
California Promises to Fight EPA Plan on Car Standards - LinuxBender
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-promises-to-fight-epa-plan-on-car-standards/
======
codezero
I wonder if this has real case law behind it. I’m not a lawyer but have done a
bunch of HIPAA training and one of the key elements of that federal program is
that where states are more restrictive with privacy and security, this takes
precedence.

More restrictive emissions laws are to protect individuals and task
corporations to be better, so it seems good to let states enact their own more
restrictive rules.

~~~
jigglesniggle
There is an example I am aware of that was in my history book (but that I am
having trouble finding now). States would set conflicting sizes for tractor
trailer mudflaps in what seemed to be a de facto attempt to regulate trade
between states. This was found to be a violation of the interstate commerce
clause.

The actions California takes may be considered similar, especially (as someone
below mentioned) if previously acceptable cars are not grandfathered in. There
is also probably a good case to be made if California law has an effect,
intended or not, on non-Californian states.

There is also a federal rule (good faith and something) that states must, in
general, recognize the licenses of other states (marriage, drivers, etc; but
notably not concealed carry, which I think will be tested again).

Personally, on the one hand I am for states rights and the environment and
very much do not like how the interstate commerce clause is used. On the
other, a lack of agreeable regulation is detrimental to the states (and having
one state force that regulation does not seem fair).

~~~
codezero
Oh cool! That’s an interesting point. Of course things are always more nuanced
than they seem on the surface, thanks for sharing this.

~~~
jigglesniggle
See also
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause)
and look at my other comment in the parent's chain.

------
dantheman
This is just one of many examples of congress delegating it's law making duty
to the executive -- normally so it can avoid any responsibility for it's
actions. If the policy is not popular they blame the executive, the policy is
successful they point to their delegation of power.

Hopefully, we'll see congress take back the reigns more and if anything
delegate things to the states and instead of the executive.

The common excuse is that the expertise lies in the executive so they should
control the rules. This can be easily answered by allowing the executive to
draft the rules, but to have congress involved whenever they're changed.

------
merricksb
Two related discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008146](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008146)

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

------
youeseh
How much does this matter if automakers are putting out electric cars and
trucks that are more reliable than their gasoline cousins? People will buy the
vehicle that provides the best value, won't they?

~~~
joshualross
Any drop in gas prices is typically followed by an increase in purchases of
gas inefficient vehicles.

------
ApolloFortyNine
I think it makes sense to limit how much impact one large state can have on
the whole country. It sounds very much like California overstepping the
government's authority to regulate interstate trade.

I know people in this case will want to support California because this has to
do with emission standards. But look no further than the countless items that
now print "Known to California to cause cancer" for another impact.

California is so large that it can practically dictate terms for the rest of
the U.S. I do not believe that's a good thing, and I believe eventually
there'll come a case that will make that abundantly clear, if it's not
already.

~~~
mullingitover
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

These are the states that mirror California's emissions standards.

We're not talking about one state. We're talking about the entire west coast
of the US and the lion's share of the eastern seaboard.

~~~
bbatha
And about 2/3rds of the population

------
trhway
it is just genius - Trump is going to solve the CA homeless crisis by bringing
smog back to make the CA cities streets impossible to stay at for any
prolonged amount of time.

~~~
aidenn0
six-dimensional chess at its highest levels.

------
kstrauser
I could see it playing out like this:

Obama, 2009: CA, you can keep setting your own standards.

CA: Great! OK car companies, by 2025 we want you to hit these numbers.

Car companies: Will do.

Trump, 2019: JK. You only have to meet the federal standards.

Some car companies: Awesome, thanks!

Next president, 2020: What, that's insane. CA, you can keep setting your own
standards.

CA: Great. OK car companies, the 2025 targets are still in place.

Some car companies: _surprised pikachu_

I think any manufacturer who doesn't stick with California's standard, even if
they're temporarily allowed to ignore it, is absolutely crazy. Higher
standards seem absolutely inevitable, and I think it's corporate suicide to
trust that the EPA will remained weakened and toothless.

~~~
maerF0x0
Those who dont will have a cheaper car. This will either please investors
(more profit) or help beat the competition in sales.

~~~
webkike
A cheaper car to buy, not a cheaper car to own

~~~
flyingfences
Fewer/simpler emissions systems would mean cheaper maintenance, no?

~~~
webkike
Usually cars meet emissions standards by increasing their MPG, so you'd pay
less for gas.

~~~
DuskStar
Dieselgate was manufacturers meeting performance and MPG figures at the
expense of increased pollution. A lot of pollution does not trend directly
with CO2.

------
Analemma_
If California loses this fight, the next step is to just impose a 100% (or
more) sales tax on any car that doesn't meet whatever standards it wants.
Sales taxation is firmly established as state authority and the federal
government could go pound sand.

~~~
maxk42
People would just make the purchase out-of-state.

They're already doing this to avoid steep sales taxes on cars. Some people
even keep their vehicle registered out-of-state to avoid registration fees as
well.

~~~
Analemma_
I don't know about California, but in Washington state when you register a car
that was previously registered in another state, you have to provide proof
that you paid sales tax on it, and you have to pay a use tax if you can't do
that. Presumably CA would just apply an identical use tax to cars purchased in
any state without their standard.

Now, sure, some people could dodge the system, but they don't really matter:
the point is to make it inconvenient enough for automakers that they only
produce vehicles meeting the CA standard.

~~~
Rebelgecko
It's similar in CA. If you register a car from out of state, California still
gets a cut. And California typically doesn't let you register cars from
elsewhere that don't meet CA emissions standards (aka cars that have an "EPA"
sticker under the hood but not a "CARB" one)

~~~
nivenhuh
Not true. You can register cars purchased out of state, that are non-carb
compliant.

See exemptions page:
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr29)

~~~
Rebelgecko
Most of the exceptions are pretty big life events (divorce, death of a
relative, military PCS). That why I said "typically" in my comment, it's not
something you can really do at-will

