18 ms·

California Promises to Fight EPA Plan on Car Standards

43 points by LinuxBender 7y ago

Analemma_ 7y ago
If California loses this fight, the next step is to just impose a 100% (or more) sales tax on any car that doesn't meet whatever standards it wants. Sales taxation is firmly established as state authority and the federal government could go pound sand.
- maxk42 7y ago
  People would just make the purchase out-of-state. They're already doing this to avoid steep sales taxes on cars. Some people even keep their vehicle registered out-of-state to avoid registration fees as well.
  - Analemma_ 7y ago
    I don't know about California, but in Washington state when you register a car that was previously registered in another state, you have to provide proof that you paid sales tax on it, and you have to pay a use tax if you can't do that. Presumably CA would just apply an identical use tax to cars purchased in any state without their standard. Now, sure, some people could dodge the system, but they don't really matter: the point is to make it inconvenient enough for automakers that they only produce vehicles meeting the CA standard.
    - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
      In Georgia it doesn't matter what taxes you paid in the state your moving from, you still must pay a title tax on the current market value of your vehicles.
    - Rebelgecko 7y ago
      It's similar in CA. If you register a car from out of state, California still gets a cut. And California typically doesn't let you register cars from elsewhere that don't meet CA emissions standards (aka cars that have an "EPA" sticker under the hood but not a "CARB" one)
      - nivenhuh 7y ago
        Not true. You can register cars purchased out of state, that are non-carb compliant. See exemptions page: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr29 https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast...
        Rebelgecko 7y ago
        Most of the exceptions are pretty big life events (divorce, death of a relative, military PCS). That why I said "typically" in my comment, it's not something you can really do at-will
    - tzs 7y ago
      > I don't know about California, but in Washington state when you register a car that was previously registered in another state, you have to provide proof that you paid sales tax on it, and you have to pay a use tax if you can't do that ...and if you DID pay sales tax on it, but the rate is lower than the Washington use tax, you have to pay the difference. Funny story about this. My Constitutional Law professor at the University of Washington School of Law had been at or near the top of his class at Harvard or Yale or whichever top law school he went to, then clerked at the Supreme Court. So he was pretty well versed in Constitutional law. Then he accepted the position at UW, hoped into his newly purchased car, and headed cross country to Seattle. Washington's sales/use tax was considerably higher than that of whatever state he came from...and when he was told he had to pay the difference, he was outraged, and was sure this had to be unconstitutional. He was quite surprised when he hit the UW law library to research this and found out that it was legal.
  - F147H34D 7y ago
    You need residency to register a car. Also, if you purchase a car out of state it doesn’t matter. The taxes get levied when you register it.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Like everything else that's done by state law it varies by state. Some states require you to register any car that is primarily used and stored in the state.
  - empath75 7y ago
    the fact that some people break laws does not imply that we should not have them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
trhway 7y ago
it is just genius - Trump is going to solve the CA homeless crisis by bringing smog back to make the CA cities streets impossible to stay at for any prolonged amount of time.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  six-dimensional chess at its highest levels.
kstrauser 7y ago
I could see it playing out like this: Obama, 2009: CA, you can keep setting your own standards. CA: Great! OK car companies, by 2025 we want you to hit these numbers. Car companies: Will do. Trump, 2019: JK. You only have to meet the federal standards. Some car companies: Awesome, thanks! Next president, 2020: What, that's insane. CA, you can keep setting your own standards. CA: Great. OK car companies, the 2025 targets are still in place. Some car companies: surprised pikachu I think any manufacturer who doesn't stick with California's standard, even if they're temporarily allowed to ignore it, is absolutely crazy. Higher standards seem absolutely inevitable, and I think it's corporate suicide to trust that the EPA will remained weakened and toothless.
- maerF0x0 7y ago
  Those who dont will have a cheaper car. This will either please investors (more profit) or help beat the competition in sales.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    It takes a lot more than 16 months to design a car.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - post_break 7y ago
      It takes a month to put together a software patch to limit the amount of regens a diesel engine has to do, or how much DEF it sprays into the exhaust. Suddenly the big three could have diesel trucks that perform 10% better on fuel economy because California isn't forcing EGR crap down their throats.
      - kstrauser 7y ago
        By EGR, you mean the technology that keeps California's air breathable. Yeah, it's more expensive to do business here, because we want to be able to, you know, not die from air pollution.
ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
I think it makes sense to limit how much impact one large state can have on the whole country. It sounds very much like California overstepping the government's authority to regulate interstate trade. I know people in this case will want to support California because this has to do with emission standards. But look no further than the countless items that now print "Known to California to cause cancer" for another impact. California is so large that it can practically dictate terms for the rest of the U.S. I do not believe that's a good thing, and I believe eventually there'll come a case that will make that abundantly clear, if it's not already.
- Alex3917 7y ago
  > It sounds very much like California overstepping the government's authority to regulate interstate trade. The federal government allows California to set their own standard, and allows any states who want to follow the California standard. How exactly is that overstepping?
  - post_break 7y ago
    Because California knows that if it forces any car maker to make a car only for California emissions the cost of making any car will go way up. California would roll it back in an instant and start suing if all the manufacturers said ok, fine, none of our cars work for california, no cars for you.
    - wereHamster 7y ago
      There will always be other manufactures willing to build and sell cars that are legal in California. > … the cost of making any car will go way up. Citation needed.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        Citation needed. [1] It's always cheaper to build two of the same thing than two different things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
codezero 7y ago
I wonder if this has real case law behind it. I’m not a lawyer but have done a bunch of HIPAA training and one of the key elements of that federal program is that where states are more restrictive with privacy and security, this takes precedence. More restrictive emissions laws are to protect individuals and task corporations to be better, so it seems good to let states enact their own more restrictive rules.
- F147H34D 7y ago
  That’s the idea behind Federal vs. State government. The States are suppose to be able to regulate how they see fit as long as it meets the federal minimum. So yes, I think the same would apply to this scenario.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Interstate commerce belongs to congress (Not the president!). Congress has allowed California to ban registration of cars that do not meet their emissions standards (other states are allows to take California's standards, but are not allowed to make their own). California can constitutionally create their own standards for cars made or sold in California, but because they are part of the US they have to register a car you bought in any other state which means their standards hurt local dealers. Note that there has always been an exception to the rules: if you are out of state and your car it totaled you can buy a new non-California car and register it in California.
- jigglesniggle 7y ago
  There is an example I am aware of that was in my history book (but that I am having trouble finding now). States would set conflicting sizes for tractor trailer mudflaps in what seemed to be a de facto attempt to regulate trade between states. This was found to be a violation of the interstate commerce clause. The actions California takes may be considered similar, especially (as someone below mentioned) if previously acceptable cars are not grandfathered in. There is also probably a good case to be made if California law has an effect, intended or not, on non-Californian states. There is also a federal rule (good faith and something) that states must, in general, recognize the licenses of other states (marriage, drivers, etc; but notably not concealed carry, which I think will be tested again). Personally, on the one hand I am for states rights and the environment and very much do not like how the interstate commerce clause is used. On the other, a lack of agreeable regulation is detrimental to the states (and having one state force that regulation does not seem fair).
youeseh 7y ago
How much does this matter if automakers are putting out electric cars and trucks that are more reliable than their gasoline cousins? People will buy the vehicle that provides the best value, won't they?
- joshualross 7y ago
  Any drop in gas prices is typically followed by an increase in purchases of gas inefficient vehicles.
dantheman 7y ago
This is just one of many examples of congress delegating it's law making duty to the executive -- normally so it can avoid any responsibility for it's actions. If the policy is not popular they blame the executive, the policy is successful they point to their delegation of power. Hopefully, we'll see congress take back the reigns more and if anything delegate things to the states and instead of the executive. The common excuse is that the expertise lies in the executive so they should control the rules. This can be easily answered by allowing the executive to draft the rules, but to have congress involved whenever they're changed.
merricksb 7y ago
Two related discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870

43 points by LinuxBender 7y ago

If California loses this fight, the next step is to just impose a 100% (or more) sales tax on any car that doesn't meet whatever standards it wants. Sales taxation is firmly established as state authority and the federal government could go pound sand.

maxk42 7y ago
People would just make the purchase out-of-state. They're already doing this to avoid steep sales taxes on cars. Some people even keep their vehicle registered out-of-state to avoid registration fees as well.
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  I don't know about California, but in Washington state when you register a car that was previously registered in another state, you have to provide proof that you paid sales tax on it, and you have to pay a use tax if you can't do that. Presumably CA would just apply an identical use tax to cars purchased in any state without their standard. Now, sure, some people could dodge the system, but they don't really matter: the point is to make it inconvenient enough for automakers that they only produce vehicles meeting the CA standard.
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    In Georgia it doesn't matter what taxes you paid in the state your moving from, you still must pay a title tax on the current market value of your vehicles.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    It's similar in CA. If you register a car from out of state, California still gets a cut. And California typically doesn't let you register cars from elsewhere that don't meet CA emissions standards (aka cars that have an "EPA" sticker under the hood but not a "CARB" one)
    - nivenhuh 7y ago
      Not true. You can register cars purchased out of state, that are non-carb compliant. See exemptions page: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr29 https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast...
      - Rebelgecko 7y ago
        Most of the exceptions are pretty big life events (divorce, death of a relative, military PCS). That why I said "typically" in my comment, it's not something you can really do at-will
  - tzs 7y ago
    > I don't know about California, but in Washington state when you register a car that was previously registered in another state, you have to provide proof that you paid sales tax on it, and you have to pay a use tax if you can't do that ...and if you DID pay sales tax on it, but the rate is lower than the Washington use tax, you have to pay the difference. Funny story about this. My Constitutional Law professor at the University of Washington School of Law had been at or near the top of his class at Harvard or Yale or whichever top law school he went to, then clerked at the Supreme Court. So he was pretty well versed in Constitutional law. Then he accepted the position at UW, hoped into his newly purchased car, and headed cross country to Seattle. Washington's sales/use tax was considerably higher than that of whatever state he came from...and when he was told he had to pay the difference, he was outraged, and was sure this had to be unconstitutional. He was quite surprised when he hit the UW law library to research this and found out that it was legal.
- F147H34D 7y ago
  You need residency to register a car. Also, if you purchase a car out of state it doesn’t matter. The taxes get levied when you register it.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Like everything else that's done by state law it varies by state. Some states require you to register any car that is primarily used and stored in the state.
- empath75 7y ago
  the fact that some people break laws does not imply that we should not have them.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

trhway 7y ago

it is just genius - Trump is going to solve the CA homeless crisis by bringing smog back to make the CA cities streets impossible to stay at for any prolonged amount of time.

aidenn0 7y ago
six-dimensional chess at its highest levels.

kstrauser 7y ago

I could see it playing out like this: Obama, 2009: CA, you can keep setting your own standards. CA: Great! OK car companies, by 2025 we want you to hit these numbers. Car companies: Will do. Trump, 2019: JK. You only have to meet the federal standards. Some car companies: Awesome, thanks! Next president, 2020: What, that's insane. CA, you can keep setting your own standards. CA: Great. OK car companies, the 2025 targets are still in place. Some car companies: surprised pikachu I think any manufacturer who doesn't stick with California's standard, even if they're temporarily allowed to ignore it, is absolutely crazy. Higher standards seem absolutely inevitable, and I think it's corporate suicide to trust that the EPA will remained weakened and toothless.

maerF0x0 7y ago
Those who dont will have a cheaper car. This will either please investors (more profit) or help beat the competition in sales.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  It takes a lot more than 16 months to design a car.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - post_break 7y ago
    It takes a month to put together a software patch to limit the amount of regens a diesel engine has to do, or how much DEF it sprays into the exhaust. Suddenly the big three could have diesel trucks that perform 10% better on fuel economy because California isn't forcing EGR crap down their throats.
    - kstrauser 7y ago
      By EGR, you mean the technology that keeps California's air breathable. Yeah, it's more expensive to do business here, because we want to be able to, you know, not die from air pollution.

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago

I think it makes sense to limit how much impact one large state can have on the whole country. It sounds very much like California overstepping the government's authority to regulate interstate trade. I know people in this case will want to support California because this has to do with emission standards. But look no further than the countless items that now print "Known to California to cause cancer" for another impact. California is so large that it can practically dictate terms for the rest of the U.S. I do not believe that's a good thing, and I believe eventually there'll come a case that will make that abundantly clear, if it's not already.

Alex3917 7y ago
> It sounds very much like California overstepping the government's authority to regulate interstate trade. The federal government allows California to set their own standard, and allows any states who want to follow the California standard. How exactly is that overstepping?
- post_break 7y ago
  Because California knows that if it forces any car maker to make a car only for California emissions the cost of making any car will go way up. California would roll it back in an instant and start suing if all the manufacturers said ok, fine, none of our cars work for california, no cars for you.
  - wereHamster 7y ago
    There will always be other manufactures willing to build and sell cars that are legal in California. > … the cost of making any car will go way up. Citation needed.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Citation needed. [1] It's always cheaper to build two of the same thing than two different things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

codezero 7y ago

I wonder if this has real case law behind it. I’m not a lawyer but have done a bunch of HIPAA training and one of the key elements of that federal program is that where states are more restrictive with privacy and security, this takes precedence. More restrictive emissions laws are to protect individuals and task corporations to be better, so it seems good to let states enact their own more restrictive rules.

F147H34D 7y ago
That’s the idea behind Federal vs. State government. The States are suppose to be able to regulate how they see fit as long as it meets the federal minimum. So yes, I think the same would apply to this scenario.
bluGill 7y ago
Interstate commerce belongs to congress (Not the president!). Congress has allowed California to ban registration of cars that do not meet their emissions standards (other states are allows to take California's standards, but are not allowed to make their own). California can constitutionally create their own standards for cars made or sold in California, but because they are part of the US they have to register a car you bought in any other state which means their standards hurt local dealers. Note that there has always been an exception to the rules: if you are out of state and your car it totaled you can buy a new non-California car and register it in California.
jigglesniggle 7y ago
There is an example I am aware of that was in my history book (but that I am having trouble finding now). States would set conflicting sizes for tractor trailer mudflaps in what seemed to be a de facto attempt to regulate trade between states. This was found to be a violation of the interstate commerce clause. The actions California takes may be considered similar, especially (as someone below mentioned) if previously acceptable cars are not grandfathered in. There is also probably a good case to be made if California law has an effect, intended or not, on non-Californian states. There is also a federal rule (good faith and something) that states must, in general, recognize the licenses of other states (marriage, drivers, etc; but notably not concealed carry, which I think will be tested again). Personally, on the one hand I am for states rights and the environment and very much do not like how the interstate commerce clause is used. On the other, a lack of agreeable regulation is detrimental to the states (and having one state force that regulation does not seem fair).

youeseh 7y ago

How much does this matter if automakers are putting out electric cars and trucks that are more reliable than their gasoline cousins? People will buy the vehicle that provides the best value, won't they?

joshualross 7y ago
Any drop in gas prices is typically followed by an increase in purchases of gas inefficient vehicles.

dantheman 7y ago

This is just one of many examples of congress delegating it's law making duty to the executive -- normally so it can avoid any responsibility for it's actions. If the policy is not popular they blame the executive, the policy is successful they point to their delegation of power. Hopefully, we'll see congress take back the reigns more and if anything delegate things to the states and instead of the executive. The common excuse is that the expertise lies in the executive so they should control the rules. This can be easily answered by allowing the executive to draft the rules, but to have congress involved whenever they're changed.

merricksb 7y ago

Two related discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870