Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#51

Post by millstone »

triviatise wrote: post #19

In wickard vs filburn the govt made the case that a wheat farmer that grew wheat only for himself was subject to the interstate commerce clause. The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions. The supreme court ruled in favor of the US govt. This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something l…

What would fuel efficiency standards look like under a strict interpretation of the commerce clause?

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#52

Post by jonathankoren »

jjcm wrote: post #9
chrissnell wrote: post #4

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.

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?

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...

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#53

Post by elgenie »

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

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#54

Post by GW150914 »

dahdum wrote: post #37
zupzupper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#57

Post by nradov »

chrissnell wrote: post #14
joshmn wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

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.…

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.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#58

Post by balls187 »

kyrra wrote: post #7

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?

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.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#59

Post by dahdum »

jonathankoren wrote: post #45
dahdum wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#60

Post by litany »

kyrra wrote: post #7

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?

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.
Post reply on HN