
California, other states sue EPA over revoking state emissions authority - perfunctory
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-california/california-other-u-s-states-sue-to-block-epa-from-revoking-state-emissions-authority-idUSKBN1XP25Q
======
llarsson
Would allowing US car manufactures to stagnate w.r.t. fuel efficiency not just
benefit their overseas alternatives?

It seems to me that the more "keep America at the forefront" way to do this
would be to demand much higher fuel efficiency, which requires expensive
research that can only be done by huge and wealthy (US) companies.

You know, like what California seems to literally try to do (with a huge nod
toward Tesla, I am sure).

California seems to essentially say that it is the law to buy high tech cars,
which currently means American.

Why give that away to the competition?

~~~
H8crilA
Fuel efficiency is a joke in American cars, excessive regulation would destroy
the industry there. In most other countries people rarely get engines with
over 2.0l combustion volume, sometimes as low as 1.0l. Fuel in Europe is
already 2x more expensive because of additional taxes, Europe is a decade or
more ahead.

------
dmode
GM, Toyota, and Fiat Chrysler are actively fighting emission rules. I will be
in the market to buy a car next month and will be actively avoiding these 3
brands

~~~
kyrra
I believe how many of these emission rules are written is poorly done. They
are effectively quota based that apply to the quota of a given car
manufacturer. Which is actually leading car manufacturers to consolidate,
removing choice.

What's worse, emissions are not done holistically. They rate battery-powered
car as effectively having zero emissions, which does not consider how you
charge you car. There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla
charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard
unleaded gasoline car.

I get the intent of these laws, but they are poorly done.

~~~
jhayward
> _There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a
> power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded
> gasoline car._

There is no where in the US electrical grid where that statement is true. It's
a strawman.

~~~
kyrra
It was a German study, though finding it again, it looks like it was heavily
criticized.

Also, How is it a straw man? Coal power plants still exist. While some
governments are forcing them out, it exists. If it's true, it is a real
concern we should take into consideration.

source of study: [https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-
news/business/technology/5...](https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-
news/business/technology/55602/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-
ones-german-study-shows/)

~~~
nwallin
The title of your article is about CO2, not emissions. California enacted
tailpipe emissions tests _specifically_ to address smog in LA. California can,
has, and will continue to have steep gas taxes as the primary mechanism to
address climate change, and those state taxes aren't being challenged here.
Switching to shitty diesel VW Jettas will make the problem worse, not better,
despite the reduced CO2 footprint.

Second- bullshit. Every commercially viable coal plant burns _much_ hotter
than any gasoline or diesel engine, and will have a much higher efficiency as
a result. (Wikipedia "Carnot cycle") Line/conversion losses will not make up
the difference.

Third-we're talking about California. We don't have any coal plants. So even
if we pretended physics wasn't a thing, our relatively large supply of wind,
solar, geothermal, nuclear, and hydro production would fix it. We're trying to
replace natural gas with "batteries" of some sort, but even at the worst case,
natural gas plants produce very little smog, even though their CO2 production
is unfortunate.

Fourth- (well, three point fivesth) smog from coal plants in states that we
share a grid with is their problem- winds generally blow west to east, so that
smog won't end up in our cities. If the states where that smog ends up wants
to enact federal smog reduction standards I'll be at the table shoulder to
shoulder with you.

Trump has done a lot of shit to piss me off. As a resident of the bowl that
includes Los Angeles, this is probably the issue that makes me the angriest,
even though its national significance is fairly small. We need air quality
protections here. We can't survive otherwise, and solving this problem at the
state level had worked out fairly well so far. I'd rate it of more importance
to me than the housing crisis, (our fault, we're doing nothing to address it)
or the wild fires. (partially our fault, we're talking steps to fix it on a
global scale with the knowledge that it won't ever be enough by ourselves)

------
jdhn
I'm not sure what the legal standing for this is. If the EPA can legally grant
states the ability to set their own emissions, why can't it revoke it or roll
it back?

~~~
Alex3917
> If the EPA can legally grant states the ability to set their own emissions,
> why can't it revoke it or roll it back?

The government isn't allowed to change policies they've already created unless
there is a compelling reason to. Otherwise every government policy would
completely change every two years after each election.

~~~
Fjolsvith
What law requires this?

------
mindslight
Is it time for the blue team to rediscover libertarianism yet? I do miss that
aspect of the Bush II years. The general concept you're looking for here is
"states' rights".

I don't see what legal basis the EPA would have to nullify emissions standards
of the individual states for cars registered there. But I also think Wickard v
Filburn was a crock of power-agglomerating bullshit.

Hypothetically, could the federal government declare murder legal and preempt
state laws because they disrupt the commerce of contract killing?

~~~
tomohawk
Murder is also a federal crime. You can be charged under state law or federal
law or both. Not saying it's right, but it is what it is

If there is going to be an EPA, then the 14th amendment asserts equal
protection of the law. So, states with their own emissions regime are actually
nullifying federal law and violating equal protection. The incorporation
clause of the 14th amendment would also be in play. How far this goes appears
to be a constant battle in the courts and legislatures.

The EPA itself is on shaky ground, as there is no authority granted to the
federal government to create an EPA. Relying on the commerce clause is pretty
lame, and barely a fig leaf. Generally when interpreting a text, the most
specific statement is determinative, not the least specific.

~~~
ReptileMan
The main problem with commerce clause is that in 2019 everything is interstate
commerce.

~~~
tomohawk
The main problem with the commerce clause is that people don't know what it
means, or rather, have conveniently changed its meaning. It gives congress the
power to regulate interstate commerce. Regulate, as in: make regular or
normal. Commerce between the states was not normal, and was subject to tariffs
and other restrictions. This clause removes the power to restrict interstate
commerce from the states. It's not a license for congress to enact any law
that they want. If it was, what's the point of the rest of the constitution?

------
mikece
What a poorly written story: phrasing this as “Trump versus California” is
jingoism that risks obscuring a significant legal battle: states’ rights
versus federal over-reach. Unless it can be argued that this is an interstate
commerce case, this has to devolve to the rights of the States, under the 10th
amendment, to make their own laws. Too often opponents of States’ rights throw
out the canard that proponents of strong States rights want to being back
slavery; maybe we just want clean air, the ability to legalize marijuana, pass
own own gun laws, etc. The several states were supposed to be laboratories of
democracy: if a state wants to ban internal combustion vehicles they should be
allowed to do so.

~~~
crooked-v
The Supreme Court has already decided that "interstate commerce" covers things
that happen entirely within a single state. See Gonzales v. Raich.

~~~
mikece
The decision in “Gonzales v. Raich” was narrowly focused on the question of
growing cannabis for in-state consumption (for medicinal purposes). Even
Scalia broke from being a pure textualist to side with the government,
specifically stating that the merits of that case in no way overturn U.S. vs
Lopez and U.S. vs Morrison in which it was held that Congress exceeded its
authority under the enumerated powers.

