Here is the beginning of a news story this past weekend by Phil Willon in the Los Angeles Times:

SACRAMENTO —
California will outlaw the sale of new gas-powered lawnmowers, leaf blowers and chainsaws as early as 2024 under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday.
The law requires all newly sold small-motor equipment primarily used for landscaping to be zero-emissions — essentially to be battery operated or plug-in — by that target date or as soon as the California Air Resources Board determined it is feasible. New portable gas-powered generators also must be zero-emissions by 2028, which also could be delayed at the discretion of the state agency.

This is obviously a very important development—and not just because of California’s enormous scale.

As a legal matter, California is in a category of its own when it comes to regulating sources of air pollution. Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, standard-setting powers for air quality are reserved to the federal government (rather than cities or states). Mostly this means the Environmental Protection Agency. But because California had already imposed more aggressive standards, in response to its extreme smog problems, the 1970 law gave it special treatment. That unique status allows California to enact laws like this latest one.

(In the rest of the country, the air-quality improvements from phasing out two-stroke equipment may be recognized as a benefit of shifting to battery-powered machinery. But the legal basis for the change must be something else, especially noise effects. The background is explained here and here. )

Because California’s market is so huge, for cars and everything else, in practical terms this provision has made California the national pace-setter in air-quality and environmental standards. If auto-makers are producing cars clean enough to meet California’s standards, they will be selling those cars in all the other states.

This latest move should jump-start the market for battery-powered equipment, which in turn should become more available and affordable everywhere else.

Here is bonus hypocritical-argument point: Some critics of the California law argued that it will be an unfair burden on minority-group members of lawn crews, or owners of lawn companies. On the contrary, as spelled out here, it’s a way to protect these same people from the prolonged exposure to damaging fumes and noise they now endure.