
Trump strips California of power to set auto emission standards - teh_klev
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49746701
======
iron0013
This seems like the political equivalent of "rolling coal". Damaging the
nation's health and well-being purely to spite political opponents, with
barely a fig leaf for rationale ("jobs" somehow, I guess, although of course
that makes no real sense).

~~~
Miner49er
I don't think this is purely out of spite. It's a calculated move to get/keep
support of automotive execs and investors. California is a huge market. Any
emissions standards they set is basically the entire country's, because no
manufacturer is not going to sell in the California market.

This move will probably result in money for Trump's 2020 campaign, because
he's saving the automotive industry money.

~~~
GVIrish
No, several auto makers actually did not want Trump to cut the federal
emissions standards, and 4 manufacturers (VW, BMW, Honda, and Ford) made an
agreement with California to meet higher standards than what Trump wanted.

Reason being that they're developing more efficient powertrains for global
markets, so going backwards from that just for the US would cause them either
to waste money developing different models for the US, or lose market share to
companies not attempting to be more fuel efficient.

The Trump DOJ then sued those automakers for antitrust violations for making
an agreement with California to meet stricter emissions/fuel economy
standards.

~~~
drak0n1c
Of course the largest most established carmakers would want to keep an
effective form of regulatory capture in place. Byzantine and inconsistent
regional compliance requirements raise the cost of market entry.

~~~
tzs
That seems like a weak argument, because almost everyone trying to enter the
car manufacturing market is doing so with electric cars or other low emissions
technology, and aren't inconveniences at all by California's emissions
requirements.

~~~
RhysU
How much does it cost to merely certify a model as compliant?

~~~
tzs
I'd expect California to use the data from the EPA. The manufacturer already
has to submit fuel efficiency and emissions information to the EPA.

So it should be free or cheap, since all California would be doing is querying
the EPA for the data, then comparing those numbers to whatever California's
standard is.

------
sam36
As someone that owned a family auto shop, I welcome this change.

The EPA set standards at a federal level (good standards I might add). Cali
was given the power to require higher standards in the 1970's as the article
mentions. In the 1970's and 1980's, a car made for the states vs. one headed
for California might be quite a bit different, including a different motor
with a different compression ratio and various "accessories" to reduce tail
pipe emissions.

Since the 1990's, there is not much difference between a car made for the
states and one for California, usually if there is a difference it is in
secondary air injection into the exhaust. Nowadays if a car is destined for
California, the manufacture adds a small airpump which is activated only for a
short period after engine start up to pump air into the exhaust. This adds
oxygen to the exhaust and allows unburned hydrocarbons to burn just a bit more
before exiting. This is only needed when engine temps are low however. So over
all, not a big change.

There are also rules to prevent tampering with the engine ECU. If one wants
more performance, they can get a third party to flash the stock ECU firmware
with a "hotter" one for more performance which usually requires more gas and
higher ignition timing for the price of more pollution. Though one might also
want their ECU tuned for nothing more than to change transmission shift points
and firmness (so not for more pollution). But ECU flashing is expensive
($400+) and a few hot rodders aren't going to melt the icecaps.

This is the way things were up until ~2010 or so before I left the market,
perhaps things are different right now, but I doubt it (any remarks are
welcomed)

------
cryoshon
why? what is the point of this? how does this benefit the country?

climate change aside, i cannot imagine how someone could argue in favor of
dirtier air when we already had a solution in place which addressed the issue
somewhat. and yet, that's where we are. this change will make the air dirtier
and cause cancer rates to rise.

and for what?

~~~
war1025
Aside from the fact that California has stricter standards than the EPA, what
sense does it make for California to dictate automotive emissions for the
nation?

If you want stricter emissions standards, fine. But figure out how to do it
through the federal government, and not via a side channel.

Edit:

Just wanted to note that I was pleasantly surprised to see people posting
reasonable rebuttals and not just the normal "Republicans are evil" replies
I've come to expect.

~~~
tathougies
Registered republican here. I actually disagree. This is not something that
should be under federal purview. The states retain full sovereignty over their
land and are under no obligation to 'figure out how to do it through the
federal government'. California is and should be free to set whatever
standards it pleases, regardless of how idiotic someone in Iowa or New York
think they may be.

Trump has violated states rights and deserves to be criticized for it.

~~~
lacker
The federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, though,
right? Since many or most of these cars are made in other states then sold in
California it seems like a pretty clear situation of interstate commerce.

And it seems like it would be a mess if you had "Ohio cars" that could be
driven in Ohio but not California, and "California cars" that could be driven
in California but not in Texas, etc etc.

~~~
tathougies
Sure, the federal government can control the sales of cars. However, the
interstate highways are owned and operated by california. California is also
the sole authority who can register cars in the state of california for
operation. So, while the federal government can force california to allow
californians to buy cars produced in another state, it should not be able to
force california to allow those cars to be driven on roads owned by the state
of california.

~~~
jpadkins
interstate highways are funded by federal tax dollars. So not wholly owned by
California.

And article 1, section 8 gives feds power to regulate (normalize) interstate
commerce.

~~~
tathougies
No theyre wholly owned by the state. The federal government provides money but
the land and improvements are owned by the state of California. Not that it
matters anyway because state law is the sole arbiter of who owns what.

------
briffle
Will this have any affect? I understand that nobody wants to make cars they
can't sell in the state with the largest car market.

However there is nothing to stop California from indexing new car registration
fees to some sort of measurement of MPG, pollution, etc. If they tack on HUGE
fees to some of the worst offenders, wouldn't it have the same effect?

~~~
gamblor956
_However there is nothing to stop California from indexing new car
registration fees to some sort of measurement of MPG, pollution, etc. If they
tack on HUGE fees to some of the worst offenders, wouldn 't it have the same
effect?_

That's a great suggestion and actually one of the ones that has been tossed
around in the Capitol if SCOTUS upholds Trump's decision, and possibly even if
it doesn't.

~~~
jigglesniggle
If the fees are applied only against non-California cars then it is likely
those fees will be held to violate the interstate commerce clause due to being
de facto discriminatory.

Not that I agree with the outcome in this case. The interstate commerce clause
is a horrible abuse. But that is what it is.

~~~
gamblor956
Agreed, which is why California would apply them to all cars sold in CA or
brought into the state.

Essentially, they would just be an extension of existing state vehicle
registration fees.

~~~
jigglesniggle
The test for violation of the interstate commerce clause doesn't care about
intent. So, quite interestingly, if car manufacturers hadn't decided to _only_
target CA emissions standards they would have been able to bring suit against
CA if creating two models of everything was too difficult.

Would the solution of only creating one model and selling that have been a
valid reason for a federal court to dismiss such a suit? I think it unlikely,
as that would give CA de facto control over a huge amount of economic activity
outside of its borders.

------
mwsfc
So far, the government seems to not have provided any legal justification for
this move. Would love to hear input from someone with legal experience that
can shed some light on how the appeals process may look and the reasons why
one side may prevail over the other.

~~~
DiffEq
This is rather simple; EPA is a part of the Executive Branch. He is the Chief
Executive. So he can do these things. This is the way the government is set up
under the Constitution of the U.S.

~~~
bluGill
I would argue that under the constitution the EPA is only there to enforce the
rules congress sets up, but not make the rules. Thus Trump (the executive)
cannot do this, only congress can.

The above is not an argument that has seen much success though.

~~~
DiffEq
This is not how it works though. Congress created the EPA with a Mandate and
the power to create more rules/regulations on it's own that carry the force of
law. This makes it easier for them because in theory they get to pass a law
and hand it over to what are supposed to be experts to carry out the purpose.
But this creation of congress is governed by the Executive Branch; meaning
they just ceded a bunch of power to the President. So that is why the EPA can
do things on its own and also why the President can intervene in ways like
this. This is the case for every piece of bureaucracy that congress creates.

~~~
bluGill
I know that is how it works. I disagree. The job of congress is to write/pass
the laws/rules, not delegate it to someone else.

I'm not against the EPA writing a proposed law and then sending it to congress
to pass: it is not possible for congress to be expert enough to write all the
required regulations correctly. However it should be (in my opinion which you
don't seem to get) up to congress to pass the rule or not in the end.

I will allow the executive to make a temporary regulation until congress can
pass the law, but only so far as the law goes into effect (if passed) on the
date of the regulation, until congress passes the law nothing will happen if
you violate it - of course if it passes that is willful violation which may
have a higher price to pay. If you can convince congress not to pass the law
the regulation disappears at the end of the next session of congress and
cannot be brought back.

~~~
sjg007
Well it is kind of temporary when Congress is functioning normally. The
President can say hey I’m doing this and Congress could say no..

------
RichardCA
The thing I wonder about is whether this is for the auto industry or the
fossil fuels lobby.

California requires a type of gasoline that is only produced at a limited
number of refineries at considerable expense. California cannot export or
import gasoline from other states. If the EPA fuel efficiency rollback is
successful the assumption would be that this regime could be dismantled.

But I can't find any source with enough detail to be meaningful.

[https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gasoline-
manipulation...](https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gasoline-manipulation-
infobox-20150706-story.html)

(Note: Unlike NYT, LA Times links work just fine in incognito mode.)

------
acchow
Is California allowed to add a tax on vehicles for various emissions?

------
merricksb
Other discussion about same topic:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870)

------
HocusLocus
Everyone in California continues to have the right to set their own auto
emission standard. I don't see what the fuss is all about.

------
whenchamenia
Good. This will enable cheapwr cara nationwide, if not worldwide. Hopefully
reasonable federal standards will fill the gap quickly.

------
sq_
Aside from a petty desire to undo things done by the previous administration
and attack California, I really don't understand this move by Trump and his
administration.

Any major car manufacturer will look at this with the knowledge that emissions
standards will likely flip back either on a court challenge or when a new
administration comes in, so why would they want to change up their whole
design and assembly process?

I guess the only good news is that it's unlikely that any manufacturer will
actually regress and produce cars that hurt our planet more than current ones
since they'll know it'd be a short term move that they'll have to undo later.

~~~
SubiculumCode
Personally, I don't see why States don't have the right to regulate this as
they see fit.

~~~
sq_
I'd prefer that the federal government set a proper nationwide standard (match
or beat CA's current standard?), but I do agree with you.

You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms
about this...

~~~
boring_twenties
> You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms
> about this...

Not only has this train left the station, the station has been obliterated
from the air.

You'd think that all the free-market people would be up in arms about tariffs
and an escalating trade war.

You'd think that all the pro-gun people to be up in arms about the first
President in history to implement a gun ban by executive order. (Or perhaps
even about the candidate who said "take all the guns now, worry about due
process later" well before the election.)

You'd think that all the corrupt-Clintons people would raise an eyebrow as
Trump pressures world leaders to meet at his personally owned properties, and
accepts bizarre payments[0] from Saudi Arabia while coincidentally also being
engaged in an effort to defend their gruesome murder of a US citizen.

You might even think that all the "war on terror" as well as the "US out of
Middle East" crowd to be somewhat concerned about a President who announces
that the US "is waiting to hear from the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] as to how
we should proceed."

Whatever is going on here, it's far beyond any kind of simple hypocrisy or
political compromises or whatever. People who have spent their entire lives
behind slogans like "better dead than red," "pry it from my cold dead hands"
and all that stuff have simply done a 180 degree turn on a dime. Now it's
suddenly the other side who is unfairly demonizing Russia and the Saudis, and
bump stocks are just toys that no one really needs, and whatever else.

Despite my best efforts I am no closer to understanding why it's happening
like this. The textbook explanations, like cults of personality, don't seem to
apply here. But whatever it is it seems far more dangerous than the normal
game of politics in the United States. And it would really behoove us to
figure it out soon.

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-
lobbyis...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyist-
paid-for-500-rooms-at-trumps-hotel-
after-2016-election/2018/12/05/29603a64-f417-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html)

------
75dvtwin
I think President's Trump overall strategy here is:

a) remove ability of states to set national policy on environment regulations

b) pull the 'global warming discussion into the constitutional courts ( where
it might (or might not) get cleansed from the claims that are impossible to
confirm, or asks that impossible to implement constitutionally.

I suspect the 54 Mpg average for a fleet, will specifically go into
questioning from the above angles.

c) get the courts, potentially rule on relative power and scope of Federal
agencies (eg EPA vs NHTSA) (as before these kinds of things were set jointly).

d) Conspicuously Remind California, that defecating on Federal laws about
immigration, federal elections and other national/constitutional matters, will
continue to have negative impact on their ability to get special treatment
from Fed gov.

\---

This specific set of actions, and the ones that will be coming on this subject
-- seems to be result of multi-year review that President Trump and his team
are conducting on all of ex President Obama's admin 11th hour executive
actions (there were a slew of them). [2]

The letter [1] from automotive industry alliance, is asking this in 2016:
".... We urge EPA to reconsider imposing such a far-reaching mandate on entire
industry without adequately considering the consequences, and without giving
stakeholders a meaningful opportunity to comment.

The MY 2022-2025 standards threaten to depress an industry that can ill afford
spiraling regulatory costs.

If left unchanged, those standards could cause upt to 1.1 million American to
lose jobs due to lost vehicle sales. And low-income households would be hit
hardest

The Alliance is not asking EPA to make a different Final Determination at this
time. All we are asking is that EPA withdraw the Final Determination and
resume the midterm evaluation, in conjunction with NHTSA, consistent with the
timetable embodied in EPA's own regulations. We believe that, if carried out
as intended, the Midterm Evaluation can lead to an outcome that makes sense
for all affected stakeholders and for society as a whole..." ...."

By the way, personally..., this letter might have a merit, but reads a bit
like the coal mining discussion (where coal mining owners and execs are
warning about job losses in the industry ..... but mowing down whole
mountains, and causing lung deceases is ok....)

[1]([https://autoalliance.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/Letter-t...](https://autoalliance.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/Letter-to-EPA-Admin.-Pruitt-Feb.-21-2016-Signed.pdf))

[2]([https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-epa-mileage-
standa...](https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-epa-mileage-
standards-20170113-story.html))

~~~
dmode
President Trump has no strategy. He is acting out of spite, exactly how he has
acted all his life. A real loser.

~~~
rasz
He did win Presidential election, pretty good for someone you call a loser.

------
busterarm
I've seen so much misinformation and inaccurate reporting around this story
and it's been quite frustrating.

As I understand it, four auto manufacturers were working on stricter
regulations with the State of California and nationally in separate
negotiations.

The deal the auto manufacturers were working on was for 46.5 mpg nationally
and 50mpg in California. Then the State of California went their own way and
decided that it would 54.5 mpg.

The auto manufacturers flipped out and said that was way too aggressive and
that they wouldn't be able to meet that target. The auto manufacturers
themselves approached the administration to intervene in negotiations. This is
the biggest part of the story that is not being reported.

Then the Trump administration went way the other way and decided that
California shouldn't be able to separately negotiate restrictions. The EPA
wants control over this.

It's literally "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" all around.

~~~
nullc
Can you share some links? I spent a few minutes trying to figure out why the
administration would do this without luck-- more information would be
interesting.

~~~
busterarm
[https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a22654441/trumps-epa-
propo...](https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a22654441/trumps-epa-proposes-to-
lower-fuel-economy-rules-ending-separate-california-standards/)

Meat and potatoes in the "update" up top. This is essentially old news that is
being restated without all of the facts because Trump is the devil. There's
really no new information causing this story to blow up this week.

