
Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate - jonathanehrlich
https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/23/trump-is-going-after-californias-clean-car-mandate/
======
triviatise
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 like this through. Be wary of expansions of federal power predicated
on reinterpretation of the constitution.

~~~
derefr
I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a
subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies
is that he was already _operating a business_ that does interstate commerce.

Such a business, when it makes a choice to not execute a sale that it would
have had an opportunity to execute, has “mens rea” for that act’s effects on
interstate commerce—because such companies keep track of such things, and
their decisions are driven by such metrics.

It’s just like insider trading: _not_ executing a trade that would have
otherwise (i.e. given only public knowledge) been in your best interests to
execute, where you didn’t execute it because of corporate-internal knowledge,
is still just as illegal as the reverse. In either case, since it’s your job
as a trader to be aware of the effects of both executing and not executing
trades, either “act” can be said to be the result of an explicit, intentional
choice you made.

(Of course, that’s different from just not executing a trade that you would
have had no particular reason to execute. You can’t blame someone for insider
trading just because they don’t short a stock, if they don’t already have a
pattern of shorting stocks!)

In all such cases, the guilty party is a more abstract type of actor than an
individual (e.g. a corporation; an accredited investor) and their guilt is
driven by the fact that such actors behave _predictably_ according to some
preference function, such that it’s clear where such actors act against that
preference function both through explicit action; and through inaction.

Or, as a formalism: when it’s 100% of your job, as an agent in a system, to
decide whether to make deals, then a lack of a deal, together with evidence
that you _considered_ the deal, can be regarded as an explicit choice you’ve
made to not make that deal.

~~~
edanm
> I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a
> subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it
> applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate
> commerce.

Are you sure about that? I don't know that much about the law, but I've always
heard of this case specifically because the excess wheat he was producing was
for his own consumption.

Wiki seems to agree with this, not mentioning anything about his having a
business that I see (although I only skimmed the article and may have missed
something).

~~~
derefr
Yes, the amount grown in excess of the law was for his own use; but the amount
grown conformant to the law was for sale.

There may not have been an incorporated entity beyond just the farmer as
farmer; but, sole proprietorship+ or corportation, there was still a separate
abstract entity from the _federal government’s perspective_ whose function was
to trade in wheat (a “trading entity” or “Doing Business As” entity.) The
farmer was—again, from the federal government’s perspective—the employee and
sole shareholder of that entity; and that entity did business selling wheat.

\+ (Sole proprietorships are a “hack” of the public API by which individuals
interact with the _tax system_ , allowing them to track their DBA revenue and
expenses as part of their individual income and expenses. From the
government’s perspective, though, when it comes to _trade law_ rather than
_tax law_ , there’s always _a company_ on both sides of each trade. In the
case of sole proprietorships—including the case of, say, two neighbouring
farmers bartering—the trade is just being executed by two "companies" whose
identities are foreign-keyed to the individual sole shareholders' identities.)

Under this model, the amount grown in excess of the law was, effectively,
grown _by a business that sells wheat_ , and then given to the business’s sole
shareholder in place of pay. _That transaction_ caused _the shareholder_ to
not have to buy wheat on the market, which means _the business_ made a choice
to make this deal, when _the business_ —as an entity that sells wheat—had a
responsibility to know that it was breaking the excess law by doing this.

------
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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543)

~~~
comex
> 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
administrator. (Your trimmed quote suggests an alternate interpretation where
they'd need compelling and extraordinary reasons to _reject_ the state
standards, but it's the other way around.)

It doesn't sound hard to me for the EPA administrator to argue that there are
no longer "extraordinary" conditions specific to California that justify
additional regulation. Apparently, when the language was initially enacted in
1970, it was meant to refer to smog episodes in Los Angeles [1]...

[1] [https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-
its...](https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-
emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379)

~~~
JoshCole
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...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bad-air-
days-20171115-story.html)

[2]:
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170619092749.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170619092749.htm)

------
kyrra
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?

~~~
zupzupper
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.

~~~
dahdum
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.

~~~
fragmede
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 the adoption of adopting the stronger California
standard or using the weaker EPA's, but the goal was to avoid a hodgepodge of
different laws.

~~~
dahdum
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.

------
gesman
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.

------
spilk
states' rights?

~~~
DrStalker
States have the right to make laws that agree with the ruling party.

------
dctoedt
At the zoo years ago, my kids and I saw a bunch of monkeys playing in their
enclosure — and pissing and shitting wherever they felt like it. Of course, it
was the zoo staff who had to clean up the resulting messes.

I think of those monkeys whenever some executives and their political allies
complain about the regulations that keep them from making big messes for the
taxpayers to clean up.

------
zamalek
Arnie has been pretty vocal against Trump, respectful but openly defiant. I
wonder if this is disciplinary action - turning climate change is very close
to Arnie's heart.

~~~
joshmn
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 electric
vehicles. He must protect BlockBuster. Hell, subsidize the shovels.

~~~
chrissnell
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 administration's policy
could have significant impact on the price of vehicles for the rest of us. My
diesel truck, for example, has several thousand dollars worth of emissions
equipment that my state does not require. It's problematic and I'd love to
skip it on my next purchase.

~~~
titzer
> It's problematic and I'd love to skip it on my next purchase.

I'd like you to go ahead and not pump a crapton of pollution into the air,
thanks. Sorry for being so direct, and I would generally prefer to be more
civil, but your comment strikes me as incredibly tone deaf and frankly,
destructive. You are one inch away from advocating peeing in the swimming pool
because it's cheaper than building toilets.

~~~
joecool1029
Since you probably haven’t owned a modern diesel vehicle I’ll tell you why
owners don’t like the equipment on small vehicles. (Cars and light trucks)

It mostly comes down to the diesel particulate filter (DPF) that reduces
visible soot. This is not really a problem outside some major cities.

Why don’t we like the DPF systems? Consider something like a VW Golf or Jetta
TDI. With these systems you’re adding hundreds of pounds of extra dead weight,
a regen cycle is required which wastes fuel by blowing it into the filter to
regenerate. Combined, this wastes around 10-15%. The cherry on top is you
cannot run blends of biodiesel higher than 15% or it ruins the DPF since it
doesn’t volatilize like diesel does. Biodiesel is renewable and already comes
with reduced emissions without extra controls.

I do give a bit of a shit about the environment and if given the option I
would not have a DPF on a light diesel. I have a hard time seeing how
decreased fuel mileage and a restriction on running renewables equals care for
the environment.

Keep in mind, we removed sulfur from our on-road fuel in the US back in 2007
(way behind europe). This was a big help in allowing new catalyst controls to
work as well as reduce conventional diesel pollution.

But yeah, this is not stuff most people consider or know about until they own
a noxwagen after previously owning one of the pre-2007 tdi’s, read the bosch
whitepapers on the controls, and have a dpf fail just outside federal
emissions warranty (VW’s motto: If you can program it to cheat, you can
program it to fail!)

EDIT: Forgot to mention the cost of just the DPF is usually $4-6k. It’s a huge
failure component and I can’t recommend anyone purchase a lightt vehicle with
one for city use as it won’t be able to properly regenerate and will fail
early. Since the cost is that high the car/truck may be prematurely scrapped.

~~~
noelwelsh
How available is biodiesel in the US? I"ve never seen it here in the UK, so
it's not a consideration for me.

The DPF should be self cleaning if you do an occasional high-speed trip (such
as on a highway), so it shouldn't be wasting fuel unless you're doing
exclusively city driving (in which case I agree; petrol or electric is better
in this situation).

Our 2016 Golf Bluemotion gets at least 50mpg in normal driving, usually over
60mpg, and occasionally we crack 70mpg.

~~~
joecool1029
>How available is biodiesel in the US?

Wholesale its pretty much everywhere. Retail it depends on the state. Most
states have a small % (usually 2-5%) blended into standard diesel to replace
the lubricity lost from removing sulfur, but to get B20 or higher you’d have
to google.

>The DPF should be self cleaning

Key words, ‘should be’. Do a quick search of dpf problems. They either plug
from not completing (though you get dpf light telling you to go race it for a
half hour or so to clear) or having some other issue. This causes obstruction
and reduces economy more. That or they crack like mine did and plug the egr
with soot. Regen takes some time to run, if your commute is 5mi it will not
complete.

>Our 2016 Golf Bluemotion gets at least 50mpg in normal driving, usually over
60mpg, and occasionally we crack 70mpg.

(Casual reminder UK mpg different than US mpg, I will convert my experience to
UK mpg)

Consistent with my 98 jetta tdi’s mileage. Unfortunately my 2012 golf tdi
usually only topped out around 60mpg, I only broke 70mpg in a few extrodinary
circumstances. The newer ones have urea injection systems and are a bit
lighter.

Also from what I remember UK diesel is usually higher cetane and generally
higher quality (also comparing any US/EU spec vehicles, US almost always
detuned for emissions and running on poor fuel)

------
dmode
The Trump administration cannot have us breathing clean air, lest it impacts a
fraction of some companies bottom line. What's next ? Force us to fire up some
coal powered plants ?

------
ape4
Maybe the EU can adopt the California standards.

~~~
flukus
It's kind of amusing to contrast the comments here vs a thread on the GDPR.
Here many of the comments are along the lines of "it's not fair how California
can enforce a law outside it's borders" but the GDPR ones were all "How does
the EU hope to enforce this on american companies".

------
patrickg_zill
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 cars, a car maker will usually not bother
to make or import a car that they can't sell in CA.

So, _I_ am harmed by CA's standards and have no recourse - I can't vote in CA
state elections because I don't live in CA.

The BMW 320d, which is sold all over EU etc. and has better performance and
better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius? CA won't allow its sale because of
their regulations.

Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different
quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars
being driven by Americans.

see [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/03/03/518323094...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/03/03/518323094/rise-in-smog-in-western-u-s-is-blamed-on-asias-air-
pollution)

~~~
jhall1468
> So, I am harmed by CA's standards and have no recourse - I can't vote in CA
> state elections because I don't live in CA.

You aren't harmed by California's standards by any stretch of the imagination:

You can't show any actual harm by not being able to purchase specific diesel
engines.

> Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different
> quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars
> being driven by Americans.

Sure, let's sign a bill telling the smog it can't go to LA anymore. That
should do the trick. Do you understand the purpose of the regulations are to
give Bay-area residents breathable, healthy air, and these regulations are the
ones California can actually enact?

But hey, it's a conservative mantra to only think of the individual, so you
fit the mold pretty well. Poor guy, can't buy a BMW 320d, and the damn Bay-
area residents should get sick and breath horrible air so he can.

~~~
patrickg_zill
My point is that people in the other 49 states are harmed by CA's action and
have no representation to fix it due to CA's veto power over diesels.

If a 320d is MORE efficient than a Prius, even though it doesn't have
batteries, wouldn't you want it to be sold in the USA?

EDIT to add: it seems that the latest gen of the 320d is sold in the USA, as
the 328d. The previous generation was not, which is what my comments were
based on.

~~~
jhall1468
> My point is that people in the other 49 states are harmed

I know that's your point. But your point is without merit. You aren't being
harmed because you aren't showing harm. California isn't vetoing diesels. They
are regulating their environment and businesses are responding by not
producing vehicles that meet the smog requirements.

You keep talking about efficiency, it's not about that. It's about pollution.
You aren't being harmed, even had you been more informed about the 328d.

------
chrissnell
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.

~~~
pmichaud
I have a sense that there's something wrong here. Wrong layer of abstraction?
California imposes whatever pollution regulations it wants, then it's up to
the car manufacturers how to handle that. They could choose not to sell to CA
residents. They could choose to make a separate line of CA-specific cars. But
they choose instead to make all their cars up to CA standard because whatever,
it's cheaper for them overall, and consumers will pay the extra anyway.

So there is obviously a market solution here. It seems wrong to target the CA
regulation layer on this one.

Also, are we sure that it costs more on the margin to manufacture cleaner
cars?

Plus, I can't help but think it's not that bad if we accidentally have cleaner
cars, but that's not really a principled stance, it just worked out in this
case.

~~~
product50
If you have been in manufacturing, you will know that building 2 differently
spec'ed cars is much more expensive than have an assembly line with a same
spec'ed car. And California has a large population to be a lucrative market.
In essence, that means that car manufacturers have to build to California's
emission standards and distribute the costs to all users (even those who
aren't in California).

~~~
dmode
I don't want to breathe polluted air because car companies cannot be arsed to
manufacture 2 spec cars. It's their problem

~~~
product50
I am with you on this. I was just trying explain how 1 state's decision can
impact other states' too.

