Clean Cars in California:
Four Decades of Progress in the
Unfinished Battle to Clean Up Our Air
November 2010
Written by:
Travis Madsen and Benjamin Davis, Frontier Group
Bernadette Del Chiaro, Environment California Research and Policy Center
Clean Cars in California:
Four Decades of Progress in the Unfinished
Battle to Clean Up Our Air
Environment California Research & Policy Center would like to thank Wendy James
at the Better World Group and Roland Hwang at the Natural Resources Defense
Council for their review and insightful comments on drafts of this report. Additional
thanks to Tony Dutzik and Elizabeth Ridlington at Frontier Group for editorial as-sistance.
The generous financial support of the Energy Foundation and the Arntz Family
Foundation made this report possible.
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. Any factual errors are
strictly the responsibility of the authors.
© 2010 Environment California Research & Policy Center
Environment California Research & Policy Center is a 501( c)( 3) organization. We
are dedicated to protecting California’s air, water and open spaces. We investigate
problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision makers, and help Califor-nians
make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of
our environment and our lives. For more information about Environment California
Research & Policy Center, please visit our website at www. environmentcalifornia.
org/ center.
Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a
cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate
information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and
federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit our website
at www. frontiergroup. org.
Cover Photo: Chris Hudson Design
Layout: To the Point Publications, www. tothepointpublications. com
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . 4
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
California’s Legacy of Dirty Air 10
California’s Response to Air Pollution: The Clean Cars Program . . . . . . .15
Passenger Cars and Trucks – A Leading Source of Pollution . 15
Curbing Vehicle Pollution with Clean Car Standards 16
California’s Efforts Have Delivered Results: Cars Today Emit Less
Pollution and Our Air Is Cleaner 19
Cars Today Emit Less Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Overall Vehicle Emissions Are Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
California’s Air Is Cleaner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The Benefits of Clean Cars Far Exceed Their Costs 22
Despite Progress, California’s Air Remains Unhealthy 24
Most Californians Still Live in Areas with Dirty Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Vehicles Are Still a Significant Part of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Policy Recommendations . 27
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
4 Clean Cars in California
Executive Summary
C alifornia’s efforts to reduce air
pollution from cars and trucks have
made the state’s air cleaner than it
has been in decades – and Californians are
healthier as a result. Clean car standards
have helped cut total automobile air
pollution in California by more than
85 percent since 1975, despite rapid
growth in population and vehicle travel.
However, many Californians are still
exposed to some of the worst air pollu-tion
in the United States – contributing
to high asthma rates and shortened life
spans. Passenger cars and trucks produce
nearly 2 million pounds of health- threat-ening
air pollution statewide every day.
To continue progress, state officials
should update California’s vehicle emis-sion
standards and ensure that they
remain strong and effective. Given the
size of California’s vehicle population,
the state needs to make sure that new
cars are as clean as possible – and to en-courage
auto manufacturers to rapidly
commercialize vehicles that produce no
pollution whatsoever.
Unhealthy air has been a life- or-death
problem facing Californians
for decades.
• During the summer of 1943, a cloud
of smog cut visibility in the Los
Angeles area to only three blocks.
People exposed to the hazy, acrid
cloud suffered from eye irritation,
respiratory problems, nausea and
vomiting. Eventually, scientists
recognized that smog was caused by
pollution from fossil fuel combus-tion
and gases evaporating from fuels
and solvents, reacting together in
sunlight.
• As California’s population grew and
more cars were driven more miles
each year, the state’s smog problem
Executive Summary 5
grew worse. In the 1970s and early
1980s, for example, peak smog levels
in the Los Angeles area were routine-ly
five times higher than the state’s
current air quality standard. As state
population grew, high smog levels
expanded to other areas, including
the Central Valley and the Inland
Empire.
• Extreme smog levels caused serious
harm to public health – including
premature death, increased hospital
admissions and emergency room
visits, more asthma diagnoses and
asthma attacks, and more frequent
missed school and work days due to
respiratory illness.
To protect public health, state
officials required auto manufacturers
to develop and install new
technologies to control emissions
from their vehicles.
• California created the world’s first
tailpipe emission standards in 1966.
State officials have regularly updated
and strengthened the standards
over the years, adding evaporative
emission standards and requiring
increased emission control system
durability. In 1990, state officials
added a requirement for automak-ers
to develop and market advanced
technologies, including “ zero- emis-sion
vehicles” with superior emission
control systems and even new kinds
of fuels and engines.
• These standards forced automak-ers
to innovate. In response to the
requirements, automakers invented
and refined the catalytic converter
– now standard equipment on every
gasoline- powered car in the United
States and most in the world – and a
variety of other enhanced emission
control technologies. The standards
Figure ES- 1: Even as Californians Drive More Miles Every Year, Overall Vehicle
Emissions Have Declined
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1980 1990 2000 2010
Vehicle Emissions ( Tons per Day)
Total Miles Traveled ( 1000s/ Day)
Total Miles Traveled
Smog- Forming Emissions ( NOx and VOCs)
6 Clean Cars in California
also spurred automakers to introduce
super- clean gasoline- electric hybrid
cars – such as the Toyota Prius.
California’s vehicle air pollution
standards have been extremely
effective. Today’s cars and trucks
are much cleaner, and overall
vehicle emissions have dramatically
declined.
• A typical new car sold in Califor-nia
in the 1960s produced about
one ton of smog- forming pollution
for every 100,000 miles of driving.
Today, under California’s Clean Car
standards, a typical new car is more
than 99 percent cleaner, producing
about 10 pounds of smog- forming
emissions driven over the same
distance.
• Total annual emissions of smog-forming
pollution from passenger
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Peak 8- Hour Ozone Level
( ppm)
Current California Health Standard
South Coast
* Air quality violates the current California health standard when ozone levels
exceed 0.07 ppm averaged over an 8- hour period. The federal health stan-dard
is 0.075 ppm ozone over an 8- hour period, although the U. S. EPA has
proposed to strengthen the standard to the range of 0.06 to 0.07 ppm.
Figure ES- 2: While Smog Levels in Los Angeles Have
Declined, Pollution Still Reaches Unhealthy Levels
*
cars and trucks in California have
dropped more than 85 percent since
1975, even as the number of miles
driven in the state has more than
doubled. ( See Figure ES- 1.)
• California’s Clean Car standards
have cleaned up our air without
crippling the economy or making
cars too expensive. Automakers
have tended to overestimate the
cost of emission controls by a factor
of two to 10.
• Investments in cleaner air have
been worth it. According to the
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the health benefits of clean
air advances achieved since the
1970s exceed the cost of emissions
controls by as much as 100 to 1.
Clean car standards have helped
to reduce smog levels in major
metropolitan areas, including Los
Angeles, the San Francisco Bay
Area, San Diego, and cities in the
Central Valley – improving public
health.
• Since 1980, peak smog levels1 have
dropped by 70 percent in the Los
Angeles area ( see Figure ES- 2);
50 percent in the San Diego area
and in the Sacramento Valley; 40
percent in the San Francisco Bay
Area; and 33 percent in the San
Joaquin Valley.
• Cleaner air prevents asthma attacks
and cancers, reduces the burden of
respiratory disease, and saves lives.
Despite the state’s tremendous
progress, California still suffers
from air that is unhealthy to
breathe.
• California still has the worst smog
pollution in the country. All 10 of
Executive Summary 7
the most polluted counties nation-wide
are located in California. Smog
levels still exceed state health- based
standards for more than one- third of
the year in the Los Angeles area and
the San Joaquin Valley. ( See Figure
ES- 3.)
• Passenger cars and trucks are still an
important part of the problem. These
vehicles emit nearly 2 million pounds
of smog- forming pollution daily
across the state – almost 20 percent of
total smog- forming emissions.
• Scientists are also continually uncov-ering
evidence that smog can harm
our health at very low levels of
exposure. New information may lead
to tighter health standards, requiring
greater emission reductions.
New technologies can make our
cars even cleaner, and cleaner cars
are a critical piece of reducing our
exposure to unhealthy air. The
California Air Resources Board
should ensure that the next round of
vehicle emission standards are strong
and effective.
• Updated Clean Car standards should
ensure that future cars are as clean
as possible, requiring all internal
combustion engines to meet “ Super-
Ultra Low Emission Vehicle” perfor-mance,
with emission control systems
durable up to 150,000 miles.
• The standards should also chart a
course for widespread commercial-ization
of next- generation cars with
no tailpipes or emissions – such as
electric cars.
• Finally, the standards should facili-tate
reducing vehicle global warming
pollution in accordance with state
goals to reduce overall emissions 80
percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
Figure ES- 3: Most Californians Still Live in Areas
with Unhealthy Air Quality
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Los Angeles
Area
San Joaquin
Valley
Sacramento
Valley
San Diego
Area
San
Francisco
Bay Area
Number of Days Exceeding the
CA Ozone Standard - 2009
8 Clean Cars in California
Introduction
T hroughout the past 40 years, auto-makers
have consistently opposed
government efforts to reduce vehicle
emissions and protect public health.
Faced with new requirements to
control vehicle pollution in the 1970s,
automakers – the same industry that
heroically retooled its factories in a matter
of months to supply airplanes, tanks and
bullets for World War II – claimed that
the technology wasn’t there, that it was
unaffordable, and that it would kill jobs
and the economy.
In 1975, in the aftermath of the nation-al
crisis fueled by the Arab Oil Embargo,
General Motors president Elliott Estes
held greater vehicle efficiency hostage
in a battle to roll back air pollution stan-dards,
saying, “ We can’t even begin to
talk about mandatory fuel economy until
we get some action on relaxing emission
standards.” 4
In September 1979, Chrysler chair-man
Lee Iacocca told Congress, “ I don’t
think the country can afford this much
clean air.” 5
In 1995, the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association surveyed
Californians and found increasing con-sumer
acceptance of electric vehicles as
a way to clean up California’s perpetu-ally
dirty air. Instead of working to build
cars for that market, the automakers, in
a confidential memo, announced their
intention to “ create a climate in which
the state’s mandate requiring automakers
to produce a fixed percentage of electric
vehicles … can be repealed.” 6
Fortunately, the automakers’ fears
were far overblown. While auto industry
lobbyists and executives fought Clean
Car standards, automotive scientists and
engineers were hard at work developing
solutions – and policy makers had the
“ The industry has a dismal record of
asserting what can’t be done, and
an admirable record of doing what it
is forced to do.”
– Washington Post Columnist George Will,
June 19773
Introduction 9
wisdom to continue to push the industry
toward innovation.
As this report reviews, new cars and
trucks today are much, much cleaner
than models built before 1970. Emission
control systems in cars today perform at
levels practically unimaginable even 20
years ago, much less 40 years ago. 7 And
California’s air is measurably cleaner as
a result.
California’s leadership is at the heart
of this progress. Over the decades,
California has set the pace for the rest of
the country with its pioneering vehicle
emission standards and its zero emis-sion
vehicle program. These programs
forced automakers to create and deploy
the technology that has made reducing
emissions feasible. 8
Today, California faces the same
challenge that we faced in the 1960s,
70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s. While our air
is cleaner, most Californians are still
exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollu-tion.
The burden of asthma, respiratory
infections, hospital admissions and even
deaths caused by air pollution remains
unacceptably high.
And there are new challenges, as
well. Unless we rapidly reduce emis-sions
of global warming pollution, the
state faces dramatic, disruptive impacts.
According to U. S. Energy Secretary
Steven Chu, “ We’re looking at a sce-nario
where there’s no more agriculture
in California.” Without rapid action
to cut emissions, rising temperatures
could fuel the loss of up to 90 percent
of winter snowpack in the Sierra Ne-vada
by the end of the century, leading
to massive water shortages. 9 Already,
global warming pollution is acidifying
California’s coastal waters, driving heat
waves and extreme weather events, and
fueling drought. 10
Cars and trucks remain a serious source
of these problems. Continued progress
will require stronger, updated emission
standards – continuing California’s long
tradition of leadership.
Throughout the state’s history, when
faced with a choice between the promise
of cleaner air or the short- term interests
of the auto industry, citizens have opted
for cleaner air. History shows that we’ve
made the right choice every time.
“ Our experience in California shows
that industry generally overstates its
difficulties in meeting new standards
and then makes a maximum effort to
comply once the requirements are set. In
1973, when California adopted stringent
1975 standards, the industry warned
of catastrophic fuel penalties and other
problems. But when those 1975 cars came
along, the first automobiles equipped with
catalysts, we saw the greatest improvement
in fuels and drivability ever achieved.”
– Tom Quinn, Chairman of the California Air Re-sources
Board, writing to President Jimmy Carter in
February 19772
10 Clean Cars in California
U nhealthy air has been a fact of life
in California for decades. Not
long ago, unhealthy levels of smog
persisted for half of every year in parts of
California, occasionally reaching crisis
levels. California’s air pollution problem
imposed heavy costs on public health and
Californians’ quality of life.
A Brief History of Air
Pollution in California
“ If they’d lower the taxes and get rid
of the smog and clean up the traffic
mess, I really believe I’d settle here
until the next earthquake.”
– Groucho Marx on 1950s Los Ange-les11
Mid- 20th century comedians often
cracked jokes about California’s legendary
smog problem. But to Californians, air
pollution was no laughing matter. Dan-gerous
levels of smog were a near- daily
occurrence in parts of California, and
concentrations of smog in the air would
occasionally spike to crisis levels.
As California considers how to address
its air pollution problems for the future,
it is worth recalling exactly how bad Cali-fornia’s
air was just a few decades ago.
Birthplace of Smog
California is uniquely sensitive to air
pollution. Atmospheric inversions tend to
trap rising pollution in a dirty brown layer
above valleys – in particular, around the
state’s South Coast and the San Joaquin
Valley. Infrequent rainfall aggravates the
situation, allowing pollution to remain in
the air for extended periods. And intense
summer heat and sunlight cooks the toxic
mixture, creating smog.
California’s Legacy of Dirty Air
California’s Legacy of Dirty Air 11
California’s first recognized bout
with smog came in the 1940s. During
the summer of 1943, a cloud of smog
cut visibility in the Los Angeles area to
only three blocks. People exposed to
the hazy, acrid cloud suffered from eye
irritation, respiratory problems, nausea
and vomiting. 12
Within a decade, scientists – led by
Cal Tech researcher Arie Haagen- Smit –
began to recognize that smog was caused
by man- made pollution. Burning fossil
fuels – such as petroleum or coal – cre-ates
oxides of nitrogen ( NOx). At the
same time, volatile organic gases ( VOCs)
evaporate into the air from gasoline and
from chemical solvents used in a variety
of products such as cleaners or paints.
When these two types of pollution mix
in the presence of sunlight, they form
ozone – a powerfully reactive gas that
is a principal component of Califor-nia’s
smog problem. A natural layer of
ozone exists high in the atmosphere, but
when pollutants create ozone near the
ground, it becomes a threat to public
health.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the
state’s air pollution problems continued.
In 1965, the Los Angeles area posted a
maximum ozone concentration of 0.58
parts per million – nearly five times as
high as the initial health based standard
that would be adopted in 1971.13 In the
summer of 1971, Los Angeles and Or-ange
County experienced 17 consecu-tive
smog alert days. The number of
patients visiting doctors’ offices doubled
and people with respiratory problems
were advised to leave the city. 14
Smog levels in the 1970s and 1980s in Los Angeles were routinely five times higher than
today’s health standard for air quality. The noxious haze is clearly visible in this photo,
taken during the filming of the helicopter chase scene in the movie Blue Thunder in
December 1981.
Photo: Gary Mason
12 Clean Cars in California
In October 1980, a heat inversion
in the air above the city trapped heavy
smog within 800 feet of sea level for two
weeks. 15 Visibility plummeted, the air
was thick and hazy, and the sun set in a
red glow. Officials at Los Angeles Inter-national
Airport closed runways because
the thick smog reduced visibility to unsafe
levels. 16
During this episode, ozone levels were
so high that a medical supply center in
Los Angeles was inundated with calls
from residents asking to buy or rent
oxygen as relief from the constant smog.
The state issued dozens of health alerts,
public schools canceled physical educa-tion
classes, and people with respiratory
problems – such as asthma, bronchitis,
and emphysema – were forced to stay
inside and minimize strenuous activity
so they would be able to breathe. 17 At
Hawthorne Community Hospital, the
number of patients seeking medical help
for smog- related complaints tripled. 18
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the
mountains were an infrequent sight for
residents of Los Angeles. Acrid, polluted
air and low visibility plagued most days
in the spring, summer and fall. Smog
reached unhealthy levels on more than
half of the days in a typical year. 19 Peak
smog levels in the Los Angeles area were
routinely five times higher than the state’s
current air quality standard. 20
But smog wasn’t just a Los Angeles
problem. In August 1985, unhealthy smog
levels worried officials managing the San
Diego Half Marathon. Dr. Tom Mosher,
medical director for the race, told the
Los Angeles Times, “ An athlete’s ability is
significantly reduced during heavy smog
days, especially if that runner suffers from
any respiratory problems. I suspect that
some runners may voluntarily drop out
of the race all together.” 21 Ozone levels
in San Diego exceeded the state’s current
health standard on more than 40 percent
of the days in a typical year in San Diego
during the 1970s and 1980s. The prob-lem
reached a similar level of severity
in the San Joaquin Valley. 22 Sacramento
and the San Francisco Bay Area also had
serious air quality problems, though not
quite as bad as Southern California. ( See
Figure 1.)
Smog Harms Public Health
Citizens were well aware that smog was
a nuisance as soon as it first appeared in
Los Angeles in 1943. After initially caus-ing
citizens to think that they were under
attack by the Japanese, yellow- brown
clouds of pollution “ sent cursing citizens,
coughing, and crying, running for the
sanctuary of air- conditioned buildings.” 24
The Los Angeles Times reported that
“ everywhere the smog went that day, it
left a group of irate citizens […]. Public
complaints reverberated in the press.” 25
At a November 1949 football game at
U. C. Berkeley, thousands of fans “ experi-enced
intense eye irritation.” A state com-mittee
investigating the incident found
that “ the cause of this particular eye irri-tation
was in some way directly related to
0
50
100
150
200
250
Los Angeles
Area
San Joaquin
Valley
San Diego
Area
Sacramento
Valley
San
Francisco
Bay Area
Average Annual Number of
Days Exceeding the 8- Hour
Ozone Standard - 1974- 1984
Figure 1: Unhealthy Levels of Smog Plagued the Air Across
Much Of California in the 1970s and 1980s23
California’s Legacy of Dirty Air 13
automobile exhaust,” from the thousands
of fans driving to the stadium – a situa-tion
with strong similarity to the smog
problem in Southern California. 26
By the 1960s, fully 75 percent of the
population of Los Angeles, when polled,
reported that they were “ bothered” by air
pollution either at home or at work. 27
At the same time, scientists were ac-cumulating
evidence that automobile
emissions and smog were not just a
nuisance – but a serious threat to pub-lic
health. Scientists found that during
bouts of high ozone levels, people suf-fered
more frequent coughing, eye and
chest discomfort, and headaches. High
school cross country runners ran slower.
School children’s lungs didn’t work as
well. College students were more likely
to come down with upper respiratory
infections. 28
California’s prized agriculture indus-try
suffered as well. Reporting on the
problem in 1986, the Los Angeles Times
wrote: 29
Last year, smog cost the Ameri-can
public $ 2.3 billion in lost crop
yield. In Southern California, the
annual damage is extensive. Let-tuce,
endive and spinach no longer
can be grown commercially in Los
Angeles County. Few orchids can
tolerate the air south of Oxnard.
In Riverside, once the home of the
navel orange, only 2,000 acres of cit-rus
groves remain, and commercial
production of alfalfa and turnips is
marginal. Smog no longer stops at
the Tehachapi Mountains. Last year
in Kern County, 20 percent – or $ 61
million worth – of the grape crop was
lost, and an acre of land that used to
yield three bales of cotton produced
only two and a half because of smog
generated locally or blown south
down the Central Valley from the
San Francisco Bay area.
Today, We Know That Smog Is
Deadly
Today, armed with more than 50 years
of scientific evidence, we know much
more about the deadly effects of smog.
Repeated exposure to ozone can cause
permanent lung damage and can even
kill. 30 The California Environmental Pro-tection
Agency estimated that residents
of Southern California in the 1990s were
paying $ 9 billion a year in heath costs
because of dirty air. 31
Ozone quickly reacts with airway tis-sues
and produces inflammation similar
to a sunburn on the inside of the lungs.
This inflammation makes lung tissues less
elastic, more sensitive to allergens, and
less able to ward off infections. 32 Minor
exposure to ozone can cause coughing,
wheezing, and throat irritation. Constant
exposure to ozone over time permanently
damages lung tissues, decreases the ability
to breathe normally, and exacerbates or
even causes chronic diseases like asthma. 33
Children, adults who are active outdoors,
and people with existing respiratory sys-tem
ailments suffer most from ozone’s
effects.
On days with elevated levels of ozone
pollution:
• Hospitals admit increased numbers
of patients for respiratory and
cardiovascular disease. 34 Scientists
have estimated that typical summer-time
smog pollution is responsible
for up to half of all respiratory hospi-tal
admissions on bad air days. 35
• More people visit hospital emergen-cy
rooms for asthma, pneumonia and
upper respiratory infections. 36
• Children and adults suffer more
asthma attacks, increased respira-tory
difficulty, and reduced lung
function. 37
• More adults miss work and more
children miss school due to illness. 38
14 Clean Cars in California
Beyond Smog: Other Air Pollutants
Smog is California’s most high profile air pollution issue. But it isn’t the only one. California
has also faced other forms of air pollution that threaten our health.
• Carbon monoxide is a product of the incomplete combustion of fuel in automobile
engines and other combustion sources. It interferes with the delivery of oxygen from the
lungs to the body, causing headaches and dizziness – and it can be deadly at higher levels
of exposure. More than 90 percent of monitoring sites in the United States in 1971,
including many in California, recorded pollution levels that were in violation of carbon
monoxide standards – but effective emissions controls have greatly reduced the severity
of this problem today. 39
• Particulate matter, or soot, consists of extremely small and practically invisible parti-cles
in the air that result from fuel burning – especially in diesel engines. Particles can
contain hundreds of toxic chemicals, some of which cause cancer, irritate lung tissues, or
cause changes in the function of the heart that increase the risk of heart attacks. 40 Partic-ulate
pollution can cause irreversible damage to children, interfering with the growth
and development of the lungs. 41 Particulate pollution is also deadly, killing upwards of
9,000 Californians every year. 42 In fact, according to the largest study of the effects of
particulates on mortality, breathing the air in major U. S. cities is about as dangerous
as living or working with a smoker. 43 Much of California still violates health- based air
quality standards for particulate matter. 44
• Cars and trucks directly emit dangerous toxic air contaminants near roadways. Fuel
combustion produces pollutants like nitrogen oxides, small particles, benzene, formal-dehyde,
and 1,3- butadiene. In sufficient amounts, these pollutants irritate airways and
lungs, cause asthma, worsen asthma symptoms, and cause leukemia and other types of
cancers. 45 Exhaust from highways and major roads poses a serious health hazard for
anyone who lives, works or goes to school in or near heavy traffic. Children directly
exposed to traffic pollution develop respiratory problems, including cough, wheezing,
runny nose, and asthma. 46 People living near highways or highly traveled roads face an
increased risk of death from stroke, lung disease and heart disease. 47 Many people assume
that being inside a car offers some protection from exhaust— but pollution levels can be
up to 10 times higher than in the air outdoors, especially in congested traffic. 48
• Global warming pollutants – including carbon dioxide, produced by fuel combustion
in automobiles – are rapidly changing America’s climate. 49 The country is becoming
hotter. 50 Sea level is rising. 51 Rainstorms and hurricanes are becoming more intense. 52
Landscapes are changing – from Western forests ravaged by drought, bark beetles and
fires, to shifts in the timing of seasons and in the habitable ranges of plant and animal
species across the country. 53 Should our emissions of global warming pollutants continue
unchecked, America and the world face catastrophic consequences. Global average
temperatures could increase by as much as 11.5° F by the year 2100 ( depending on the
pace of the emissions increase). 54 Sea level could rise by as much as 6.5 feet by the end of
the century, causing extensive coastal flooding. 55 And America could experience extended
periods of hot weather and drought, punctuated by heavy downpours, interfering with
water supplies and agriculture and exacerbating smog pollution. 56 The more global
warming pollution that humanity emits into the atmosphere, the greater the warming –
and the damage – that will become unavoidable.
California’s Response to Air Pollution: The Clean Cars Program 15
California’s Response to Air Pollution:
The Clean Cars Program
O nce scientists in the 1950s discov-ered
how smog was formed, state
officials began formulating a plan
of action to cut air pollution levels. In
response to the fact that more than 50
percent of smog- forming pollution in
the state came from California’s millions
of passenger cars and trucks, California
created the world’s first vehicle tailpipe
emission standards.
Over the years, California has
strengthened and updated its Clean Car
standards – the package of regulations
and incentives that reduce pollution
from automobiles. The state has added
new requirements for higher perfor-mance
emission control systems, more
durable technologies, and new vehicle
designs. These standards have forced
automakers to innovate, developing and
deploying new technologies that are now
commonplace on highways throughout
California – and around the world.
Passenger Cars and Trucks
– A Leading Source of
Pollution
California’s love affair with the au-tomobile
– beginning with the rapid
expansion of the suburbs after World
War II – set the stage for passenger cars
and trucks to become a major source of
air pollution in the state.
In 1980, California was home to 12
million vehicles, which were driven more
than 400 million miles every day. 57 Pas-senger
cars and trucks produced seven
times more NOx pollution than all power
plants statewide. 58
Overall, vehicles in 1980 were respon-sible
for: 59
• More than half of smog- forming
volatile organic pollutant emissions;
• 40 percent of statewide smog- form-ing
NOx emissions;
16 Clean Cars in California
• About 80 percent of carbon monox-ide
emissions; and
• About 15 percent of particulate
emissions from mobile sources, with
the remainder coming from heavy
duty diesel trucks and equipment,
trains, ships, and other large vehicles.
Curbing Vehicle Pollution
with Clean Car Standards
Faced with clear evidence that automo-bile
emissions were polluting California’s
skies and harming public health, state
officials took action. In 1959, legislators
passed a law authorizing the Department
of Public Health to set caps on automobile
emissions. 60 In 1961, California required
installation of the first automobile emis-sion
control device in the country – the
positive crankcase ventilation ( PCV)
system. In 1966, California was the first
state to adopt tailpipe emission standards
for specific pollutants. Three years later,
the state issued the first set of pollutant-specific
air quality standards. 61
California continued to tighten auto-mobile
emission standards throughout
the 1970s. Unlike California’s initial
emission reduction efforts, which fo-cused
on requiring automakers to in-stall
emission control technologies that
already existed, the state’s efforts in the
1970s focused on “ technology forcing” –
that is, enacting limits on the amount of
air pollution that vehicles could produce
and challenging automakers to develop
and implement technologies that would
meet those standards.
California’s emission reduction ef-forts
soon fell into a predictable pat-tern:
the state would adopt ambitious
emission standards, which automakers
often claimed would be difficult or ex-pensive
to meet, automobile company
engineers would meet the standards
anyway, usually at reasonable cost, then
the federal government would adopt
similar standards. Figure 2 shows how
California’s standards have consistently
been mimicked several years later by the
federal government.
In 1990, California’s emission control
efforts took a major leap forward with
adoption of the Low- Emission Vehicle
( LEV) program. The LEV program was
different from previous standards for
several reasons. First, the LEV program
dramatically ratcheted down the amount
of smog- forming pollution permitted
from cars over time. Second, instead of
having to install specific emission con-trol
equipment – as the earliest emission
control regulations required – or meet
a targeted emission level for all cars,
the LEV program set ambitious targets
for the average emissions of the vehicle
fleet, and gave automakers the flexibil-ity
to meet the standard with a mix of
relatively dirty and super- clean vehicles.
Finally, the LEV program included the
Zero- Emission Vehicle ( ZEV) program,
which required that automakers place
for sale a certain percentage of vehicles
In 1980, vehicles were responsible for about half of
California's emissions of smog- forming pollution.
Photo: iStockPhoto. com
California’s Response to Air Pollution: The Clean Cars Program 17
that produced no tailpipe emissions, par-ticularly
electric vehicles.
In 1998, California took a further step
forward, adopting the LEV II program,
which further reduced allowable levels
of pollution from vehicle tailpipes and
from evaporative emissions. Meanwhile,
the state updated the ZEV program to
create more flexibility for automakers,
enabling ultra- clean gasoline powered
vehicles – called partial zero- emission
vehicles ( PZEVs) – to qualify for credit
under the program.
Then, in 2002, the California Leg-islature
enacted a law ( AB 1493) that
required the California Air Resources
Board to set standards to achieve the
maximum cost- effective reductions in
emissions of global warming pollutants
from vehicles. The new rules, adopted
by the Air Resources Board in 2004 and
implemented with the 2009 model year,
are expected to reduce global warming
emissions from new California passenger
vehicles by about 22 percent in 2012 and
about 30 percent in 2016.63 As with pre-vious
standards, California’s leadership
paved the way for other states to take
action, and ultimately led the federal gov-ernment
to adopt comparable standards
in October 2010.
The Standards Have Forced
Automakers to Innovate
At every step of the way, California’s
automobile emission standards have
forced automakers to innovate – driving
improvements in technology that have
made cars cleaner not just in California,
but throughout the United States and
even in much of the world. Among the
technologies introduced into the market-place
by California emission standards
are:
• Catalytic converters – Catalytic
converters enabled major reduc-tions
in emissions of hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide from vehicles
when they were first required in
California vehicles in 1975. Later,
more advanced “ three- way” convert-ers
came onto the market in the late
1970s that also addressed emissions
of smog- forming nitrogen oxides.
• Durable emission control systems
– Spurred by California’s regulations,
automakers developed emission
control systems that last, under
warranty, for 100,000 and even
150,000 miles.
• Control and diagnostic technolo-gies
– Oxygen sensors, which
were first included in Volvo cars
sold in California in 1977, enable
more precise control of the fuel- air
mixture, which is critical to reducing
the formation of pollutants during
combustion. The emergence of
on- board diagnostics provided an
opportunity to further reduce pollu-tion
by warning the driver to seek
maintenance when emission controls
had failed. 64 Along with the addition
of more durable emission systems,
Figure 2 – Federal and California Tailpipe Emission Standards
as Percentage Reduction from Uncontrolled Emissions62
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage of Uncontrolled
Emissions
California VOCs
Federal VOCs
California NOx
Federal NOx
18 Clean Cars in California
these features helped drivers to
get prompt service and extend the
lifespan of their vehicles.
• Evaporative emission controls –
California’s strict limits on evapora-tive
emissions from cars have led to
the development of improved fuel
tanks, hoses and seals – as well as
technologies to reduce emissions
during refueling – that prevent
volatile organic compounds from
escaping from gasoline into the air.
• Hybrid- electric vehicles – While
California’s original zero- emission
vehicle requirement did not result in
electric vehicles making immediate
inroads into the state’s car market,
it did spawn advances in battery
technology that helped pave the
way for the introduction of hybrid-electric
vehicles in the late 1990s.
Today, just over a decade later,
hybrid- electric vehicles are common
on California highways and are a
leading strategy for reducing carbon
dioxide pollution from automobiles.
The partial zero- emission vehicle –
or PZEV – is a good example of how
California’s standards have spawned
innovation. The PZEV standard, es-tablished
in 1998, is the world’s tightest
emission standard for gasoline powered
cars, requiring ultra- low tailpipe emis-sions,
near- zero evaporative emissions,
and emission control systems capable
of remaining effective for 150,000 miles
( backed up by a warranty from the au-tomakers).
Initially, vehicles meeting the PZEV
standard were expected to cost an ad-ditional
$ 500 each. However, as PZEVs
began to hit the road, automakers found
ways to meet the standards less expen-sively,
causing CARB to reduce its cost
estimate for PZEVs to $ 200 and finally
$ 100 per car. 65 Today, more than 1 mil-lion
PZEVs have been delivered for sale
in California and many more in states
that have adopted California’s Clean
Cars program for themselves. 66 What
must have seemed impossible from
the perspective of someone living just
two decades ago – a gasoline car with
emissions approaching zero – has now
become routine.
California’s Clean Car standards have
created no less than a revolution in au-tomotive
technology – a revolution that
has benefited people around the world.
The catalytic converter, for example, is
estimated to have reduced air pollution
in the United States by 10 billion tons
since its introduction, and the device
can now be found on 90 percent of
all new vehicles worldwide, as well as
many other types of fossil fuel- burning
equipment. 67
But closer to home, those standards
have also met their primary goal: making
California’s air cleaner.
Figure 3: A New Car Today Is More than 99 Percent Cleaner than a 1960s- Era Car
In the 1960s
Today
Smog- Forming Emissions
from a New Car:
California’s Efforts Have Delivered Results 19
California’s Efforts Have Delivered
Results: Cars Today Emit Less Pollution
and Our Air Is Cleaner
C alifornia’s vehicle air pollution
standards have been extremely ef-fective.
Today’s cars and trucks are
much cleaner, and overall vehicle emis-sions
have dramatically declined.
Cars Today Emit Less
Pollution
California’s Clean Car standards are
reducing pollution. A typical new car
sold in California in the 1960s produced
about one ton of smog- forming pollution
for every 100,000 miles of driving. Today,
under California’s Clean Car standards, a
typical new car is more than 99 percent
cleaner, producing about 10 pounds of
smog- forming emissions driven over the
same distance. 68 ( See Figure 3.)
Overall Vehicle Emissions
Are Down
Because cars are cleaner, overall
emissions from passenger vehicles have
dramatically declined – even as Califor-nians
buy more cars and drive more miles
every year.
The amount of driving in California
has more than doubled since 1980. In
1980, California had 11 million cars on
the road, each driving an average of 33
miles per day. Today, California has 25
million cars on the road, each driving an
average 35 miles per day. 69
Despite the trend toward more driv-ing,
total annual emissions of smog-forming
pollution from passenger cars
and trucks in California have dropped
more than 85 percent since 1975. ( See
Figure 4.) NOx emissions fell from
2,150 tons per day to 520 tons per day – a
76 percent drop. 70 Smog- forming VOC
emissions similarly fell from 3,800 tons
per day to 450 tons per day – a nearly
90 percent drop. 71
Emissions per mile traveled have
fallen even further. From 1980 to 2010,
average per- mile NOx emissions across
the vehicle fleet fell 94 percent, and
average per- mile VOC emissions fell
96 percent. 72
The standards have helped to reduce
emissions of other key health- threaten-ing
pollutants as well: 73
20 Clean Cars in California
• Carbon monoxide emissions are
down 85 percent, and the whole state
is in attainment of carbon monoxide
standards; and
• Sulfur dioxide emissions are down
more than 90 percent ( thanks in
large part to cleaner fuels, required
by state law).
California’s Air Is Cleaner
California’s auto emission standards
have helped to make the state’s air
cleaner.
Since 1980, peak 1- hour smog levels
have dropped by 70 percent in the Los
Angeles area, 50 percent in the San Diego
area and in the Sacramento Valley, 40 per-cent
in the San Francisco Bay Area; and
33 percent in the San Joaquin Valley. 74
Progress based on measuring peak
smog levels over an 8- hour period has
been slightly slower, but still substantial.
Since 1980, peak 8- hour smog levels have
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1980 1990 2000 2010
Vehicle Emissions ( Tons per Day)
Total Miles Traveled ( 1000s/ Day)
Total Miles Traveled
Smog- Forming Emissions ( NOx and VOCs)
Figure 4: Even as Californians Drive More Miles Every Year, Overall Vehicle Emissions
Have Declined
dropped 60 percent in the Los Angeles
Area, about 40 percent in the San Diego
and San Francisco Bay areas, about 25
percent in the Sacramento Valley, and
just over 10 percent in the San Joaquin
Valley. ( See Figure 5.)
At the same time, the number of days
with unhealthy air has fallen by on the
order of 70 percent in San Diego and the
San Francisco Bay Area; 35 to 40 percent
in the Sacramento Valley and the Los
Angeles area; and 17 percent in the San
Joaquin Valley from 1980 to 2009.76 ( See
Figure 6.)
But one doesn’t need to look at statis-tics
to understand the impact of Califor-nia’s
falling smog levels. One just needs
to ask someone who has experienced the
change for themselves.
Speaking to the New York Times in
2005, Bob Wyman, a life- long resident
of Los Angeles, noted that he no longer
has to pant for air after running, unlike in
his childhood. He told the paper, “ Smog
had a palpable impact on our daily lives.
California’s Efforts Have Delivered Results 21
Air quality violates the current California
health standard when ozone levels ex-ceed
0.07 ppm averaged over an 8- hour
period. The federal health standard is
0.075 ppm ozone over an 8- hour period,
although the U. S. EPA has proposed to
strengthen the standard to the range of
0.06 to 0.07 ppm.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Peak 8- Hour Ozone Level
( ppm)
Current California Health Standard
San Diego
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Peak 8- Hour Ozone Level
( ppm)
Current California Health Standard
Sacramento Valley
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Peak 8- Hour Ozone Level
( ppm) Current California Health Standard
San Francisco Bay Area
Figure 5: Smog Levels in Los Angeles Have Declined 70 Percent Since 198075
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Peak 8- Hour Ozone Level
( ppm)
Current California Health Standard
South Coast
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Peak 8- Hour Ozone Level
( ppm)
Current California Health Standard
San Joaquin Valley
22 Clean Cars in California
I’m 51. I’m not sure how conscious most
people are of this.” 78
In the 1970s, homeowners just five
miles from the foot of the San Ga-briel
Mountains could not see the peaks
through the dense summer smog. 79
Today, hikers on the Temescal Ridge
Trail – 30 to 50 miles away – can often
see the mountains. 80
Levels of other air pollutants have
fallen in many parts of the state as well.
For example:
• Since 1990, annual average particu-late
matter levels have declined
more than 30 percent in the South
Coast and in the Sacramento Valley,
and more than 40 percent in the
San Francisco Bay Area and in the
San Joaquin Valley.
• Statewide, California is in attain-ment
of federal and state health
standards for carbon monoxide
pollution. The South Coast area,
including Los Angeles, met the
federal carbon monoxide health
standard in December 2002 – a
major achievement compared to
pollution levels in the 1970s and
80s. 81
Californians lead healthier, richer
lives today because of the state’s strong
air pollution standards for cars. More-over,
cleaner air has come without the
catastrophic economic impacts predicted
time and time again by automakers.
The Benefits of Clean Cars
Far Exceed Their Costs
California’s cleaner cars – and our
cleaner air – have come at a relatively
low cost to auto buyers, belying the
warnings of automakers that each new
round of emission controls would make
vehicles unaffordable. And the benefits
Figure 6: The Number of Days with Unhealthy Air Is Declining77
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Annual Number of Days
Exceeding CA 8- Hour Health
Standard for Ozone
South Coast
San Joaquin Valley
Sacramento Valley
San Diego Area
San Francisco Bay Area
California’s Efforts Have Delivered Results 23
controls has been achieved without mea-surable
increases in the cost of vehicles
to buyers.
Efforts to control emissions have
been unambiguously worth the cost.
In 1999, the federal Environmental
Protection Agency estimated that
from 1970 to 1990, the nation’s efforts
to clean up air pollution produced $ 6
trillion to $ 50 trillion in benefits, while
costing only $ 500 billion to achieve
– a benefit/ cost ratio as high as 100
to one. 84 In 2010, the Small Business
Majority and the Mainstreet Alliance
commissioned an update, finding that
the benefits of clean air regulations
have exceeded costs on the order of 40
to 1, while creating more than 1.3 mil-lion
jobs in pollution control industries
between 1979 and 1991.85
to our health have far exceeded the cost
of achieving progress.
Since the 1970s, the auto industry has
consistently overestimated the cost of
complying with new pollution regulations
by a factor of two to 10.82
A 2004 study by researchers at UC
Davis estimated that vehicles at that time
cost buyers about $ 1,000 more than a ve-hicle
without emission controls ( typical of
vehicles of the mid- 1960s). That $ 1,000
increase was far less than the increase in
prices resulting from other improvements
to automobiles over that time. Interest-ingly,
the difference in prices estimated
in the early 2000s was roughly the same
as it was in the early 1980s, despite the
vast improvements in emission control
technology over that period. 83 In other
words, each successive round of emission
24 Clean Cars in California
Despite Progress, California’s Air
Remains Unhealthy
H owever, despite the significant prog-ress
made to date, most Californians
still live in areas with unhealthy air
quality. According to the American Lung
Association, the 10 most polluted counties
nationwide are located in California. 86
Most Californians Still Live in
Areas with Dirty Air
Smog levels still exceed state health-based
standards for more than one- third
of the year in the Los Angeles area and
the San Joaquin Valley. The Sacramento
Valley and the San Diego area still have
unhealthy air quality on about 50 days
of the year. And even the San Francisco
Bay Area violates health- based air quality
standards on about 10 days every year.
( See Figure 7.)
Moreover, scientists are continually
revealing that smog has measureable
impacts on public health – even at
levels of exposure beneath California’s
current air quality standards. For ex-ample,
in 2009, Dr. Michael Jerrett at
the University of California Berkeley
and his colleagues published research
that concluded that every 10 part- per-billion
increase in exposure to ozone
increases the risk of death from respi-ratory
causes by 4 percent. 88 In other
words, residents of polluted California
cities face more than triple the risk of
dying from respiratory illness compared
with people living in the least polluted
cities. 89 In recognition of these facts, in
January 2010 the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency proposed tighten-ing
the federal air quality standard for
ozone. 90
Despite Progress, California’s Air Remains Unhealthy 25
Making California’s air clean will
require reductions in pollution from
all sources – not just cars. But it will
also require automakers to use all of the
clean car technologies available.
Vehicles Are Still a
Significant Part of the
Problem
Passenger cars and trucks are still an
important part of the problem. These
vehicles emit nearly 2 million pounds of
smog- forming pollution daily across the
state – almost 20 percent of statewide
emissions. 91
The California Air Resources Board
has identified multiple technologies
that automakers could deploy in the
mid- 2010s to achieve greater emissions
control system performance and dura-bility,
including: 92
• Systems to improve emissions
control performance when vehicles
are started and while engines are
running;
• Improved catalytic converter designs;
• New kinds of exhaust management
systems; and
• Special paints on the front of cars
designed to directly reduce pollutant
concentrations in the air while the
cars drive.
Finally, the California Air Resources
Board has identified a series of tech-nologies
that increasingly point toward
potential for zero- emission vehicles. In
addition to reducing emissions of health-threatening
pollution, these technologies
will help California reduce global warm-ing
pollution from vehicles. ( See “ Global
Warming – Another Air Pollution Chal-lenge”
on page 26.)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Los Angeles
Area
San Joaquin
Valley
Sacramento
Valley
San Diego
Area
San
Francisco
Bay Area
Number of Days Exceeding the
CA Ozone Standard - 2009
Figure 7: Most Californians Still Live in Areas with Unhealthy Air Quality87
26 Clean Cars in California
Global Warming – Another Air Pollution Challenge
Protecting California’s future from the most catastrophic impacts of global
warming is another compelling reason to continue reducing pollution from our
vehicles.
While state standards have effectively reduced health- threatening pollution
from motor vehicles, global warming pollution remains inadequately controlled.
Vehicles have been a growing source of global warming emissions since the 1970s
– responsible for about a quarter of the state’s total emissions. 93 From 1990 to
2008, global warming emissions from passenger vehicles climbed 17 percent. 94
Controlling global warming pollution remains a major challenge for Califor-nia’s
future. Fortunately, many technologies are available now that could reduce
global warming emissions from cars, including: 95
• More efficient drive systems, including better transmissions, turbocharged
engines, and cylinder deactivation technology; and
• Better air conditioning systems, with higher efficiency, lower leak rates, and
refrigerants that contribute less to global warming.
With a little development, automakers could also deploy:
• More advanced and efficient gasoline engine technology;
• More efficient hybrid and plug- in hybrid vehicle drive systems; and
• Lighter- weight vehicle components.
Finally, automakers could deploy fully electrified vehicles that could draw
energy from zero- emission electricity sources – whether renewable electricity, or
renewably- generated hydrogen – to drive vehicles that are truly emission- free.
To meet California’s commitment to reduce global warming pollution, these
zero- emission vehicles should make up at least 80 percent of the vehicle fleet
by 2050.
Policy Recommendations 27
Policy Recommendations
T o continue progress toward clean
air, state officials should ensure
that California builds on its legacy
of leadership by adopting a new round
of strong and effective vehicle emission
standards.
Further progress can help the state
to: 96
• Continue to make progress in reduc-ing
smog pollution in our cities;
• Reduce exposure to traffic- related
emissions – including toxic air
pollutants such as formaldehyde and
benzene, plus ultrafine particulate
matter; and
• Do its part to prevent the most
catastrophic impacts of global
warming.
Given the size of California’s vehicle
population, the state needs to make sure
that new cars are as clean as possible – and
encourage auto manufacturers to rapidly
commercialize vehicles that produce no
pollution whatsoever. In addition to re-ducing
air pollution, a shift towards zero
emission vehicles can provide additional
benefits, including promoting techno-logical
innovation in the auto industry
and helping consumers save money on
fuel.
Specifically, the California Air Re-sources
Board should:
Update state Clean Car standards
to ensure that future new cars are
as clean as possible, requiring the
average new vehicle to achieve
“ Super- Ultra Low Emission Vehicle”
( SULEV) performance, with
emission control systems durable up
to 150,000 miles.
• The standards should require
automakers to meet a fleet average
performance equivalent to SULEV
28 Clean Cars in California
( defined as 0.02 grams of NOx and
0.01 grams of VOCs per mile for
light duty vehicles) by no later than
the 2022 model year.
• The standards should include
more stringent limits on ultrafine
combustion particle emissions.
• The emission control systems
should be under warranty for 15
years or 150,000 miles.
A new round of strong and effective vehicle emission standards
can reduce pollution in California’s cities and promote continued
technological innovation in the auto industry.
Photo: Sandy Ridlington
Chart a course for widespread
commercialization of next-generation
cars with no tailpipes or
emissions – such as electric cars.
• The standards should ensure that
next- generation cars powered
by batteries or fuel- cells achieve
commercial scale by 2025 at the
latest. Zero emission vehicles should
make up on the order of 20 percent
of new vehicle sales by 2025, climb-ing
to 100 percent by no later than
2050.97 The standards should give
a clear, unambiguous signal to
automakers and help guide their
investment in new technology.
• To support the commercialization
of zero emission vehicles, the state
should accelerate the installation of
appropriate infrastructure, such as
vehicle charging stations.
Reduce vehicle global warming
pollution in accordance with state
goals to reduce overall emissions 80
percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
• In addition to cleaning up unhealthy
levels of smog and other health-threatening
air pollution, the
standards should guide the reduction
of global warming pollution from
California’s vehicle fleet.
Policy Recommendations 29
Other Actions to Reduce Vehicle Emissions
California can reduce air pollution from transportation through many tools
in addition to stronger vehicle emission standards and measures to accelerate
the introduction of new vehicle technologies. In particular, California should
work to reduce the amount of vehicle travel through smart planning and the
promotion of transportation alternatives, from cycling to bus lines to local
trains and high speed rail. California should:
• Promote alternatives to drive- alone work trips. Commutes to work
account for more than a quarter of all vehicle travel nationally and are a
prime reason for congestion on our roadways. States such as Oregon and
Washington have shown that creative programs designed to reduce drive-alone
trips to work can reduce vehicle travel and ease congestion and
California should follow their lead.
• Build high- speed rail. Air travel is a large source of global warming and
other pollution in California. Yet, for many long- distance trips within
the state, high- speed rail could provide service that is just as quick and
convenient as air or car travel, but with far less pollution. The state should
provide adequate funding for the voter- approved high- speed rail line
linking Sacramento, the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego.
• Expand the state’s transit systems. There are many portions of the state
– even in the largest metropolitan areas – where residents do not have easy
access to high- quality transit service. California should invest in transit to
ensure that most residents of the state’s largest metropolitan areas have
access to good transit service by 2030.
• Stop sprawl and expand transit- oriented development. The state
should work with local governments to ensure that our growing popula-tion
is housed not in sprawl- style developments that demand more
driving, but rather in compact developments where residents can walk,
bike or take transit to get most of the places they need to go.
30 Clean Cars in California
Notes
1. Measured as the highest concentration
of ground- level ozone recorded in any one-hour
period during the noted year and the
previous two years, excluding any peaks that
may have been caused by an exceptional event,
such as stratospheric ozone intrusion.
2. As quoted in Jack Doyle, Taken for a Ride:
Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution,
( New York: Four Walls, Eight Windows)
2000.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Guy Dart, “ Imports Rising. Profits Fall-ing.
Executives Moaning About Regulations,”
Associated Press, 16 December 1979.
6. See note 2.
7. Ibid.
8. Bill Sessa, California Air Resources
Board, September 1990, as quoted in Jack
Doyle, Taken for a Ride: Detroit’s Big Three
and the Politics of Pollution, ( New York: Four
Walls, Eight Windows) 2000.
9. Jim Tankersley, “ California Farms,
Vineyards in Peril from Warming, U. S. En-ergy
Secretary Warns,” Los Angeles Times, 4
February 2009.
10. United Nations Environment Pro-gramme,
Impacts of Climate Change Coming
Faster and Sooner: New Science Report Under-lines
Urgency for Governments to Seal the Deal
in Copenhagen ( press release), 24 September
2009; United Nations Environment Pro-gramme,
Climate Change Science Compendium
2009, September 2009.
11. Speaking to a contestant on “ You Bet
Your Life,” a 1950s radio and TV quiz show
that Groucho hosted. Stefan Kanter, The Es-sential
Groucho, Penguin Books Ltd., 2000.
12. California Air Resources Board, Key
Events in the History of Air Quality in Califor-nia,
downloaded from www. arb. ca. gov/ html/
brochure/ history. htm, 10 September 2010.
13. Ibid.
14. “ Article on Extreme Impact of Smog
on Quality of Life in Riverside, Calif,” New
York Times, 3 August 1972.
15. “ Forecasters Say Two- Week Smog
Siege at an End,” The Associated Press, 13
October 1980.
16. Tamara Jones, “ No Relief in Sight for
Smog- Struck Los Angeles,” The Associated
Press, 8 October 1980.
17. Tom Harrigan, “ Los Angeles Doctors
Report Increase in Respiratory Ailments,”
The Associated Press, 9 October 1980.
18. Ibid.
19. California Air Resources Board, Air
Quality Trends Summaries, downloaded from
www. arb. ca. gov/ adam/ trends/ trends1. php on
22 September 2010.
20. Ibid. California’s air quality standards
are 0.07 ppm ozone averaged over any 8- hour
period and 0.09 ppm ozone averaged over any
1- hour period.
21. Michele Norris, “ Above Clean Air
Level; Hold Your Breath! Smog Fouls Air
this Weekend,” Los Angeles Times, 24 August
1985.
22. See note 19.
23. Number of days exceeding California’s
ambient air quality standard for ozone of
0.07 ppm averaged over an 8- hour period.
California Air Resources Board, Air Quality
Trends Summaries, downloaded from www.
arb. ca. gov/ adam/ trends/ trends1. php on 22
September 2010.
24. See note 2.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. United Nations Environment Pro-gramme
and the World Health Organization,
International Program on Chemical Safety,
Environmental Health Criteria 7: Photochemical
Oxidants, 1979.
28. Ibid.
29. David Devoss, “ New Strategies Against
an Old Enemy . . .” Los Angeles Times, 20 July
1986.
30. Lung Damage: U. S. EPA, Smog— Who
Does it Hurt? What You Need to Know About
Notes 31
Ozone and Your Health, July 1999; Kill: Mi-chael
Jerrett et al., “ Long Term Ozone Expo-sure
and Mortality,” The New England Journal
of Medicine 360: 1085- 1095, 12 March 2009;
K. Ito, S. F. de Leon and M. Lippmann, “ As-sociations
Between Ozone and Daily Mortal-ity,”
Epidemiology 16: 446- 57, July 2005.
31. James M. Strock, California Secretary
for Environmental Protection, Rules of the
Road on the Drive for Clean Air ( presentation),
before the Institute of Business Law, Los
Angeles, CA, 14 November 1995, as cited
in note 2.
32. M. Lippman, “ Health Effects of
Ozone: A Critical Review,” Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association 39: 672- 695,
1989; I. Mudway and F. Kelley, “ Ozone and
the Lung: A Sensitive Issue,” Molecular Aspects
of Medicine 21: 1- 48, 2000; M. Gilmour et
al., “ Ozone- Enhanced Pulmonary Infection
with Streptococcus Zooepidemicus in Mice: The
Role of Alveolar Macrophage Function and
Capsular Virulence Factors,” American Review
of Respiratory Disease 147: 753- 760.
33. Kendall Powell, “ Ozone Exposure
Throws Monkey Wrench Into Infant Lungs,”
Nature Medicine, Volume 9, Number 5, May
2003; R. McConnell et al., “ Asthma in Exer-cising
Children Exposed to Ozone: A Cohort
Study,” The Lancet 359: 386- 391, 2002; N.
Kunzli et al., “ Association Between Lifetime
Ambient Ozone Exposure and Pulmonary
Function in College Freshmen – Results of a
Pilot Study,” Environmental Research 72: 8- 16,
1997; I. B. Tager et al., “ Chronic Exposure to
Ambient Ozone and Lung Function in Young
Adults,” Epidemiology 16: 751- 9, November
2005.
34. Joel Schwartz, “ Air Pollution and
Hospital Admissions for the Elderly in Bir-mingham,
Alabama,” American Journal of
Epidemiology 139: 589- 98, 15 March 1994;
Joel Schwartz, “ Air Pollution and Hospi-tal
Admissions for the Elderly in Detroit,
Michigan,” American Journal of Respiratory
Critical Care Medicine 150: 648- 55, 1994;
Joel Schwartz , “ PM
10
, Ozone, and Hospital
Admissions for the Elderly in Minneapolis- St.
Paul, Minnesota,” Archives of Environmental
Health 49: 366- 374, 1994; Joel Schwartz,
“ Short- Term Fluctuations in Air Pollution
and Hospital Admissions of the Elderly for
Respiratory Disease,” Thorax 50: 531- 538,
1995; J. Schwartz and R. Morris, “ Air Pollu-tion
and Hospital Admissions for Cardiovas-cular
Disease in Detroit, Michigan,” American
Journal of Epidemiology 142: 23- 25, 1995; Joel
Schwartz, “ Air Pollution and Hospital Admis-sions
for Respiratory Disease,” Epidemiology
7: 20- 28, 1996; Joel Schwartz, “ Air Pollution
and Hospital Admissions for Cardiovascular
Disease in Tucson,” Epidemiology 8: 371- 377,
1997.
35. George Thurston et al., “ Respira-tory
Hospital Admissions and Summertime
Haze Air Pollution in Toronto, Ontario:
Consideration of the Role of Acid Aerosols,”
Environmental Research 65: 271- 290, 1994; R.
Burnett et al., “ The Role of Particulate Size
and Chemistry in the Association Between
Summertime Ambient Air Pollution and
Hospitalization for Cardio- respiratory Dis-ease,”
Environmental Health Perspectives 105:
614- 620, 1997; R. Burnett et al., “ Associa-tion
Between Ozone and Hospitalization for
Respiratory Diseases in 16 Canadian Cities,”
Environmental Research 72: 24- 31, 1997.
36. R. Cody et al., “ The Effect of Ozone
Associated with Summertime Photochemical
Smog on the Frequency of Asthma Visits to
Hospital Emergency Departments,” Environ-mental
Research 58: 184- 194, 1992; C. Weisel
et al., “ Relationship Between Summertime
Ambient Ozone Levels and Emergency De-partment
Visits for Asthma in Central New
Jersey,” Environmental Health Perspectives 103,
Supplement 2: 97- 102, 1995; Jennifer Peel et
al., “ Ambient Air Pollution and Respiratory
Emergency Department Visits,” Epidemiology
6: 164- 174, March 2005.
37. George Thurston et al., “ Summertime
Haze Air Pollution and Children with Asth-ma,”
American Journal of Respiratory Critical
Care Medicine 155: 654- 660, February 1997;
A. Whittemore and E. Korn, “ Asthma and Air
Pollution in the Los Angeles Area,” American
32 Clean Cars in California
Journal of Public Health, 70: 687- 696, 1980;
J. Schwartz et al., “ Acute Effects of Sum-mer
Air Pollution on Respiratory Symptom
Reporting in Children,” American Journal of
Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 150: 1234-
1242, 1994; M. Friedman et al., “ Impact of
Changes in Transportation and Commuting
Behaviors During the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Child-hood
Asthma,” Journal of the American Medical
Association 285: 897- 905, 2001; Janneane Gent
et al., “ Association of Low- level Ozone and
Fine Particles with Respiratory Symptoms in
Children with Asthma,” Journal of The Ameri-can
Medical Association 290, 1859- 1867, 8
October 2003; E. W. Triche et al, “ Low Level
Ozone Exposure and Respiratory Symptoms
in Infants,” Environmental Health Perspectives
doi: 10.1289/ ehp. 8559 ( available at dx. doi.
org), online 29 December 2005.
38. B. Ostro and S. Rothschild, “ Air Pol-lution
and Acute Respiratory Morbidity: An
Observational Study of Multiple Pollutants,”
Environmental Research 50: 238- 47, 1989; F.
Gilliland et al., “ The Effects of Ambient
Air Pollution on School Absenteeism Due
to Respiratory Illness,” Epidemiology 12: 43-
54, 2001; H. Park et al., “ Association of Air
Pollution with School Absenteeism Due to
Illness,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine 156: 1235- 1239, 2002.
39. National Academy of Sciences, Na-tional
Research Council, Managing Carbon
Monoxide Pollution in Meteorological and
Topographical Problem Areas, ISBN: 0- 309-
08923- 9, 2003.
40. J. Pekkanen et al., “ Daily Variations
of Particulate Air Pollution and ST- T De-pressions
in Subjects with Stable Coronary
Heart Disease: The Finnish ULTRA Study,”
American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care
Medicine 161: A24, 2000.
41. W. J. Gauderman et al., “ The Effect of
Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10
to 18 Years of Age,” The New England Jour-nal
of Medicine 351: 1057- 67, 9 September
2004.
42. California Air Resources Board, Esti-mate
of Premature Deaths Associated with Fine
Particle Pollution ( PM2.5) in California Using a
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Methodol-ogy,
31 August 2010.
43. C. Pope et al., “ Lung Cancer, Car-diopulmonary
Mortality, and Long- Term
Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution,”
Journal of the American Medical Association 287:
1132- 1141, 2002.
44. California Air Resources Board, Ambi-ent
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,
24 November 2009, downloaded from www.
arb. ca. gov/ research/ aaqs/ pm/ pm. htm.
45. Asthma: Ralph Delfino et al., “ Asthma
Symptoms in Hispanic Children and Daily
Ambient Exposures to Toxic and Criteria Air
Pollutants,” Environmental Health Perspectives
111( 4), 647- 656, April 2003; I. L. Bernstein,
M. Chan- Yeung, J. L. Malo, and D. I. Bern-stein,
Asthma in the Workplace, ( New York, NY:
Marcel Dekker), 1999; Cancer: D. Glass et al.,
“ Leukemia Risk Associated with Low- Level
Benzene Exposure,” Epidemiology 14: 569- 577,
2003; A. Blair and N. Kazerouni, “ Reactive
Chemicals and Cancer,” Cancer Causes Control
8: 473- 490.
46. P. van Vliet et al., “ Motor Vehicle
Exhaust and Chronic Respiratory Symptoms
in Children Living Near Freeways,” Environ-mental
Research 74: 122- 32, 1997; T. Nicolai
et al., “ Urban Traffic and Pollutant Exposure
Related to Respiratory Outcomes and Atopy
in a Large Sample of Children,” European
Respiratory Journal 21: 956- 63, June 2003; W. J.
Gauderman et al., “ Childhood Asthma and
Exposure to Traffic and Nitrogen Dioxide,”
Epidemiology 16: 737- 43, November 2005;
Cough: U. Gehrinig et al., “ Traffic- Related
Air Pollution and Respiratory Health During
the First 2 Yrs of Life,” European Respiratory
Journal 19: 690- 8, April 2002; More asthma
evidence: J. J. Kim et al., “ Traffic- Related Air
Pollution Near Busy Roads: the East Bay Chil-dren’s
Respiratory Health Study,” American
Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine
170: 520- 6, September 2004.
Notes 33
47. R. Maheswaran and P Elliott, “ Stroke
Mortality Associated With Living Near Main
Roads in England and Wales,” Stroke 34:
2776- 80, December 2003; G. Hoek et al.,
“ Association Between Mortality and Indica-tors
of Traffic- Related Air Pollution in the
Netherlands: a Cohort Study,” Lancet 360:
1203- 9, 19 October 2002.
48. Bob Weinhold, “ Don’t Breathe and
Drive? Pollutants Lurk Inside Vehicles,” En-vironmental
Health Perspectives 109: A422- 27,
September 2001.
49. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov-ernmental
Panel on Climate Change, 2007.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid. See also Paul R. Epstein and
Evan Mills, eds., The Center for Health and
the Global Environment, Harvard Medical
School, Climate Change Futures: Health, Eco-logical
and Economic Dimensions, November
2005; United Nations Environment Pro-gramme,
Climate Change Science Compendium
2009, September 2009.
54. A. P. Sokolov et al., Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Joint Program on
the Science and Policy of Global Change,
“ Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Cli-mate
Based on Uncertainties in Emissions
( without Policy) and Climate Parameters,”
Journal of Climate 22: ( 19): 5175- 5204, in
press ( doi: 10.1175/ 2009JCLI2863.1), 2009;
Vicky Pope, United Kingdom Met Office,
Head of Climate Change Advice, “ Met Office
Warn of ‘ Catastrophic’ Rise in Temperature,”
The Times Online ( London), 19 December
2008.
55. 6.5 feet: W. T. Pfeffer et al., Institute
of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of
Colorado, Boulder, “ Kinematic Constraints
on Glacier Contributions to 21st- Century
Sea- Level Rise,” Science 321: 1340- 1343,
September 2008.
56. E. J. Burke, S. J. Brown, and N.
Christidis, “ Modeling the Recent Evolu-tion
of Global Drought and Projections
for the Twenty- First Century with the
Hadley Centre Climate Model,” Journal of
Hydrometeorology 7: 1113– 1125, 2006; Susan
Solomon et al., U. S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, “ Irreversible
Climate Change Due to Carbon Emis-sions,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 106: 1704- 1709, 10 February 2009;
Richard Seager et al., “ Model Projections
of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid
Climate in Southwestern North America,”
Science 316: 1181- 1184, 25 May 2007; U. S.
Global Change Research Program, Global
Climate Change Impacts in the United States,
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
57. California Air Resources Board, CE-PAM:
2009 Almanac – Population and Vehicle
Trends Tool, download from www. arb. ca. gov/
app/ emsinv/ trends/ ems_ trends. php, 16 Sep-tember
16, 2010.
58. Including Passenger Cars, Light- Duty
Trucks 1 (< 3,750 Ibs), Light- Duty Trucks 2
( 3,751- 5,750 Ibs), and Medium- Duty Trucks
( 5,751- 8,500 Ibs). California Air Resources
Board, CEPAM; 2009 Almanac – Standard
Emissions Tool, downloaded from www. arb.
ca. gov/ app/ emsinv/ cepam_ emssumcat_ que-ry.
php, 16 September 2010.
59. Ibid.
60. California Air Resources Board, Key
Events in the History of Air Quality in Califor-nia,
downloaded from www. arb. ca. gov/ html/
brochure/ history. htm, 10 September 2010.
61. Ibid.
62. U. S. National Academy of Sciences,
State and Federal Standards for Mobile Source
Emissions, ISBN: 0- 309- 10151- 4, 2006, p. 92.
Figure does not fully capture subtle differ-ences
in the California and federal standards
involving certification methods and fleet
averaging. Lines that split reflect the fact that
the emissions standard varies depending on
certification levels ( for example, low- emission
and ultralow- emission vehicles).
34 Clean Cars in California
63. California Air Resources Board, Clean
Car Standards - Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493,
downloaded from www. arb. ca. gov/ cc/ ccms/
ccms. htm, 4 October 2010.
64. 1977: Kevin Clemens, “ A History of
the Oxygen Sensor - On the Line; A Part of
the Whole Building Better Widgets at Bo-sch,”
European Car Magazine, July 2004.
65. $ 200, $ 100: California Air Resources
Board, ARB Staff Review of Report Entitled
“ Impacts of Alternative ZEV Sales Mandates on
California Motor Vehicle Emissions: A Compre-hensive
Study,” 31 October 2001.
66. California Air Resources Board, White
Paper: Summary of Staff’s Preliminary Assess-ment
of the Need for Revisions to the Zero Emis-sion
Vehicle Regulation, 25 November 2009.
67. Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association, Clean Air Facts: The Catalytic
Converter: Technology for Clean Air ( factsheet),
February 2006.
68. California Air Resources Board, LEV
II - Amendments to California’s Low- Emission
Vehicle Regulations ( factsheet), downloaded
from www. arb. ca. gov/ msprog/ levprog/
levprog. htm on 10 September 2010.
69. 11 million cars in 1980 and 25 million
cars in 2010 determined by adding together
vehicle populations for Passenger Cars,
Light- Duty Trucks 1 (< 3,750 Ibs), Light- Du-ty
Trucks 2 ( 3,751- 5,750 Ibs), and Medium-
Duty Trucks ( 5,751- 8,500 Ibs). Data from:
California Air Resource Board, CEPAM:
2009 Almanac – Population and Vehicle Trends
Tools ( database), downloaded from www. arb.
ca. gov/ app/ emsinv/ trends/ ems_ trends. php,
16 September 2010; 33 miles per day in 1980
and 35 miles per day in 2010 determined by
dividing the total miles traveled by all cars
( determined by adding the vehicles miles
traveled for Passenger Cars, Light- Duty
Trucks 1 (< 3,750 Ibs), Light- Duty Trucks 2
( 3,751- 5,750 Ibs), and Medium- Duty Trucks
( 5,751- 8,500 Ibs) for 1980, per California Air
Resource Board, CEPAM: 2009 Almanac –
Population and Vehicle Trends Tools ( database),
downloaded from http:// www. arb. ca. gov/
app/ emsinv/ trends/ ems_ trends. php, 16 Sep-tember
2010) by the vehicle populations.
70. Including Passenger Cars, Light- Duty
Trucks 1 (< 3,750 Ibs), Light- Duty Trucks 2
( 3,751- 5,750 Ibs), and Medium- Duty Trucks
( 5,751- 8,500 Ibs). Data from California Air
Resource Board, CEPAM: 2009 Almanac
– Standard Emissions Tool ( database), down-loaded
from www. arb. ca. gov/ app/ emsinv/
fcemssumcat2009. php, 16 September 2010.
71. Ibid.
72. Emissions per note 70 divided by VMT
per note 69.
73. See note 70.
74. Measured as the highest concentra-tion
of ground- level ozone recorded in any
one- hour period during the noted year and
the previous two years, excluding any peaks
that may have been caused by an exceptional
event, such as stratospheric ozone intrusion.
California Air Resources Board, iADAM Air
Quality Data Statistics, downloaded from www.
arb. ca. gov/ adam/ on 16 September 2010.
75. California Air Resources Board,
iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics, down-loaded
from www. arb. ca. gov/ adam/ on 16
September 2010.
76. Based on the California 8- hour ozone
standard of 0.07 ppm. California Air Resourc-es
Board, iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics,
downloaded from www. arb. ca. gov/ adam/ on
16 September 2010. Progress based on the
1- hour ozone standard of 0.09 ppm has been
greater: the number of days with unhealthy
air has fallen by on the order of 90 percent in
San Diego, 75 percent in the San Francisco
Bay Area, 60 percent in the Sacramento Val-ley,
50 percent in the Los Angeles area, and
33 percent in the San Joaquin Valley from
1980 to 2009.
77. Based on the California 1- hour ozone
standard of 0.09 ppm. California Air Resourc-es
Board, iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics,
downloaded from www. arb. ca. gov/ adam/ on
16 September 2010.
78. Felicity Barringer, “ California Air Is
Cleaner, But Troubles Remain,” The New
Notes 35
York Times, 3 August 2005.
79. Ibid.
80. Ibid.
81. South Coast Air Quality Management
District, 2007 Air Quality Maintenance Plan,
October 2006, available at www. aqmd. gov/
aqmp/ 07aqmp/ draft/ 07aqmp. pdf.
82. Roland Hwang and Matt Peak, NRDC
and CALSTART, Innovation and Regulation
in the Automobile Sector: Lessons Learned and
Implications for California’s CO 2 Standards,
April 2006.
83. Daniel Sperling et al, University of
California at Davis, The Price of Regulation,
Fall 2004, available at www. its. ucdavis. edu/
publications/ 2004/ UCD- ITS- RR- 04- 32.
pdf.
84. U. S. Environmental Protection Agen-cy,
Final Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs
of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010, Document #
EPA 410- R- 99- 001, 15 November 1999.
85. The Mainstreet Alliance and the
Small Business Majority, The Clean Air Act’s
Economic Benefits: Past, Present and Future,
October 2010.
86. American Lung Association, State of
the Air 2010, April 2010.
87. Based on the CA 8- hour ozone stan-dard
of 0.07 ppm. California Air Resources
Board, iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics,
downloaded from www. arb. ca. gov/ adam/ on
16 September 2010.
88. Measured in terms of average daily
1- hour maximum ozone level. Michael Jerrett
et al., “ Long Term Ozone Exposure and Mor-tality,”
The New England Journal of Medicine
360: 1085- 1095, 12 March 2009.
89. Ibid.
90. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone ( factsheet), 6
January 2010.
91. California Air Resources Board, CE-PAM;
2009 Almanac – Standard Emissions
Tool, downloaded from www. arb. ca. gov/ app/
emsinv/ cepam_ emssumcat_ query. php, 16
September 2010.
92. California Air Resources Board, Public
Workshop on Proposed Revisions to the Low-
Emission Vehicle Program ( presentation), El
Monte, California, 2 March 2010.
93. 1970s: Anne Choate et al., ICF
Consulting, Sonoma Technology, Inc. and
California Energy Commission, California’s
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Trends over the
Past Decade, downloaded from www. epa. gov/
ttn/ chief/ conference/ ei11/ ghg/ choate. pdf on
1 October 2010. From 1990: California Air
Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas
Emission Inventory, 1990- 2004 and 200- 2008,
downloaded from www. arb. ca. gov/ cc/ inven-tory/
inventory. htm, 28 May 2010.
94. California Air Resources Board,
California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory,
1990- 2004 and 2000- 2008, downloaded from
www. arb. ca. gov/ cc/ inventory/ inventory. htm,
28 May 2010.
95. Nic Lutsey, California Air Resources
Board, Technologies and Trends for Reducing
Automobile Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the
2025 Timeframe ( presentation), 2 March
2010, available at www. arb. ca. gov/ msprog/
levprog/ leviii/ leviii. htm.
96. Tom Cackette, California Air Re-sources
Board, Advanced Clean Vehicles Pro-gram:
Setting the Course for Cleaner Vehicles:
2014- 2050, presented at public meeting on
amendments to California’s Low Emission
Vehicle Regulations for passenger cars - LEV
III, 18 May 2010.
97. California Air Resources Board, ZEV
Regulation Workshop ( presentation), Byron
Sher Auditorium, Sacramento, 3 May 2010.