dealerships to be zero-emission or plug-in hybrids. The regulation eventually culminates in a ban on selling new, gasoline-powered cars by 2035. It is slated to go into effect in 2026.
• The Heavy-Duty Omnibus rule, adopted in 2020, establishes cleaner engine standards and requires warranties for new heavy-duty vehicles. It had been scheduled to go into effect this year.

These two rules are collectively expected to prevent more than 3,700 premature deaths and provide $36 billion in public health benefits [3].

Trump’s EPA is expected to try to revoke these waivers, but CalMatters explains why this may be challenging: “But Congress wrote explicit provisions in federal law about when EPA can reject them: The federal agency can only reject California mandates if they are “’or capricious,’ if the state doesn’t need them to clean its severe air pollution, or if they are inconsistent with federal law because there is ‘inadequate lead time’ for manufacturers to develop electric cars or other technologies at a reasonable cost.” [1] CalMatters also notes that although Trump tried to revoke California’s waivers in 2019, none of California’s waivers have ever been successfully revoked [4].

Because the waivers were granted so late in Biden’s term, Congress is likely to try to revoke them using the Congressional Review Act, but the ability of them to do so is disputed. California Gov. Newsom’s office told the LA Times that a decision issued in 2023 by the U.S. Government Accountability Office that an EPA waiver, unlike federal regulations, is not subject to the Congressional Review Act [2].

As usual, this will all end up in the courts. Several industry groups have already filed a lawsuit to contest the Advanced Clean Cars II rule [5]. A previous lawsuit targeting California’s earlier auto emissions standards and the waiver process generally was filed by 17 states as well as oil companies and other fuel producers. The D.C. Court of Appeals had dismissed the lawsuit, but the Supreme Court revived it, in part. The Court declined to hear the states’ challenge, but agreed to review the fuel producer’s standing to sue [1, 5]. The California regulation doesn’t regulate fuel companies, only the auto industry. The case had been thrown out in part because the car companies are already complying with the rule. If the Supreme Court grants standing, the case would return to the lower court.

The six remaining waiver requests that have yet to be approved could be approved up until January 19. Here is the list [2]:

• The Small Off-Road Engines rule, adopted in 2021, would ban the sale of gas-powered yard equipment, including leaf blowers, lawn mowers and other equipment. It was scheduled to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 887 premature deaths and provide $9 billion in public health benefits.
• The Commercial Harbor Craft rule, adopted in 2022, would require new ferry boats and excursion vessels to be zero-emission where feasible. It also calls for more watercraft, including commercial sportfishing boats, to replace their older engines with newer, cleaner models to reduce pollution. It was scheduled to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 531 premature deaths and provide $5 billion in health benefits.
• The In-Use Locomotive rule, adopted in 2023, would establish age limits for trains operating in California and gradually phase out diesel engines. The rule would guarantee all train fleets would be zero-emission no later than 2058. It was slated to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 3,233 premature deaths and provide $32 billion in public health benefits.
• The Advanced Clean Fleets rule, adopted in 2023, would ban fossil-fuel-powered cargo trucks from registering to serve California ports and rail yards. It would ultimately require all cargo trucks serving the ports to be zero-emission in 2035. It also established zero-emission requirements for governmental and large commercial fleets. It was scheduled to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 2,526 premature deaths and provide $26 billion in public health benefits.
• The In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleet rule, adopted in 2022, would phase out some of the dirtiest engines from agricultural and construction equipment. It was scheduled to go into effect this year. It is expected to prevent 571 premature deaths and provide $6 billion in public health benefits.
• The Transport Refrigeration Units rule, adopted in 2022, would phase out diesel-powered refrigeration units for cargo trucks. It was slated to go into effect last year. It is expected to prevent 177 premature deaths and provide $2 billion in public health benefits.

CalMatters also noted that California Air Resources Board (CARB) “at the last minute pulled back a proposed rule ramping up sales of zero-emission motorcycles. That decision came in part due to Trump’s election, a person familiar with the board’s thinking said. The state will instead offer incentives for people to buy electric motorcycles.”

Finally, CalMatters has an interesting article about the Advanced Clean Fleets rule that touches on both the impact of pollution on residents near the ports, and the impact on businesses of trying to comply with a rule that hasn’t been granted a waiver yet [6].

Sources:

[1] Alejandro Lazo, Cal Matters, Dec. 13: Supreme Court to weigh in on case involving California’s power to clean its air

[2] Tony Briscoe, LA Times, Nov. 6, 2024: Trump victory puts California clean air initiatives in jeopardy

[3] Tony Briscoe, LA Times, Dec. 18: U.S. EPA approves California rule banning the sale of new gas cars by 2035

[4] Alejandro Lazo, CalMatters, Dec. 18: Biden administration approves California electric car mandate. Will Trump try to revoke it?

[5] Tony Briscoe, LA Times, Dec. 18: What do recent Supreme Court actions mean for California auto emission standards?

[6] Dec. 10, CalMatters: Polluted communities hold their breath as companies struggle with California’s diesel truck ban