For those of you living in California, the EV revolution will continue to be an every- day occurrence. For the rest of you, note that your state may also follow the California path.
After its Air Resources Board passed new regulations requiring all new vehicles—trucks, included—to be either electric, hydrogen-fueled, or some form of plug-in EV (electric vehicle) electric by 2035, California is setting the bar high. Why not, it’s used to it.
What’s more, an additional 17 other US states have agreed to follow some or all of California’s plan regarding air pollution control, including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New Mexico.
When the US Federal Air Quality Act of 1967 was enacted, it allowed the State of California, and California alone, to set its own more stringent air quality rules because the state had its unique geography, weather, and expanding number of people and vehicles.
Although a 2022 examination of things has us wondering just what state doesn’t have its unique geography and weather and expanding number of people and vehicles, California does have some inhibiting factors.
So why did California get special consideration back in 1967? Back then as a bourgeoning destination for all those who wanted to “go west, young man”, it brought with them the necessity of needing more automotive power. Cars back then were less eco-friendly than what we have today, and so were contributors to urban smog concerns that were worsened by the State’s mountains that tended to keep the smog held down—unlike our prairie states where it can blow away and thin out to be a safer, breathable atmosphere.
And, if the prospect of smog, earth- quakes, mudslides and the San Andreas Faultline that Lex Luthor thought would turn parts of Nevada into a beachfront property wasn’t enough, the California sunshine can stimulate chemical reactions within that smog that makes the air pollution worse.
Regardless, only California was allowed to set its own air quality rules, and while all other states must follow the bare minimum of rules set by the federal government, each state is also free to follow the tougher rules laid out by California.
In other words, California was allowed to become a leader in air quality regulations, and because of it, the state’s overall air quality has become better in the ensuing years—wildfires causing poor air quality aside.
In 1967, Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan (and later two-term president) signed off on the bonzo creation of the California Air Resources Board. [ED. Note: For older readers wanting some fun, search online for Reagan + bonzo and see if you can find a connection to a famous TV talk show.]
The agency was formed by the melding of the state’s Bureau of Air Sanitation and the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board.
If you are surprised that a Republican was so concerned about the environment, note that Republican POTUS Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency back in 1970, to study and regulate pollution, while overseeing and regulating the federal Clean Air Act.
If you will recall, POTUS Abraham Lincoln who abolished slavery via the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation was also Republican. We’re not saying any one political party is better than the other—each has its pluses—but there was a time when both parties’ presidents sought to look out for the best interests of their citizens and their future as global leaders.
Said Nixon in a State of the Union address: “The great question of the ‘70 is, shall we surrender to our surroundings, or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land, and to our water? Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions.”
Regardless of one’s view of his fall from grace as president, in 1970, Nixon acknowledged the need for greater forward-think- ing in ecology (what the green movement was known as then), and he did something about it.While the early California emissions standards worked well for the state, it was written that only this one state could go on its own.But it’s not always clear sailing. Republican POTUS Donald Trump attempted to revise the Clean Air Act and remove the California waiver.
He also was responsible for successfully removing previous climate change policies regarding clean air, water, wildlife, and toxic chemicals—some 100 environmental rules reversed per research provided by the Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, and others.
We understand that the rollbacks may have had something to do with his promise to bring the coal industry back to prom- inence in the US—which he failed to achieve—so there was a reason.
However, in March of 2022, Trump’s successor, Democrat POTUS Joseph Biden dropped Trump’s plan regarding the dis- missal of the California waiver, and it was renewed.
While states not named California still cringe that they do not have the same lee- way and power, nowadays—and many have tried to amend this monopoly—there are still only two different emissions standards, with California expanding beyond the federal Clean Air Act of 1970 guidelines.
Of course, the feds have no problem if any other state wishes to govern emissions reduction beyond its standard, which is why other forward-thinking states are looking at the California model to progress its environ-initiatives.
While some say that California, beyond Los Angeles (and Hollywood), is some sort of la-la land, its progressive ideals in attempting to provide a cleaner environ-ment for its citizens can not be overlooked.
As such, vehicle manufacturers have for the past 50 years only had to follow the lead of California regarding emissions standards, to maximize sales potential. If they had only followed the federal lead,manufacturers would not have been able to sell within California, and why would any company want to shoot itself in the foot? Now, no one should think that California is the be-all and end-all—it is also the originator of Proposition 12, a new law that bans the sale of pork of any hog born to a sow not raised according to the state’s pro- duction standards, specifically as related to its animal housing doctrine.
Hey, we’re all for providing animals with legitimate housing standards before we kill and eat them, mmm bacon, but Proposition 12 is attempting to defy federal Constitutional laws, specifically the Constitution’s Commerce Clause that grants Congress the power to regulate trade between all states and limits a state’s (California, in this instance) ability to regulate commerce outside its borders. It doesn’t just affect other American states, it also affects global part- ners. It’s why there are a few lawsuits in the works to deny California this much power in the swine industry.
In this example, California wants every- one to bow to its demands regarding animal welfare, while its Air Resources Board is only looking out for the state’s best interest, and is therefore not a challenge to the Constitution.
But let’s give props to California for helping lead the way for the transportation industry.
An amendment to the Clean Air Act in 1977 does allow other states—if their air quality fails to meet federal standards—to
take up the California model of more strict emissions standards. It does NOT allow states to create their own model, but it does allow them to pick and choose parts of the California model, or all of it, to improve their own air quality.
Including California, there are a total of 18 American states following parts of the model, which represents over 35 percent of new car sales in the country.
And California still drives the environ- mental standard within the automobile and truck industry.
Gas and diesel dependency is ebbing. We are curious to learn what the oil industry is planning to maintain its prospects and our customer patronage.
This article originally appeared in the December 2022 issue of Service Truck Magazine.
