The Mistakes of the Past, the Opportunities of the Future
By Thomas Jelenić, Vice President of PMSA
Southern California regulators are about to repeat the environmental policy mistakes California has made on grand scale. For decades, California was a leader in reducing pollution from mobile sources. It is important to stress the word “leader” here. For most of the history of its air pollution control efforts, California would be out front on technology development and regulatory programs, it was always leading the nation – but the nation would follow. California would combine its technological prowess with soft power to convince the nation where the future would lay. And while the federal government would not mimic California’s approach, the final federal approach would be similar enough to avoid the public appearance of a policy rupture. As a result, California and the nation moved in tandem on passenger car standards, fuel standards, diesel equipment standards, off-road equipment standards, and other mobile sources of air pollution. Where policy was incrementally different, Californians would have to pay a premium to have things our way – a price Californians were willing to pay for the mantle of leadership. This approach, moving independently, but in the same direction worked, both for California and the nation, improving the quality of life for hundreds of millions of Americans.
Unfortunately, California abandoned this incredibly fruitful strategy when it came to the most difficult environmental challenge: climate change. Rather than incrementally moving the nation from a position of practical leadership when it came to reducing greenhouse gases, California adopted the zeal of a puritanical preacher for whom there was only one path of righteousness, often adopting the most extreme strategy or accelerating strategies that were not yet even known to work. As a result, California broke with the sense of the nation on how to address climate change. Rather than being a leader, it put on sackcloth exhorting that the end was nigh – it was not a successful message.
The backlash from the rest of the country has been severe. Stripped of its federal exemptions, California must decide if it will double-down or re-evaluate its approach. Recent comments look like the State is about to double-down by considering state-wide indirect source rules – a strategy with no demonstrated efficacy. This would deliver the worst possible outcome: the high costs of transitioning without making any impact on climate change since California cannot change the course of climate change without the nation (and in reality, the rest of the world). A sense of righteousness or self-satisfaction will not help Californians navigate the affordability crisis the State faces. Nor will it convince the nation to follow California’s path. In fact, it will continue to drive the nation and California further apart, further delaying climate solutions that will work technically, politically, and socially.
And that puritanical mistake is about to be repeated in Southern California. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is still considering the adoption of a “Port Indirect Source Rule.” Like California and the nation, Southern California stakeholders have worked collaboratively for decades to reduce pollution from port-related sources. The success is undeniable. Since 2006, diesel particulate matter is down 91%, nitrogen oxides down 72%, and sulfur oxides by 98%. Some have misleadingly claimed that there has been no recent progress, but since 2017, diesel particulate matter is down 20%, nitrogen oxides by 34%, and sulfur oxides by 23%.
That success is borne of 20 years of collaboration through a process led by the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, through the Clean Air Action Plan, that has encompassed all stakeholders. That collaboration ensured that all parties had a seat at the table and buy-in to the process. The success has led the San Pedro Bay ports to become the undisputed global leaders of maritime environmental policy.
But that success apparently is not good enough for the staff at the SCAQMD, an agency vested with responsibility to regulate stationary sources and has virtually no experience regulating mobile sources. Like California, it wants to abandon the collaborative approach of partners moving in the same direction and impose its vision on the ports. More insidiously, SCAQMD staff proposes to oversee and approve the ports’ plans for development, something that the agency has acknowledged that it has no expertise in and would need to rely on hired help. Such an approach will only lead to confrontation, long delays, needless and rising costs, and growing mistrust.
Instead, SCAQMD should work with the ports to renew the collaboration that has been demonstrated successful. The ports have tabled a serious proposal. The SCAQMD Board should carefully consider that proposal and work with the ports to find a common path. It is important that the Governing Board of the SCAQMD does not repeat the mistakes that California made on greenhouse gases. Those costly mistakes will take California years, if not decades, to recover from. Hopefully, the SCAQMD Board will choose a strategy that has delivered 20 years of success by embracing practical achievements and collaboration.