California Promises to Fight EPA Plan on Car Standards

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-promises-to-fight-epa-plan-on-car-standards/

by LinuxBender • 7 years ago

43 77 7 years ago

trhway• 7 years ago

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

aidenn0• 7 years ago

six-dimensional chess at its highest levels.

kstrauser3• 7 years ago

I could see it playing out like this:

Obama, 2009: CA, you can keep setting your own standards.

CA: Great! OK car companies, by 2025 we want you to hit these numbers.

Car companies: Will do.

Trump, 2019: JK. You only have to meet the federal standards.

Some car companies: Awesome, thanks!

Next president, 2020: What, that's insane. CA, you can keep setting your own standards.

CA: Great. OK car companies, the 2025 targets are still in place.

Some car companies: surprised pikachu

I think any manufacturer who doesn't stick with California's standard, even if they're temporarily allowed to ignore it, is absolutely crazy. Higher standards seem absolutely inevitable, and I think it's corporate suicide to trust that the EPA will remained weakened and toothless.

maerF0x05• 7 years ago

Those who dont will have a cheaper car. This will either please investors (more profit) or help beat the competition in sales.

bryanlarsen• 7 years ago

It takes a lot more than 16 months to design a car.

webkike2• 7 years ago

A cheaper car to buy, not a cheaper car to own

empath752• 7 years ago

Some car companies: Awesome, thanks!

The car companies are backing california.

ip263• 7 years ago

Right, and so the Fed is suing them.

ip263• 7 years ago

We are seeing something like this playing out with coal. Despite the administration's attempts to bolster coal, plants have to plan for multiple decades away, and so they are generally getting shuttered all the same.

ApolloFortyNine2• 7 years ago

I think it makes sense to limit how much impact one large state can have on the whole country. It sounds very much like California overstepping the government's authority to regulate interstate trade.

I know people in this case will want to support California because this has to do with emission standards. But look no further than the countless items that now print "Known to California to cause cancer" for another impact.

California is so large that it can practically dictate terms for the rest of the U.S. I do not believe that's a good thing, and I believe eventually there'll come a case that will make that abundantly clear, if it's not already.

Alex3917• 7 years ago

It sounds very much like California overstepping the government's authority to regulate interstate trade.

The federal government allows California to set their own standard, and allows any states who want to follow the California standard. How exactly is that overstepping?

post_break6• 7 years ago

Because California knows that if it forces any car maker to make a car only for California emissions the cost of making any car will go way up. California would roll it back in an instant and start suing if all the manufacturers said ok, fine, none of our cars work for california, no cars for you.

post_break6• 7 years ago

I have to agree. I also think it's crazy how california is blocking old trucks from being registered. Imagine you have a 2009 truck, sorry it's 2020, you can't register it here.

arcticbull5• 7 years ago

Sounds fine to me. Just because it's a state and not a country doesn't mean you can do whatever you want there.

Rebelgecko5• 7 years ago

My dad didn't have any trouble registering his 2008 truck this year. Emissions standards aren't retroactive— if you take a car to get smogged it only has to meet the emissions standards from the year it was made

vkou• 7 years ago

California is the fifth biggest economy in the world.

I would daresay that its impact on the country is too small, given its contributions.

arcticbull5• 7 years ago

It sounds very much like California overstepping the government's authority to regulate interstate trade.

No, it's companies being pragmatic. If you want to sell in California you have to comply with certain standards. If you then want to create a separate, inefficient, polluting car to sell to the rest of the US where they don't care about those things, have at it. If you don't think that makes economic sense, then don't.

This is about as pro-states-rights as you can get.

But look no further than the countless items that now print "Known to California to cause cancer" for another impact.

Nobody here cares about that.

wereHamster2• 7 years ago

I think it makes sense to limit how much impact one large state can have on the whole country.

You mean, much like Europe has had an impact on the whole world by introducing GDPR? Borders are no more when the issues are global. Privacy, health, wellbeing, …

When a group of people decides that something has an impact on their lives (health in this case, or anything else for that matter), and introduce regulation because the industry doesn't give enough fucks, what's so bad about it?

mullingitover• 7 years ago

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

These are the states that mirror California's emissions standards.

We're not talking about one state. We're talking about the entire west coast of the US and the lion's share of the eastern seaboard.

bbatha• 7 years ago

And about 2/3rds of the population

ip263• 7 years ago

Don't forget Colorado.

UnFleshedOne• 7 years ago

Flip side of that argument is: why would many small states with few people dictate what level of air quality should 40M Californians get?

codezero2• 7 years ago

I wonder if this has real case law behind it. I’m not a lawyer but have done a bunch of HIPAA training and one of the key elements of that federal program is that where states are more restrictive with privacy and security, this takes precedence.

More restrictive emissions laws are to protect individuals and task corporations to be better, so it seems good to let states enact their own more restrictive rules.

F147H34D2• 7 years ago

That’s the idea behind Federal vs. State government. The States are suppose to be able to regulate how they see fit as long as it meets the federal minimum. So yes, I think the same would apply to this scenario.

bluGill3• 7 years ago

Interstate commerce belongs to congress (Not the president!). Congress has allowed California to ban registration of cars that do not meet their emissions standards (other states are allows to take California's standards, but are not allowed to make their own). California can constitutionally create their own standards for cars made or sold in California, but because they are part of the US they have to register a car you bought in any other state which means their standards hurt local dealers.

Note that there has always been an exception to the rules: if you are out of state and your car it totaled you can buy a new non-California car and register it in California.

jigglesniggle5• 7 years ago

There is an example I am aware of that was in my history book (but that I am having trouble finding now). States would set conflicting sizes for tractor trailer mudflaps in what seemed to be a de facto attempt to regulate trade between states. This was found to be a violation of the interstate commerce clause.

The actions California takes may be considered similar, especially (as someone below mentioned) if previously acceptable cars are not grandfathered in. There is also probably a good case to be made if California law has an effect, intended or not, on non-Californian states.

There is also a federal rule (good faith and something) that states must, in general, recognize the licenses of other states (marriage, drivers, etc; but notably not concealed carry, which I think will be tested again).

Personally, on the one hand I am for states rights and the environment and very much do not like how the interstate commerce clause is used. On the other, a lack of agreeable regulation is detrimental to the states (and having one state force that regulation does not seem fair).

codezero2• 7 years ago

Oh cool! That’s an interesting point. Of course things are always more nuanced than they seem on the surface, thanks for sharing this.

jrs235• 7 years ago

Since it's about commerce, can California allow the purchase and sale of the less stringent vehicles but only allow vehicles/engines to operate on its roads that meet the higher standards?

Analemma_2• 7 years ago

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

maxk42• 7 years ago

People would just make the purchase out-of-state.

They're already doing this to avoid steep sales taxes on cars. Some people even keep their vehicle registered out-of-state to avoid registration fees as well.

Analemma_2• 7 years ago

I don't know about California, but in Washington state when you register a car that was previously registered in another state, you have to provide proof that you paid sales tax on it, and you have to pay a use tax if you can't do that. Presumably CA would just apply an identical use tax to cars purchased in any state without their standard.

Now, sure, some people could dodge the system, but they don't really matter: the point is to make it inconvenient enough for automakers that they only produce vehicles meeting the CA standard.

F147H34D2• 7 years ago

You need residency to register a car. Also, if you purchase a car out of state it doesn’t matter. The taxes get levied when you register it.

empath752• 7 years ago

the fact that some people break laws does not imply that we should not have them.

youeseh• 7 years ago

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

joshualross• 7 years ago

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

dantheman• 7 years ago

This is just one of many examples of congress delegating it's law making duty to the executive -- normally so it can avoid any responsibility for it's actions. If the policy is not popular they blame the executive, the policy is successful they point to their delegation of power.

Hopefully, we'll see congress take back the reigns more and if anything delegate things to the states and instead of the executive.

The common excuse is that the expertise lies in the executive so they should control the rules. This can be easily answered by allowing the executive to draft the rules, but to have congress involved whenever they're changed.

merricksb• 7 years ago

Two related discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008146

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870

California Promises to Fight EPA Plan on Car Standards

Related Stories