The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the clean air agency. The board, one of five units within the state Environmental Protection Agency, researches the causes of air pollution and their effects on health and the environment. Based on research findings, the agency develops air quality standards and solutions to California’s air pollution problem. The agency’s research has resulted in the development of anti-smog technology for industrial facilities and motor vehicles. The board also has the responsibility, in coordination with the Secretary for Environmental Protection, to develop measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, in accordance with AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. California is the only state that is permitted to have its own air regulatory agency. Other states are permitted to follow CARB standards or use the federal ones but they can’t develop their own standards.

About the Board (Official CARB website) 

The Air Resources Board was created in 1967 when California’s legislature passed the Mulford-Carrell Act, which combined two Department of Health bureaus, the Bureau of Air Sanitation and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board. The department held its first meeting on February 8, 1968, in Sacramento.

Dr. Arie Haagen-Smit, known as the "father" of air pollution control, was appointed CARB's first chairman in 1968 by President Reagan. Haagen-Smit, who was described as an avid gardener, reportedly developed an early interest in air pollution in Los Angeles when his plants incurred various difficulties. His subsequent research found that most of California's smog is created when exhaust from motor vehicles and industrial facilities react with sunlight to create ozone. Haagen-Smit died of lung cancer in March 1977, two months after the CARB laboratory in El Monte was dedicated in his name.

Some key events in CARB history:

1969 – Air quality standards were set for total suspended particulates, photochemical oxidants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide.

1971 – CARB adopted the first automobile NOx (nitrogen oxides) standards in the nation.

1990 – CARB approved standards for cleaner burning gasoline and low- and zero-emission vehicles (ZEV).

1993 – CARB enacted new standards for cleaner diesel fuel, resulting in a reduction of diesel particulate emissions by approximately 14 tons per day.

1999 – CARB-adopted consumer product rules cut smog-forming emissions and volatile organic compounds from an estimated 2,500 common household products ranging from nail polish remover to glass cleaners.

2000 – A CARB children's health study revealed that exposure to high air pollution levels can slow down the lung function growth rate of children by up to 10%.

2004 – CARB adopted the nation's first "Greenhouse Gas" rule that required automakers to begin selling vehicles with reduced greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2009.

2006 – AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established the first comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms in the world to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG). It makes CARB responsible for monitoring and reducing GHG emissions.

2009 – California regulated leakage of potent greenhouse gases from large refrigeration systems that will reduce emissions equivalent to removing about 1.4 million cars from the road per year.

2010 – California adopted the Renewable Energy Standard. One-third of the electricity sold in the state in 2020 will come from clean, green sources of energy.

2011 –  California became the first state in the nation to officially adopt a cap-and-trade policy for reducing greenhouse gases when CARB gave final approval on October 21 to regulations implementing the centerpiece of AB 32. 

Key Events in History (Official CARB website)

History of Air Resources Board (Official CARB website)

State’s Cap and Trade Program Gets Final Approval (by Wyatt Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle)

CARB oversees 35 local and regional air pollution control districts, whose responsibilities include regulating industrial pollution sources, issuing permits, developing local plans to attain healthy air quality and ensuring that the industries in their area adhere to air quality mandates. The local air districts regulate “stationary” sources of pollution while the state board primarily regulates “mobile” sources. 

The 11-member board, which is appointed by the governor, is comprised of five members chosen from the boards of local air quality management districts – one each from the Los Angeles region, the San Francisco Bay area, San Diego, the San Joaquin Valley and another to represent other, more rural areas of the state. Two come from the general public and the rest coming from auto engineering, law, medicine or a related scientific field.

In its role as air quality regulator, CARB oversees emitters of greenhouse gases that cause climate change; enforces emissions standards for motor vehicles, fuels and consumer products; sets health-based air quality standards; conducts research and monitors air quality; identifies and sets control measures for toxic air contaminants; oversees and assists local air quality districts which regulate most non-vehicular sources of air pollution; and provides education, and outreach programs and materials to the public. CARB conducts research to examine exposure to air pollutants, the effect of air pollution on health and actions needed to reduce exposures and risk.

The main divisions of the agency include:

·        Administrative Services Division: Includes customer service, human resources and accounting.

·        Enforcement Division: Enforces the laws and regulations regarding sources of air pollution.

·        Mobile Source Control Division and Mobile Source Operations Division:  Regulate cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses, construction vehicles, marine vehicles and small engines.

·        Monitoring and Laboratory Division: Monitors air quality trends in California

·        Office of Information Services: Provides information and Internet systems management.

·        Planning and Technical Support Division: Implements statewide strategies to improve air quality. This division is responsible for technical support work and provides a basis for clean air plans and CARB's regulatory programs.

The Planning and Technical Support Division has five branches:

·        Emission Inventory Branch – This branch is the keeper of all California emissions data.

·        Modeling & Meteorology Branch – has three departments within:

o       Atmospheric Modeling & Support Section

o       The Regional Air Quality Modeling Section

o       The Meteorology Section

·        Air Quality Data Branch

·        Air Quality & Transportation Planning Branch

·        Mobile Source Analysis Branch

·        Research Division: Gathers scientific information and develops technology to protect public health from the effects of air pollution.

·        Stationary Source Division: Monitors and regulates motor vehicle fuels, consumer products and stationary sources, such as power plants.

CARB focuses the department’s efforts on reducing emissions and green house gases created by automobiles. Because of CARB’s regulations, California currently has some of the strictest standards regarding air pollution caused by automobiles.

Here are the top vehicle regulations passed by CARB:

·        Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentive Program: is funded by CARB and provides discounts and incentives for drivers that purchase hybrid, electronic or other alternative vehicles.

·        California Assembly Bill 1007: Also known as the Alternative Fuels Plan, this bill mandates that a viable state plan must be initiated to increase the use of alternative fuels in California.

·        California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32): Also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, this bill seeks to limit green house gas emissions.

·        California Assembly Bill 1493: This bill has set in motion new regulations that will limit the amount of allowable green house gases emitted by new passenger vehicles. These new limits will be enforced on all cars, SUVs and pickup trucks beginning in the 2009 model year.

The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is a program that requires oil refineries and distributors to ensure that the mix of fuel they sell in Californian meets the targets for greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2-equivalent grams per unit of fuel energy sold for transport purposes. In 2007, the governor's LCFS directive called for a reduction of at least 10% in the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by 2020. The standard is aimed to reduce the state’s dependence on petroleum, create a market for clean transportation technology, and stimulate the production and use of alternative, low-carbon fuels in California.

Organizations Within the Board (Official CARB website)

Revenue

Most of the Air Resource Board’s money ($651.9 million in 2011-12) comes from special funds and bond funds. No money is budgeted directly from the state’s General Fund.

Forty-three percent comes from Prop. 1B (Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006)  through the state’s sale of general obligation bonds.

Twenty-six percent is provided by the Air Pollution Control Fund. CARB resolves several thousand violations a year and collects several million dollars in penalties, which are deposited in the fund.

Eighteen percent is allocated from the state’s Motor Vehicle Account, which also funds DMV and CHP. Those funds are collected primarily from vehicle registration and license fees.

Seven percent comes via the Air Quality Improvement Program, a voluntary incentive program created by the legislature in 2007 to fund clean vehicle and equipment projects. It raises money to fund projects that encourage use of hybrid-electric vehicles, zero-emission vehicles and other advanced technologies. The program funds come from increases in fees for smog abatement, equipment registration and vessel registration.

Expenses

The board essentially divides its expenses among three basic programs: mobile sources, stationary sources and “subvention.” Almost 90% of its money is spent on reducing emissions from mobile vehicles. About 8.5% is spent on joint projects with local air pollution control districts, businesses and the scientific community to reduce emissions from stationary sources like factories. The rest is spent on “subventions,” or subsidies, to the 35 local districts to encourage support for their programs.

Air Resources Board Official Budget (pdf)

Shut Down the Air Resources Board (Pushback)

Report to Legislature on AQIP (pdf)

Prop. 1B (Official Title and Summary) (pdf)

Hien T. Tran

In 2009, nine months after a landmark decision by the Air Resources Board approving regulations to curb diesel exhaust in California, a firestorm erupted over the academic credentials of project leader Hien T. Tran, who conducted a crucial study on diesel pollution-related deaths. Tran admitted that he did not have the Ph.D. in statistics from the University of California, Davis, he claimed. Tran, in fact holds a Ph.D. from Thornhill University, a school that appears to be an internet diploma mill located, as one wag put it, in a UPS office in New York City.

As the scandal unfolded serious questions were raised about what his superiors knew and when they knew it. It turned out that board Chairman Mary Nichols, some other board members and CARB staff members knew before the critical vote in late November 2008 that Tran had lied about his credentials. But the information was kept from the rest of the board, which voted unanimously to enact regulations that would cost the trucking industry millions of dollars.

When the Tran deception became known, Nichols admitted she was wrong not to have shared her knowledge of the matter with the board but stood by the validity of the study. James Goldstene, CARB’s executive officer, said Tran’s report “went through three levels of formal, independent, external peer review before the report was finalized, and did not rely on the health research or original work of CARB staff.” Goldstene said CARB then asked its 10 expert advisers to re-examine the report; nine stood by their earlier findings, and one did not respond.

The diesel regulations had been the subject of intense controversy for more than a year from critics who questioned the science behind them and the process that produced them. Even members of the board questioned whether their work had been compromised. Fresno cardiologist John G. Telles, who represents the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District on the board, said “the scientific validity of the report is not the issue, but rather at issue is a fundamental violation of procedure. Failure to reveal this information to the board prior to the vote not only casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the truck rule but also upon the legitimacy of CARB itself.”

Tran was demoted and fined, but not fired. 

Hein Tran Scandal Casts a Shadow (by John Howard, Capitol Weekly)

CARB Member Calls for Review (Environmental Leader)

Air Pollution Fight Gets Dirty (CBS)

Diesel Emissions and James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H

AB 32, the greenhouse gas legislation, has been a lighting rod for criticism of the Air Resources Board since its passage in 2006. Critics on the left and right have assailed the board for regulations that were either too lenient or too tough. And none have been more passionate than James E. Enstrom, a research professor at UCLA who specializes in the epidemiology of cancer. He was an early critic of the board’s proposed standards for diesel exhaust and has produced his own studies that he maintains show that diesel exhaust has no effect on mortality. This is in contrast to CARB’s contention that at least 1,000 lives are lost every year because of the fumes.

At his website, Enstrom likens CARB Chairman Nichols to Soviet Union scientist Trofim Lysenko who early in the 20th century doctored studies of plants to make a case for rejecting the groundbreaking theories of Gregor Mendel that underlie much of genetics. The embrace of Lysenko’s theories had a devastating effect on Soviet agriculture for decades.  Enstrom calls actions of the board “draconian” and its research “bad science.” He also is upfront about his concerns for the business community. “I tried to help these businessmen, I don’t want to see these people going out of business,” Enstrom has said. The estimated cost to the transportation industry would be about $6 billion to $10 billion, according to an article in Land Line Magazine.

Enstrom had already complained to the board for months about what he perceived to be a total lack of statistical expertise among those in the diesel project before it surfaced that the project leader, Hien T. Tran, had lied about having a Ph.D. in statistics. Enstrom led the charge to have Tran fired and the diesel regulation revoked.

Tran was not fired. But UCLA laid off Enstrom in July 2010, saying his research did not align with the department mission and failed to reach funding requirements. He appealed the layoff to the University of California chancellor.

In October of 2010, researchers at CARB said they had dramatically reduced estimates of how much diesel pollution would be entering the atmosphere. They cited a downturn in the economy for the revision, independent researchers blamed faulty calculations and everyone complained that it was politics as usual. The board suspended enforcement of some of its diesel rules as it prepared to reopen research on the subject.

Enstrom Not Reappointed (by Kelly Zhou, Daily Bruin)

Misuse of Diesel Science by CARB (A presentation by James E. Enstrom) (pdf)

Putting an End to a Rogue State Agency (KillCARB)

Overestimate Fueled State's Diesel Law (by Wyatt Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle)

Calls for Diesel Rule Review (Environmental Leader)

Transparency

Business and industry regulated by the Air Resources Board have long complained about what they consider a lack of transparency in the board’s actions. They say it is not clear how CARB applies its policies when assessing penalties which results in a subjective, ad hoc enforcement program.  The result, they say, is that it is not easy to clearly or consistently distinguish serious violations that harm air quality from minor administrative glitches.   

In September 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger signed legislation that requires the board to be more transparent, consistent and fair. The new rules require CARB to provide a clear explanation of how penalties are assessed on a per-unit basis, develop a written, consistent penalty policy that ensures the largest penalties are imposed on serious violations that adversely impact air quality, and report those penalties to the legislature annually.

While the legislation was applauded by many of the board’s critics, some felt that this was just the beginning. “It doesn’t sound like much,” wrote a blogger at CalWatchdog, “but when you’re CARB — one of the most powerful governing bodies in the state — even a small change like this can be an improvement.” The board released a 55-page document in March 2011 outlining how it planned to comply with the new law and announced workshops to discuss the measure and receive public input.

Not all attempts at transparency were embraced with the same level of enthusiasm. In November 2010, the board announced it was proposing a regulation that aims to prevent anyone from giving information to CARB they know is false or from omitting information they should provide. “There have been instances where we were willfully misinformed and we had no recourse after the facts were revealed,” board spokesman Dimitri Stanich said.

Joe Rajkovacz, director of regulatory affairs for a trucking association, said the wording of the proposal leaves the door wide open for misinterpretation and could create a chilling effect for anyone who speaks to CARB staffers. “Who gets to decide what the definition of ‘dishonest’ is?” he asked. “Someone could disagree with CARB about global warming. They could present facts supporting that position and potentially face prosecution from a phalanx of CARB lawyers trying to tamp down on dissent.”

Update on Reform Law (CERT – Californians for Enforcement-Reform and Transparency)

Gov Signs New Carb Law (CalWatchdog)

Enforcement Reports (CARB official website)

CARB Proposes Regulation of “False Statements” (LandLine Magazine)

The Global Warming Solution Act of 2006

Some call it AB 32. Others refer to it as the Greenhouse Gas law or the Global Warming act. Still others have a few choice four-letter words they use to describe it. By whatever name it goes, the law directs the Air Resources Board to craft regulations that will lower greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which would be a 25% reduction below current standards. It also requires that those emissions be reduced 80% by 2050. The law directs CARB to implement clean energy policies targeted at: increasing energy efficiency in homes, buildings, and vehicles; cleaner transportation fuels; increasing reliance on renewable energy; and reducing carbon pollution.

AB 32 also includes a “safety clause” that gives the governor authority to suspend emission caps for up to one year in the event of an emergency or significant economic harm.

In its efforts to execute the law, the board has been called a rogue agency, job killer and a practitioner of bad science. It has been blamed for getting teachers fired and for “a massive regulatory encroachment upon how Californians live.”

Some would prefer to kill it with kindness, such as the AB 32 Implementation Group. The coalition of large and small businesses, spearheaded by the state Chamber of Commerce, professes a desire to reduce greenhouse gases through a successfully executed AB 32, but worries that the technical implementation of the law may reduce California’s competitiveness.  

The law’s defenders say, rather than kill jobs, it will “have a small but positive effect.” CARB estimates a short-term net gain in employment of 0.7%. Research done at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education indicates people will save money by using products that are more energy efficient and spend that savings on other goods and services, which will create jobs. In addition, they say, retrofitting buildings to meet energy standards will produce jobs.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office also sees a small effect on jobs, but sees that effect as negative because of various economic dislocations, behavioral adjustments and investment requirements.  It questioned the board’s ability to project job numbers considering the complexity of the issue and warned that, in general, while it thought the short-term effects would be minimal and the long-term effects impossible to project, “Certain individual businesses and households … would be seriously affected.”

Net Impact on California Jobs (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

Cap and Trade

A cornerstone of the Air Resources Board’s AB 32 strategy is a policy of cap-and-trade, which establishes an overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions from capped sectors and facilities but allows those subject to the cap the ability to trade permits (allowances) to emit the gases. In December 2010, the board approved the plan, creating what the New York Times called the biggest carbon market in the country.

The plan has the support of the state Chamber of Commerce and some environmentalists. The Chamber said, “Using the innovation and efficiency of market forces to attack this challenge is essential if we are to meet these environmental goals.” The Environmental Defense Fund said, "The state is leading a new industrial revolution that will give U.S. companies an edge over foreign competitors in a global market opportunity valued at $2.3 trillion."

Many environmental groups would much prefer a straight carbon tax on polluters rather than the swapping of liability between big polluters and other entities. They maintain a cap-and-trade program “will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the pace called for by the international scientific community, it will not result in a shift to clean sustainable energy sources, it will support and enrich the state's worst polluters, it will fail to address the existing and future inequitable burden of pollution, it will deprive communities of the ability to protect and enhance their communities, and because if our state joins regional or international trading schemes it will further create incentives for carbon offset programs that harm communities in California, the region, the country, and developing nations around the world.”

In March 2011, a state Superior Court judge put a hold on AB 32, dealing CARB a temporary setback. The judge ruled that the board had failed to consider  alternatives to the cap and trade plan. The court stated that the plan was “not  exposed to public comment or properly evaluated by the CARB itself.” The suit to block the law was brought, in part, by the Association of Irritated Residents who feared that people living near big polluting utilities and industries would suffer when those polluters merely swapped their liability with others to avoid emissions ceilings. That argument didn’t seem to sway the judge, but failure of the board to touch all the procedural bases before implementing its policy did.

On October 21, after touching those procedural bases, the board gave final approval to the program, becoming the first state to adopt cap-and-trade.

Cap-and-Trade the California Way (by Felicity Barringer, New York Times)

CARB’s Cap and Trade Policy (CARB press release)

CARB Approves Cap and Trade (Environmental Leader)

More Trouble for Cap and Trade (Carbon Tax Center)

Declaration of Principals (Environmental Justice Matters)

Cap-and-Trade Lauded (Environmental Defense Fund)

Climate Change Law Suffers Legal Setback (Georgetown Intl. Environmental Law Review)

Judge Calls Time Out for Climate Change Law (by Felicity Barringer, New York Times)

California Becomes First State to Adopt Cap-and-Trade Program (by Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times)

Did CARB Kill the Electric Car?

In the 2006 documentary film “Who Killed the Electric Car?” blame was spread among  several suspects, including the Air Resources Board. Director Chris Paine traced the history of the ill-fated zero-emissions vehicles. First, car companies were required by the board to manufacture an ever-increasing percentage of nonpolluting vehicles. Nearly 5,000 electric cars were designed and manufactured by GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan and Chrysler. And then they were destroyed.

The film chronicles CARB’s reversal of its mandate after pressure and lawsuits from automobile manufacturers, the oil industry and the Bush Administration.

The movie even shows sequences where tow-trucks take the EV cars from interviewees who wanted to keep their cars. But despite requests to buy them, the electric cars were scrapped on grounds that they were uninsurable.

While the movie cites half a dozen suspects in this automotive whodunit, the website Open Source Innovation prioritizes the list. “The CARB was the most guilty, followed by battery tech. … The CARB took what would have been an outstanding innovation and turned it into a provocation – ‘Now that you showed us you CAN make a zero emission car, we’re going to FORCE you, and everyone else, to make them.’ ”

Some people, however, disagree with the film’s message and with putting blame on CARB for the disappearance of the electric vehicle. Josh Schellenberg wrote on his blog, “So who killed the electric car?  Nobody did. A truly viable electric vehicle has not even been born yet.  The EV1 was just a toy for the super rich, not an electric car.  Once the price comes down and quality improves, an electric vehicle will finally be born.  As long as we work together to create sound strategies and public policy, the newborn electric vehicle will have so much momentum that nobody will be able to kill it.”

Did CARB Kill the Electric Car? (by Jeremy Korzeniewski, Autoblog)

Is CARB Up to Its Old Tricks (by Josephy Romm, Grist)

Who Killed the Electric Car? Not Us (Open Source Innovation)

Dr. Robert Sawyer, 2005 – 2007

Cindy K. Tuck, 2005

Dr. Alan C. Lloyd, 1999 – 2005

John D. Dunlap, III, 1994 – 1999

Jacqueline E. Schafer, 1993 – 1994

Jananne Sharpless, 1985 – 1993

Gordon Duffy, 1983 – 1985

Mary D. Nichols, 1979 – 1983

A. Thomas Quinn, 1975 – 1979

Charles J. Conrad, 1973 – 1975

Dr. Arie J. Haagen-Smit, 1968 – 1973. A native of Utrecht in the Netherlands, Dr. Haagen-Smit, was a graduate of the University of Utrecht and a biochemistry professor at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena for 16 years before beginning his air pollution research in 1948. Through a series of experiments, he found that most of California's smog resulted from photochemistry (when exhaust from motor vehicles and industrial facilities react with sunlight to create ozone). This breakthrough is the foundation upon which today's nationwide air pollution standards are based. After serving for eight years as an original board member of CARB's predecessor, the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board, Dr. Haagen-Smit became CARB's first chairman in 1968. In 1977, he died of lung cancer two months after the CARB laboratory in El Monte was dedicated in his name.