Cementing California’s Future

The report analyzes four technology pathways for decarbonizing California's cement industry—CCS only, electrification with CCS, blended cement (LC3) with CCS, and blended cement with alternative fuels and CCS. It finds that while significant reductions are possible, reaching net-zero will require higher capture rates, grid decarbonization, and additional carbon removal. To bridge cost and regulatory gaps, the authors recommend establishing a State Revolving Loan Fund, implementing a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and creating statewide Best Available Control Technology (BACT) guidelines for CCS projects.

• California's cement production is a significant source of emissions, with seven operating plants producing approximately 10 million metric tons of cement annually and emitting roughly 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is about 2% of statewide emissions.
• The report's technical assessment identifies four decarbonization pathways: Pathway 1 (CCS only), Pathway 2 (Electrification + CCS), Pathway 3 (Blended cement (LC3) + CCS), and Pathway 4 (Blended cement (LC3) + Alternative Fuels + CCS).
• Pathways 3 and 4 offer the lowest lifetime carbon abatement costs at approximately $100 per metric ton of CO2 (2024$), primarily because LC3 uses 44% less clinker than ordinary Portland cement.
• Pathway 2 (Electrification + CCS) has the highest lifetime carbon abatement cost at $479 per metric ton of CO2 (2024$), driven by high energy costs, although it results in the smallest increase in energy intensity (13%) because it avoids amine-based separation.
• Pathway 4 can achieve net-zero or net-negative emissions (Scope 1 and 2) if permanently sequestered biogenic CO2 from alternative fuels like woody biomass or engineered municipal solid waste (EMSW) is counted as net-negative.
• The report argues that a single policy is insufficient and recommends a combination of financial support (e.g., State Revolving Loan Funds, RD&D funding, and Investment Tax Credits), market-based mechanisms (e.g., CBAM, modified Cap-and-Invest benchmarks, and public procurement standards), and regulatory interventions.
• To prevent 'carbon leakage' and protect local industry, the report recommends a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) that would apply a fee to imported cement and clinker based on embedded carbon emissions.
• The authors recommend establishing statewide Best Available Control Technology (BACT) guidelines for CCS projects to reduce regulatory uncertainty and ensure consistent air quality protections across California's 35 air districts.

APA

Arax, A., Grove, B., Bailey, S., Solecki, M., Michaels, T., Lopina, C., & MacIntosh, C. (2026). Cementing California’s Future. Clean Air Task Force. https://www.catf.us/resource/cementing-californias-future/

Chicago

Arax, Ashley, Ben Grove, Sam Bailey, Mary Solecki, Ted Michaels, Cassandra Lopina, and Caelin MacIntosh. Cementing California’s Future. Clean Air Task Force, 2026. https://www.catf.us/resource/cementing-californias-future/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Arax |first1=Ashley |last2=Grove |first2=Ben |last3=Bailey |first3=Sam |last4=Solecki |first4=Mary |last5=Michaels |first5=Ted |last6=Lopina |first6=Cassandra |last7=MacIntosh |first7=Caelin |title=Cementing California’s Future |publisher=Clean Air Task Force |date=5 August 2026 |url=https://www.catf.us/resource/cementing-californias-future/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{arax2026cementing, author = {Arax, Ashley and Grove, Ben and Bailey, Sam and Solecki, Mary and Michaels, Ted and Lopina, Cassandra and MacIntosh, Caelin}, title = {{Cementing California’s Future}}, institution = {Clean Air Task Force}, year = {2026}, month = aug, url = {https://www.catf.us/resource/cementing-californias-future/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }