Cleaning Up Smog Is Suddenly Much Harder. Reined In by Trump, What Will California Do Next?

But last month, Congress invoked the Congressional Review Act to repeal waivers granted by the Biden administration. The state in its lawsuit called this an unlawful action by Congress.
John Dunlap III, who served as California Air Resources Board chair under Gov. Pete Wilson in the 1990s, said in an interview with CalMatters that the Newsom administration “pushed too fast, and I think there were some holes” in their zero-emission car and truck rules.

Dunlap said by moving forward despite concerns about inadequate charging infrastructure, cost and the impacts on trucking, California regulators sent their critics straight into the arms of a more sympathetic federal government.

“They’ve been all in on zero-emission technology, which is great. It’s been a priority. But, they haven’t really cared to dialogue much, if at all, with the users of technology, particularly truck fleets,” he said. Dunlap was chair in 1996 when the board repealed deadlines requiring sales of electric cars because the technology wasn’t ready.

Under the landmark rule adopted by the air board in 2022, all new cars sold in California would have to be zero emissions beginning with 2035 models, ramping up from 68% in 2030. For trucks, California enacted two rules, one in 2020 and then one in 2023 that would phase out new diesel trucks by 2042. None will now be implemented.

Automakers say the rules were too aggressive and would have led to manufacturing job losses, higher car prices and limited consumer choices.

“The auto industry has invested billions in electrification and has 144 electrified models on the market right now. Again, the concerns were about the mandate – not the technology,” the Alliance for Automotive Innovation said in a statement.

Conservatives say the air board is an unelected board that wields too much power. (Its members include appointees from Newsom and the Legislature, and local elected officials.) A Democrat in the Legislature last month urged Randolph, the board’s chair, to resign because the agency hasn’t ***yzed the economic costs of its rules.

One new clean-air rule, the revamped Low Carbon Fuel Standard implemented last week, was met with widespread, vehement criticism from elected officials and industry since it will raise the price of gasoline by an unknown amount.

Amid concerns about the costs to consumers, the Trump administration and industry groups also are making it difficult for local agencies to take bold action.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District — responsible for regulating industrial plants and products that pollute the LA basin’s air — recently rejected rules phasing in zero-emission water heaters and furnaces.

The rules would have brought one of the biggest pollution reductions that the district has implemented in decades. But business groups and others were strongly opposed, saying fees imposed on manufacturers would raise the cost of products. And U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli threatened the local air district with a lawsuit if it approved the rule.

South Coast district Board Chair Vanessa Delgado and Executive Officer Wayne Nastri rejected multiple requests for interviews with CalMatters about what they plan to do next to clean the air in the LA basin.

“As you know, 80% of emissions in our region come from mobile sources — planes, trains, ships, heavy-duty trucks — all of which we do not have federal regulatory authority over,” said Nahal Mogharabi, spokesperson for the agency.

She directed all questions to Trump’s EPA.

What else can the state do?

Last month at the clean-vehicle showcase in Anaheim, Brett Ivy, a fleet manager for the aerospace company Northrop Grumman, wandered through Angel Stadium’s parking lot, looking at electric trucks and machines that he could potentially buy for his company.

Ivy knows the state isn’t enforcing its truck mandates, so he doesn’t know what his bosses will direct him to do in the future. He said they could abandon electric vehicles altogether.

But Ivy added, who knows what the next administration would bring, and Northrop Grumman has to think long-term. He wants to be prepared to do his job managing the company’s fleet of trucks.

“If we don’t, a new administration might reverse what (Trump) did,” he said. “Then you’re behind.”

The trucking industry, when the mandate was approved in 2023, predicted economic chaos and dysfunction and that it would “fail pretty spectacularly.” With its repeal, Nick Chiappe of the California Trucking Association expects that fleet owners will keep buying hydrogen and electric trucks when it makes economic sense, such as with smaller vehicles with shorter hauls.

“The industry will continue to work with (the air board) on reasonable steps to advance zero-emissions technology but maintain that the programs being rolled back were infeasible from the moment they were proposed,” Chiappe said.

Experts and advocates say California will have to approach clean air policy from many angles — mandates and incentives.

“There is still work that can be done,” said Martinez of Earthjustice. It’ll require “being creative and not losing steam,” he said. “These are big hits (from Trump) but I think still continuing to press on zero-emission vehicles is going to be really critical.” 

Craig Segall, a former deputy executive officer for the state Air Resources Board, said the state should set new standards for cars and trucks. “The only thing that EPA is barred from doing is issuing substantially the same — not similar — waivers in the future,” he said. “The state can actually do quite a lot in terms of new standards.”

Segall said the state also should support companies that have already been buying zero-emission trucks with financing programs and get at the root of the transportation problem by expanding m*** transit.

Offering incentives to consumers buying clean cars and trucks will be key. But Grundler, when asked whether California has the funds for more incentive programs, answered bluntly: No.

The state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, paid for by its cap and trade market program, typically has around $4 billion for programs related to climate change and air pollution. But because of the large deficit this year, the new budget allocated about $1.5 billion of those cap and trade funds to Cal Fire for fire prevention. It’s unclear how much will be left over for other projects.

In the state’s new budget, $132 million is allocated over the next fiscal year for an air board program offering incentives to truck fleet buyers. There also are creative ways that the state can encourage the purchase of electric cars, said Mary Nichols, the longtime chair of the air board under two previous governors and Newsom. Registration fees or sales taxes could be based on whether a car is gas-powered or electric, she said.

“The state of California has authority over everything relating to what cars can operate on our roads, as long as we’re not violating any constitutional requirements that deal with commerce between the states,” Nichols told CalMatters. “There’s a wide array of things that the state could do to make it clear that they don’t wish to continue having gasoline cars sold in the state of California.”

Tackling ‘pollution magnets‘

Experts say one of the most impactful policies the state could pursue without federal intervention could be regulating “pollution magnets.” These are hotspots, such as warehouses, ports and airports, that don’t directly pollute, but draw high-polluting vehicles, like diesel trucks and trains into communities.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District is developing a rule that would push the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports to install more charging stations for zero-emission trucks and cargo handling equipment. The district also approved a rule for warehouses that environmentalists call a success. These are known as “indirect source rules” since they regulate a place that is a hotspot.

These types of regulations “are definitely a leading strategy that California can continue to pursue environmental justice goals, despite the federal government being completely disinterested in environmental justice,” said Brennon Mendez, an environmental law and policy fellow at UCLA School of Law.

Polluting ports, airports and warehouses “should be held responsible for the air pollution that’s released into these neighborhoods because of their operations,” he said.

But while local air districts’ power to enact indirect source rules is well-established, the state’s power to do the same isn’t as clear.

A bill in the Legislature that enshrines the state’s power is opposed by labor and industry groups, especially now that the ports are facing economic uncertainty because of Trump’s tariffs. Assemblymember Robert Garcia, a Democrat from Rancho Cucamonga, said action on the bill is delayed until next year.

Also, a Senate bill would limit the South Coast district’s power to regulate the L.A. and Long Beach ports, requiring the agency to consider the costs and how ports and their tenants would be reimbursed, as well as the energy use and impacts on workers.

Randolph said it’s always been a struggle for California to slash enough emissions in California to achieve health standards, but now Trump’s actions “make the challenge even steeper and even harder.”

“The fundamental question,” she said, is “how do we continue to make progress … in the short-term and the long-term?”

CalMatters reporter Rachel Becker contributed to this report. 

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.