Is the South Coast Air Quality Management District changing its ways?

For years the agency responsible for keeping Southern California’s air clean has been accused of being over regulatory in its dealing with businesses. Now it’s offering a comprehensive clean-air plan that is heavy on incentives and lighter on regulations and penalties. Even one of the district’s severest critics is taking notice.

Is the South Coast Air Quality Management District becoming more industry friendly?

That’s the conclusion some people are coming to regarding the district’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, which it released June 30.

The lengthy plan is in some ways a departure from the district’s past approach to implementing clean air standards in Southern California, which has usually consisted of piling on more and stricter regulations, along with heavy fines for non-compliance, on businesses that are believed to pollute.

Ultimately, the goal has been to get those businesses to cut their emissions by using state-of-the art clean-air technology.

While that approach may have led to cleaner air over the years – the district claims that pollution levels are about one-third of what they were 30 to 40 years ago – it has left the agency with a reputation for being unfriendly, if not downright hostile, toward business.

But all of that might be changing, if the district’s latest air quality management plan is any indication.

Rather than rely on rules to cut into the region’s notorious smog levels, the district – which covers most of Riverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties and all of Orange County –  is trying to take a more industry-friendly approach.

The plan encourages people and businesses to change to more fuel-efficient cars, trucks and equipment on their own, while offering them financial incentives to do so.

It also allows businesses to work future technologies into their pollution reduction plans, which the district will take into account when it calculates future clean-air standards, Atwood said.

Specifically, the district is proposing low-emission standards for large trucks, cutting pollution created by stoves in residences and restaurants and reducing emissions from industrial flares. The latter are used to burn combustible components.

Also, in a proposal that could have a major impact in the Inland Empire, emissions at the ports, warehouses and railroad yards would be cut voluntarily, according to the plan.

The 2016 plan will factor in other local, state and federal programs now underway that are meant to improve air quality. Wherever possible the AQMD will include emission reductions from those complimentary programs when crediting local businesses.

“The 2016 Air Quality Management Plan represents a new approach,” the district stated in the document’s introduction. “ [It] recognizes the critical importance of incentives that encourage  the accelerated transition of vehicles, buildings and industrial facilities to cleaner technologies in a manner that benefits not only air quality, but also local businesses and the regional economy.”

While the 2016 plan doesn’t add to the district’s enforcement policy, it’s still full of potential penalties for heavy polluters and is not that radical a move away from past district policy, said Sam Atwood, district spokesman.

“In terms of regulations vs. incentives, I think the press has missed the boat a little bit on this one,” Atwood said. “I don’t think it’s that much of a departure from what we’ve done in the past. We still regulate 26,000 businesses, and we’re looking at eliminating the same level of emissions that we have in the past.”

The district, which is responsible for the health of approximately 17 million people, is under the gun to meet stringent federal clean air standards during the next 15 years.

To meet those goals, the district must reduce the level of nitrogen oxide emissions within its jurisdiction from 530 tons per day, its current level, to 100 tons per day. That would represent a 55 percent reduction beyond what is required now, according to the plan.

The district will need $11 billion to $14 billion to pay for the incentives it wants to offer, and it’s not clear now where it will get that money. In the meantime, district officials will develop a plan – most likely a series of partnerships with regional, state and federal government agencies – to ensure that that funding soon and will be enough to last through 2031.

The district does appear to be relying more on market forces to achieve its goals, and that’s a change that all businesses should welcome, Inland Empire economist John Husing said.

Historically, Husing has been a harsh critic of the AQMD, claiming that its overregulation has killed jobs in the Inland Empire’s logistics sector and prevented people without much education from earning middle class wages.

But Husing admits things could be changing.

“This is a lot different than how they’ve done things in the past,” Husing said. “I’ve been in some of their meetings, and the attitude has always been ‘we’re going to beat you up if you don’t obey us and do exactly what we say.’ There’s never any flexibility, so I’m encouraged by what they’re doing.”

Some media reports have speculated that changes made to the district’s governing board earlier this year – the addition of three Republicans and the dismissal of Barry Wallerstein, its longtime executive officer – have made the board more business friendly, but

Husing said he disagrees with that assessment.

“These people all hold non-partisan office,” Husing said. “What they’re doing is an experiment, but I don’t think politics has anything to do with it, and I don’t think it’s fair to say that it does.”

The 2016 plan is a radical departure from past district policies, and it has at least one major hole in it, said Penny Newman, executive director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, the Inland Empire’s most prominent environmental organization.

“They talk about all of these incentives they’re going to pay people, but they don’t have any idea where the money is going to come from,” Newman said. “To me, that’s delusional. How can you move forward on something like this without knowing where you’re going to get your funding?”