23 ms·

Trump strips California of power to set auto emission standards

87 points by teh_klev 7y ago

sq_ 7y ago
Aside from a petty desire to undo things done by the previous administration and attack California, I really don't understand this move by Trump and his administration. Any major car manufacturer will look at this with the knowledge that emissions standards will likely flip back either on a court challenge or when a new administration comes in, so why would they want to change up their whole design and assembly process? I guess the only good news is that it's unlikely that any manufacturer will actually regress and produce cars that hurt our planet more than current ones since they'll know it'd be a short term move that they'll have to undo later.
- bovermyer 7y ago
  I would venture a guess that Trump himself doesn't understand this move.
- SubiculumCode 7y ago
  Personally, I don't see why States don't have the right to regulate this as they see fit.
  - sq_ 7y ago
    I'd prefer that the federal government set a proper nationwide standard (match or beat CA's current standard?), but I do agree with you. You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this...
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this... When the Commerce clause was used to enable certain regulations on the sale and transfer of firearms, these same Californians argued for the power. If the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (which Americans have a protected right to keep and bear), then the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles (which Americans have no particular protected right to possess).
    - boring_twenties 7y ago
      > You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this... Not only has this train left the station, the station has been obliterated from the air. You'd think that all the free-market people would be up in arms about tariffs and an escalating trade war. You'd think that all the pro-gun people to be up in arms about the first President in history to implement a gun ban by executive order. (Or perhaps even about the candidate who said "take all the guns now, worry about due process later" well before the election.) You'd think that all the corrupt-Clintons people would raise an eyebrow as Trump pressures world leaders to meet at his personally owned properties, and accepts bizarre payments[0] from Saudi Arabia while coincidentally also being engaged in an effort to defend their gruesome murder of a US citizen. You might even think that all the "war on terror" as well as the "US out of Middle East" crowd to be somewhat concerned about a President who announces that the US "is waiting to hear from the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] as to how we should proceed." Whatever is going on here, it's far beyond any kind of simple hypocrisy or political compromises or whatever. People who have spent their entire lives behind slogans like "better dead than red," "pry it from my cold dead hands" and all that stuff have simply done a 180 degree turn on a dime. Now it's suddenly the other side who is unfairly demonizing Russia and the Saudis, and bump stocks are just toys that no one really needs, and whatever else. Despite my best efforts I am no closer to understanding why it's happening like this. The textbook explanations, like cults of personality, don't seem to apply here. But whatever it is it seems far more dangerous than the normal game of politics in the United States. And it would really behoove us to figure it out soon. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyist-paid-for-500-rooms-at-trumps-hotel-after-2016-election/2018/12/05/29603a64-f417-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyis...
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    Does the Federal Government have the right to regulate firearms through the Commerce clause? The Federal Government's powers to preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (somewhat separate from the right to keep and bear) are the same powers that enable them to preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles.
  - WalterSear 7y ago
    They did, provided they asked for a waver. Trump is undoing that.
- yokaze 7y ago
  The way I see it, it is mostly about motivating his base. Creating a negative feedback from the opposition rallies his base united against "the enemy" and has a larger reach and impact than whatever he does in the first place. That is impact on his support, anything else doesn't matter. If it fails in court, he will use _that_ to drum up his base. So it's not a failure in that context.
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  There is a valid reason based in dismantling regulatory capture. The California rules make it necessary for carmakers to produce multiple types of cars for different regions of the country, or just produce all cars based on California's costlier standards. Car prices are already raised due to the regulations. The big automakers support it because they've already built infrastructure for it and they have the resources to continue to pay for it. Small new competitors might not.
iron0013 7y ago
This seems like the political equivalent of "rolling coal". Damaging the nation's health and well-being purely to spite political opponents, with barely a fig leaf for rationale ("jobs" somehow, I guess, although of course that makes no real sense).
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  If I were president, knowing that I would certainly have my own chapter in the history books, I would spend at least some of my thoughts on how it would read. "President rootusrootus spent the entirety of his term in office attempting unsuccessfully to undo the legacy of the previous occupant." is not exactly what I would be going for. Tearing down a legacy is not the same as building one. I hope the adults are back in charge next time around. This was not a fun experiment.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    It's interesting to see populism take hold in real time. Growing up, I remember teachers and student asking, "well how did $HORRIBLE_LEADER even come into power." Now we know. Turns out it's ridiculously easy to get people to cut off their nose to spite their face.
    - rootusrootus 7y ago
      Someone recently made the observation that we should not describe people who did terrible things in the past as monsters, because it allows us to rationalize away our own action or inaction. "We could never do <whatever bad thing our ancestors did> because they were monsters and we are not." Better to keep in mind that they were very much human, just as we are, and take the history lesson as a warning. And we just got a shot across the bow.
      - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
        Hannah Arendt: The Banality of Evil ...which was extremely controversial when published, because people thought it was diminishing the Nazis' atrocities. I always felt your point to be the far more immediate lesson, apart from any argument of her view of Eichmann (that he was a paper-pushing bore as well as a mass murderer) simply being the correct one.
cryoshon 7y ago
why? what is the point of this? how does this benefit the country? climate change aside, i cannot imagine how someone could argue in favor of dirtier air when we already had a solution in place which addressed the issue somewhat. and yet, that's where we are. this change will make the air dirtier and cause cancer rates to rise. and for what?
- war1025 7y ago
  Aside from the fact that California has stricter standards than the EPA, what sense does it make for California to dictate automotive emissions for the nation? If you want stricter emissions standards, fine. But figure out how to do it through the federal government, and not via a side channel. Edit: Just wanted to note that I was pleasantly surprised to see people posting reasonable rebuttals and not just the normal "Republicans are evil" replies I've come to expect.
  - sq_ 7y ago
    > If you want stricter emissions standards, fine. But figure out how to do it through the federal government, and not via a side channel. I agree that it would be better if this was federal, but if the federal government cannot or will not implement good regulations, I'd rather states do it via a side channel than just leave the problem as it is.
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    California wasn't forcing anyone else to follow their rules. And this is a perfect example of federalism. California wants cleaner air than Florida, so it sets stricter standards. Which is fine, Florida doesn't have to follow. If the cost difference is enough to matter, Ford can create two catalytic converters, the California 'hypochondriac' model and the Florida 'lunger' model, and all will be as it should be.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Registered republican here. I actually disagree. This is not something that should be under federal purview. The states retain full sovereignty over their land and are under no obligation to 'figure out how to do it through the federal government'. California is and should be free to set whatever standards it pleases, regardless of how idiotic someone in Iowa or New York think they may be. Trump has violated states rights and deserves to be criticized for it.
mwsfc 7y ago
So far, the government seems to not have provided any legal justification for this move. Would love to hear input from someone with legal experience that can shed some light on how the appeals process may look and the reasons why one side may prevail over the other.
- DiffEq 7y ago
  This is rather simple; EPA is a part of the Executive Branch. He is the Chief Executive. So he can do these things. This is the way the government is set up under the Constitution of the U.S.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    I would argue that under the constitution the EPA is only there to enforce the rules congress sets up, but not make the rules. Thus Trump (the executive) cannot do this, only congress can. The above is not an argument that has seen much success though.
    - wang_li 7y ago
      Do you know that the reason California was able to set their own standards is because Congress passed a law and part of that law enabled the executive branch to grant waivers? This 100% is following the law as written by Congress. That being said, when you say "enforce the rules congress sets up", you are touching on an issue that many on the conservative side of the aisle frequently complain about, specifically that Congress often passes laws that leave enormous amounts of discretion to regulatory agencies. Sometimes literally saying "establish regulations that are meant to achieve X goal" and leaving the actual rules, that have the full force of law, up to bureaucrats to establish.
    - DiffEq 7y ago
      This is not how it works though. Congress created the EPA with a Mandate and the power to create more rules/regulations on it's own that carry the force of law. This makes it easier for them because in theory they get to pass a law and hand it over to what are supposed to be experts to carry out the purpose. But this creation of congress is governed by the Executive Branch; meaning they just ceded a bunch of power to the President. So that is why the EPA can do things on its own and also why the President can intervene in ways like this. This is the case for every piece of bureaucracy that congress creates.
busterarm 7y ago
I've seen so much misinformation and inaccurate reporting around this story and it's been quite frustrating. As I understand it, four auto manufacturers were working on stricter regulations with the State of California and nationally in separate negotiations. The deal the auto manufacturers were working on was for 46.5 mpg nationally and 50mpg in California. Then the State of California went their own way and decided that it would 54.5 mpg. The auto manufacturers flipped out and said that was way too aggressive and that they wouldn't be able to meet that target. The auto manufacturers themselves approached the administration to intervene in negotiations. This is the biggest part of the story that is not being reported. Then the Trump administration went way the other way and decided that California shouldn't be able to separately negotiate restrictions. The EPA wants control over this. It's literally "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" all around.
- nullc 7y ago
  Can you share some links? I spent a few minutes trying to figure out why the administration would do this without luck-- more information would be interesting.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a22654441/trumps-epa-proposes-to-lower-fuel-economy-rules-ending-separate-california-standards/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a22654441/trumps-epa-propo... Meat and potatoes in the "update" up top. This is essentially old news that is being restated without all of the facts because Trump is the devil. There's really no new information causing this story to blow up this week.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- slavapestov 7y ago
  Striving to lower emissions (CO2 as well as smog) is hardly "playing stupid games" though.
british_india 7y ago
Trump is just an asshole
briffle 7y ago
Will this have any affect? I understand that nobody wants to make cars they can't sell in the state with the largest car market. However there is nothing to stop California from indexing new car registration fees to some sort of measurement of MPG, pollution, etc. If they tack on HUGE fees to some of the worst offenders, wouldn't it have the same effect?
- gamblor956 7y ago
  However there is nothing to stop California from indexing new car registration fees to some sort of measurement of MPG, pollution, etc. If they tack on HUGE fees to some of the worst offenders, wouldn't it have the same effect? That's a great suggestion and actually one of the ones that has been tossed around in the Capitol if SCOTUS upholds Trump's decision, and possibly even if it doesn't.
  - jigglesniggle 7y ago
    If the fees are applied only against non-California cars then it is likely those fees will be held to violate the interstate commerce clause due to being de facto discriminatory. Not that I agree with the outcome in this case. The interstate commerce clause is a horrible abuse. But that is what it is.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      Agreed, which is why California would apply them to all cars sold in CA or brought into the state. Essentially, they would just be an extension of existing state vehicle registration fees.
      - jigglesniggle 7y ago
        The test for violation of the interstate commerce clause doesn't care about intent. So, quite interestingly, if car manufacturers hadn't decided to only target CA emissions standards they would have been able to bring suit against CA if creating two models of everything was too difficult. Would the solution of only creating one model and selling that have been a valid reason for a federal court to dismiss such a suit? I think it unlikely, as that would give CA de facto control over a huge amount of economic activity outside of its borders.
acchow 7y ago
Is California allowed to add a tax on vehicles for various emissions?
sam36 7y ago
As someone that owned a family auto shop, I welcome this change. The EPA set standards at a federal level (good standards I might add). Cali was given the power to require higher standards in the 1970's as the article mentions. In the 1970's and 1980's, a car made for the states vs. one headed for California might be quite a bit different, including a different motor with a different compression ratio and various "accessories" to reduce tail pipe emissions. Since the 1990's, there is not much difference between a car made for the states and one for California, usually if there is a difference it is in secondary air injection into the exhaust. Nowadays if a car is destined for California, the manufacture adds a small airpump which is activated only for a short period after engine start up to pump air into the exhaust. This adds oxygen to the exhaust and allows unburned hydrocarbons to burn just a bit more before exiting. This is only needed when engine temps are low however. So over all, not a big change. There are also rules to prevent tampering with the engine ECU. If one wants more performance, they can get a third party to flash the stock ECU firmware with a "hotter" one for more performance which usually requires more gas and higher ignition timing for the price of more pollution. Though one might also want their ECU tuned for nothing more than to change transmission shift points and firmness (so not for more pollution). But ECU flashing is expensive ($400+) and a few hot rodders aren't going to melt the icecaps. This is the way things were up until ~2010 or so before I left the market, perhaps things are different right now, but I doubt it (any remarks are welcomed)
RichardCA 7y ago
The thing I wonder about is whether this is for the auto industry or the fossil fuels lobby. California requires a type of gasoline that is only produced at a limited number of refineries at considerable expense. California cannot export or import gasoline from other states. If the EPA fuel efficiency rollback is successful the assumption would be that this regime could be dismantled. But I can't find any source with enough detail to be meaningful. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gasoline-manipulation-infobox-20150706-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gasoline-manipulation... (Note: Unlike NYT, LA Times links work just fine in incognito mode.)
75dvtwin 7y ago
I think President's Trump overall strategy here is: a) remove ability of states to set national policy on environment regulations b) pull the 'global warming discussion into the constitutional courts ( where it might (or might not) get cleansed from the claims that are impossible to confirm, or asks that impossible to implement constitutionally. I suspect the 54 Mpg average for a fleet, will specifically go into questioning from the above angles. c) get the courts, potentially rule on relative power and scope of Federal agencies (eg EPA vs NHTSA) (as before these kinds of things were set jointly). d) Conspicuously Remind California, that defecating on Federal laws about immigration, federal elections and other national/constitutional matters, will continue to have negative impact on their ability to get special treatment from Fed gov. --- This specific set of actions, and the ones that will be coming on this subject -- seems to be result of multi-year review that President Trump and his team are conducting on all of ex President Obama's admin 11th hour executive actions (there were a slew of them). [2] The letter [1] from automotive industry alliance, is asking this in 2016: ".... We urge EPA to reconsider imposing such a far-reaching mandate on entire industry without adequately considering the consequences, and without giving stakeholders a meaningful opportunity to comment. The MY 2022-2025 standards threaten to depress an industry that can ill afford spiraling regulatory costs. If left unchanged, those standards could cause upt to 1.1 million American to lose jobs due to lost vehicle sales. And low-income households would be hit hardest The Alliance is not asking EPA to make a different Final Determination at this time. All we are asking is that EPA withdraw the Final Determination and resume the midterm evaluation, in conjunction with NHTSA, consistent with the timetable embodied in EPA's own regulations. We believe that, if carried out as intended, the Midterm Evaluation can lead to an outcome that makes sense for all affected stakeholders and for society as a whole..." ...." By the way, personally..., this letter might have a merit, but reads a bit like the coal mining discussion (where coal mining owners and execs are warning about job losses in the industry ..... but mowing down whole mountains, and causing lung deceases is ok....) [1](https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Letter-to-EPA-Admin.-Pruitt-Feb.-21-2016-Signed.pdf https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Letter-t...) [2](https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-epa-mileage-standards-20170113-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-epa-mileage-standa...)
- dmode 7y ago
whenchamenia 7y ago
Good. This will enable cheapwr cara nationwide, if not worldwide. Hopefully reasonable federal standards will fill the gap quickly.
merricksb 7y ago
Other discussion about same topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870
HocusLocus 7y ago
Everyone in California continues to have the right to set their own auto emission standard. I don't see what the fuss is all about.

87 points by teh_klev 7y ago

sq_ 7y ago

Aside from a petty desire to undo things done by the previous administration and attack California, I really don't understand this move by Trump and his administration. Any major car manufacturer will look at this with the knowledge that emissions standards will likely flip back either on a court challenge or when a new administration comes in, so why would they want to change up their whole design and assembly process? I guess the only good news is that it's unlikely that any manufacturer will actually regress and produce cars that hurt our planet more than current ones since they'll know it'd be a short term move that they'll have to undo later.

bovermyer 7y ago
I would venture a guess that Trump himself doesn't understand this move.
SubiculumCode 7y ago
Personally, I don't see why States don't have the right to regulate this as they see fit.
- sq_ 7y ago
  I'd prefer that the federal government set a proper nationwide standard (match or beat CA's current standard?), but I do agree with you. You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this...
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this... When the Commerce clause was used to enable certain regulations on the sale and transfer of firearms, these same Californians argued for the power. If the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (which Americans have a protected right to keep and bear), then the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles (which Americans have no particular protected right to possess).
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    > You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this... Not only has this train left the station, the station has been obliterated from the air. You'd think that all the free-market people would be up in arms about tariffs and an escalating trade war. You'd think that all the pro-gun people to be up in arms about the first President in history to implement a gun ban by executive order. (Or perhaps even about the candidate who said "take all the guns now, worry about due process later" well before the election.) You'd think that all the corrupt-Clintons people would raise an eyebrow as Trump pressures world leaders to meet at his personally owned properties, and accepts bizarre payments[0] from Saudi Arabia while coincidentally also being engaged in an effort to defend their gruesome murder of a US citizen. You might even think that all the "war on terror" as well as the "US out of Middle East" crowd to be somewhat concerned about a President who announces that the US "is waiting to hear from the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] as to how we should proceed." Whatever is going on here, it's far beyond any kind of simple hypocrisy or political compromises or whatever. People who have spent their entire lives behind slogans like "better dead than red," "pry it from my cold dead hands" and all that stuff have simply done a 180 degree turn on a dime. Now it's suddenly the other side who is unfairly demonizing Russia and the Saudis, and bump stocks are just toys that no one really needs, and whatever else. Despite my best efforts I am no closer to understanding why it's happening like this. The textbook explanations, like cults of personality, don't seem to apply here. But whatever it is it seems far more dangerous than the normal game of politics in the United States. And it would really behoove us to figure it out soon. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyist-paid-for-500-rooms-at-trumps-hotel-after-2016-election/2018/12/05/29603a64-f417-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyis...
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Does the Federal Government have the right to regulate firearms through the Commerce clause? The Federal Government's powers to preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (somewhat separate from the right to keep and bear) are the same powers that enable them to preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles.
- WalterSear 7y ago
  They did, provided they asked for a waver. Trump is undoing that.
yokaze 7y ago
The way I see it, it is mostly about motivating his base. Creating a negative feedback from the opposition rallies his base united against "the enemy" and has a larger reach and impact than whatever he does in the first place. That is impact on his support, anything else doesn't matter. If it fails in court, he will use _that_ to drum up his base. So it's not a failure in that context.
drak0n1c 7y ago
There is a valid reason based in dismantling regulatory capture. The California rules make it necessary for carmakers to produce multiple types of cars for different regions of the country, or just produce all cars based on California's costlier standards. Car prices are already raised due to the regulations. The big automakers support it because they've already built infrastructure for it and they have the resources to continue to pay for it. Small new competitors might not.

iron0013 7y ago

This seems like the political equivalent of "rolling coal". Damaging the nation's health and well-being purely to spite political opponents, with barely a fig leaf for rationale ("jobs" somehow, I guess, although of course that makes no real sense).

rootusrootus 7y ago
If I were president, knowing that I would certainly have my own chapter in the history books, I would spend at least some of my thoughts on how it would read. "President rootusrootus spent the entirety of his term in office attempting unsuccessfully to undo the legacy of the previous occupant." is not exactly what I would be going for. Tearing down a legacy is not the same as building one. I hope the adults are back in charge next time around. This was not a fun experiment.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  It's interesting to see populism take hold in real time. Growing up, I remember teachers and student asking, "well how did $HORRIBLE_LEADER even come into power." Now we know. Turns out it's ridiculously easy to get people to cut off their nose to spite their face.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Someone recently made the observation that we should not describe people who did terrible things in the past as monsters, because it allows us to rationalize away our own action or inaction. "We could never do <whatever bad thing our ancestors did> because they were monsters and we are not." Better to keep in mind that they were very much human, just as we are, and take the history lesson as a warning. And we just got a shot across the bow.
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
      Hannah Arendt: The Banality of Evil ...which was extremely controversial when published, because people thought it was diminishing the Nazis' atrocities. I always felt your point to be the far more immediate lesson, apart from any argument of her view of Eichmann (that he was a paper-pushing bore as well as a mass murderer) simply being the correct one.

cryoshon 7y ago

why? what is the point of this? how does this benefit the country? climate change aside, i cannot imagine how someone could argue in favor of dirtier air when we already had a solution in place which addressed the issue somewhat. and yet, that's where we are. this change will make the air dirtier and cause cancer rates to rise. and for what?

war1025 7y ago
Aside from the fact that California has stricter standards than the EPA, what sense does it make for California to dictate automotive emissions for the nation? If you want stricter emissions standards, fine. But figure out how to do it through the federal government, and not via a side channel. Edit: Just wanted to note that I was pleasantly surprised to see people posting reasonable rebuttals and not just the normal "Republicans are evil" replies I've come to expect.
- sq_ 7y ago
  > If you want stricter emissions standards, fine. But figure out how to do it through the federal government, and not via a side channel. I agree that it would be better if this was federal, but if the federal government cannot or will not implement good regulations, I'd rather states do it via a side channel than just leave the problem as it is.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  California wasn't forcing anyone else to follow their rules. And this is a perfect example of federalism. California wants cleaner air than Florida, so it sets stricter standards. Which is fine, Florida doesn't have to follow. If the cost difference is enough to matter, Ford can create two catalytic converters, the California 'hypochondriac' model and the Florida 'lunger' model, and all will be as it should be.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Registered republican here. I actually disagree. This is not something that should be under federal purview. The states retain full sovereignty over their land and are under no obligation to 'figure out how to do it through the federal government'. California is and should be free to set whatever standards it pleases, regardless of how idiotic someone in Iowa or New York think they may be. Trump has violated states rights and deserves to be criticized for it.

mwsfc 7y ago

So far, the government seems to not have provided any legal justification for this move. Would love to hear input from someone with legal experience that can shed some light on how the appeals process may look and the reasons why one side may prevail over the other.

DiffEq 7y ago
This is rather simple; EPA is a part of the Executive Branch. He is the Chief Executive. So he can do these things. This is the way the government is set up under the Constitution of the U.S.
- bluGill 7y ago
  I would argue that under the constitution the EPA is only there to enforce the rules congress sets up, but not make the rules. Thus Trump (the executive) cannot do this, only congress can. The above is not an argument that has seen much success though.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    Do you know that the reason California was able to set their own standards is because Congress passed a law and part of that law enabled the executive branch to grant waivers? This 100% is following the law as written by Congress. That being said, when you say "enforce the rules congress sets up", you are touching on an issue that many on the conservative side of the aisle frequently complain about, specifically that Congress often passes laws that leave enormous amounts of discretion to regulatory agencies. Sometimes literally saying "establish regulations that are meant to achieve X goal" and leaving the actual rules, that have the full force of law, up to bureaucrats to establish.
  - DiffEq 7y ago
    This is not how it works though. Congress created the EPA with a Mandate and the power to create more rules/regulations on it's own that carry the force of law. This makes it easier for them because in theory they get to pass a law and hand it over to what are supposed to be experts to carry out the purpose. But this creation of congress is governed by the Executive Branch; meaning they just ceded a bunch of power to the President. So that is why the EPA can do things on its own and also why the President can intervene in ways like this. This is the case for every piece of bureaucracy that congress creates.

busterarm 7y ago

I've seen so much misinformation and inaccurate reporting around this story and it's been quite frustrating. As I understand it, four auto manufacturers were working on stricter regulations with the State of California and nationally in separate negotiations. The deal the auto manufacturers were working on was for 46.5 mpg nationally and 50mpg in California. Then the State of California went their own way and decided that it would 54.5 mpg. The auto manufacturers flipped out and said that was way too aggressive and that they wouldn't be able to meet that target. The auto manufacturers themselves approached the administration to intervene in negotiations. This is the biggest part of the story that is not being reported. Then the Trump administration went way the other way and decided that California shouldn't be able to separately negotiate restrictions. The EPA wants control over this. It's literally "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" all around.

nullc 7y ago
Can you share some links? I spent a few minutes trying to figure out why the administration would do this without luck-- more information would be interesting.
- busterarm 7y ago
  https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a22654441/trumps-epa-proposes-to-lower-fuel-economy-rules-ending-separate-california-standards/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a22654441/trumps-epa-propo... Meat and potatoes in the "update" up top. This is essentially old news that is being restated without all of the facts because Trump is the devil. There's really no new information causing this story to blow up this week.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
slavapestov 7y ago
Striving to lower emissions (CO2 as well as smog) is hardly "playing stupid games" though.

british_india 7y ago

Trump is just an asshole

briffle 7y ago

Will this have any affect? I understand that nobody wants to make cars they can't sell in the state with the largest car market. However there is nothing to stop California from indexing new car registration fees to some sort of measurement of MPG, pollution, etc. If they tack on HUGE fees to some of the worst offenders, wouldn't it have the same effect?

gamblor956 7y ago
However there is nothing to stop California from indexing new car registration fees to some sort of measurement of MPG, pollution, etc. If they tack on HUGE fees to some of the worst offenders, wouldn't it have the same effect? That's a great suggestion and actually one of the ones that has been tossed around in the Capitol if SCOTUS upholds Trump's decision, and possibly even if it doesn't.
- jigglesniggle 7y ago
  If the fees are applied only against non-California cars then it is likely those fees will be held to violate the interstate commerce clause due to being de facto discriminatory. Not that I agree with the outcome in this case. The interstate commerce clause is a horrible abuse. But that is what it is.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Agreed, which is why California would apply them to all cars sold in CA or brought into the state. Essentially, they would just be an extension of existing state vehicle registration fees.
    - jigglesniggle 7y ago
      The test for violation of the interstate commerce clause doesn't care about intent. So, quite interestingly, if car manufacturers hadn't decided to only target CA emissions standards they would have been able to bring suit against CA if creating two models of everything was too difficult. Would the solution of only creating one model and selling that have been a valid reason for a federal court to dismiss such a suit? I think it unlikely, as that would give CA de facto control over a huge amount of economic activity outside of its borders.

acchow 7y ago

Is California allowed to add a tax on vehicles for various emissions?

sam36 7y ago

As someone that owned a family auto shop, I welcome this change. The EPA set standards at a federal level (good standards I might add). Cali was given the power to require higher standards in the 1970's as the article mentions. In the 1970's and 1980's, a car made for the states vs. one headed for California might be quite a bit different, including a different motor with a different compression ratio and various "accessories" to reduce tail pipe emissions. Since the 1990's, there is not much difference between a car made for the states and one for California, usually if there is a difference it is in secondary air injection into the exhaust. Nowadays if a car is destined for California, the manufacture adds a small airpump which is activated only for a short period after engine start up to pump air into the exhaust. This adds oxygen to the exhaust and allows unburned hydrocarbons to burn just a bit more before exiting. This is only needed when engine temps are low however. So over all, not a big change. There are also rules to prevent tampering with the engine ECU. If one wants more performance, they can get a third party to flash the stock ECU firmware with a "hotter" one for more performance which usually requires more gas and higher ignition timing for the price of more pollution. Though one might also want their ECU tuned for nothing more than to change transmission shift points and firmness (so not for more pollution). But ECU flashing is expensive ($400+) and a few hot rodders aren't going to melt the icecaps. This is the way things were up until ~2010 or so before I left the market, perhaps things are different right now, but I doubt it (any remarks are welcomed)

RichardCA 7y ago

The thing I wonder about is whether this is for the auto industry or the fossil fuels lobby. California requires a type of gasoline that is only produced at a limited number of refineries at considerable expense. California cannot export or import gasoline from other states. If the EPA fuel efficiency rollback is successful the assumption would be that this regime could be dismantled. But I can't find any source with enough detail to be meaningful. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gasoline-manipulation-infobox-20150706-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gasoline-manipulation... (Note: Unlike NYT, LA Times links work just fine in incognito mode.)

75dvtwin 7y ago

I think President's Trump overall strategy here is: a) remove ability of states to set national policy on environment regulations b) pull the 'global warming discussion into the constitutional courts ( where it might (or might not) get cleansed from the claims that are impossible to confirm, or asks that impossible to implement constitutionally. I suspect the 54 Mpg average for a fleet, will specifically go into questioning from the above angles. c) get the courts, potentially rule on relative power and scope of Federal agencies (eg EPA vs NHTSA) (as before these kinds of things were set jointly). d) Conspicuously Remind California, that defecating on Federal laws about immigration, federal elections and other national/constitutional matters, will continue to have negative impact on their ability to get special treatment from Fed gov. --- This specific set of actions, and the ones that will be coming on this subject -- seems to be result of multi-year review that President Trump and his team are conducting on all of ex President Obama's admin 11th hour executive actions (there were a slew of them). [2] The letter [1] from automotive industry alliance, is asking this in 2016: ".... We urge EPA to reconsider imposing such a far-reaching mandate on entire industry without adequately considering the consequences, and without giving stakeholders a meaningful opportunity to comment. The MY 2022-2025 standards threaten to depress an industry that can ill afford spiraling regulatory costs. If left unchanged, those standards could cause upt to 1.1 million American to lose jobs due to lost vehicle sales. And low-income households would be hit hardest The Alliance is not asking EPA to make a different Final Determination at this time. All we are asking is that EPA withdraw the Final Determination and resume the midterm evaluation, in conjunction with NHTSA, consistent with the timetable embodied in EPA's own regulations. We believe that, if carried out as intended, the Midterm Evaluation can lead to an outcome that makes sense for all affected stakeholders and for society as a whole..." ...." By the way, personally..., this letter might have a merit, but reads a bit like the coal mining discussion (where coal mining owners and execs are warning about job losses in the industry ..... but mowing down whole mountains, and causing lung deceases is ok....) [1](https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Letter-to-EPA-Admin.-Pruitt-Feb.-21-2016-Signed.pdf https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Letter-t...) [2](https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-epa-mileage-standards-20170113-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-epa-mileage-standa...)

dmode 7y ago

whenchamenia 7y ago

Good. This will enable cheapwr cara nationwide, if not worldwide. Hopefully reasonable federal standards will fill the gap quickly.

merricksb 7y ago

Other discussion about same topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870

HocusLocus 7y ago

Everyone in California continues to have the right to set their own auto emission standard. I don't see what the fuss is all about.