Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate
https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/23/trump-is-going-after-californias-clean-car-mandate/
140 comments
First: you literally do not know what you're talking about here. There's no Commerce Clause issue, because California's waivers to continue developing stricter standards, and the option for other states to adopt those standards instead of the federal ones, do not present a Commerce Clause issue: Congress has explicitly enacted into federal statute the permission for all of this.
Second: you still don't know what you're talking about, because even if there weren't federal statute explicitly covering this, California's rules apply to cars sold in California. SCOTUS has never reliably pushed far enough into expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence to be able to strike that sort of thing down, and never ever will (hint: because doing so would create a legal precedent for federal gun control to pre-empt more-permissive state-level gun laws, something the Court's conservatives will never allow a hint of a possibility of a thought of an option of a shadow of a consideration of...).
Third: cherry-picking Commerce Clause cases is a really bad way to make an argument. SCOTUS has been all over the damn place on the Commerce Clause at different points in US history, and you can ultimately find a Commerce Clause case to justify basically anything you want to say, which is why any given example tends to be pretty meaningless as an argument.
Second: you still don't know what you're talking about, because even if there weren't federal statute explicitly covering this, California's rules apply to cars sold in California. SCOTUS has never reliably pushed far enough into expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence to be able to strike that sort of thing down, and never ever will (hint: because doing so would create a legal precedent for federal gun control to pre-empt more-permissive state-level gun laws, something the Court's conservatives will never allow a hint of a possibility of a thought of an option of a shadow of a consideration of...).
Third: cherry-picking Commerce Clause cases is a really bad way to make an argument. SCOTUS has been all over the damn place on the Commerce Clause at different points in US history, and you can ultimately find a Commerce Clause case to justify basically anything you want to say, which is why any given example tends to be pretty meaningless as an argument.
This was from the famous Stitch in Time that Saved Nine. Since the US Constitution does not put a limit on the number of Supreme Court justices, FDR threatened to increase the number and stack the court in his favor if they did not rule in his favor.
Given my understanding of how lower courts work on case law, this set a whole bunch of biased precedents from this one ruling. The ability of California to set good environmental law could still prevail if they could get a ruling using some other way like the 10th amendment.
Given my understanding of how lower courts work on case law, this set a whole bunch of biased precedents from this one ruling. The ability of California to set good environmental law could still prevail if they could get a ruling using some other way like the 10th amendment.
Commerce Clause jurisprudence is all over the place. For any given Commerce Clause case you pick as your example of how it's "gone too far this time!" (or "not gone too far enough!"), there'll be another one you can pick that's exactly the opposite.
Even the same general panel of judges will about-face on it sometimes.
Even the same general panel of judges will about-face on it sometimes.
Yes, but hilariously, the right-wing justices appointed by him and other right wing presidents are recently pushing back against the breadth of the commerce clause; see http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/... for example on one such example.
Congress would need to repeal the relevant portions of the CAFE laws, which specifically allow CARB to propose their own standards.
> The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions
I see the government is familiar with interaction-free measurements of quantum systems.
But seriously, it sounds like people will "interpret" anything in any way that is most convenient to them. I almost wish we had a formal system of language so these sorts of things would not occur. Of course, then we would have bugs in that system that would miss important edge cases...
I see the government is familiar with interaction-free measurements of quantum systems.
But seriously, it sounds like people will "interpret" anything in any way that is most convenient to them. I almost wish we had a formal system of language so these sorts of things would not occur. Of course, then we would have bugs in that system that would miss important edge cases...
> I almost wish we had a formal system of language
You mean "legalese"? The language used in law is very specific and nuanced. I enjoy how similar it is to programming, where a bug in the source language can be exploited, much how imperfections in legal documents can be used as a loophole.
I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents. If developed in the open, any lawyer could theoretically contribute and help avoid loopholes for everyone. In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts that are easy for all parties to understand.
You mean "legalese"? The language used in law is very specific and nuanced. I enjoy how similar it is to programming, where a bug in the source language can be exploited, much how imperfections in legal documents can be used as a loophole.
I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents. If developed in the open, any lawyer could theoretically contribute and help avoid loopholes for everyone. In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts that are easy for all parties to understand.
> In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts
You mean similar to how, in theory, we could build a framework that makes it easy for us all to write readable, bug-free code?
Edit: I was mostly being tongue in cheek, but I also recognize that this is about provably correct code à la Coq, etc. That'd be cool for sure. :)
You mean similar to how, in theory, we could build a framework that makes it easy for us all to write readable, bug-free code?
Edit: I was mostly being tongue in cheek, but I also recognize that this is about provably correct code à la Coq, etc. That'd be cool for sure. :)
Maybe more similar to strongly typed languages vs weakly typed languages rather than frameworks. Static types, linters, virus scanners, etc.
>I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents
I think that's what Meng Wong's startup 'legalese.com' is for: https://legalese.com/
He gave a talk about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGqifLBsy8
I think that's what Meng Wong's startup 'legalese.com' is for: https://legalese.com/
He gave a talk about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGqifLBsy8
> You mean "legalese"?
No, more so something that could be verified using an interactive theorem prover; e.g., Coq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq).
All lawsuits would then consist of running a computer program against the legal "code".
No, more so something that could be verified using an interactive theorem prover; e.g., Coq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq).
All lawsuits would then consist of running a computer program against the legal "code".
Fortunately in software we can patch in a matter of moments.
Unfortunately bugs written in legalese tend to take years or decades to patch.
Unfortunately bugs written in legalese tend to take years or decades to patch.
What would fuel efficiency standards look like under a strict interpretation of the commerce clause?
There was another comment claiming this is what happened last month, and there was a rebuttal saying that this interpretation of the case is wrong.
See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17396635
See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17396635
That wouldn't be the issue here. The question is not whether the federal government gets to set standards at all under the Commerce Clause.
Instead, the issue here would be whether the Act of Congress that specifically governs air efficiency standards gives any quarter to this administration's laughable potential reasoning for not granting a waiver that the law dictates must be granted by the EPA Administrator to allow any state to exceed the federal standard.
Instead, the issue here would be whether the Act of Congress that specifically governs air efficiency standards gives any quarter to this administration's laughable potential reasoning for not granting a waiver that the law dictates must be granted by the EPA Administrator to allow any state to exceed the federal standard.
> This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something like this through
That is not the strategy the Trump administration is using, according to the article. California is regulating emissions under a 2009 waiver granted by EPA. The administration is seeking to revoke that waiver.
That is not the strategy the Trump administration is using, according to the article. California is regulating emissions under a 2009 waiver granted by EPA. The administration is seeking to revoke that waiver.
The federal Clean Air Act states the EPA shall grant California the waiver unless California fails to meet certain conditions. The EPA (and by extension the head of the EPA, and the head of the EPA's boss who happens to be a President who hates California) does not possess the power, under the Act, to deny the waiver on a whim.
I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate commerce.
Such a business, when it makes a choice to not execute a sale that it would have had an opportunity to execute, has “mens rea” for that act’s effects on interstate commerce—because such companies keep track of such things, and their decisions are driven by such metrics.
It’s just like insider trading: not executing a trade that would have otherwise (i.e. given only public knowledge) been in your best interests to execute, where you didn’t execute it because of corporate-internal knowledge, is still just as illegal as the reverse. In either case, since it’s your job as a trader to be aware of the effects of both executing and not executing trades, either “act” can be said to be the result of an explicit, intentional choice you made.
(Of course, that’s different from just not executing a trade that you would have had no particular reason to execute. You can’t blame someone for insider trading just because they don’t short a stock, if they don’t already have a pattern of shorting stocks!)
In all such cases, the guilty party is a more abstract type of actor than an individual (e.g. a corporation; an accredited investor) and their guilt is driven by the fact that such actors behave predictably according to some preference function, such that it’s clear where such actors act against that preference function both through explicit action; and through inaction.
Or, as a formalism: when it’s 100% of your job, as an agent in a system, to decide whether to make deals, then a lack of a deal, together with evidence that you considered the deal, can be regarded as an explicit choice you’ve made to not make that deal.
Such a business, when it makes a choice to not execute a sale that it would have had an opportunity to execute, has “mens rea” for that act’s effects on interstate commerce—because such companies keep track of such things, and their decisions are driven by such metrics.
It’s just like insider trading: not executing a trade that would have otherwise (i.e. given only public knowledge) been in your best interests to execute, where you didn’t execute it because of corporate-internal knowledge, is still just as illegal as the reverse. In either case, since it’s your job as a trader to be aware of the effects of both executing and not executing trades, either “act” can be said to be the result of an explicit, intentional choice you made.
(Of course, that’s different from just not executing a trade that you would have had no particular reason to execute. You can’t blame someone for insider trading just because they don’t short a stock, if they don’t already have a pattern of shorting stocks!)
In all such cases, the guilty party is a more abstract type of actor than an individual (e.g. a corporation; an accredited investor) and their guilt is driven by the fact that such actors behave predictably according to some preference function, such that it’s clear where such actors act against that preference function both through explicit action; and through inaction.
Or, as a formalism: when it’s 100% of your job, as an agent in a system, to decide whether to make deals, then a lack of a deal, together with evidence that you considered the deal, can be regarded as an explicit choice you’ve made to not make that deal.
> I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate commerce.
Are you sure about that? I don't know that much about the law, but I've always heard of this case specifically because the excess wheat he was producing was for his own consumption.
Wiki seems to agree with this, not mentioning anything about his having a business that I see (although I only skimmed the article and may have missed something).
Are you sure about that? I don't know that much about the law, but I've always heard of this case specifically because the excess wheat he was producing was for his own consumption.
Wiki seems to agree with this, not mentioning anything about his having a business that I see (although I only skimmed the article and may have missed something).
Yes, the amount grown in excess of the law was for his own use; but the amount grown conformant to the law was for sale.
There may not have been an incorporated entity beyond just the farmer as farmer; but, sole proprietorship+ or corportation, there was still a separate abstract entity from the federal government’s perspective whose function was to trade in wheat (a “trading entity” or “Doing Business As” entity.) The farmer was—again, from the federal government’s perspective—the employee and sole shareholder of that entity; and that entity did business selling wheat.
+ (Sole proprietorships are a “hack” of the public API by which individuals interact with the tax system, allowing them to track their DBA revenue and expenses as part of their individual income and expenses. From the government’s perspective, though, when it comes to trade law rather than tax law, there’s always a company on both sides of each trade. In the case of sole proprietorships—including the case of, say, two neighbouring farmers bartering—the trade is just being executed by two "companies" whose identities are foreign-keyed to the individual sole shareholders' identities.)
Under this model, the amount grown in excess of the law was, effectively, grown by a business that sells wheat, and then given to the business’s sole shareholder in place of pay. That transaction caused the shareholder to not have to buy wheat on the market, which means the business made a choice to make this deal, when the business—as an entity that sells wheat—had a responsibility to know that it was breaking the excess law by doing this.
There may not have been an incorporated entity beyond just the farmer as farmer; but, sole proprietorship+ or corportation, there was still a separate abstract entity from the federal government’s perspective whose function was to trade in wheat (a “trading entity” or “Doing Business As” entity.) The farmer was—again, from the federal government’s perspective—the employee and sole shareholder of that entity; and that entity did business selling wheat.
+ (Sole proprietorships are a “hack” of the public API by which individuals interact with the tax system, allowing them to track their DBA revenue and expenses as part of their individual income and expenses. From the government’s perspective, though, when it comes to trade law rather than tax law, there’s always a company on both sides of each trade. In the case of sole proprietorships—including the case of, say, two neighbouring farmers bartering—the trade is just being executed by two "companies" whose identities are foreign-keyed to the individual sole shareholders' identities.)
Under this model, the amount grown in excess of the law was, effectively, grown by a business that sells wheat, and then given to the business’s sole shareholder in place of pay. That transaction caused the shareholder to not have to buy wheat on the market, which means the business made a choice to make this deal, when the business—as an entity that sells wheat—had a responsibility to know that it was breaking the excess law by doing this.
"It’s just like insider trading: not executing a trade that would have otherwise (i.e. given only public knowledge) been in your best interests to execute, where you didn’t execute it because of corporate-internal knowledge, is still just as illegal as the reverse."
Can you provide a citation for that? Every definition I've read (eg. [1]) says that for it to be insider trading, there must be a trade. It doesn't necessarily have to be done by you (eg. U.S. vs. Rajaratnam [2], where an insider was convicted of passing information to a friend for relationship goodwill), nor do you have to be the insider (eg. Martha Stewart [3]) but some exchange of tangible property for financial benefit must have taken place.
It seems very problematic, from an enforcement perspective, to criminalize not doing something, particularly when it comes to trading. I don't see how you could ever prove "would be in your best interest to execute, given only public knowledge", given that the whole point of a trade is that one counterparty believes that it's in their best interests to own the security at the sale price while the other party believes it's in their best interests to not own the security. If there's any market liquidity at all at that price, it implies there's a difference of opinion over whether the security is worth owning. It also seems problematic to try and infer whether your lack of an action was because of inside knowledge or whether it was because you were restricted from stock transactions because of insider trading laws (ironically) or whether you just had too many other things going on to bother trading.
[1] https://www.investor.gov/additional-resources/general-resour...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-be-guilty-of-insider...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case
Can you provide a citation for that? Every definition I've read (eg. [1]) says that for it to be insider trading, there must be a trade. It doesn't necessarily have to be done by you (eg. U.S. vs. Rajaratnam [2], where an insider was convicted of passing information to a friend for relationship goodwill), nor do you have to be the insider (eg. Martha Stewart [3]) but some exchange of tangible property for financial benefit must have taken place.
It seems very problematic, from an enforcement perspective, to criminalize not doing something, particularly when it comes to trading. I don't see how you could ever prove "would be in your best interest to execute, given only public knowledge", given that the whole point of a trade is that one counterparty believes that it's in their best interests to own the security at the sale price while the other party believes it's in their best interests to not own the security. If there's any market liquidity at all at that price, it implies there's a difference of opinion over whether the security is worth owning. It also seems problematic to try and infer whether your lack of an action was because of inside knowledge or whether it was because you were restricted from stock transactions because of insider trading laws (ironically) or whether you just had too many other things going on to bother trading.
[1] https://www.investor.gov/additional-resources/general-resour...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-be-guilty-of-insider...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case
I was thinking specifically of a case mentioned previously here on HN, where someone cancelled a monthly scheduled partial stock-liquidation event on corporate-internal news that the company's value would change. IIRC the law said that this was insider trading: there was an evidence trail proving that the trade would have been executed, if not for corporate-internal knowledge.
I guess you could phrase this more clearly as: never investigating a trade in the first place can't be insider trading; but proposing/planning/scheduling a trade and then cancelling that trade, can be insider trading. Where, as well, choosing to execute a competing trade can be considered to cancel the trade that would have been executed in its place.
I guess you could phrase this more clearly as: never investigating a trade in the first place can't be insider trading; but proposing/planning/scheduling a trade and then cancelling that trade, can be insider trading. Where, as well, choosing to execute a competing trade can be considered to cancel the trade that would have been executed in its place.
Ahh but that’s because the point of putting the trades on automatic is what allows insiders to trade even though they have inside information. As soon as you put trades on manual you’re opening yourself up to use inside information.
I don’t remember the story, but you can imagine a situation where you scheduled a big buy a year in advance right before earnings. You’ve done this consistently for a few years, and it’s paid off for you. The company has grown consistent quarter after quarter. Only now, this year right before the earnings call, you cancel the purchase.
Now tell me, do you think the company’s earnings exceeded expectations?
I don’t remember the story, but you can imagine a situation where you scheduled a big buy a year in advance right before earnings. You’ve done this consistently for a few years, and it’s paid off for you. The company has grown consistent quarter after quarter. Only now, this year right before the earnings call, you cancel the purchase.
Now tell me, do you think the company’s earnings exceeded expectations?
How do you reconcile this with Gonzales v Raich?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
This is just nonsensical saber-rattling without Congressional action that stands approximately zero chance of taking place.
The relevant portion of the law [1] is pretty clear. The "waiver" granted to California is automatic, with no discretion for the EPA, "if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards", unless the standards are "arbitrary and capricious" or not needed for "compelling and extraordinary conditions". If they go to court with the current law, they'll get laughed at and then either give up or get an early 2020s Supreme Court to upend over two hundred years of federalism jurisprudence. Good luck with that.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543
The relevant portion of the law [1] is pretty clear. The "waiver" granted to California is automatic, with no discretion for the EPA, "if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards", unless the standards are "arbitrary and capricious" or not needed for "compelling and extraordinary conditions". If they go to court with the current law, they'll get laughed at and then either give up or get an early 2020s Supreme Court to upend over two hundred years of federalism jurisprudence. Good luck with that.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543
> or not needed for "compelling and extraordinary conditions".
To clarify, here's the original quote:
> No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—
> (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions
That is, the heightened state standards themselves must be justified by compelling and extraordinary conditions, in the judgement of the EPA administrator. (Your trimmed quote suggests an alternate interpretation where they'd need compelling and extraordinary reasons to reject the state standards, but it's the other way around.)
It doesn't sound hard to me for the EPA administrator to argue that there are no longer "extraordinary" conditions specific to California that justify additional regulation. Apparently, when the language was initially enacted in 1970, it was meant to refer to smog episodes in Los Angeles [1]...
[1] https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its...
To clarify, here's the original quote:
> No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—
> (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions
That is, the heightened state standards themselves must be justified by compelling and extraordinary conditions, in the judgement of the EPA administrator. (Your trimmed quote suggests an alternate interpretation where they'd need compelling and extraordinary reasons to reject the state standards, but it's the other way around.)
It doesn't sound hard to me for the EPA administrator to argue that there are no longer "extraordinary" conditions specific to California that justify additional regulation. Apparently, when the language was initially enacted in 1970, it was meant to refer to smog episodes in Los Angeles [1]...
[1] https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its...
Even today though, Los Angeles is still the smoggiest region in the country [1] [2]. So it's not actually an easy case to say that California doesn't have a need for these restrictions. It's merely technically possible to brush aside a real issue.
[1]: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bad-air-days-201...
[2]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170619092749.h...
[1]: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bad-air-days-201...
[2]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170619092749.h...
> in the judgement of the EPA administrator
I disagree. It's not just the judgement of the EPA Administrator. The state can still bring a lawsuit, and in that lawsuit the EPA will need to provide evidence showing that the standards aren't required.
I also disagree with the argument that they are no longer "extraordinary" conditions. LA traffic is still absolutely insane, and it would be pretty damn easy for the state to provide data suggesting that the city would become smog-ridden if they rolled back regulations.
I disagree. It's not just the judgement of the EPA Administrator. The state can still bring a lawsuit, and in that lawsuit the EPA will need to provide evidence showing that the standards aren't required.
I also disagree with the argument that they are no longer "extraordinary" conditions. LA traffic is still absolutely insane, and it would be pretty damn easy for the state to provide data suggesting that the city would become smog-ridden if they rolled back regulations.
Sure, they can make that argument and then attempt to try to sell "climate change isn't real" in a fact-focused forum. That's not going to go too well for them.
The Administator's discretion to get out of giving a waiver that shall be granted is pretty limited.
The Administator's discretion to get out of giving a waiver that shall be granted is pretty limited.
Given the record breaking Summers and ever growing wild fires that would be a tough argument
It seems odd to me that California gets a pass to make their own rules here. I don't know the law enough, but there does seem to be some minor parallels to the sports betting SCOTUS case that was just ruled on (saying that it was illegal to have special waivers for a single state). Maybe this is different as it was a waiver by the EPA and not a law?
To be clear, the exemption has been in place since the 1970's and allows California to pass their own requirements, that meet or exceed federal requirements.
We would not be allowed standards that are below federal standards, we're just allowed to be tougher on ourselves than the fed requires.
We would not be allowed standards that are below federal standards, we're just allowed to be tougher on ourselves than the fed requires.
Getting downvotes for saying this, but why should California be the only state allowed to set stricter emission standards? Why not New York or Rhode Island?
I don't want standards to be rolled back, but it's hard for me to defend the principle of this waiver even if I like the outcome.
I don't want standards to be rolled back, but it's hard for me to defend the principle of this waiver even if I like the outcome.
Because, the argument in the 1970's went, is that if the EPA were to allow every state to set their own, competing standards, then the result would be a mess, requiring a different car models for each state with the worst case scenario being contradicting standards. The EPA then granted California a waiver; LA's pollution was quite bad in the 80's which likely helped California's argument.
Other states were allowed the adoption of adopting the stronger California standard or using the weaker EPA's, but the goal was to avoid a hodgepodge of different laws.
Other states were allowed the adoption of adopting the stronger California standard or using the weaker EPA's, but the goal was to avoid a hodgepodge of different laws.
I don't believe the EPA granted the waiver, the Clean Air Act itself granted California a perpetual exemption. As such, the EPA can't grant other states the same right.
The history is totally understandable, to avoid a hodgepodge they were granted special powers. Not fair in principle is all, I don't believe any state should have special rights above all others.
The history is totally understandable, to avoid a hodgepodge they were granted special powers. Not fair in principle is all, I don't believe any state should have special rights above all others.
There is nothing preventing it, they've all just decided California rules meet their same goals, and it is more advantageous for them to share the same rules than expand further.
Yes there is, 49 states must seek policy exemptions from the EPA and win approval for them, while California has no such burden. CA gets a perpetual exemption allowing them freedom no other state gets.
Edit: I was actually wrong here, no other state may even ask for a waiver.
> This power is reserved alone for California, and it only covers pollution from cars. No other state can ask for a waiver. (In all of federal law, this might be the only time that a specific state is given special authority under such a major statute.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...
Edit: I was actually wrong here, no other state may even ask for a waiver.
> This power is reserved alone for California, and it only covers pollution from cars. No other state can ask for a waiver. (In all of federal law, this might be the only time that a specific state is given special authority under such a major statute.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...
Then maybe another state could sue and possibly get make it so all states could get a waiver (since it sounds at least a little like the ports betting law):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/supreme-court...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/supreme-court...
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act they wrote an exception for California into the law. If they don't like it they should get Congress to change the law.
Because those states haven’t sought an exemption, but there’s no reason to believe they couldn’t have gotten one. The notion that power not reserved default to states is enshrined in the American constitution.
Per this article in the Atlantic, other states are not allowed to even ask for a waiver.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...
No other state can ask for a waiver under the existing exemption. Nothing was stopping other states from seeking similar leeway in the bill, only California tried. Also per the article, the reason for that was the unique geography and circumstances of LA.
One thing to keep in mind is that California is possibly uniquely effected by smog. It doesn’t rain for months at a time, it’s hot, it’s heavily populated, and LA is surrounded by mountains so the LA area is especially impacted. As a result I think Californians are more effected by the smog than people in most of the rest of the country.
In theory, the US system is supposed to allow the states to act as laboratories for trying out different policies and seeing how they work out. But when the federal government passes a law, in an area where both the federal government and the states theoretically could exercise jurisdiction, the federal law often pre-empts any state-level laws.
California's clean-air efforts were one of those laboratory-style experiments, though, and were deemed worthwhile enough that, when the federal Clean Air Act was drafted, it was set up to allow California -- the only state which really was experimenting in this area -- to obtain waivers allowing it to continue exploring its own policies. Other states have the freedom to choose to adopt California's standard, or the federal standard.
Also, the Clean Air Act is a bit interesting in how it works. Rather than applying for a waiver and having to hope it's granted, California is basically entitled to the waiver unless the EPA can show certain conditions have not been met:
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-e...
Which in turn means that a President who simply dislikes California is not in a position to deny the waiver on a whim. Trump would have to show that the conditions for the waiver were not met, and would likely have to prove it to a court, rather than just give the order to an administrator who's beholden to him for employment.
California's clean-air efforts were one of those laboratory-style experiments, though, and were deemed worthwhile enough that, when the federal Clean Air Act was drafted, it was set up to allow California -- the only state which really was experimenting in this area -- to obtain waivers allowing it to continue exploring its own policies. Other states have the freedom to choose to adopt California's standard, or the federal standard.
Also, the Clean Air Act is a bit interesting in how it works. Rather than applying for a waiver and having to hope it's granted, California is basically entitled to the waiver unless the EPA can show certain conditions have not been met:
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-e...
Which in turn means that a President who simply dislikes California is not in a position to deny the waiver on a whim. Trump would have to show that the conditions for the waiver were not met, and would likely have to prove it to a court, rather than just give the order to an administrator who's beholden to him for employment.
Why? Min wage uses the same concept. Feds set the bottom threshold and states can make it higher.
They're not rules. They are laws. US is a Federal Republic. Each member of the federation (aka State) has the right to enact it's own laws, whether they conflict with the Federal Government or not.
And anyone can challenge the legality of a law by filing a suit; then it's left to the courts to ultimately decide whether the challenge has merit or not.
The federal government may not prevail in court, so it exerts it's influence elsewhere, typically by with holding federal funding, or refusing to provide federally backed services.
And anyone can challenge the legality of a law by filing a suit; then it's left to the courts to ultimately decide whether the challenge has merit or not.
The federal government may not prevail in court, so it exerts it's influence elsewhere, typically by with holding federal funding, or refusing to provide federally backed services.
It's not framed as a waiver applying to a single state - the law doesn't mention California by name at all. It frames it as:
"...any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966..."
"...any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966..."
It's fairly normal for laws to create exemptions for regions with special circumstances.
You do, after all, need to get people to agree to the thing. If some party objects, the easiest fix is often to just grant them a waiver.
You do, after all, need to get people to agree to the thing. If some party objects, the easiest fix is often to just grant them a waiver.
[deleted]
With plenty of trucks fuming exhaust all over in any way they like + bunch ancient cars clogging the traffic and poisoning an air in front of your nose while being exempted - this begs the question: why shouldn't drivers of a cleaner cars get a tax break for being forced into submission to regulation but also being forced to breathe-in and smell the poisonous exhaust of exempt cars?
There are less problems with standards, more problems with double-standards.
There are less problems with standards, more problems with double-standards.
states' rights?
States have the right to make laws that agree with the ruling party.
... is a bogus concept.
States don't have rights.
States have certain powers granted them by their and the US constitutions. People too often misinterpret "limited Federal powers" as equating to "states' rights".
States don't have rights.
States have certain powers granted them by their and the US constitutions. People too often misinterpret "limited Federal powers" as equating to "states' rights".
[deleted]
Commerce clause has needed an amendment for almost 200 years.
At the zoo years ago, my kids and I saw a bunch of monkeys playing in their enclosure — and pissing and shitting wherever they felt like it. Of course, it was the zoo staff who had to clean up the resulting messes.
I think of those monkeys whenever some executives and their political allies complain about the regulations that keep them from making big messes for the taxpayers to clean up.
I think of those monkeys whenever some executives and their political allies complain about the regulations that keep them from making big messes for the taxpayers to clean up.
iosDrone(1)
onecooldev24(1)
Arnie has been pretty vocal against Trump, respectful but openly defiant. I wonder if this is disciplinary action - turning climate change is very close to Arnie's heart.
Exactly this. It's merely a petty move. It doesn't benefit the country, it benefits his fragile, classless ego.
Has he looked or been otherwise briefed on how these mandates have crippled the American automakers? I'll be damned if he knows more than a talking point or two.
Didn't you hear? Those coal miners in West Virginia with black lung disease are losing their jobs because those yuppies in California are buying electric vehicles. He must protect BlockBuster. Hell, subsidize the shovels.
Has he looked or been otherwise briefed on how these mandates have crippled the American automakers? I'll be damned if he knows more than a talking point or two.
Didn't you hear? Those coal miners in West Virginia with black lung disease are losing their jobs because those yuppies in California are buying electric vehicles. He must protect BlockBuster. Hell, subsidize the shovels.
It “helps” automakers. As it stands now, they only build to the California standards since it is too expensive to build two sets of cars.
Until they do away with California’s stricter regulations, the loosening of regulations at the federal level has no effect.
Until they do away with California’s stricter regulations, the loosening of regulations at the federal level has no effect.
Some California cities used to have some of the worst smog in the world. These regulations and exceptions were put in place to curb that. And considering the trade tariffs on some vehicles the difference could be a wash in terms of margin for car manufacturers.
What happens to our clean air?
Oh, I agree. I was simply pointing out that as long California has it's stricter emissions rules, it doesn't matter what the EPA regulates since automakers will build to the California market since it is so large.
If they remove the exception for California, now the weaker EPA rules are what automakers can work towards. This probably saves the auto manufacturer money.
If they Trump administration has a defining principle, it's the removal of regulations.
If they remove the exception for California, now the weaker EPA rules are what automakers can work towards. This probably saves the auto manufacturer money.
If they Trump administration has a defining principle, it's the removal of regulations.
How many of those are American, though? Loosely regulating American manufacturers only would be more in line with Trump's isolationist tendencies.
You mean the auto makers? Well, the Trump administration isn't beholden to the foreign automakers, and the ones from Europe already have to build to strict engine emission standards.
There is still plenty of money in Ford, Chevy, etc.
There is still plenty of money in Ford, Chevy, etc.
Not true--when CA imposes new emissions or efficiency regulations, the automakers are forced to comply to keep access to that huge market. Not wanting to design two different vehicles, they simply comply and pass the cost along to all of the buyers, whether they live in CA or not. The rest of the country has no way to directly affect the CARB's decisions. This exemption, therefore, is very unfair for the rest of us. The administration's policy could have significant impact on the price of vehicles for the rest of us. My diesel truck, for example, has several thousand dollars worth of emissions equipment that my state does not require. It's problematic and I'd love to skip it on my next purchase.
> It's problematic and I'd love to skip it on my next purchase.
I'd like you to go ahead and not pump a crapton of pollution into the air, thanks. Sorry for being so direct, and I would generally prefer to be more civil, but your comment strikes me as incredibly tone deaf and frankly, destructive. You are one inch away from advocating peeing in the swimming pool because it's cheaper than building toilets.
I'd like you to go ahead and not pump a crapton of pollution into the air, thanks. Sorry for being so direct, and I would generally prefer to be more civil, but your comment strikes me as incredibly tone deaf and frankly, destructive. You are one inch away from advocating peeing in the swimming pool because it's cheaper than building toilets.
Since you probably haven’t owned a modern diesel vehicle I’ll tell you why owners don’t like the equipment on small vehicles. (Cars and light trucks)
It mostly comes down to the diesel particulate filter (DPF) that reduces visible soot. This is not really a problem outside some major cities.
Why don’t we like the DPF systems? Consider something like a VW Golf or Jetta TDI. With these systems you’re adding hundreds of pounds of extra dead weight, a regen cycle is required which wastes fuel by blowing it into the filter to regenerate. Combined, this wastes around 10-15%. The cherry on top is you cannot run blends of biodiesel higher than 15% or it ruins the DPF since it doesn’t volatilize like diesel does. Biodiesel is renewable and already comes with reduced emissions without extra controls.
I do give a bit of a shit about the environment and if given the option I would not have a DPF on a light diesel. I have a hard time seeing how decreased fuel mileage and a restriction on running renewables equals care for the environment.
Keep in mind, we removed sulfur from our on-road fuel in the US back in 2007 (way behind europe). This was a big help in allowing new catalyst controls to work as well as reduce conventional diesel pollution.
But yeah, this is not stuff most people consider or know about until they own a noxwagen after previously owning one of the pre-2007 tdi’s, read the bosch whitepapers on the controls, and have a dpf fail just outside federal emissions warranty (VW’s motto: If you can program it to cheat, you can program it to fail!)
EDIT: Forgot to mention the cost of just the DPF is usually $4-6k. It’s a huge failure component and I can’t recommend anyone purchase a lightt vehicle with one for city use as it won’t be able to properly regenerate and will fail early. Since the cost is that high the car/truck may be prematurely scrapped.
It mostly comes down to the diesel particulate filter (DPF) that reduces visible soot. This is not really a problem outside some major cities.
Why don’t we like the DPF systems? Consider something like a VW Golf or Jetta TDI. With these systems you’re adding hundreds of pounds of extra dead weight, a regen cycle is required which wastes fuel by blowing it into the filter to regenerate. Combined, this wastes around 10-15%. The cherry on top is you cannot run blends of biodiesel higher than 15% or it ruins the DPF since it doesn’t volatilize like diesel does. Biodiesel is renewable and already comes with reduced emissions without extra controls.
I do give a bit of a shit about the environment and if given the option I would not have a DPF on a light diesel. I have a hard time seeing how decreased fuel mileage and a restriction on running renewables equals care for the environment.
Keep in mind, we removed sulfur from our on-road fuel in the US back in 2007 (way behind europe). This was a big help in allowing new catalyst controls to work as well as reduce conventional diesel pollution.
But yeah, this is not stuff most people consider or know about until they own a noxwagen after previously owning one of the pre-2007 tdi’s, read the bosch whitepapers on the controls, and have a dpf fail just outside federal emissions warranty (VW’s motto: If you can program it to cheat, you can program it to fail!)
EDIT: Forgot to mention the cost of just the DPF is usually $4-6k. It’s a huge failure component and I can’t recommend anyone purchase a lightt vehicle with one for city use as it won’t be able to properly regenerate and will fail early. Since the cost is that high the car/truck may be prematurely scrapped.
How available is biodiesel in the US? I"ve never seen it here in the UK, so it's not a consideration for me.
The DPF should be self cleaning if you do an occasional high-speed trip (such as on a highway), so it shouldn't be wasting fuel unless you're doing exclusively city driving (in which case I agree; petrol or electric is better in this situation).
Our 2016 Golf Bluemotion gets at least 50mpg in normal driving, usually over 60mpg, and occasionally we crack 70mpg.
The DPF should be self cleaning if you do an occasional high-speed trip (such as on a highway), so it shouldn't be wasting fuel unless you're doing exclusively city driving (in which case I agree; petrol or electric is better in this situation).
Our 2016 Golf Bluemotion gets at least 50mpg in normal driving, usually over 60mpg, and occasionally we crack 70mpg.
>How available is biodiesel in the US?
Wholesale its pretty much everywhere. Retail it depends on the state. Most states have a small % (usually 2-5%) blended into standard diesel to replace the lubricity lost from removing sulfur, but to get B20 or higher you’d have to google.
>The DPF should be self cleaning
Key words, ‘should be’. Do a quick search of dpf problems. They either plug from not completing (though you get dpf light telling you to go race it for a half hour or so to clear) or having some other issue. This causes obstruction and reduces economy more. That or they crack like mine did and plug the egr with soot. Regen takes some time to run, if your commute is 5mi it will not complete.
>Our 2016 Golf Bluemotion gets at least 50mpg in normal driving, usually over 60mpg, and occasionally we crack 70mpg.
(Casual reminder UK mpg different than US mpg, I will convert my experience to UK mpg)
Consistent with my 98 jetta tdi’s mileage. Unfortunately my 2012 golf tdi usually only topped out around 60mpg, I only broke 70mpg in a few extrodinary circumstances. The newer ones have urea injection systems and are a bit lighter.
Also from what I remember UK diesel is usually higher cetane and generally higher quality (also comparing any US/EU spec vehicles, US almost always detuned for emissions and running on poor fuel)
Wholesale its pretty much everywhere. Retail it depends on the state. Most states have a small % (usually 2-5%) blended into standard diesel to replace the lubricity lost from removing sulfur, but to get B20 or higher you’d have to google.
>The DPF should be self cleaning
Key words, ‘should be’. Do a quick search of dpf problems. They either plug from not completing (though you get dpf light telling you to go race it for a half hour or so to clear) or having some other issue. This causes obstruction and reduces economy more. That or they crack like mine did and plug the egr with soot. Regen takes some time to run, if your commute is 5mi it will not complete.
>Our 2016 Golf Bluemotion gets at least 50mpg in normal driving, usually over 60mpg, and occasionally we crack 70mpg.
(Casual reminder UK mpg different than US mpg, I will convert my experience to UK mpg)
Consistent with my 98 jetta tdi’s mileage. Unfortunately my 2012 golf tdi usually only topped out around 60mpg, I only broke 70mpg in a few extrodinary circumstances. The newer ones have urea injection systems and are a bit lighter.
Also from what I remember UK diesel is usually higher cetane and generally higher quality (also comparing any US/EU spec vehicles, US almost always detuned for emissions and running on poor fuel)
The problematic equipment you're trying to dump also has a small benefit of helping the environment.
I really don't care how problematic you find it. No one should be forced to breathe your dangerous diesel particulate emissions regardless of which state you live in.
> automakers are forced to comply to keep access to that huge market
As has already been explained, this is false. These rules are for CARB states, not for California. California is in charge of working with the other states to set the rules.
As has already been explained, this is false. These rules are for CARB states, not for California. California is in charge of working with the other states to set the rules.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the other states only have a say, and not a vote? It's ultimately California's decision what they must accept.
Edit: Looked it up, no other states have a vote. 12 governor appointed members and 2 elected members of the CARB board decide.
Edit: Looked it up, no other states have a vote. 12 governor appointed members and 2 elected members of the CARB board decide.
So your solution is to remove California's emissions standards, killing Angelenos with smog? What gives you the right to socialize the cost of your pollution?
CA is large but circa ~10% of national truck sales. 10% is no monopoly - hell the Texas truck market is at least twice the size of CA.
What's missing is the fact that 12 other states (the west coast and most of New England) have voluntarily agreed to adopt California's standards. So yes, the rest of the country does have influence, and they're wielding that influence on California's side.
Nobody is being "forced" to comply. Instead CA's standards are reasonable enough that it's more economical to implement them nationally than to build two models.
What's missing is the fact that 12 other states (the west coast and most of New England) have voluntarily agreed to adopt California's standards. So yes, the rest of the country does have influence, and they're wielding that influence on California's side.
Nobody is being "forced" to comply. Instead CA's standards are reasonable enough that it's more economical to implement them nationally than to build two models.
[deleted]
So you're mad that CA is socializing the side-effects of their regulation because you'd like to socialize the costs of your pollution?
The phrases you're searching for are "state's rights" and "free market capitalism."
No one is forced to do anything. Car manufacturers have the privilege of selling in California if they follow California's rules. They have decided that the privilege is worth standardizing emissions requirements everywhere in the united states.
No one is forced to do anything. Car manufacturers have the privilege of selling in California if they follow California's rules. They have decided that the privilege is worth standardizing emissions requirements everywhere in the united states.
I am going against my rhetoric against Trump, but to be fair: they have standardized production lines. This is possibly a downfall of Fordism and mass manufacturing in general.
> This is possibly a downfall of Fordism and mass manufacturing in general.
I don't think "Car manufacturers have to make cars better for everybody, not just some people" will lead to the downfall of mass manufacturing.
I don't think "Car manufacturers have to make cars better for everybody, not just some people" will lead to the downfall of mass manufacturing.
"Arnie" has absolutely nothing to do with it. California has been the critical point of failure in the conservatives' attack on the environmental regulations since the 70s. Due to the size of the California economy, CalEPA and California Air Control Board emission standards are the floor for regulatory approval, even if national EPA standards are less strict.
This is nothing more than special interests dictating policy, helpfully exposing GOP hypocrisy in its wake. "State's rights" for me when I want to enslave someone, externalize costs, or infringe on civil rights but "federal supremacy" when you don't do what we want.
This is nothing more than special interests dictating policy, helpfully exposing GOP hypocrisy in its wake. "State's rights" for me when I want to enslave someone, externalize costs, or infringe on civil rights but "federal supremacy" when you don't do what we want.
Agreed. Almost all of his actions can easily be explained by looking at how it is benefiting old money — coal, mining, oil, sugar, cars, cable, telecom etc. He is just helping last century’s industries hold onto their power.
The planet follows California bureaucratic edicts, whether it's banning plastic shopping bags or complex legislation on vehicle or power plant emissions, California decisions define other nation states manufacturing and laws...
The Trump administration cannot have us breathing clean air, lest it impacts a fraction of some companies bottom line. What's next ? Force us to fire up some coal powered plants ?
Maybe the EU can adopt the California standards.
It's kind of amusing to contrast the comments here vs a thread on the GDPR. Here many of the comments are along the lines of "it's not fair how California can enforce a law outside it's borders" but the GDPR ones were all "How does the EU hope to enforce this on american companies".
While there are some differences for diesel engines due to the way it is measured (in favour of diesel engines in the eu), the Euro 6b standard is on par with the californian standard for the most part.
The comparison is not easy though as the european standards focussus on hydrocarbons and the californian on NOx.
The comparison is not easy though as the european standards focussus on hydrocarbons and the californian on NOx.
I have never lived in CA. but I have been affected by CA's usurpation of the market. Let me explain...
CA wrote extraordinarily strict rules (maybe the Feds will call them "arbitrary and capricious" ?) that unduly penalized diesel engines. As a result, great diesel engines and often the cars that go in them, that are sold in other parts of the world, are not available in the USA.
Since CA is such a large market for cars, a car maker will usually not bother to make or import a car that they can't sell in CA.
So, I am harmed by CA's standards and have no recourse - I can't vote in CA state elections because I don't live in CA.
The BMW 320d, which is sold all over EU etc. and has better performance and better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius? CA won't allow its sale because of their regulations.
Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars being driven by Americans.
see https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094...
CA wrote extraordinarily strict rules (maybe the Feds will call them "arbitrary and capricious" ?) that unduly penalized diesel engines. As a result, great diesel engines and often the cars that go in them, that are sold in other parts of the world, are not available in the USA.
Since CA is such a large market for cars, a car maker will usually not bother to make or import a car that they can't sell in CA.
So, I am harmed by CA's standards and have no recourse - I can't vote in CA state elections because I don't live in CA.
The BMW 320d, which is sold all over EU etc. and has better performance and better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius? CA won't allow its sale because of their regulations.
Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars being driven by Americans.
see https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094...
> So, I am harmed by CA's standards and have no recourse - I can't vote in CA state elections because I don't live in CA.
You aren't harmed by California's standards by any stretch of the imagination:
You can't show any actual harm by not being able to purchase specific diesel engines.
> Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars being driven by Americans.
Sure, let's sign a bill telling the smog it can't go to LA anymore. That should do the trick. Do you understand the purpose of the regulations are to give Bay-area residents breathable, healthy air, and these regulations are the ones California can actually enact?
But hey, it's a conservative mantra to only think of the individual, so you fit the mold pretty well. Poor guy, can't buy a BMW 320d, and the damn Bay-area residents should get sick and breath horrible air so he can.
You aren't harmed by California's standards by any stretch of the imagination:
You can't show any actual harm by not being able to purchase specific diesel engines.
> Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars being driven by Americans.
Sure, let's sign a bill telling the smog it can't go to LA anymore. That should do the trick. Do you understand the purpose of the regulations are to give Bay-area residents breathable, healthy air, and these regulations are the ones California can actually enact?
But hey, it's a conservative mantra to only think of the individual, so you fit the mold pretty well. Poor guy, can't buy a BMW 320d, and the damn Bay-area residents should get sick and breath horrible air so he can.
My point is that people in the other 49 states are harmed by CA's action and have no representation to fix it due to CA's veto power over diesels.
If a 320d is MORE efficient than a Prius, even though it doesn't have batteries, wouldn't you want it to be sold in the USA?
EDIT to add: it seems that the latest gen of the 320d is sold in the USA, as the 328d. The previous generation was not, which is what my comments were based on.
If a 320d is MORE efficient than a Prius, even though it doesn't have batteries, wouldn't you want it to be sold in the USA?
EDIT to add: it seems that the latest gen of the 320d is sold in the USA, as the 328d. The previous generation was not, which is what my comments were based on.
> My point is that people in the other 49 states are harmed
I know that's your point. But your point is without merit. You aren't being harmed because you aren't showing harm. California isn't vetoing diesels. They are regulating their environment and businesses are responding by not producing vehicles that meet the smog requirements.
You keep talking about efficiency, it's not about that. It's about pollution. You aren't being harmed, even had you been more informed about the 328d.
I know that's your point. But your point is without merit. You aren't being harmed because you aren't showing harm. California isn't vetoing diesels. They are regulating their environment and businesses are responding by not producing vehicles that meet the smog requirements.
You keep talking about efficiency, it's not about that. It's about pollution. You aren't being harmed, even had you been more informed about the 328d.
> The BMW 320d, which is sold all over EU etc. and has better performance and better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius? CA won't allow its sale because of their regulations.
The BMW 320d that is sold in Europe is exactly the same car as the 328d that IS sold in the US, including in CA. I know, because I have one.
The BMW 320d that is sold in Europe is exactly the same car as the 328d that IS sold in the US, including in CA. I know, because I have one.
California is much bigger than just the SF Bay Area. And I don't understand the relevance of the effect of the Chinese smog.
The smog from China is not under the control of CA...
> The smog from China is not under the control of CA...
Right, which is why it's not relevant.
Right, which is why it's not relevant.
Not impressed with your response... it is entirely relevant if the claim about the regulation is that it will reduce smog, but the smog isn't even coming from cars in CA to begin with.
Try thinking a bit harder.
Try thinking a bit harder.
Your cited article says ~20 percent of the smog might come from China. That still leaves 80% that presumably comes from California or nearby states. Why do you think California should be less concerned about emission standards if it is true that they are getting Asian pollution on top of what is produced in-state?
Even by your statistics, 71% of the smog is local and thus can be reduced. The 29% that cannot is irrelevant.
Thinking a bit harder is good advice, you should try it some time.
Thinking a bit harder is good advice, you should try it some time.
If you were living in California in the 60s and 70s when they had a huge home-grown smog problem, you might be more appreciative of their efforts today. California did what they had to do to get out of a crappy situation, that Trump wants to undo that “to make America stink again” is sad.
These regulations impose an unfair burden on consumers outside of the state, who must pay for California-spec'ed emissions equipment that they never wanted or were required to have. Non-Californians have litte power in the voting booth to resist California's impositions. By going after the exemption, the administration is making things more fair for the folks in the other 49 states.
I have a sense that there's something wrong here. Wrong layer of abstraction? California imposes whatever pollution regulations it wants, then it's up to the car manufacturers how to handle that. They could choose not to sell to CA residents. They could choose to make a separate line of CA-specific cars. But they choose instead to make all their cars up to CA standard because whatever, it's cheaper for them overall, and consumers will pay the extra anyway.
So there is obviously a market solution here. It seems wrong to target the CA regulation layer on this one.
Also, are we sure that it costs more on the margin to manufacture cleaner cars?
Plus, I can't help but think it's not that bad if we accidentally have cleaner cars, but that's not really a principled stance, it just worked out in this case.
So there is obviously a market solution here. It seems wrong to target the CA regulation layer on this one.
Also, are we sure that it costs more on the margin to manufacture cleaner cars?
Plus, I can't help but think it's not that bad if we accidentally have cleaner cars, but that's not really a principled stance, it just worked out in this case.
Yup, this also happens with euro-spec engines. The new V6 diesel in the Ram 1500s comes from across the pond is pretty darn efficient/clean.
If you have been in manufacturing, you will know that building 2 differently spec'ed cars is much more expensive than have an assembly line with a same spec'ed car. And California has a large population to be a lucrative market. In essence, that means that car manufacturers have to build to California's emission standards and distribute the costs to all users (even those who aren't in California).
I get it, but it's just not my problem. If they want to figure out how to do 2 lines cheaper or whatever, that's up to them or the competitor that puts them out of business. I think what they actually do (just keep it standard) makes sense and I'd probably do the same, but on principle it's not our problem how they choose to comply with relevant laws.
No it doesn’t impose anything of the sort. Car manufacturers are perfectly free to not sell cars to Californians and therefore manufacture cars that don’t meet Californian regs. The reason California has those regs is precisely because they have exercised their state rights. And why should the feds be making it more or less fair for anyone? Isn’t this a free market?
[deleted]
The exemption just allows California to enforce tougher standards on themselves. If other states want to follow suit, they're not compelled to by California, automakers choose to build a single model that works in all 50 states rather than spend the money to make multiple emissions models, but they are not forced to either.
Only California is allowed the exemption though, I can't think of a good reason they alone should have that power.
Then ask your state to enact tougher restrictions
That's the point, they can't. Only California is allowed to do so.
Other states can adopt the California standard or the Federal one, and 14 other states and the District of Columbia has done so.
What they’re not allowed to do is to set their own standard, because 300,000 people in Wyoming is just too small of a market.
What they’re not allowed to do is to set their own standard, because 300,000 people in Wyoming is just too small of a market.
You picked the smallest US state to compare with, but if it's only market size, why not Texas with 29M or Florida with 21M compared to CA's 39M?
Because you can’t have 50 different standards. I mean you can, it just kills the market.
It’s funny that you take exception with me using Wyoming, when your example was Rhode Island, the 7th least populous state.
It’s funny that you take exception with me using Wyoming, when your example was Rhode Island, the 7th least populous state.
I think Rhode Island deserves the same rights enjoyed by California, as does Wyoming.
Either everyone should get the ability, or no one should.
Either everyone should get the ability, or no one should.
Republicans really hate the free market when it works against them. Car manufacturers are free to sell worse cars in the other states. They just want CA's money without following CA's rules.
Manufacturers are perfectly free to run separate lines at their plants to make more polluting cars for other states to take advantage of this theoretical market of consumers clamoring for pollution. Also, a number of states require adherence to the California standards.
It should also be noted that California is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world that's dramatically disenfranchised with respect to its representation in US government.
It should also be noted that California is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world that's dramatically disenfranchised with respect to its representation in US government.
Car manufacturers are perfectly free to not sell cars in California. Turns out, they want California business.
There's no "more fair to other consumers" here, nor is there any "imposition" by California on consumers in other states. There is, however, an imposition on car manufacturers who wish to have their vehicles operated in California. Not seeing the problem here.
There's no "more fair to other consumers" here, nor is there any "imposition" by California on consumers in other states. There is, however, an imposition on car manufacturers who wish to have their vehicles operated in California. Not seeing the problem here.
It’s not 49 other states. Over half the US population lives in a state that enforces the CARB standards.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_emission_standar..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ..., and some arithmetic, about 36% of the US population lives in CARB states.
The lack of regulations regarding car emissions imposes an unfair burden on California's air breathing residents, who must live on the same overheating planet as the other 49 states without any power in the voting booth to make them employ more planet-friendly transportation systems.
By keeping the exemption, the state is making things more fair for its residents :)
By keeping the exemption, the state is making things more fair for its residents :)
the same overheating planet
Global warming is not an argument in favor of CA's policy.
Thanks for the view in support of this decision. It'll be interesting to see whether or not that view holds up in court, as it'll have long reaching ramifications when it comes to states rights. If a law in a state forces others around it to comply simply due to the population/power differences between the states, is that law legal?
If laws could be invalidated simply because "California is a big state". Then so could elections.
Think about that for a second. Then you will understand ridiculous this notion is.
Think about that for a second. Then you will understand ridiculous this notion is.
Yes. It’s called market forces. You can make a bespoke edition for Wyoming, but are you going to bother.
For another example, see textbooks and the Texas Board of Education. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflic...
For another example, see textbooks and the Texas Board of Education. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflic...
So we should only have to follow the intersection of all state regulations? That sounds like a great race to the bottom.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. As the article states, CA has a special exemption to the law. We merely need to set a national standard and have the automakers follow that.
The article isn't quite correct there.
CA only has a by-name carveout for non-public-road vehicles. For cars, they get the same automatically granted formality of a waiver to exceed the standards that any other state can. Indeed, something like 15 other states adhere to the stricter California standard via that process.
CA only has a by-name carveout for non-public-road vehicles. For cars, they get the same automatically granted formality of a waiver to exceed the standards that any other state can. Indeed, something like 15 other states adhere to the stricter California standard via that process.
You could make this argument about any state law. The companies that cross state lines have to eat the costs of compliance. Should we not allow state laws anymore? Or no local laws at all, since the same issue holds true for counties and cities?
That’s not what historically has happened. Cars in California have special “California” or “50 state” emissions. You can do this economically because California is as large as a market as Canada.
Also, it’s important to know that special California emissions standards have been the case for over 50 years. Additionally, I believe 14 other states have also adopted CARB standards.
There is no economic reason to be doing this in 2018.
Also, it’s important to know that special California emissions standards have been the case for over 50 years. Additionally, I believe 14 other states have also adopted CARB standards.
There is no economic reason to be doing this in 2018.
This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something like this through. Be wary of expansions of federal power predicated on reinterpretation of the constitution.