6 ms·

California, other states sue EPA over revoking state emissions authority

46 points by perfunctory 7y ago

mindslight 7y ago
Is it time for the blue team to rediscover libertarianism yet? I do miss that aspect of the Bush II years. The general concept you're looking for here is "states' rights". I don't see what legal basis the EPA would have to nullify emissions standards of the individual states for cars registered there. But I also think Wickard v Filburn was a crock of power-agglomerating bullshit. Hypothetically, could the federal government declare murder legal and preempt state laws because they disrupt the commerce of contract killing?
- khuey 7y ago
  Wickard v Filburn isn't really relevant here because the Clean Air Act has a specific carveout for California.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    The need for that carveout is predicated on the assumption that the federal government has the power to regulate internal Californian activities in the first place.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - treeman79 7y ago
      Civil war settled that question.
- matthewdgreen 7y ago
  “States’ rights” has always been selectively enforced, and mainly exists as propaganda to justify specific policies to low-information voters. Before you laud the Bush administration on this, go look up their approach to enforcing Federal drug laws in states that legalized medical marijuana.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    "laud the Bush administration" ?!! You grossly misread my comment. I meant I miss having more political common ground with many friends, as it was when their concerns were on the receiving end of the out-of-control federal government. During the Bush years, with the wars/gitmo/patriot act they were reading up on Constitutional law and buying guns. During the Obama years they switched to explaining how pushing people to buy into the corporate health "insurance" racket was a good idea. I've come to the conclusion that the main function of voting is to make the winning voters think they asked for the ensuing policies.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  Murder is also a federal crime. You can be charged under state law or federal law or both. Not saying it's right, but it is what it is If there is going to be an EPA, then the 14th amendment asserts equal protection of the law. So, states with their own emissions regime are actually nullifying federal law and violating equal protection. The incorporation clause of the 14th amendment would also be in play. How far this goes appears to be a constant battle in the courts and legislatures. The EPA itself is on shaky ground, as there is no authority granted to the federal government to create an EPA. Relying on the commerce clause is pretty lame, and barely a fig leaf. Generally when interpreting a text, the most specific statement is determinative, not the least specific.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    I was talking about hypothetically if the federal government were to legalize murder, and was looking to push that ethic onto the states. > states with their own emissions regime are actually nullifying federal law and violating equal protection Erm, that does not make sense to me. What is legal is the intersection of the state and federal. If a state setting their own laws goes against "equal protection", then any concept of state sovereignty would be gone. Do you have any precedents backing up this line of thinking?
  - ReptileMan 7y ago
    The main problem with commerce clause is that in 2019 everything is interstate commerce.
    - tomohawk 7y ago
      The main problem with the commerce clause is that people don't know what it means, or rather, have conveniently changed its meaning. It gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Regulate, as in: make regular or normal. Commerce between the states was not normal, and was subject to tariffs and other restrictions. This clause removes the power to restrict interstate commerce from the states. It's not a license for congress to enact any law that they want. If it was, what's the point of the rest of the constitution?
llarsson 7y ago
Would allowing US car manufactures to stagnate w.r.t. fuel efficiency not just benefit their overseas alternatives? It seems to me that the more "keep America at the forefront" way to do this would be to demand much higher fuel efficiency, which requires expensive research that can only be done by huge and wealthy (US) companies. You know, like what California seems to literally try to do (with a huge nod toward Tesla, I am sure). California seems to essentially say that it is the law to buy high tech cars, which currently means American. Why give that away to the competition?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- H8crilA 7y ago
  Fuel efficiency is a joke in American cars, excessive regulation would destroy the industry there. In most other countries people rarely get engines with over 2.0l combustion volume, sometimes as low as 1.0l. Fuel in Europe is already 2x more expensive because of additional taxes, Europe is a decade or more ahead.
- masonic 7y ago
  Emissions reduction does not necessarily mean improved fuel efficiency. California's insistence on oxygenates, for example, limits some emissions while worsening others and overall reduces efficiency somewhat... and that's not even counting the environmental damage of MTBE.
dmode 7y ago
GM, Toyota, and Fiat Chrysler are actively fighting emission rules. I will be in the market to buy a car next month and will be actively avoiding these 3 brands
- kyrra 7y ago
  I believe how many of these emission rules are written is poorly done. They are effectively quota based that apply to the quota of a given car manufacturer. Which is actually leading car manufacturers to consolidate, removing choice. What's worse, emissions are not done holistically. They rate battery-powered car as effectively having zero emissions, which does not consider how you charge you car. There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car. I get the intent of these laws, but they are poorly done.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    > There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car. Good thing coal is declining in the US, and likely permanently so as renewables continue to become more cost effective.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Indeed! An EV gets cleaner as the grid gets cleaner, an internal combustion vehicle burns fuel its entire service life.
    - thematt 7y ago
      Coal is being replaced by natural gas, not renewables. A net benefit, but not a void being filled significantly by wind/solar yet. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38632 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38632
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
jdhn 7y ago
I'm not sure what the legal standing for this is. If the EPA can legally grant states the ability to set their own emissions, why can't it revoke it or roll it back?
- xxpor 7y ago
  It'd be more helpful to read the plaintiffs brief but one argument I'd guess they're making (as a non lawyer) is that the revolution was arbitrary and capricious under the administrative procedures act
- Alex3917 7y ago
  > If the EPA can legally grant states the ability to set their own emissions, why can't it revoke it or roll it back? The government isn't allowed to change policies they've already created unless there is a compelling reason to. Otherwise every government policy would completely change every two years after each election.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    What law requires this?
mikece 7y ago
What a poorly written story: phrasing this as “Trump versus California” is jingoism that risks obscuring a significant legal battle: states’ rights versus federal over-reach. Unless it can be argued that this is an interstate commerce case, this has to devolve to the rights of the States, under the 10th amendment, to make their own laws. Too often opponents of States’ rights throw out the canard that proponents of strong States rights want to being back slavery; maybe we just want clean air, the ability to legalize marijuana, pass own own gun laws, etc. The several states were supposed to be laboratories of democracy: if a state wants to ban internal combustion vehicles they should be allowed to do so.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  The Supreme Court has already decided that "interstate commerce" covers things that happen entirely within a single state. See Gonzales v. Raich.
  - mikece 7y ago
    The decision in “Gonzales v. Raich” was narrowly focused on the question of growing cannabis for in-state consumption (for medicinal purposes). Even Scalia broke from being a pure textualist to side with the government, specifically stating that the merits of that case in no way overturn U.S. vs Lopez and U.S. vs Morrison in which it was held that Congress exceeded its authority under the enumerated powers.

46 points by perfunctory 7y ago

Is it time for the blue team to rediscover libertarianism yet? I do miss that aspect of the Bush II years. The general concept you're looking for here is "states' rights". I don't see what legal basis the EPA would have to nullify emissions standards of the individual states for cars registered there. But I also think Wickard v Filburn was a crock of power-agglomerating bullshit. Hypothetically, could the federal government declare murder legal and preempt state laws because they disrupt the commerce of contract killing?

khuey 7y ago
Wickard v Filburn isn't really relevant here because the Clean Air Act has a specific carveout for California.
- mindslight 7y ago
  The need for that carveout is predicated on the assumption that the federal government has the power to regulate internal Californian activities in the first place.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - treeman79 7y ago
    Civil war settled that question.
matthewdgreen 7y ago
“States’ rights” has always been selectively enforced, and mainly exists as propaganda to justify specific policies to low-information voters. Before you laud the Bush administration on this, go look up their approach to enforcing Federal drug laws in states that legalized medical marijuana.
- mindslight 7y ago
  "laud the Bush administration" ?!! You grossly misread my comment. I meant I miss having more political common ground with many friends, as it was when their concerns were on the receiving end of the out-of-control federal government. During the Bush years, with the wars/gitmo/patriot act they were reading up on Constitutional law and buying guns. During the Obama years they switched to explaining how pushing people to buy into the corporate health "insurance" racket was a good idea. I've come to the conclusion that the main function of voting is to make the winning voters think they asked for the ensuing policies.
tomohawk 7y ago
Murder is also a federal crime. You can be charged under state law or federal law or both. Not saying it's right, but it is what it is If there is going to be an EPA, then the 14th amendment asserts equal protection of the law. So, states with their own emissions regime are actually nullifying federal law and violating equal protection. The incorporation clause of the 14th amendment would also be in play. How far this goes appears to be a constant battle in the courts and legislatures. The EPA itself is on shaky ground, as there is no authority granted to the federal government to create an EPA. Relying on the commerce clause is pretty lame, and barely a fig leaf. Generally when interpreting a text, the most specific statement is determinative, not the least specific.
- mindslight 7y ago
  I was talking about hypothetically if the federal government were to legalize murder, and was looking to push that ethic onto the states. > states with their own emissions regime are actually nullifying federal law and violating equal protection Erm, that does not make sense to me. What is legal is the intersection of the state and federal. If a state setting their own laws goes against "equal protection", then any concept of state sovereignty would be gone. Do you have any precedents backing up this line of thinking?
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  The main problem with commerce clause is that in 2019 everything is interstate commerce.
  - tomohawk 7y ago
    The main problem with the commerce clause is that people don't know what it means, or rather, have conveniently changed its meaning. It gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Regulate, as in: make regular or normal. Commerce between the states was not normal, and was subject to tariffs and other restrictions. This clause removes the power to restrict interstate commerce from the states. It's not a license for congress to enact any law that they want. If it was, what's the point of the rest of the constitution?

llarsson 7y ago

Would allowing US car manufactures to stagnate w.r.t. fuel efficiency not just benefit their overseas alternatives? It seems to me that the more "keep America at the forefront" way to do this would be to demand much higher fuel efficiency, which requires expensive research that can only be done by huge and wealthy (US) companies. You know, like what California seems to literally try to do (with a huge nod toward Tesla, I am sure). California seems to essentially say that it is the law to buy high tech cars, which currently means American. Why give that away to the competition?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
H8crilA 7y ago
Fuel efficiency is a joke in American cars, excessive regulation would destroy the industry there. In most other countries people rarely get engines with over 2.0l combustion volume, sometimes as low as 1.0l. Fuel in Europe is already 2x more expensive because of additional taxes, Europe is a decade or more ahead.
masonic 7y ago
Emissions reduction does not necessarily mean improved fuel efficiency. California's insistence on oxygenates, for example, limits some emissions while worsening others and overall reduces efficiency somewhat... and that's not even counting the environmental damage of MTBE.

dmode 7y ago

GM, Toyota, and Fiat Chrysler are actively fighting emission rules. I will be in the market to buy a car next month and will be actively avoiding these 3 brands

kyrra 7y ago
I believe how many of these emission rules are written is poorly done. They are effectively quota based that apply to the quota of a given car manufacturer. Which is actually leading car manufacturers to consolidate, removing choice. What's worse, emissions are not done holistically. They rate battery-powered car as effectively having zero emissions, which does not consider how you charge you car. There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car. I get the intent of these laws, but they are poorly done.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  > There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car. Good thing coal is declining in the US, and likely permanently so as renewables continue to become more cost effective.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Indeed! An EV gets cleaner as the grid gets cleaner, an internal combustion vehicle burns fuel its entire service life.
  - thematt 7y ago
    Coal is being replaced by natural gas, not renewables. A net benefit, but not a void being filled significantly by wind/solar yet. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38632 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38632
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

jdhn 7y ago

I'm not sure what the legal standing for this is. If the EPA can legally grant states the ability to set their own emissions, why can't it revoke it or roll it back?

xxpor 7y ago
It'd be more helpful to read the plaintiffs brief but one argument I'd guess they're making (as a non lawyer) is that the revolution was arbitrary and capricious under the administrative procedures act
Alex3917 7y ago
> If the EPA can legally grant states the ability to set their own emissions, why can't it revoke it or roll it back? The government isn't allowed to change policies they've already created unless there is a compelling reason to. Otherwise every government policy would completely change every two years after each election.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  What law requires this?

mikece 7y ago

What a poorly written story: phrasing this as “Trump versus California” is jingoism that risks obscuring a significant legal battle: states’ rights versus federal over-reach. Unless it can be argued that this is an interstate commerce case, this has to devolve to the rights of the States, under the 10th amendment, to make their own laws. Too often opponents of States’ rights throw out the canard that proponents of strong States rights want to being back slavery; maybe we just want clean air, the ability to legalize marijuana, pass own own gun laws, etc. The several states were supposed to be laboratories of democracy: if a state wants to ban internal combustion vehicles they should be allowed to do so.

crooked-v 7y ago
The Supreme Court has already decided that "interstate commerce" covers things that happen entirely within a single state. See Gonzales v. Raich.
- mikece 7y ago
  The decision in “Gonzales v. Raich” was narrowly focused on the question of growing cannabis for in-state consumption (for medicinal purposes). Even Scalia broke from being a pure textualist to side with the government, specifically stating that the merits of that case in no way overturn U.S. vs Lopez and U.S. vs Morrison in which it was held that Congress exceeded its authority under the enumerated powers.