Reinstating California’s Clean Air Act waiver: what does EMT suggest about this controversy?
reviving the right policy
March 9, 2022 marked a historic moment for California as the Biden administration decided to reinstate its Clean Air Act waiver. The waiver allows California to set air pollution standards for motor vehicle makers that are more stringent than federal limits, including greenhouse gas emission standards, zero-emission automobile sales mandates, and an eventual ban on gasoline-powered automobiles. As the country’s most populous state and biggest car market, California has been “home to a slew of congested freeways that spew carbon pollution into the atmosphere and create smog-filled skies over cities.” Not surprisingly, with tens of millions of its registered passenger cars being fossil fuel-powered, emissions in the transportation sector accounts for up to 75 percent of air pollutants in California, making it a predominant hotspot in national air pollution issues. With its “unique geography and climate”, such as heat waves and wildfires, California has already been especially vulnerable to suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change, and the rising air pollution from an expanding automobile industry has only made it more susceptible to environmental challenges.
Fortunately, the State of California does not simply let the air pollution issue go unchecked. Indeed, California has been leading the country in the “formulation and implementation of automobile emission standards, [which] continue to be the toughest in the United States. Importantly, while the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to restore California’s Clean Air Act waiver seems a state-exclusive decision, its influence spreads much farther than one would probably expect, since it also allows other states to follow California’s standards instead of the federal ones. As a result, seventeen other states and the District of Columbia have adopted California’s regulations, making California’s air pollution standards a critical “driving force behind the nation’s automobile emission standards.”
At the first glance, the reinstatement of a Clean Air Act waiver for California appears a forceful corrective action against the Trump’s administration’s decision to block California’s prerogative to self-regulate its auto pollution in 2019. After all, it seems rather counterintuitive to stop the highest polluting state in the country from adopting stricter air pollution controls.
different voices
Proponents of California’s Clean Air Act waiver have heralded the EPA’s decision. Among them, we find environmental organizations, democratic leaders, and the auto industry. Michelle Robinson, director of the Clean Transportation Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, endorsed California’s rules and criticized Trump’s revocation as “thwart[ing] the ability for states to take important steps toward limiting carbon emissions.” For Democratic Senator Tom Carper, this action would also “save Americans money at the gas pump.” Many of the world’s biggest automakers are also supportive of the action and have become cooperative partners with the state government, publicly “embrac[ing] a future built on electric vehicles.”
However, not everyone is content with Biden’s decision. Fossil fuel companies, states involved in oil and gas production, and the Republican states — states led by Republicans — are in strong opposition to reviving California’s Clean Air Act waiver. The Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee contended the decision as “another example of this administration putting a radical rush-to-green regulatory regime ahead of restoring America’s energy dominance and leadership.” While it is true that Republican states in this case could choose not to follow California’s rules, we should also note that they are affected by other states’ decisions to join in California’s efforts. So far, 14 states have challenged California’s tough vehicle emission rules in court. Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, argued that the action “will impose major economic harms on Texas by stressing its electric grid and decreasing the need for gasoline by billions of gallons, effectively destroying Texas’s robust energy industry.”
As the contention between EPA adherents and opponents persist, it becomes compelling to figure out what has caused and perpetuated the substantial divergence of opinion across parties and industries.
the “ecological modernization” of automobile
To better understand the controversy of California’s Clean Air Act waiver, it is useful to interpret it with the Ecological Modernization Theory (EMT). Reflecting on the debate, we may find that conversations essentially revolve around the dynamics between environmental protection and economic growth. While environmental organizations groups and the auto industry envision a future with clean air and better fuel economy promoted by stringent air pollution standards, fossil fuel companies and other opponents believe otherwise. EMT focuses on exactly the interplay between economics and ecology — the “green” and “growth”.
The central idea of EMT is that the solutions to environmental problems depend on more industrialization and modernization, through which the economic system and ecological considerations become mutually reinforcing, leading to economic efficiencies and pollution prevention at the same time. More specifically, EMT emphasizes the indispensable role of technological innovations, through which the complementary relationship between economic growth and environmental protection can be achieved. Accordingly, EMT identifies a set of values, such as the invention of greener technologies and flexible regulatory regimes, that embrace the technological capabilities of capitalistic industries. Simply put, EMT believes in the power of science and technology progression to improve environmental conditions and spur the country’s economic growth.
The EPA’s decision to reinstate California’s waiver epitomizes an application of EMT in the automobile sector, where the proponents of the action are strongly prompted by the belief in technological innovation to achieve greater environmental progress. Michael Regan, the administrator of the EPA, proudly announced that by restoring California’s Clean Air Act waiver, the state has “reinstat[ed] an approach that, for years, has helped advance clean technologies and cut air pollution.” That was not an unfounded statement. The past years have witnessed how California’s ability to regulate vehicle emissions led to significant innovations in the auto industry, including the catalytic converters, which “convert pollutants in exhaust gas into less toxic [ones]”, and the “check engine” lights that remind drivers of their deteriorating engines.
Thus, we may perceive how an expected positive correlation between further modernization and environmental improvement helps explain the Biden’s administration’s decision to resume California’s Clean Air Act waiver, as well as the specific provisions targeting on zero-emissions. For EPA and its supporters, strict emission controls constitute a promising tool to reduce air pollution by stimulating the development and application of green technologies, without which automakers could hardly manage to follow the emission standards. As California moves to the next stage for air pollution controls, it concentrates particularly on zero-emission vehicle and fuel-efficiency mandates, which would make the adoption of clean technologies a primary goal for automakers.
unexpected supporters
In fact, a general shift towards green technology has already taken place in the auto industry, a trend that corresponds to one of the propositions in EMT. For those who first come across with California’s case, it might be puzzling and counterintuitive to learn that the auto industry is supporting stricter emission standards. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable for automakers to push for more lenient emission mandates, so that they could worry less about breaching them?
Julia Stein, a supervising attorney at UCLA Law, also finds it surprising at first, saying that “it is all more confounding because even the auto industry has called for the federal government to the table with California.” However, exploring more into this issue, Stein learned that automakers actually had a strong incentive to endorse California’s rules — the state’s past ability to enforce stringent vehicle emissions has led many automakers to invest in clean technologies and consumers to demand more fuel-efficient and cleaner cars. Therefore, the auto industry is “pushed by economic forces to make more efficient and lower-emitting cars,” which makes it in a better position to meet California’s emission standards.
This situation aligns with another key idea in EMT, where “competition among capitals can be redirected … to achieve pollution-prevention eco-efficiencies within the spheres of production.” Such ecological modernization would “increase competitiveness because consumers are increasingly demanding environmentally benign products.” This is what happens in California. Automakers have become ardent proponents of California’s Clean Air Act waiver partly because they have the economic incentive to produce more electric vehicles to profit from the prevailing consumer demand and to avoid losing the money already invested in clean technologies.
what do the opponents say?
However, as we discuss earlier, not everyone approves California’s Clean Air Act waiver as the EPA and the auto industry do, which has led to a contentious debate on the legitimacy and usefulness of the action that EMT fails to anticipate. Republican states, fossil fuel companies, and states relying heavily on oil and gas production do not expect to see a future where ecological modernization goes together with economic growth. Rather, they worry that the return of California’s authority to impose stricter emission regulations would force out conventional cars and destroy other states’ economies. In February 2022, the attorney generals in 17 Republican states challenged the EPA’s decision in court, contending that “it exceeded the authority granted to the federal government under the Constitution.” Led by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, the lawsuit targeted forcefully at the lack of legitimacy in allowing California to set stricter vehicle emissions rules, which “violated a doctrine in the U.S. Constitution granting states equal sovereignty”
In addition, Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, argued that the decision was “not only unnecessary but will create deliberate disadvantages to Texas and all states who are involved in the production of oil and gas.” As California’s vehicle emissions standards push up the demands for renewable energy, the country’s fossil fuels industry confronts serious challenges in finance and survival. Power plants are “increasingly relying on payments for standing by to be available when the states need them most” for revenues as they see less profits generating from electricity productions, and fossil fuel companies need to make significant money and time investments quickly to adapt to this evolving role if they wish to continue operations. As a result, we can see that some fossil fuel companies do not find the transition to renewable energy beneficial or actionable in the short term, and several of them joined Patrick Morrisey, the West Virginial Attorney General, to sue the EPA in another lawsuit that condemned the agency’s power in Clean Air Act regulation.
Thus, the opponents do not subscribe to EMT’s propositions that economic growth and ecological considerations are compatible. The fossil fuel industry apparently has not undergone a market shift to clean technology as the automobile industry has, at least not one that is strong enough to push those companies to become financially incentivized by green production.
the “green productions” does not suffice
EMT does not expect there to be opposition to green production. This unexpected rejection represents a huge barrier to the country’s adoption of nation-wide air pollution regulations and reflects one of the theory’s limitations. As the Biden administration and the EPA enthusiastically embrace more stringent emission standards led by California, they may have become so focused on the promise of technological innovations that they overlook other important elements in environmental policies. Consequently, the decision makers would easily omit concerns arising from non-productive issues, let alone respond effectively to them. As Gonzalez finds in his study of California’s automobile emission standards, the issues of population growth, automobiles usage, resource dependence, and value consensus are largely dismissed in the state’s environmental agenda, all of which contribute to California’s persistent automobile pollutions despite stringent emissions control.
In this case, California’s Clean Air Act waiver exemplifies just another environmental policy that centers almost exclusively on technological solutions. The overemphasis on productive concerns helps explain the failure of the EPA. Here, the EPA’s EMT-oriented decision to restore California’s waiver neglects to address potential opposition from the fossil fuels industry and Republican states, since many arguments against California’s waiver fundamentally stem from consumptive concerns. According to Carolan, EMT essentially considers environmental issues as “problems of production” and attempts to resolve those challenges by introducing more, greener products, such as electric cars and efficient engines. In doing so, EMT overlooks potential issues from consumption and downplays the importance of consumer choices.
Reflecting on California’s case, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has expressed similar worries, saying that “those more stringent policies will increase new car prices and further limit consumer choice by restricting the availability of larger, heavier cars and non-electric vehicles.” Here, we may understand how the controversy over California’s Clean Air Act waiver pertains not only to the capitalists but also to the country’s citizens as well. Consumers and companies in some regions would not be able to afford a shift to electric vehicles as many Californians do. As Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmidt said, with more stringent auto pollution controls in effect, “manufacturing becomes astronomically expensive, and those additional costs are passed onto consumers, many of which are Missourians.”
However, we may observe that EPA continues to defend the program’s legitimacy and success with its technological accomplishments. As Regan said when announcing the decision to restore the waiver, this approach “for years has helped advance clean technologies and cut air pollution for people not just in California but for the U.S. as a whole” Regan has his reasons, and the past decades did indeed witness impressive technological potentials driven by strict auto emissions controls. However, that’s not what the opponents contend about.
While decision makers see clean technologies and improved environmental conditions driven by stricter auto pollution controls, states and companies relying on fossil fuels believe the action would harm and eventually destroy their economies, notwithstanding the prospects of green technologies. As we discussed earlier, the Republican states and fossil fuel companies bitterly oppose California’s Clean Act Waiver mainly because they believe a shift to zero-emission it would harm and eventually destroy their economies. However, many fossil fuel companies in California are working hard on “projects that would make natural gas projects more like carbon-free power sources.” Therefore, it’s more likely that the opponents disagree with the EPA’s approach to achieve a green future (in this case, granting California a waiver to the Clean Air Act) than they fundamentally dismiss the idea of green growth. Thus, a key presumption of EMT scholars — industries can maintain profitable with a voluntary shift to green productions in response to ecological concerns — is not always fulfilled, providing another reason why the EPA fails to anticipate the pushback from the opponents.
eyes on the future
As California proceeds to its next stage of air pollution control, we would expect to see more efforts that call for the development and application of green technologies and mass consumption of electric vehicles. The Clean Air Act waiver embodies lots of the fundamental principles in EMT, which relies on technological innovations for improved environment. However, much as the EMT helps us interpret the debate around the return of California’s legal right to create its own auto pollution rules, it also introduces further thinking on the effectiveness of the policy and the proposed mutually reinforcing relationship between economic and ecological systems.
Examining the conceptual of EMT, we’ve learned about how this theory fails to account for the aggressive oppositions from the Republican states and the fossil fuel industry. Two possible explanations are that EMT overemphasizes on productive regulations and, as a result, neglects important consumptive concerns. In California’s case, the EPA and Biden administration believe that as green technologies help improve fuel economy and environmental health, they suffice to justify their decisions to grant California the power to set stricter auto emissions standards. However, we now understand that that multiple factors in addition to green productions, such as consumers’ affordability, contribute to mixed results of this policy. For a more comprehensive understanding of the controversy over California’s Clean Air Act waiver, it may be useful to bring in other environmental sociological theories, especially those focusing on the issues of consumption in relation to environmental problems.
By: Josie Liu
