Why is Washington State Letting Itself Be Regulated by California?
Jordan Royer, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
Regulating air emissions is complicated. Complying can also be complicated, as new technologies and processes lag behind the desire for zero and near-zero emissions from vessels, trucks, and cargo handling equipment. In the shipping industry, we are seeing many new fuels being tested around the world, with many new-build vessels containing dual-fuel tanks to accommodate whatever the best fuel of the future might be. It might be green methanol, hydrogen, ammonia, or something else entirely that wins the competition of ideas -- but do we really want the California Air Resources Board (CARB) dictating what’s best for us here in Washington State? Wouldn’t it be better for us to chart a course with the rest of the country and the international community? After all, many promising cutting-edge technologies not only come from the U.S. but from European and Asian based companies. Having strong and consistent international and federal rules informed by our own Governor and State Legislature is preferable to the chaos and inconsistency of an unelected CARB.
To understand why we are governed by an out-of-state CARB, we need a little background: The state of Washington is expressly preempted from establishing emissions standards for vessels and other nonroad engines under the federal Clean Air Act. The state of Washington may only deviate from federal emission standards if it adopts identical emissions standards by the state of California that have previously been authorized by the US EPA under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. All other states can make that choice as well -- either adopt California rules in total or follow EPA regulations.
The previous Governor and past legislatures in our state have opted to try and adopt California rules. This is significant because many of California rules are created to address challenges that we don’t have in Washington State, mainly ozone and nitrogen oxide pollution. This is a key reason as to why CARB is so bought into electrifying everything – even though they have non-existent or insufficient plans for the charging infrastructure or electricity generation that would be needed. In our state, like most states and countries around the world, we have many more options open to us to reduce carbon emissions (as stated earlier).
Why then, would we limit our options by following the lead of an unaccountable out-of-state Board that has largely failed to come up with rules that can be implemented? Not only does it not make any logical sense, but it should also offend the sensibility of all of us in the Great Pacific Northwest. We can do better and usually do including following federal and international standards and complying with international treaties when it makes sense to do so. We have some of the most innovative companies on Earth in Washington State. As much as I love my Californian colleagues, I would prefer for bad policy to stay there and let us figure things out for ourselves.