Outgoing CARB Chair Liane Randolph on Legacy, Leadership, and the Reauthorization of ‘Cap-and-Invest’

In a wide-ranging exit interview, outgoing CARB Chair Liane Randolph reflects on key climate and air quality accomplishments during her tenure, including the 2022 Scoping Plan, landmark vehicle regulations, and the reauthorization of California’s Cap-and-Invest program through 2045. Notably, she discusses the growing opportunity for interstate market linkages and California’s leadership in emissions disclosure through SB 253 and SB 261. Randolph emphasizes the critical importance of defending state authority amid federal rollbacks, highlighting economic and public health benefits of climate action, especially for younger generations. Looking ahead, Chair Randolph underscores the need for fresh leadership paired with experience, stressing that good governance often goes unnoticed when it works well. As for what’s next, she plans to hike, travel, and enjoy some well-earned rest! 

“(We) must continue to defend CARB’s authority and protect our existing rules in court… and develop a comprehensive list of strategies to build on that foundation.” - Chair Randolph

Liane, earlier this week, you announced your retirement from CARB. As you look back, what do you want your legacy at the agency to be? What do you see as CARB’s biggest successes during your tenure?

We have accomplished a great deal in the last five years. One of the most significant achievements was advancing mobile source emissions regulation and laying out a clear path toward 100% zero-emission vehicle adoption by 2035. Even though the federal administration later paused those efforts, we demonstrated that a strong regulatory framework can accelerate deployment. Between 2020 and early 2024, we witnessed a substantial increase in the adoption of electric vehicles. 

Unfortunately, that progress slowed when automakers sensed potential federal interference—they pulled back on marketing and scaled down deployment plans, which was frustrating. Still, the momentum we built proved that California could lead and push the market forward. I hope that the retreat is temporary, especially as the rest of the world moves ahead. The U.S. risks falling behind in this transition.

Another major milestone was the 2022 Scoping Plan, which for the first time outlined a full path to carbon neutrality. That plan goes beyond just cutting emissions—it looks at how we sequester carbon and build long-term carbon sinks to offset legacy emissions. It acknowledges the reality that by 2045, we’ll still be using some fossil fuels, including natural gas in the power sector, though ideally much less than today. The Scoping Plan created a foundation for thinking comprehensively about not only reducing emissions but also dealing with the carbon we’ll continue to produce. And that’s just one part of the broader work we’ve done.

Please continue to elaborate.

In addition to our work on light-duty vehicles, we made substantial progress across other mobile source sectors. The Board advanced key regulations in the heavy-duty sector—building on the momentum of the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which had just been adopted when I joined CARB. That regulation catalyzed exponential growth in the deployment of medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles, along with the infrastructure needed to support them. While federal interference has again created uncertainty, the total cost of ownership for electric heavy-duty vehicles continues to be compelling over time. That’s a critical strategy—not only for climate goals but for improving air quality, particularly in communities most impacted by freight and truck traffic.

We also tackled emissions from small off-road engines—leaf blowers, small generators, and similar equipment—which pose serious health risks to workers. Our groundbreaking regulation in that space will drive the market toward cleaner models, offering safer options for those who rely on that equipment daily.

Another major milestone was setting California on the path to end the use of hexavalent chromium, a highly toxic air contaminant. That transition will take time, especially for sectors like aviation, where alternatives are still being developed, but CARB sent a clear signal: safer, cleaner materials must be part of our future.

And finally, at my very first Board meeting, we adopted long-overdue regulations to reduce agricultural burning in the Central Valley—implementing a statute that had been sitting for a decade. That action set the agricultural sector on a meaningful path toward eliminating burning, and we’ve worked closely with the Legislature to secure funding for alternatives. We hope that the momentum continues and those alternatives take hold statewide.

Share with us your thoughts about what the next Auto Convention and ACT Expo in LA will be like. Will there be a difference from prior years?

I’m hopeful that any difference will be on the margins. There are still new models coming out, and there are companies that remain committed to their electric vehicle lines of business. That said, I do have significant concerns—particularly with some engine manufacturers currently in court trying to pull back from their commitments to move to zero-emission technologies in the heavy-duty sector. That’s troubling. At the ACT Expo, especially, I worry we won’t see the same level of commitment from those companies. And that’s a real issue, because getting these vehicles to market takes time, investment, and strong marketing support.

What’s frustrating is the lack of energy and urgency around deploying these vehicles. The successful zero-emission models are the ones that were not only well-designed but also well-marketed, meaning vehicles that actually appeal to consumers. When we see weak product launches or low-effort sales strategies, it feels like a return to the era of compliance vehicles, where companies built them just to check a regulatory box. 

Meanwhile, we now have companies like Lucid and Rivian that are producing only zero-emission vehicles, and doing so successfully. I hope that legacy OEMs will finally see the opportunity they’ve been slow to act on—and realize it’s still within reach if they move decisively.

In an era of deregulation coming out of Washington, could you share about your recent leadership experience at CARB? Especially as you try to set regulatory frameworks to drive markets.

The word I would use is frustrating. I can understand ideological differences—a federal administration might not agree with California’s approach. But this goes beyond disagreement. What we’re seeing now is aggressive pushback, even against some of the most basic, practical strategies to address climate change. It's not just about rolling back electric vehicle policies—they're actively working to kill projects like offshore wind. Those projects aren’t just about climate, they’re about jobs, innovation, and economic opportunity.

Take the Hyundai plant incident in Georgia, where ICE stepped in, and the South Korean workers who were setting up a facility that could’ve provided 6,000 jobs left the country. That plant was part of a clean energy transition that also delivers economic growth. Why would we actively work to quash that kind of progress? It's completely irrational—not just from a climate standpoint, but from an innovation and competitiveness standpoint.

I understand if this administration doesn’t support CARB’s broader climate authority. But they’re not just attacking zero-emission vehicle rules…they’re canceling well-established air quality regulations like our NOx rule for heavy-duty trucks. That rule isn’t about electrification. It’s about reducing smog-forming emissions—something CARB has been doing since the 1970s.

Meanwhile, climate disasters are getting worse. Fires in LA, floods in Texas, hurricanes in the Southeast, scientists are clear that climate change is amplifying these events. And companies want to be part of the solution. Investors see the opportunity. The market is moving. Trying to put the brakes on that—for purely ideological reasons—is not just short-sighted. It's self-defeating.

California’s cap-and-trade program was reauthorized through 2045 this week. Explain to our readers why that reauthorization is so pivotal in meeting the state’s climate goals.

When I started at CARB in early 2021, I had a list of key priorities: adopting the 2022 Scoping Plan, addressing equity challenges both inside and outside the agency, implementing the Governor’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Executive Order, and ensuring that cap-and-trade—what we now refer to as cap-and-invest—was reauthorized. That last goal was especially critical because the program was set to expire in 2030, well before our target year for carbon neutrality in 2045.

Cap-and-invest is a market-based program that sets a declining cap on emissions from covered industrial sectors. It allows companies to reduce their emissions or purchase allowances, incentivizing cost-effective reductions over time. But beyond that, it generates revenue for the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which supports nearly every major climate and environmental initiative in California. That includes our electric vehicle transition, wildfire risk reduction, clean water infrastructure, and high-speed rail—the largest electric transportation project in the country.

If the program hadn’t been reauthorized, the uncertainty would have destabilized the market. In fact, we already saw early signs of that—our quarterly allowance auctions started weakening during the legislative negotiations. Reauthorization stabilizes the market and gives industry, investors, and communities the confidence that California is serious about its long-term climate goals. Aligning cap-and-invest with our 2045 carbon neutrality goal makes perfect sense and ensures that the funding mechanisms we rely on can keep working.

Just as important, the legislature also passed a companion bill to continue funding the Community Air Protection Program, which was created in the 2017 reauthorization. That program gives communities a direct voice in how emissions are reduced in their neighborhoods, and it’s been an essential tool for equity in environmental policy. Seeing the legislature affirm both climate ambition and community engagement was a major milestone—and one I’m incredibly proud to have helped advance.

Liane – in a past interview, you noted the potential for California's clean economy, which is the world’s fourth-largest economy, and addressed expanding the State’s emission market relationship beyond Quebec. What are the opportunities?

I think that opportunity is very much still there. One of the major benefits of the cap-and-invest reauthorization is the long-term certainty it provides—not just for California, but for other jurisdictions exploring linkage. Washington, as you know, has adopted its own cap-and-invest program and is actively engaged in the preparatory work to link with California and Quebec. New York, too, has passed cap-and-invest legislation and is now planning implementation. With our program now extended through 2045, we’ve created a clear and stable framework that other states can look to. I believe we’ll see renewed and growing interest in joining what has already proven to be a highly successful emissions reduction market.

CARB has long emphasized transparent data and disclosure. What progress has been made in emissions reporting—and is there still room to grow it to the next level of implementation?

I think California’s emissions reporting system—particularly for the entities covered under the cap-and-trade program—has been a real success. Now, we’re taking that transparency to the next level with the implementation of two major climate disclosure bills: SB 253 and SB 261. SB 253 will require companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, beginning with Scope 1 and Scope 2, and eventually expanding to Scope 3. SB 261, meanwhile, requires disclosure of climate-related risks within corporate operations.

These are first-of-their-kind laws in the U.S., and we’re incredibly proud to be leading their implementation. We've already held public workshops, and we’ve been clear that companies should prepare to start tracking their emissions in 2026—even before final rulemaking is complete. 

This is going to be a huge step forward in accountability and transparency, and it will help consumers, investors, and regulators better understand where emissions are coming from and how companies are addressing climate risks. 

Looking ahead to 2045, what more needs to happen in the transportation sector—California’s largest source of emissions, to meet the state’s aggressive climate goals?

We’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, and the Governor’s Executive Order provided a framework to start from. First and foremost, we must continue to defend CARB’s authority and protect our existing rules in court. That’s foundational. At the same time, we’ve been working closely with stakeholders to develop a comprehensive list of strategies to build on that foundation. 

A major pillar was the reauthorization of the cap-and-trade program, which not only locks in a declining emissions cap through 2045 but also generates critical funding. While the reauthorization came after most of this year’s budget negotiations, I’m hopeful that future budgets will provide greater financial support for zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) transitions and infrastructure.

We also need to preserve and strengthen the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which has been essential in supporting clean fuels and EV deployment across the state. But beyond incentive programs, we’re also exploring regulatory strategies that fall squarely within California’s authority—those that don’t require federal approval. 

A good example is the use of indirect source rules. These apply to stationary facilities—like warehouses or railyards—that generate significant mobile source emissions, and require those emissions to be addressed. These rules have already been successful in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air districts and could be scaled statewide and beyond.

Another promising development is the legislature’s recent move to expand regional energy market cooperation. While we currently participate in the Energy Imbalance Market, there’s now a pathway to broaden that collaboration. This is especially important for electric rate affordability. A more regionalized grid can lower electricity costs by allowing states to share energy across borders more efficiently. That, in turn, helps keep EV operation costs lower than gas vehicles, which is key to continued adoption. It also supports home electrification—another vital component of decarbonization. Making electricity more affordable helps people make climate-friendly choices, and that strategy was a key recommendation in our report to the Governor. 

Most of our readers fully appreciate the climate accomplishments of California, but how do you communicate to the broader public, especially younger voters, that CARB’s work is urgent and deserves their attention? It seems the benefits chronicled here aren’t breaking through the wall-to-wall noise of social media.

That’s a great question, and it really gets at the heart of the communication challenge we face. A lot of what we do in climate policy also benefits public health—cleaner air, fewer asthma attacks, being able to see the mountains from L.A.—and you’d think those immediate, tangible benefits would resonate. But often, surprisingly, they don’t.

I’ve tried to connect the dots to people’s daily lives and wallets. Climate change has real financial consequences. We see it in rising homeowner insurance costs, in disruption from extreme weather, in missed school or workdays, and in the cost of rebuilding after disasters. Fighting climate change is not just about the environment. It’s about saving money, creating jobs, and driving innovation. When we talk about these broader benefits, we can start to reach people who might not respond to traditional environmental messaging.

We also need to tell our own stories. I remember being a kid in California and not being allowed to go out for recess because the air quality was so bad. That’s changed because of good policy, and we need to remind people, especially younger generations, that things can be better and that progress is possible.

Despite the progress you cite, many young registered voters—on both the left and right—seem increasingly convinced the “system” is broken and that government hasn’t delivered. How do you respond to that disconnect?

That’s the tough part. I think part of the problem is that when government works well, you don’t notice it. Success is often invisible. Take the electric power sector in California: we’ve almost completely transformed our grid to run on clean energy, and many days we’re operating on 100% renewable power. Most people don’t know that, because their lights stayed on. Nothing about their day changed. But behind the scenes, a massive system was rebuilt.

We need to do a better job telling the story of what government action makes possible. Think about the internet—it was born out of federal research and development. Satellites, clean tech, even things like GPS and weather forecasting all have roots in public investment. When those systems work, society moves forward. 

Honestly, I think the dysfunction at the federal level right now is reinforcing that contrast. Whether it’s botched investigations, economic missteps like tariffs, or cutting healthcare in rural communities, people are seeing what failure looks like. That gives us an opportunity to show what it looks like when government functions well.

For us in California, part of the job is to help people—especially younger voters—connect the dots between what’s working and the policy decisions that made it possible. And to remind them: real change has happened. It is happening. And they have the power to keep pushing it forward.

Speaking to a community college graduating class, what do you believe they’re hearing when you share CARB’s policy successes?

They’re probably thinking, “You boomers had it easy—you don’t understand what we’re going through.” And honestly, I get that. The cost of living, student debt, and housing insecurity—those are real and pressing challenges for young people.

But one of the accomplishments I’m proud of from this last legislative session is how seriously the Governor and the Legislature took the issue of housing. They focused on removing permitting barriers, which have been one of the biggest obstacles to getting homes built. When government works well, the bureaucracy fades into the background. Permits get issued faster, housing gets built faster, and that creates real opportunity…maybe even a path to homeownership for that community college student. That’s the kind of outcome we should be aiming for: where government isn’t a barrier, but a quiet enabler of progress.

You’ve spent years in public service, including at CARB and the CPUC. How do you respond to the growing number of young people running for public office against sitting incumbents—arguing that the latter are out of touch, and that your successor should be someone younger?

I think fresh ideas and fresh energy are critical, but that doesn’t have to mean someone is 25 or 30, and it doesn’t necessarily rule out experience either. It’s about mindset. My successor, for example, is significantly younger than me and brings not only energy but also deep experience—from the federal level, California policy, and even climate diplomacy internationally. That kind of perspective matters.

I’ve actually come to believe that turnover is healthy, even though I once opposed term limits in California. But I’ve seen the benefits: our Legislature is dynamic, and younger voices have brought urgency and innovation. At the same time, I also believe that effective leadership requires more than passion—it takes context, relationships, and institutional knowledge to get things done. It’s about balance: bringing in new people who understand the stakes but also respect the complexity of the work.

Speaking of your successor, what advice have you offered—what letter have you left in your metaphorical office desk drawer?

The most important thing is to be a good listener. In this role, you're constantly engaging with people who bring very different experiences and perspectives to the table. As a regulator, you have to recognize that you don’t have all the answers, and that the practicality of a regulation, as well as its unintended consequences, always need to be carefully considered.

Consensus-building is also critical. Working with a 14-member board—or 16, if you count our non-voting members—takes real effort. You have to be open, collaborative, and genuinely try to understand where everyone is coming from. That openness is what makes good policy possible.

And finally—what’s next for you?

Honestly? Relaxing. Hiking. Traveling. That’s all I have planned right now, and I’m looking forward to it.

Thank you, Chair Randolph, for this candid and thoughtful exit interview.