
Trump Will End California’s Authority to Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules - el_benhameen
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/climate/trump-california-emissions-waiver.html
======
jgwil2
> California’s special right to set its own tailpipe pollution rules dates to
> the 1970 Clean Air Act, the landmark federal legislation designed to fight
> air pollution nationwide. The law granted California a waiver to set
> stricter rules of its own because the state already had clean air
> legislation in place before the landmark 1970 federal legislation.

If the law granted California the waiver, why is the executive (rather than
the legislature) allowed to revoke it?

~~~
bt848
The law allows the EPA to grant the waiver. It doesn't require them to do it.

Edit: pre-emptively nitpicking my own statement: the Act gives the EPA
enumerated reasons to not grant the waivers.

~~~
mywittyname
Does this lead to a constitutional crisis over the EPA's ability to govern? It
seems like the Feds have a difficult time using interstate commerce as a
justification for the EPA's authority. In this case, California isn't
attempting to regulate industry outside of the state (it just happens to be so
powerful as to have that side-effect).

I feel like this is a move to destroy the EPA and make California pay the
legal fees to do it.

~~~
Dylan16807
> Does this lead to a constitutional crisis

I severely doubt it. Wickard v. Filburn is a solid bedrock of totally ignoring
the intent of the commerce clause.

~~~
rayiner
Supreme Court cases get deprecated without expressly being overruled,
especially wartime cases. _Stare decisis_ doesn’t require you to read a
precedent for all its worth; only to follow it if it’s squarely on point. The
ACA case found the individual mandate failed under the commerce clause
notwithstanding _Wickard._

------
zaroth
Emissions standards should be tougher, the gas tax should be higher, ZEV
credits should be larger, and yet still, it's arguable that this has to be
done through a Federal framework, and not at the State level.

The Constitution enumerates powers of the Federal government, the rest being
reserved to the State, or to the People. For all the ways the enumerated
powers have been stretched, Commerce between the States is one of the few
powers of Congress actually enumerated.

If the Supreme Court can find that the Commerce clause allows Congress to
prevent a State from allowing private production of marijuana for personal
medical use [1], it's hard to see how a State can effectively set emissions
standards for automobiles across the Country.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)

~~~
magicalist
> _it 's arguable that this has to be done through a Federal framework, and
> not at the State level._

That doesn't follow. I'm not a 10th amendment fanatic and I think the commerce
clause has been hugely important, but even I have a problem with the inversion
that anything that can be regulated by the federal government must be
regulated _only_ by the federal government :)

The Clean Air Act is statute, and by statute allowed for the California
waivers. There's no constitutional argument that shouldn't be allowed.

~~~
zaroth
Isn’t the Clean Air Act statute — itself an act of Congress — the Commerce
Clause in action?

~~~
magicalist
> _Isn’t the Clean Air Act statute — itself an act of Congress — the Commerce
> Clause in action?_

Yes, but the reason (from your OP) "a State can effectively set emissions
standards" is because the Clean Air Act explicitly allows it to and allows
other states to voluntarily follow suit.

~~~
zaroth
I think we may be arguing in circles. The Clean Air Act gives the EPA the
authority to grant the State the ability to set their own standards. It does
not require the EPA allow States to set their own standards.

If the question is whether the States have the authority to set fuel standards
absent Federal approval, I think the Commerce clause stipulates that they
cannot, neither directly nor effectively. The Supremacy clause of the
Constitution means that EPA standards will _preempt_ the State standards if
the EPA says they should.

My original point is that’s probably a good thing overall, because what’s true
for vehicle efficiency standards would be true for innumerable other goods
which we want to be able to sell anywhere in the country under a single
standardized set of [safety, environment, labeling, packaging, warranty,
liability, supply chain, and labor] regulations.

------
OrangeMango
California will just go with the nuclear option: Cost of registering a vehicle
will be based on vehicle emissions.

~~~
bt848
Yes, California has all the tools it needs to enforce their will. For example,
they can establish mandatory weekly inspections for cars not meeting their
standards. They can tax carbon fuels at $1000/ton. They can set the vehicle
registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to arbitrary amounts.

~~~
twblalock
> They can set the vehicle registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to
> arbitrary amounts.

High vehicle registration fees was one of the major factors in the recall of
Governor Davis back in 2003. It may have been just as big a factor as the
electricity crisis. Voters _really_ don't like seeing their car registration
fees go up.

~~~
mywittyname
It might be more palatable to levy these fees in a targeted manner, i.e.,
Raise fees on people buying _new_ twin-turbocharged, crew cab pickups and the
like, while using the revenue to subsidize Model 3s, Priuses and Civics.

Just rumors of this happening are probably enough to impact sales in the USA's
largest market.

~~~
Gibbon1
Excise taxes on new cars instead of gasoline taxes is what I keep harping on.
You can then use the money to pay for buybacks of older cars. And fund things
like California's down payment assistance programs for low income drivers.
Where the air quality board buys back an older gasoline powered car and
provides the owner with money for a down payment on a new or used electric or
hybrid vehicle.

You could do the same with natural gas furnaces. Put an excise tax on new ones
and a program to help people to replace their old one with a heat pump.

This is better because the impression people would get is the state trying to
help them do the right thing vs the beat poor people with a stick like carbon
taxes do. (See France's Yellow Vests)

------
munk-a
"States are the laboratories of Democracy" was the line we've been sold to
defend three week abortion bans, voter ID laws and other local BS. As soon as
it's a left leaning law that justification apparently goes out the window.

~~~
microcolonel
I urge you to look more closely at the specifics of the best arguments being
made on either side and see if you hold that same view then.

------
intsunny
State rights continue to be trampled upon...

~~~
human20190310
Indeed. While France and Germany flex their local muscle against Facebook’s
Libra currency, this is a step in the opposite direction for the US and its
states.

~~~
microcolonel
> _Indeed. While France and Germany flex their local muscle against Facebook’s
> Libra currency, this is a step in the opposite direction for the US and its
> states._

Meanwhile Guy Verhofstadt goes to Britain to brag, unambiguously, about an
intent to turn the EU into a unitary empire. The justification? "Everyone else
is doing it!".

------
losvedir
I don't understand. Why is California not allowed to set whatever laws it
wants?

Is it, like, the "California exception" is being dropped from the Clean Air
Act, but CA is free to pass an altogether separate, state law? Or is the
federal government somehow saying that California is not allowed to pass a law
legislating something about the environment?

Or is it somehow like No Child Left Behind where _technically_ the federal
government can't control state schools, but in practice it can by setting
requirements for how it hands out money?

I just feel like I'm missing something here.

~~~
trothamel
The US constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That means that when the federal government has jurisdiction, laws passed at
the federal level preempt state laws that contradict them.

I don't know where the EPA rules gain their constitutional authority, my guess
is the commerce clause of the constitution. But fundamentally, what this means
is that when the federal government passes a law, state laws that contradict
it, are, according to the Supreme Court, "without effect".

I'd imagine that occurs in a positive sense and negative sense - when
something like a car that gets 40 miles to a gallon or a THC-filled vape
becomes legal at the federal level, states aren't allowed to decide otherwise,
without delegation from the government.

NCLB is different because while the federal government can make laws, it can't
force the states to implement those laws. While there could be a federal
agency - like the classroom police - to enforce NCLB, it's easier to just
bribe the states until they agree to comply.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption)

~~~
microcolonel
Basically: if you think the Commerce Clause applies to firearms or practically
anything else, it almost certainly applies to cars.

------
rayiner
I really don’t understand the states rights arguments. Congress’s authority to
regulate in an area includes the power to preempt inconsistent state
regulation. If Congress has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, it
has the authority to preempt a particular state’s attempts to impose stronger
regulations than the federal standard. If, by contrast, you think Congress
can’t preempt California’s regulations, then it must follow that Congress
cannot regulate vehicle emissions at all.

~~~
human20190310
> If Congress has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, it has the
> authority to preempt a particular state’s attempts to impose stronger
> regulations than the federal standard.

I don't see how one follows from the other. One is a regulation of emissions;
the other is a regulation of a state's regulations. If California isn't
permitting things that are prohibited by the national standard, then Congress
should not be intervening.

~~~
rayiner
The power to regulate an area is based on the subject matter, whether it
qualifies as “interstate commerce,” not whether some conduct within that
domain is permitted or not. It’s not a one-way ratchet where Congress sets a
floor and states can ratchet it up if they want. Sometimes that’s what
Congress wants to do, but other times it decides that some things should be
unregulated beyond a certain threshold. That’s a function of the regulatory
framework Congress chooses to enact, not what the Commerce Clause empowers
Congress to do.

------
justnotworthit
Note: Greenhouse emissions in USA, transportation is largest at 29%, followed
by electricity 28% and industry 22%

[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emis...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)

~~~
microcolonel
DoT paints a more interesting picture:

[https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/gas%20emi...](https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/gas%20emissions%20from%20transportation.PNG)

Passenger cars and motorcycles, combined, saw between 1990 and 2006 an
increase of 3% in carbon dioxide emissions in absolute terms. Over the same
period of time, medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses saw their carbon
dioxide emissions increase by 76% (!). Also notably, CO2 emitted by Aircraft
decreased 5%, and Boats/Ships, Rail, "and Pipelines" (I'm not really sure of
the mechanism for CO2 emissions from pipelines), decreased by 13%.

I'd like to see more updated information, not sure why it's harder to come by,
but it seems like there's more to it than passenger cars. The "Light-Duty
Trucks" category is also hard to tease apart, because it inherently combines
trucks used as passenger transport, and trucks used for utility.

~~~
vinaypai
> I'm not really sure of the mechanism for CO2 emissions from pipelines

They aren't talking CO2 emissions per-se but greenhouse gas emissions in "CO2
equivalent". This is an important distinction because there are other
greenhouse gases, most notable methane. My guess is the emissions from
pipelines refers to methane leaking out of natural gas pipelines.

------
throwaway5752
It's unconstitutional on its face, but the Supreme Court will uphold it. Sad
times. Kid voting turnout could swing the election, and it's a major success
for forces of evil that they've convince so many people of the "pox on both
their houses" idea. I feel bad for young people, I'm glad I'll probably die
before things get really bad.

~~~
rando56473
I don’t agree that it’s unconstititional. (But, I do contend that it’s a
foolish, regressive action for the administration to take.)

The federal government clearly has constitutional power to establish
preemptive law in this area. Whether that preemptive effect is conditionally
or selectively waived, and whether the waiver involves executive discretion,
doesn’t change the constitutional dimensions of the issue, in my opinion.

~~~
throwaway5752
How do you reconcile it with the 10th amendment. Due to local effects of
emissions it should be within state purview. The case (because this will reach
the scotus) will be based the commerce clause, and that is nonsense because it
is a critical health issue in smog prone areas.

You can argue abstract about trends in commerce clause based decisions in the
20th century between wickburn and lopez, but my point is you can throw that
out the window: there is a plausible argument that allows a conservative
decision. Therefore, regardless of precedent, the decision will be made along
partisan lines. If a Democratic president is elected in 2020, precedent will
be summarily reversed. The conservative movement is completely comfortable
with power and exercising it maximally.

------
fiter
> In recent months, the administration’s broader weakening of nationwide auto-
> emissions standards has become plagued with delays as staff members
> struggled to prepare adequate legal, technical or scientific justifications
> for the move.

As a practical matter, I'd encourage them to work in the other direction: from
justifications to policy. Do they need justifications for any legal reason or
only for public relations?

------
lovich
How can the federal government limit the states ability to add stricter
regulations? Is there a law explicitly saying that cars can pollute at a
certain level?

My understanding was that states can add stricter restrictions to any federal
laws as long as there was no other law limiting how strict they can get

------
jonahhorowitz
More accurately: Trump will start a long legal battle with the goal of trying
to end "California’s Authority to Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules."

~~~
badrequest
My own feelings about Trump set aside, I can't imagine he'll prevail.

~~~
Jare
Even so, think about the damage he will do along the way.

~~~
phil248
In this case, not much. The automakers don't want the rules to change and are
extremely unlikely to start retooling factories since this is a temporary
situation.

------
jedberg
> while Mr. Trump is traveling in the state, where he is scheduled to attend
> fund-raisers in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley.

On an unrelated side note, I was driving today and this absolutely massive
plane was right over my head, almost just hanging in the air. From the
underside I couldn't tell what color the top was, but I saw it had four
engines and seemed to be heading straight for the local Air Force base.

So apparently I saw Air Force One today. I think that's the first time I've
seen it since Trump became President. The flight path is right outside my
office window, so when Obama was President, it seemed to come on a much more
regular basis.

~~~
rconti
It looks like any other 747 other than the colors.

The big military cargo planes are far bigger. Which air force base?

~~~
jedberg
Yeah the big cargo planes are bigger, but since they are painted dark colors
they hide their dimensions so they don't look as big. Also I'm not usually
driving under the landing path. :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffett_Federal_Airfield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffett_Federal_Airfield)

I guess technically it's not a base but an airfield.

~~~
NikkiA
It's not a base because it'(wa)s a Station... NAS Sunnyvale (i guess the city
lines between Mtn View and Sunnyvale were much different back then).

It's one of those 'We don't use the terms that the [Army|Navy] use, goddamn
it' things.

* Edit: Apparently it was named Sunnyvale because 'Mountain View' had too much of a supposition that it might sound like something to crash into, lol.

~~~
jedberg
The Airfield is not part of either city but borders both cities fairly
equally. Either name would make sense and choosing Sunnyvale to avoid the
mountain reference makes sense too.

------
cure
This just feels so ... petty.

Do republicans really want to destroy the environment at any cost? Do they
really want dirty air and rivers that are on fire due to chemical pollution? I
don't get it. Where's the rational thinking? There's not even an obvious
motivation of greed here - the automobile industry doesn't want the emission
regulations to be turned back (cf.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-
califo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-
emissions-antitrust.html)).

~~~
jgwil2
Even if they believe the economic benefits of loosening regulations to be a
worthwhile tradeoff, I'm shocked that they don't seem to have any
consideration for their political future and the damage they are doing to
their brand among young people who overwhelmingly support increased
environmental protections.

~~~
georgemcbay
Until young people actually start voting who gives a shit what they support?
Not politicians.

I don't say this because I like the current status quo, just because I
recognize the reality of the situation.

I wish young people (in the US, the country of my citizenship) would actually
vote in significant numbers, but all the data says they just don't (yet).

~~~
lambdasquirrel
Young people do grow up.

Younger liberals and conservatives are fairly solid on this category of
issues. This isn't a case where people are going to grow up and lean
Republican. People are going to remember who wasn't there for them when
climate whiplash destroys their home.

~~~
munk-a
Can we please attack this problem in some manner that doesn't involve letting
the world burn to a crisp just so we can say "I told you so"?

I agree, if climate change goes unchecked there will be ample opportunity for
"I told you so"s but I'd rather check climate change - and it's important
enough to do that I'm willing to give up gloating rights and say "Hey look, we
all came together and solved this issue."

------
megaman821
Can anyone chime in a what legal basis that the Supreme Court would rule for
the Trump administration? It appears that the laws are not in conflict and
automakers could easily comply with both sets of laws.

Are dry counties illegal since there is a federal law allowing the sale of
alcohol?

------
simplecomplex
Car companies know the writing is on the wall with regards to pollution and
EV.

> The administration’s plans have been further complicated because major
> automakers have told the White House that they do not want such an
> aggressive rollback. In July, four automakers formalized their opposition to
> Mr. Trump’s plans by signing a deal with California to comply with tighter
> emissions standards if the broader rollback goes through

~~~
rjf72
One little nuance you have to keep in mind there is that many automakers now
generally like emission regulations. The reason is because it creates a cycle
of obsolescence. Make a car that will be noncompliant with expected
regulations in 'x' years and you now have a guaranteed revenue cycle. I'm not
saying this is good or bad - it could well be that even if they have bad
intentions it results in a good outcome, so who cares? But these little
nuances are, I think, important in considering the big picture as you're doing
with your statement.

Another example along these lines is asthma inhalers. The reason asthma
inhalers cost so much in the US, even though it's for a dirt cheap drug that's
long since out of patent protection, is because pharmaceutical companies
lobbied to get rid of the CFC based delivery mechanism for "environmental
reasons." They lobbied on this hard, for years. And finally succeeded. And
once the new rules passed they immediately threw a hoard of patents at the new
mandated HFC delivery system and jacked the prices up skyhigh. [1] So you'd
think rolling back drug regulations would have the pharmaceutical industry
jumping for joy, but in this case they specifically utilized regulations and
environmentalism to create a massive profit that would not have otherwise
existed.

Ultimately a lot of these issues are a lot more opaque than they might seem at
a glance.

[1] - [https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/heres-why-
you...](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/heres-why-your-asthma-
inhaler-costs-so-damn-much/)

~~~
kkggyftfxdfg
Where are you getting this idea from? Most really old cars are exempt from
emissions rules, and I've never actually heard of someone failing an SO2 test
(smog, which _isn't_ CO2) unless something was egregiously broken with their
engine, like a missing cat. They even have state-certified mechanics that can
fix your car if it fails smog. It barely affects the used market at all.

Inhalers without CFCs are cheap in every other country in the world. Your
problems with the cost of healthcare here have little to do with some rules
around CFCs.

------
padseeker
"States rights" was always phony idealogical veil.

------
blackflame7000
Good, I just paid $4.75 a gallon. California should not have higher gas prices
than Hawaii, period.

~~~
rz2k
Hawaii has higher prices than California[0], but I don't think there is any
definitive reason that gasoline should be cheaper in Hawaii.

Hawaii is surrounded by ocean on all sides. Many metropolitan areas in
California are valleys facing an onshore wind. Vehicle emissions kill people
in Hawaii, and they kill even more people in California.

California produces more oil than Hawaii, but location or input prices in
general are not the only determinant of energy prices. Take a look at some of
the current gas prices around the world.[1]

    
    
      $/Gall - Country Average Price
      0.34 - Cuba  
      1.08 - Iran  
      2.08 - Egypt  
      2.20 - Saudi Arabia  
      2.91 - US  
      3.72 - Australia  
      3.86 - Canada  
      4.05 - Mexico  
      5.42 - Spain  
      5.60 - New Zealand  
      5.80 - Germany  
      6.36 - France  
      6.55 - Italy  
      7.09 - Norway
    

Compare Cuba, Iran, Italy and Norway.

How about miles of paved roads to maintain [2]

    
    
      180,800 - California  
      4,469 - Hawaii
    

or the wear by millions of miles traveled on those roads?[3]

    
    
      340,115 - California  
      10,635 - Hawaii
    

Even if supplying gasoline to Hawaii is more expensive, and it has 1/20th the
population of California to shoulder the costs of maintenance, there has a
much smaller road network per capita to support, different air quality
challenges, and less driving overall to discourage.

[0] [https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-
averages/](https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/)

[1]
[https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/](https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/)

[2]
[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/h...](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/hm10.cfm)

[3]
[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/v...](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/vm2.cfm)

~~~
blackflame7000
Do you have any idea how gasoline tax for the roads is actually used in
California? It does not go to the roads that I can assure you. It goes to a
giant general fund that until very recently Jerry Brown was using to susidize
the train to nowhere.

~~~
rz2k
About 90% of the gasoline tax goes towards transportation infrastructure, its
financing administration and law enforcement.[1]

About 50-60% of transportation infrastructure funding[2] comes from gasoline
taxes.

Approximately zero gasoline tax dollars go toward healthcare costs and other
economic costs related to auto emissions. "Meeting federal clean air standards
would have prevented an estimated 29,808 hospital admissions and ER visits
throughout California over 2005–2007."[3] This is not the full economic
cost[4] of poor air quality, which would also count long term impacts on
health, the loss in lifetime earnings due to cognitive deficits, and the
effects of emissions above a baseline without auto emissions that is below the
federal standards, but still causing illness and development impacts.

Transportation also has many benefits to the people and stuff being
transported as well as everyone in general, but it is difficult to understand
the perspective where shirking responsibility for negative externalities is
virtuous or principled, and enforcing a more equitable accounting is somehow
corrupt.

[1] [https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/01/gas-tax-where-does-
th...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/01/gas-tax-where-does-the-money-
actually-go/) [2]
[https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3572](https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3572)
[3]
[https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9501/index1.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9501/index1.html)
[4] [https://www.ewg.org/research/smoggy-schools/health-
impacts-e...](https://www.ewg.org/research/smoggy-schools/health-impacts-
economic-costs)

