3 ms·

You can thank Congress for that, not the EPA. They were the ones that required the agency by law to create the separate standards for “non-passenger vehicles” a

You can thank Congress for that, not the EPA. They were the ones that required the agency by law to create the separate standards for “non-passenger vehicles” and the weight classes, as well as the other loopholes that enable the shenanigans, like allowing medium passenger vehicles to classify as non-passenger.

hedora 2y ago
Now that chevron deference was eliminated (along with many other long-standing precedents), soon you’ll get to blame political appointees with lifetime positions!
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  Theoretically this would be a great opportunity for someone to take the EPA to court over this and have a chance of it actually having an effect, whereas before that was unimaginable. Of course it will require deep pockets, but a coalition of automakers could perhaps make it happen.
- Thorrez 2y ago
  Are you saying that the chevron deference elimination allows the courts to overrule congress? I don't think that's the case. I think the courts still can only overrule congress on constitutional issues, the same as before the chevron deference was eliminated.
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    the courts de-jure can't override Congress, but de-facto, the current court is very wind to read things in bizarre ways.
    - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
      But then so are the bureaucrats. Hence the ass-backwards emissions policy we have now. The different is courts are compelled to hear well-reasoned arguments from experts on both sides and adjudicate based on their analysis, whereas bureaucrats can and do turn a deaf ear to anyone that doesn’t toe the party line.
amluto 2y ago
The degree to which this is broken boggles the mind. The country has a strong interest in reducing fuel consumption and emissions, and the country also has an interest in vehicles being lighter. And the rules utterly fail at both. I don’t know what the right fix is, but completely abolishing CAFE and replacing it with a carbon tax might be a good start.

hedora 2y ago

Now that chevron deference was eliminated (along with many other long-standing precedents), soon you’ll get to blame political appointees with lifetime positions!

dumbo-octopus 2y ago
Theoretically this would be a great opportunity for someone to take the EPA to court over this and have a chance of it actually having an effect, whereas before that was unimaginable. Of course it will require deep pockets, but a coalition of automakers could perhaps make it happen.
Thorrez 2y ago
Are you saying that the chevron deference elimination allows the courts to overrule congress? I don't think that's the case. I think the courts still can only overrule congress on constitutional issues, the same as before the chevron deference was eliminated.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  the courts de-jure can't override Congress, but de-facto, the current court is very wind to read things in bizarre ways.
  - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
    But then so are the bureaucrats. Hence the ass-backwards emissions policy we have now. The different is courts are compelled to hear well-reasoned arguments from experts on both sides and adjudicate based on their analysis, whereas bureaucrats can and do turn a deaf ear to anyone that doesn’t toe the party line.

amluto 2y ago

The degree to which this is broken boggles the mind. The country has a strong interest in reducing fuel consumption and emissions, and the country also has an interest in vehicles being lighter. And the rules utterly fail at both. I don’t know what the right fix is, but completely abolishing CAFE and replacing it with a carbon tax might be a good start.