Clean Air Task Force unveils tailored strategic framework for industrial decarbonisation in California and Texas

The Clean Air Task Force’s State Industrial Policy Playbook offers a pragmatic, state-focused framework for accelerating low‑emission transformation in heavy industry, arguing that the same technology pathways can be deployed in different ways to reflect distinct economic and political contexts. Designed to be applied in disparate settings such as California and Texas, the playbook maps technology options , electrification, carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), alternative production processes, feedstock substitution, low‑emission fuels and energy and material efficiency , onto a four‑part policy menu intended to de‑risk investment, create demand, streamline regulation and strengthen data and community engagement.

Heavy industry remains central to both states’ economies, supporting jobs, tax revenues and supply chains while accounting for a substantial share of greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution. According to the playbook, Texas’ heavy industry emits roughly 236 million metric tonnes of CO2 annually, led by refining, petrochemicals and cement; California’s industrial emissions are smaller at about 61 million metric tonnes, with a major refining and cement footprint but a smaller chemicals and steel base. Those differences, the authors say, shape which pathways are most commercially attractive and politically feasible in each state.

Near‑term opportunities overlap across jurisdictions. Efficiency improvements, low‑emission fuels and CCUS for refining and cement are already commercially available or close to scale and can deliver meaningful reductions when paired with targeted policy. California’s cleaner power grid makes electrification comparatively more attractive in certain industrial applications, while Texas’s geology, existing pipeline infrastructure and low‑cost natural gas favour CCUS and low‑emission hydrogen for refining and petrochemical facilities. The playbook stresses assessing technologies by sector fit and readiness, combining immediate deployment of mature options with continued research, development and demonstration for next‑generation pathways.

Policy, not technology, will determine pace and scale. CATF organises state levers into four complementary categories.

1. Financial support to drive innovation: state tax incentives, targeted technology funding and technical assistance can close cost gaps and mobilise private capital. The playbook notes that Texas’ existing programmes, such as the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan, are oriented toward combustion‑based emissions reductions and transportation hydrogen, leaving industrial opportunities under‑served; broadening eligibility and matching incentives historically extended to oil and gas could unlock industrial retrofits and first‑of‑a‑kind projects. California already deploys programmes such as the California Energy Commission’s INDIGO fund, but CATF highlights that funding remains limited in scale and scope and that expanded eligibility and low‑cost financing could accelerate a wider range of industrial deployments.

2. Creating durable markets: demand‑side measures , environmental product declarations (EPDs), preferential procurement, long‑term offtake and contracts for difference , reduce market risk for lower‑emission materials. California’s Buy Clean policies, which require EPDs and set embodied carbon limits for state‑funded construction materials, are cited as a national lead; the playbook recommends progressively tightening limits and coordinating with in‑state manufacturers on timelines and readiness. For Texas, voluntary buyers’ coalitions, technical assistance for EPD development and targeted procurement programmes could aggregate demand and make export‑oriented producers more competitive in low‑emission global markets.

3. Streamlining regulation and standards: permitting delays and unclear siting rules raise investment risks for large‑scale projects such as CO2 and hydrogen pipelines. CATF recommends a coordinated permitting approach in Texas, for example through clearer processes at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and pre‑cleared rights‑of‑way for infrastructure. In California, the playbook calls for explicit regulatory guidance on how technologies such as CCUS fit within air‑permitting regimes and the state’s extended cap‑and‑invest system to ensure robust community protections while reducing uncertainty for investors.

4. Data, monitoring and stakeholder engagement: robust reporting and public transparency underpin credible policy. California already operates one of the country’s most comprehensive industrial data systems through Mandatory Reporting Regulation and community air monitoring; the playbook urges better integration of those datasets into programme design and procurement. By contrast, CATF describes Texas’ data landscape as fragmented across federal and state systems and recommends consolidating emissions and performance reporting, embedding evaluation requirements in incentive programmes and making public investments contingent on measurable benefits.

The playbook’s recommendations do not exist in a vacuum. Recent federal and state developments illustrate how complementary funding and policy can accelerate industrial transitions. According to an Associated Press report, the Environmental Protection Agency awarded California $135 million in grants to replace diesel heavy vehicles with 455 zero‑emission vehicles, reflecting the flow of federal Inflation Reduction Act funds into state decarbonisation efforts. California also recently extended its cap‑and‑invest programme through to 2045, a move that aligns long‑term carbon policy with industrial decarbonisation objectives and that the playbook says should be paired with clear guidance on how technologies such as CCUS are treated under the programme. At the federal level, the Biden administration’s regional clean hydrogen hubs initiative, announced as a $7 billion investment to support seven hubs across 16 states, signals substantial public resources aimed at scaling low‑emission hydrogen supply and the regional infrastructure that industrial decarbonisation will require.

For procurement‑focused commercial actors and industrial utilities, the playbook offers concrete starting points: target funding for first‑of‑a‑kind demonstrations; demand‑aggregation to secure offtake and price signals; regulatory certainty for infrastructure permitting; and standardised reporting to validate emissions outcomes. CATF’s webinar and accompanying materials underline that a balanced approach , pairing near‑term deployment with sustained R&D , will be necessary to keep industries competitive while meeting emissions goals.

The policy menu is explicitly bipartisan and adaptable. In practice, state choices will reflect political economy: California’s approach to decarbonisation is described as policy‑led, prioritising air‑quality protections alongside greenhouse‑gas reductions; Texas is characterised as market‑and company‑led, with industry initiatives and global market pressures driving action. The playbook argues that both approaches can succeed if states deploy the right mix of incentives, demand signals and regulatory clarity.

For industrial decarbonisation professionals, the playbook functions as a practical guide to policy design rather than a blueprint for a single outcome. It highlights trade‑offs , for example between electrification and hydrogen or CCUS , that hinge on local energy mixes, infrastructure and industrial composition, and it places community protections and transparent performance monitoring at the centre of durable policy. Applied thoughtfully, the framework seeks to reduce emissions while preserving competitiveness, protecting jobs and positioning state industrial sectors for long‑term resilience.