7 ms·

Trump Will End California’s Authority to Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules

113 points by el_benhameen 7y ago

jonahhorowitz 7y ago
More accurately: Trump will start a long legal battle with the goal of trying to end "California’s Authority to Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules."
- badrequest 7y ago
  My own feelings about Trump set aside, I can't imagine he'll prevail.
  - Jare 7y ago
    Even so, think about the damage he will do along the way.
    - phil248 7y ago
      In this case, not much. The automakers don't want the rules to change and are extremely unlikely to start retooling factories since this is a temporary situation.
  - jerf 7y ago
    On this exact matter, he probably would. Lawsuits telling the executive that they must use their discretion in a certain manner, thus essentially stripping them of that explicitly-written discretion, probably don't have a leg to stand on and only judicial activism can save them. It's a silly idea, considered philosophically rather than in the heated political moment. What you'll get is something like what OrangeMango said, where they use other methods to enforce their will other than a particular authority for the EPA to carve out exemptions to a particular law. They've got all sorts of other tools.
- sifer 7y ago
  This. I feel like anything else (given 2020 around the corner) is just sensationalist
OrangeMango 7y ago
California will just go with the nuclear option: Cost of registering a vehicle will be based on vehicle emissions.
- bt848 7y ago
  Yes, California has all the tools it needs to enforce their will. For example, they can establish mandatory weekly inspections for cars not meeting their standards. They can tax carbon fuels at $1000/ton. They can set the vehicle registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to arbitrary amounts.
  - melling 7y ago
    Why not increase the gas tax and subsidize electric vehicles and charging stations? This will help EV’s get to the point where they’re cheaper.
    - bt848 7y ago
      I favor using the carbon tax to fund mass transportation, but we agree on the general idea: tax carbon, use money for better things.
    - soperj 7y ago
      Why not do the same and build way better public transportation, so that you don't spend your life waiting in traffic.
      - melling 7y ago
        We could do both. However, we’re probably only 10-15 years away from EV’s becoming cheaper than ICE. At that point, we could stop the subsidy. That’s about how long it takes to complete any mass transit project in the United States.
      - Johnny555 7y ago
        Yes, everyone sees EV's as the way our of our mess, but that's only part of the problem - EV's will help with emissions, but not congestion. And then there's the people that see self-driving cars as the way out of the congestion. But self-driving cars will make congestion worse, by making single occupancy vehicle trips cheaper and easier, shifting more people from transit to cars. But then each self-driving car doubles the number of trips, since instead of someone driving to work and parking, a self-driving car will drop them off at work then drive off to look for another passenger or parking outside of downtown, so 2 trips for one passenger.
intsunny 7y ago
State rights continue to be trampled upon...
- human20190310 7y ago
  Indeed. While France and Germany flex their local muscle against Facebook’s Libra currency, this is a step in the opposite direction for the US and its states.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > Indeed. While France and Germany flex their local muscle against Facebook’s Libra currency, this is a step in the opposite direction for the US and its states. Meanwhile Guy Verhofstadt goes to Britain to brag, unambiguously, about an intent to turn the EU into a unitary empire. The justification? "Everyone else is doing it!".
simplecomplex 7y ago
Car companies know the writing is on the wall with regards to pollution and EV. > The administration’s plans have been further complicated because major automakers have told the White House that they do not want such an aggressive rollback. In July, four automakers formalized their opposition to Mr. Trump’s plans by signing a deal with California to comply with tighter emissions standards if the broader rollback goes through
- randomfool 7y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-emissions-antitrust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-califo... > The Justice Department has opened an antitrust inquiry into the four major automakers that struck a deal with California this year to reduce automobile emissions
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    > Now, the Justice Department is investigating whether the four automakers violated federal antitrust laws by reaching a deal with California, on the grounds that the agreement could potentially limit consumer choice, those people said. That makes no sense at all. “We will comply with stricter emissions control without government intervention, so we signed a deal with California to formalize it.” Where would better emissions control harm consumer choice?
    - rjf72 7y ago
      It kills the used market (as older vehicles are generally non-compliant) forcing consumers to buy at least relatively new vehicles.
      - bt848 7y ago
        That's not how these regulations work. There are no controls on the resale market in California. There is an emissions inspection regime but it's for SO2, not CO2.
      - 7y ago
jgwil2 7y ago
> California’s special right to set its own tailpipe pollution rules dates to the 1970 Clean Air Act, the landmark federal legislation designed to fight air pollution nationwide. The law granted California a waiver to set stricter rules of its own because the state already had clean air legislation in place before the landmark 1970 federal legislation. If the law granted California the waiver, why is the executive (rather than the legislature) allowed to revoke it?
- bt848 7y ago
  The law allows the EPA to grant the waiver. It doesn't require them to do it. Edit: pre-emptively nitpicking my own statement: the Act gives the EPA enumerated reasons to not grant the waivers.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    Does this lead to a constitutional crisis over the EPA's ability to govern? It seems like the Feds have a difficult time using interstate commerce as a justification for the EPA's authority. In this case, California isn't attempting to regulate industry outside of the state (it just happens to be so powerful as to have that side-effect). I feel like this is a move to destroy the EPA and make California pay the legal fees to do it.
    - bt848 7y ago
      Maybe? Anything that erodes the federal powers, up to and including dissolution of the union, is fine by me as long as such powers devolve to the states and the people. If you fear constitutional crisis then I suggest you brace yourself because Trump will never leave office willingly. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171631144414208000 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11716311444142080...
      - scarface74 7y ago
        “States Rights” historically haven’t been good for minorities in the south.... I really don’t want southern politicians to have more power.
zaroth 7y ago
Emissions standards should be tougher, the gas tax should be higher, ZEV credits should be larger, and yet still, it's arguable that this has to be done through a Federal framework, and not at the State level. The Constitution enumerates powers of the Federal government, the rest being reserved to the State, or to the People. For all the ways the enumerated powers have been stretched, Commerce between the States is one of the few powers of Congress actually enumerated. If the Supreme Court can find that the Commerce clause allows Congress to prevent a State from allowing private production of marijuana for personal medical use [1], it's hard to see how a State can effectively set emissions standards for automobiles across the Country. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- magicalist 7y ago
  > it's arguable that this has to be done through a Federal framework, and not at the State level. That doesn't follow. I'm not a 10th amendment fanatic and I think the commerce clause has been hugely important, but even I have a problem with the inversion that anything that can be regulated by the federal government must be regulated only by the federal government :) The Clean Air Act is statute, and by statute allowed for the California waivers. There's no constitutional argument that shouldn't be allowed.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Isn’t the Clean Air Act statute — itself an act of Congress — the Commerce Clause in action?
    - magicalist 7y ago
      > Isn’t the Clean Air Act statute — itself an act of Congress — the Commerce Clause in action? Yes, but the reason (from your OP) "a State can effectively set emissions standards" is because the Clean Air Act explicitly allows it to and allows other states to voluntarily follow suit.
      - 7y ago
cure 7y ago
This just feels so ... petty. Do republicans really want to destroy the environment at any cost? Do they really want dirty air and rivers that are on fire due to chemical pollution? I don't get it. Where's the rational thinking? There's not even an obvious motivation of greed here - the automobile industry doesn't want the emission regulations to be turned back (cf. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-emissions-antitrust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-califo...).
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  It’s the “any regulation is bad regulation” thoughts
  - stochastic_monk 7y ago
    No, that’s just the lie they sell it with.
  - Ozumandias 7y ago
    That's how it's sold. It's really payback-politics. Obama admin did this? Don't care what it is, revoke it.
- jgwil2 7y ago
  Even if they believe the economic benefits of loosening regulations to be a worthwhile tradeoff, I'm shocked that they don't seem to have any consideration for their political future and the damage they are doing to their brand among young people who overwhelmingly support increased environmental protections.
  - georgemcbay 7y ago
    Until young people actually start voting who gives a shit what they support? Not politicians. I don't say this because I like the current status quo, just because I recognize the reality of the situation. I wish young people (in the US, the country of my citizenship) would actually vote in significant numbers, but all the data says they just don't (yet).
losvedir 7y ago
I don't understand. Why is California not allowed to set whatever laws it wants? Is it, like, the "California exception" is being dropped from the Clean Air Act, but CA is free to pass an altogether separate, state law? Or is the federal government somehow saying that California is not allowed to pass a law legislating something about the environment? Or is it somehow like No Child Left Behind where technically the federal government can't control state schools, but in practice it can by setting requirements for how it hands out money? I just feel like I'm missing something here.
- function_seven 7y ago
  The Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the right deny states' the ability to set standards like this.
- trothamel 7y ago
  The US constitution says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." That means that when the federal government has jurisdiction, laws passed at the federal level preempt state laws that contradict them. I don't know where the EPA rules gain their constitutional authority, my guess is the commerce clause of the constitution. But fundamentally, what this means is that when the federal government passes a law, state laws that contradict it, are, according to the Supreme Court, "without effect". I'd imagine that occurs in a positive sense and negative sense - when something like a car that gets 40 miles to a gallon or a THC-filled vape becomes legal at the federal level, states aren't allowed to decide otherwise, without delegation from the government. NCLB is different because while the federal government can make laws, it can't force the states to implement those laws. While there could be a federal agency - like the classroom police - to enforce NCLB, it's easier to just bribe the states until they agree to comply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption
  - 7y ago
jedberg 7y ago
> while Mr. Trump is traveling in the state, where he is scheduled to attend fund-raisers in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley. On an unrelated side note, I was driving today and this absolutely massive plane was right over my head, almost just hanging in the air. From the underside I couldn't tell what color the top was, but I saw it had four engines and seemed to be heading straight for the local Air Force base. So apparently I saw Air Force One today. I think that's the first time I've seen it since Trump became President. The flight path is right outside my office window, so when Obama was President, it seemed to come on a much more regular basis.
- paulmd 7y ago
  "The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."
- rconti 7y ago
  It looks like any other 747 other than the colors. The big military cargo planes are far bigger. Which air force base?
  - jedberg 7y ago
    Yeah the big cargo planes are bigger, but since they are painted dark colors they hide their dimensions so they don't look as big. Also I'm not usually driving under the landing path. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffett_Federal_Airfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffett_Federal_Airfield I guess technically it's not a base but an airfield.
    - NikkiA 7y ago
      It's not a base because it'(wa)s a Station... NAS Sunnyvale (i guess the city lines between Mtn View and Sunnyvale were much different back then). It's one of those 'We don't use the terms that the [Army|Navy] use, goddamn it' things. * Edit: Apparently it was named Sunnyvale because 'Mountain View' had too much of a supposition that it might sound like something to crash into, lol.
munk-a 7y ago
"States are the laboratories of Democracy" was the line we've been sold to defend three week abortion bans, voter ID laws and other local BS. As soon as it's a left leaning law that justification apparently goes out the window.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  I urge you to look more closely at the specifics of the best arguments being made on either side and see if you hold that same view then.
padseeker 7y ago
"States rights" was always phony idealogical veil.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
blackflame7000 7y ago
Good, I just paid $4.75 a gallon. California should not have higher gas prices than Hawaii, period.
- kjksf 7y ago
  This will not affect gas prices. The argument is that this would make car prices higher. But so does building SUVs instead of smaller passenger cars like in Europe, so I'm not that sympathetic to that argument given that emissions also kill people, cause asthma and other issues and contribute to global warming. If anything, if Trump wins this fight, California might decide to use other means of achieving the same result, like taxing gas more.
  - blackflame7000 7y ago
    "This will not affect gas prices." - Flat out nonsense
    - philipkglass 7y ago
      Ceteris paribus, more stringent fuel economy requirements will reduce demand for gasoline without reducing supply. So in the simplest case one would indeed expect a change in gas prices -- downward.
      - blackflame7000 7y ago
        That’s completely asinine to think California alone can influence global gas prices. Typical progressive thinking looking at the world the way they you want it to be instead of the way it really is. BTW electric cars are still powered by a power plant which is massively inefficient because of transmission loss. There is no such thing, and there never will be, an emission-less car
- rz2k 7y ago
  Hawaii has higher prices than California[0], but I don't think there is any definitive reason that gasoline should be cheaper in Hawaii. Hawaii is surrounded by ocean on all sides. Many metropolitan areas in California are valleys facing an onshore wind. Vehicle emissions kill people in Hawaii, and they kill even more people in California. California produces more oil than Hawaii, but location or input prices in general are not the only determinant of energy prices. Take a look at some of the current gas prices around the world.[1] $/Gall - Country Average Price 0.34 - Cuba 1.08 - Iran 2.08 - Egypt 2.20 - Saudi Arabia 2.91 - US 3.72 - Australia 3.86 - Canada 4.05 - Mexico 5.42 - Spain 5.60 - New Zealand 5.80 - Germany 6.36 - France 6.55 - Italy 7.09 - Norway Compare Cuba, Iran, Italy and Norway. How about miles of paved roads to maintain [2] 180,800 - California 4,469 - Hawaii or the wear by millions of miles traveled on those roads?[3] 340,115 - California 10,635 - Hawaii Even if supplying gasoline to Hawaii is more expensive, and it has 1/20th the population of California to shoulder the costs of maintenance, there has a much smaller road network per capita to support, different air quality challenges, and less driving overall to discourage. [0] https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/ https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/ [1] https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/ https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/ [2] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/hm10.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/h... [3] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/vm2.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/v...
justnotworthit 7y ago
Note: Greenhouse emissions in USA, transportation is largest at 29%, followed by electricity 28% and industry 22% https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- microcolonel 7y ago
  DoT paints a more interesting picture: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/gas%20emissions%20from%20transportation.PNG https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/gas%20emi... Passenger cars and motorcycles, combined, saw between 1990 and 2006 an increase of 3% in carbon dioxide emissions in absolute terms. Over the same period of time, medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses saw their carbon dioxide emissions increase by 76% (!). Also notably, CO2 emitted by Aircraft decreased 5%, and Boats/Ships, Rail, "and Pipelines" (I'm not really sure of the mechanism for CO2 emissions from pipelines), decreased by 13%. I'd like to see more updated information, not sure why it's harder to come by, but it seems like there's more to it than passenger cars. The "Light-Duty Trucks" category is also hard to tease apart, because it inherently combines trucks used as passenger transport, and trucks used for utility.
  - vinaypai 7y ago
    > I'm not really sure of the mechanism for CO2 emissions from pipelines They aren't talking CO2 emissions per-se but greenhouse gas emissions in "CO2 equivalent". This is an important distinction because there are other greenhouse gases, most notable methane. My guess is the emissions from pipelines refers to methane leaking out of natural gas pipelines.
lovich 7y ago
How can the federal government limit the states ability to add stricter regulations? Is there a law explicitly saying that cars can pollute at a certain level? My understanding was that states can add stricter restrictions to any federal laws as long as there was no other law limiting how strict they can get
throwaway5752 7y ago
It's unconstitutional on its face, but the Supreme Court will uphold it. Sad times. Kid voting turnout could swing the election, and it's a major success for forces of evil that they've convince so many people of the "pox on both their houses" idea. I feel bad for young people, I'm glad I'll probably die before things get really bad.
- rando56473 7y ago
  I don’t agree that it’s unconstititional. (But, I do contend that it’s a foolish, regressive action for the administration to take.) The federal government clearly has constitutional power to establish preemptive law in this area. Whether that preemptive effect is conditionally or selectively waived, and whether the waiver involves executive discretion, doesn’t change the constitutional dimensions of the issue, in my opinion.
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    How do you reconcile it with the 10th amendment. Due to local effects of emissions it should be within state purview. The case (because this will reach the scotus) will be based the commerce clause, and that is nonsense because it is a critical health issue in smog prone areas. You can argue abstract about trends in commerce clause based decisions in the 20th century between wickburn and lopez, but my point is you can throw that out the window: there is a plausible argument that allows a conservative decision. Therefore, regardless of precedent, the decision will be made along partisan lines. If a Democratic president is elected in 2020, precedent will be summarily reversed. The conservative movement is completely comfortable with power and exercising it maximally.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    The argument that it is unconstitutional is not that the federal government lacks the power to make preemptive law, but that this specific action is not within the power delegated to the executive by Congress under Congress exercise of its power to legislate in this area.
rayiner 7y ago
I really don’t understand the states rights arguments. Congress’s authority to regulate in an area includes the power to preempt inconsistent state regulation. If Congress has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, it has the authority to preempt a particular state’s attempts to impose stronger regulations than the federal standard. If, by contrast, you think Congress can’t preempt California’s regulations, then it must follow that Congress cannot regulate vehicle emissions at all.
- human20190310 7y ago
  > If Congress has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, it has the authority to preempt a particular state’s attempts to impose stronger regulations than the federal standard. I don't see how one follows from the other. One is a regulation of emissions; the other is a regulation of a state's regulations. If California isn't permitting things that are prohibited by the national standard, then Congress should not be intervening.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The power to regulate an area is based on the subject matter, whether it qualifies as “interstate commerce,” not whether some conduct within that domain is permitted or not. It’s not a one-way ratchet where Congress sets a floor and states can ratchet it up if they want. Sometimes that’s what Congress wants to do, but other times it decides that some things should be unregulated beyond a certain threshold. That’s a function of the regulatory framework Congress chooses to enact, not what the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to do.
megaman821 7y ago
Can anyone chime in a what legal basis that the Supreme Court would rule for the Trump administration? It appears that the laws are not in conflict and automakers could easily comply with both sets of laws. Are dry counties illegal since there is a federal law allowing the sale of alcohol?
fiter 7y ago
> In recent months, the administration’s broader weakening of nationwide auto-emissions standards has become plagued with delays as staff members struggled to prepare adequate legal, technical or scientific justifications for the move. As a practical matter, I'd encourage them to work in the other direction: from justifications to policy. Do they need justifications for any legal reason or only for public relations?

113 points by el_benhameen 7y ago

More accurately: Trump will start a long legal battle with the goal of trying to end "California’s Authority to Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules."

badrequest 7y ago
My own feelings about Trump set aside, I can't imagine he'll prevail.
- Jare 7y ago
  Even so, think about the damage he will do along the way.
  - phil248 7y ago
    In this case, not much. The automakers don't want the rules to change and are extremely unlikely to start retooling factories since this is a temporary situation.
- jerf 7y ago
  On this exact matter, he probably would. Lawsuits telling the executive that they must use their discretion in a certain manner, thus essentially stripping them of that explicitly-written discretion, probably don't have a leg to stand on and only judicial activism can save them. It's a silly idea, considered philosophically rather than in the heated political moment. What you'll get is something like what OrangeMango said, where they use other methods to enforce their will other than a particular authority for the EPA to carve out exemptions to a particular law. They've got all sorts of other tools.
sifer 7y ago
This. I feel like anything else (given 2020 around the corner) is just sensationalist

OrangeMango 7y ago

California will just go with the nuclear option: Cost of registering a vehicle will be based on vehicle emissions.

bt848 7y ago
Yes, California has all the tools it needs to enforce their will. For example, they can establish mandatory weekly inspections for cars not meeting their standards. They can tax carbon fuels at $1000/ton. They can set the vehicle registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to arbitrary amounts.
- melling 7y ago
  Why not increase the gas tax and subsidize electric vehicles and charging stations? This will help EV’s get to the point where they’re cheaper.
  - bt848 7y ago
    I favor using the carbon tax to fund mass transportation, but we agree on the general idea: tax carbon, use money for better things.
  - soperj 7y ago
    Why not do the same and build way better public transportation, so that you don't spend your life waiting in traffic.
    - melling 7y ago
      We could do both. However, we’re probably only 10-15 years away from EV’s becoming cheaper than ICE. At that point, we could stop the subsidy. That’s about how long it takes to complete any mass transit project in the United States.
    - Johnny555 7y ago
      Yes, everyone sees EV's as the way our of our mess, but that's only part of the problem - EV's will help with emissions, but not congestion. And then there's the people that see self-driving cars as the way out of the congestion. But self-driving cars will make congestion worse, by making single occupancy vehicle trips cheaper and easier, shifting more people from transit to cars. But then each self-driving car doubles the number of trips, since instead of someone driving to work and parking, a self-driving car will drop them off at work then drive off to look for another passenger or parking outside of downtown, so 2 trips for one passenger.

intsunny 7y ago

State rights continue to be trampled upon...

human20190310 7y ago
Indeed. While France and Germany flex their local muscle against Facebook’s Libra currency, this is a step in the opposite direction for the US and its states.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > Indeed. While France and Germany flex their local muscle against Facebook’s Libra currency, this is a step in the opposite direction for the US and its states. Meanwhile Guy Verhofstadt goes to Britain to brag, unambiguously, about an intent to turn the EU into a unitary empire. The justification? "Everyone else is doing it!".

simplecomplex 7y ago

Car companies know the writing is on the wall with regards to pollution and EV. > The administration’s plans have been further complicated because major automakers have told the White House that they do not want such an aggressive rollback. In July, four automakers formalized their opposition to Mr. Trump’s plans by signing a deal with California to comply with tighter emissions standards if the broader rollback goes through

randomfool 7y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-emissions-antitrust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-califo... > The Justice Department has opened an antitrust inquiry into the four major automakers that struck a deal with California this year to reduce automobile emissions
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  > Now, the Justice Department is investigating whether the four automakers violated federal antitrust laws by reaching a deal with California, on the grounds that the agreement could potentially limit consumer choice, those people said. That makes no sense at all. “We will comply with stricter emissions control without government intervention, so we signed a deal with California to formalize it.” Where would better emissions control harm consumer choice?
  - rjf72 7y ago
    It kills the used market (as older vehicles are generally non-compliant) forcing consumers to buy at least relatively new vehicles.
    - bt848 7y ago
      That's not how these regulations work. There are no controls on the resale market in California. There is an emissions inspection regime but it's for SO2, not CO2.
    - 7y ago

jgwil2 7y ago

> California’s special right to set its own tailpipe pollution rules dates to the 1970 Clean Air Act, the landmark federal legislation designed to fight air pollution nationwide. The law granted California a waiver to set stricter rules of its own because the state already had clean air legislation in place before the landmark 1970 federal legislation. If the law granted California the waiver, why is the executive (rather than the legislature) allowed to revoke it?

bt848 7y ago
The law allows the EPA to grant the waiver. It doesn't require them to do it. Edit: pre-emptively nitpicking my own statement: the Act gives the EPA enumerated reasons to not grant the waivers.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  Does this lead to a constitutional crisis over the EPA's ability to govern? It seems like the Feds have a difficult time using interstate commerce as a justification for the EPA's authority. In this case, California isn't attempting to regulate industry outside of the state (it just happens to be so powerful as to have that side-effect). I feel like this is a move to destroy the EPA and make California pay the legal fees to do it.
  - bt848 7y ago
    Maybe? Anything that erodes the federal powers, up to and including dissolution of the union, is fine by me as long as such powers devolve to the states and the people. If you fear constitutional crisis then I suggest you brace yourself because Trump will never leave office willingly. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171631144414208000 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11716311444142080...
    - scarface74 7y ago
      “States Rights” historically haven’t been good for minorities in the south.... I really don’t want southern politicians to have more power.

zaroth 7y ago

Emissions standards should be tougher, the gas tax should be higher, ZEV credits should be larger, and yet still, it's arguable that this has to be done through a Federal framework, and not at the State level. The Constitution enumerates powers of the Federal government, the rest being reserved to the State, or to the People. For all the ways the enumerated powers have been stretched, Commerce between the States is one of the few powers of Congress actually enumerated. If the Supreme Court can find that the Commerce clause allows Congress to prevent a State from allowing private production of marijuana for personal medical use [1], it's hard to see how a State can effectively set emissions standards for automobiles across the Country. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

magicalist 7y ago
> it's arguable that this has to be done through a Federal framework, and not at the State level. That doesn't follow. I'm not a 10th amendment fanatic and I think the commerce clause has been hugely important, but even I have a problem with the inversion that anything that can be regulated by the federal government must be regulated only by the federal government :) The Clean Air Act is statute, and by statute allowed for the California waivers. There's no constitutional argument that shouldn't be allowed.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Isn’t the Clean Air Act statute — itself an act of Congress — the Commerce Clause in action?
  - magicalist 7y ago
    > Isn’t the Clean Air Act statute — itself an act of Congress — the Commerce Clause in action? Yes, but the reason (from your OP) "a State can effectively set emissions standards" is because the Clean Air Act explicitly allows it to and allows other states to voluntarily follow suit.
    - 7y ago

cure 7y ago

This just feels so ... petty. Do republicans really want to destroy the environment at any cost? Do they really want dirty air and rivers that are on fire due to chemical pollution? I don't get it. Where's the rational thinking? There's not even an obvious motivation of greed here - the automobile industry doesn't want the emission regulations to be turned back (cf. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-emissions-antitrust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-califo...).

colejohnson66 7y ago
It’s the “any regulation is bad regulation” thoughts
- stochastic_monk 7y ago
  No, that’s just the lie they sell it with.
- Ozumandias 7y ago
  That's how it's sold. It's really payback-politics. Obama admin did this? Don't care what it is, revoke it.
jgwil2 7y ago
Even if they believe the economic benefits of loosening regulations to be a worthwhile tradeoff, I'm shocked that they don't seem to have any consideration for their political future and the damage they are doing to their brand among young people who overwhelmingly support increased environmental protections.
- georgemcbay 7y ago
  Until young people actually start voting who gives a shit what they support? Not politicians. I don't say this because I like the current status quo, just because I recognize the reality of the situation. I wish young people (in the US, the country of my citizenship) would actually vote in significant numbers, but all the data says they just don't (yet).

losvedir 7y ago

I don't understand. Why is California not allowed to set whatever laws it wants? Is it, like, the "California exception" is being dropped from the Clean Air Act, but CA is free to pass an altogether separate, state law? Or is the federal government somehow saying that California is not allowed to pass a law legislating something about the environment? Or is it somehow like No Child Left Behind where technically the federal government can't control state schools, but in practice it can by setting requirements for how it hands out money? I just feel like I'm missing something here.

function_seven 7y ago
The Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the right deny states' the ability to set standards like this.
trothamel 7y ago
The US constitution says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." That means that when the federal government has jurisdiction, laws passed at the federal level preempt state laws that contradict them. I don't know where the EPA rules gain their constitutional authority, my guess is the commerce clause of the constitution. But fundamentally, what this means is that when the federal government passes a law, state laws that contradict it, are, according to the Supreme Court, "without effect". I'd imagine that occurs in a positive sense and negative sense - when something like a car that gets 40 miles to a gallon or a THC-filled vape becomes legal at the federal level, states aren't allowed to decide otherwise, without delegation from the government. NCLB is different because while the federal government can make laws, it can't force the states to implement those laws. While there could be a federal agency - like the classroom police - to enforce NCLB, it's easier to just bribe the states until they agree to comply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption
- 7y ago

jedberg 7y ago

> while Mr. Trump is traveling in the state, where he is scheduled to attend fund-raisers in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley. On an unrelated side note, I was driving today and this absolutely massive plane was right over my head, almost just hanging in the air. From the underside I couldn't tell what color the top was, but I saw it had four engines and seemed to be heading straight for the local Air Force base. So apparently I saw Air Force One today. I think that's the first time I've seen it since Trump became President. The flight path is right outside my office window, so when Obama was President, it seemed to come on a much more regular basis.

paulmd 7y ago
"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."
rconti 7y ago
It looks like any other 747 other than the colors. The big military cargo planes are far bigger. Which air force base?
- jedberg 7y ago
  Yeah the big cargo planes are bigger, but since they are painted dark colors they hide their dimensions so they don't look as big. Also I'm not usually driving under the landing path. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffett_Federal_Airfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffett_Federal_Airfield I guess technically it's not a base but an airfield.
  - NikkiA 7y ago
    It's not a base because it'(wa)s a Station... NAS Sunnyvale (i guess the city lines between Mtn View and Sunnyvale were much different back then). It's one of those 'We don't use the terms that the [Army|Navy] use, goddamn it' things. * Edit: Apparently it was named Sunnyvale because 'Mountain View' had too much of a supposition that it might sound like something to crash into, lol.

munk-a 7y ago

"States are the laboratories of Democracy" was the line we've been sold to defend three week abortion bans, voter ID laws and other local BS. As soon as it's a left leaning law that justification apparently goes out the window.

microcolonel 7y ago
I urge you to look more closely at the specifics of the best arguments being made on either side and see if you hold that same view then.

padseeker 7y ago

"States rights" was always phony idealogical veil.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

blackflame7000 7y ago

Good, I just paid $4.75 a gallon. California should not have higher gas prices than Hawaii, period.

kjksf 7y ago
This will not affect gas prices. The argument is that this would make car prices higher. But so does building SUVs instead of smaller passenger cars like in Europe, so I'm not that sympathetic to that argument given that emissions also kill people, cause asthma and other issues and contribute to global warming. If anything, if Trump wins this fight, California might decide to use other means of achieving the same result, like taxing gas more.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  "This will not affect gas prices." - Flat out nonsense
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    Ceteris paribus, more stringent fuel economy requirements will reduce demand for gasoline without reducing supply. So in the simplest case one would indeed expect a change in gas prices -- downward.
    - blackflame7000 7y ago
      That’s completely asinine to think California alone can influence global gas prices. Typical progressive thinking looking at the world the way they you want it to be instead of the way it really is. BTW electric cars are still powered by a power plant which is massively inefficient because of transmission loss. There is no such thing, and there never will be, an emission-less car
rz2k 7y ago
Hawaii has higher prices than California[0], but I don't think there is any definitive reason that gasoline should be cheaper in Hawaii. Hawaii is surrounded by ocean on all sides. Many metropolitan areas in California are valleys facing an onshore wind. Vehicle emissions kill people in Hawaii, and they kill even more people in California. California produces more oil than Hawaii, but location or input prices in general are not the only determinant of energy prices. Take a look at some of the current gas prices around the world.[1] $/Gall - Country Average Price 0.34 - Cuba 1.08 - Iran 2.08 - Egypt 2.20 - Saudi Arabia 2.91 - US 3.72 - Australia 3.86 - Canada 4.05 - Mexico 5.42 - Spain 5.60 - New Zealand 5.80 - Germany 6.36 - France 6.55 - Italy 7.09 - Norway Compare Cuba, Iran, Italy and Norway. How about miles of paved roads to maintain [2] 180,800 - California 4,469 - Hawaii or the wear by millions of miles traveled on those roads?[3] 340,115 - California 10,635 - Hawaii Even if supplying gasoline to Hawaii is more expensive, and it has 1/20th the population of California to shoulder the costs of maintenance, there has a much smaller road network per capita to support, different air quality challenges, and less driving overall to discourage. [0] https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/ https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/ [1] https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/ https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/ [2] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/hm10.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/h... [3] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/vm2.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/v...

justnotworthit 7y ago

Note: Greenhouse emissions in USA, transportation is largest at 29%, followed by electricity 28% and industry 22% https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

microcolonel 7y ago
DoT paints a more interesting picture: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/gas%20emissions%20from%20transportation.PNG https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/gas%20emi... Passenger cars and motorcycles, combined, saw between 1990 and 2006 an increase of 3% in carbon dioxide emissions in absolute terms. Over the same period of time, medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses saw their carbon dioxide emissions increase by 76% (!). Also notably, CO2 emitted by Aircraft decreased 5%, and Boats/Ships, Rail, "and Pipelines" (I'm not really sure of the mechanism for CO2 emissions from pipelines), decreased by 13%. I'd like to see more updated information, not sure why it's harder to come by, but it seems like there's more to it than passenger cars. The "Light-Duty Trucks" category is also hard to tease apart, because it inherently combines trucks used as passenger transport, and trucks used for utility.
- vinaypai 7y ago
  > I'm not really sure of the mechanism for CO2 emissions from pipelines They aren't talking CO2 emissions per-se but greenhouse gas emissions in "CO2 equivalent". This is an important distinction because there are other greenhouse gases, most notable methane. My guess is the emissions from pipelines refers to methane leaking out of natural gas pipelines.

lovich 7y ago

How can the federal government limit the states ability to add stricter regulations? Is there a law explicitly saying that cars can pollute at a certain level? My understanding was that states can add stricter restrictions to any federal laws as long as there was no other law limiting how strict they can get

throwaway5752 7y ago

It's unconstitutional on its face, but the Supreme Court will uphold it. Sad times. Kid voting turnout could swing the election, and it's a major success for forces of evil that they've convince so many people of the "pox on both their houses" idea. I feel bad for young people, I'm glad I'll probably die before things get really bad.

rando56473 7y ago
I don’t agree that it’s unconstititional. (But, I do contend that it’s a foolish, regressive action for the administration to take.) The federal government clearly has constitutional power to establish preemptive law in this area. Whether that preemptive effect is conditionally or selectively waived, and whether the waiver involves executive discretion, doesn’t change the constitutional dimensions of the issue, in my opinion.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  How do you reconcile it with the 10th amendment. Due to local effects of emissions it should be within state purview. The case (because this will reach the scotus) will be based the commerce clause, and that is nonsense because it is a critical health issue in smog prone areas. You can argue abstract about trends in commerce clause based decisions in the 20th century between wickburn and lopez, but my point is you can throw that out the window: there is a plausible argument that allows a conservative decision. Therefore, regardless of precedent, the decision will be made along partisan lines. If a Democratic president is elected in 2020, precedent will be summarily reversed. The conservative movement is completely comfortable with power and exercising it maximally.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  The argument that it is unconstitutional is not that the federal government lacks the power to make preemptive law, but that this specific action is not within the power delegated to the executive by Congress under Congress exercise of its power to legislate in this area.

rayiner 7y ago

I really don’t understand the states rights arguments. Congress’s authority to regulate in an area includes the power to preempt inconsistent state regulation. If Congress has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, it has the authority to preempt a particular state’s attempts to impose stronger regulations than the federal standard. If, by contrast, you think Congress can’t preempt California’s regulations, then it must follow that Congress cannot regulate vehicle emissions at all.

human20190310 7y ago
> If Congress has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, it has the authority to preempt a particular state’s attempts to impose stronger regulations than the federal standard. I don't see how one follows from the other. One is a regulation of emissions; the other is a regulation of a state's regulations. If California isn't permitting things that are prohibited by the national standard, then Congress should not be intervening.
- rayiner 7y ago
  The power to regulate an area is based on the subject matter, whether it qualifies as “interstate commerce,” not whether some conduct within that domain is permitted or not. It’s not a one-way ratchet where Congress sets a floor and states can ratchet it up if they want. Sometimes that’s what Congress wants to do, but other times it decides that some things should be unregulated beyond a certain threshold. That’s a function of the regulatory framework Congress chooses to enact, not what the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to do.

megaman821 7y ago

Can anyone chime in a what legal basis that the Supreme Court would rule for the Trump administration? It appears that the laws are not in conflict and automakers could easily comply with both sets of laws. Are dry counties illegal since there is a federal law allowing the sale of alcohol?

fiter 7y ago

> In recent months, the administration’s broader weakening of nationwide auto-emissions standards has become plagued with delays as staff members struggled to prepare adequate legal, technical or scientific justifications for the move. As a practical matter, I'd encourage them to work in the other direction: from justifications to policy. Do they need justifications for any legal reason or only for public relations?