Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by jhall1468 » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:22 AM UTC

comex wrote: post #76

elgenie wrote: post #53

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",…

> 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 administra…

> 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.

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

#92

Post by JoshCole » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:22 AM UTC

comex wrote: post #76

elgenie wrote: post #53

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",…

> 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 administra…

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...

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

#93

Post by zamalek » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:23 AM UTC

civilitty wrote: post #31

chrissnell wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 .

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.

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

#94

Post by forapurpose » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:24 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

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

#95

Post by dahdum » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:25 AM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #70

dahdum wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, 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 t…

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.

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

#96

Post by nitwit005 » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:25 AM UTC

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?

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.

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

#97

Post by gesman » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:25 AM UTC

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.

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

#98

Post by danso » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:25 AM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #87

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 c…

California is much bigger than just the SF Bay Area. And I don't understand the relevance of the effect of the Chinese smog.

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

#99

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:25 AM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #87

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 c…

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.

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

#100

Post by caf » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 6:26 AM UTC

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?

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..."