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.
Note that there has always been an exception to the rules: if you are out of state and your car it totaled you can buy a new non-California car and register it in California.
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).
If you were to instead ask "can you sell a vehicle that can't be registered" the answer is "yes." You can also make your own car and in so doing ignore most safety and emissions requirements.
There is a notable lack of small car manufacturers and a lack of case law on some of this. Some do mostly cosmetic work on existing models, and some sell "kits" and may help you assemble it "yourself" so as to qualify for a shopbuilt title.
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.
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.
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.
The federal government allows California to set their own standard, and allows any states who want to follow the California standard. How exactly is that overstepping?
> … the cost of making any car will go way up.
Most parts on a car are the same, and car makers know the differences. They often account for left vs right side drive in the design phase so the same general car can be sold either way. They often have many different engine variations that meet different legal or market needs from the same general engine castings. The trick is to figure out what variations are worth the cost and then manage them.
Not if the second variant is cheap enough and/or will be sold in enough volume to recoup the fixed costs (engineering, tooling, etc) and still turn a profit.
If that weren't the case you'd only be able to get cars in black.
Edit: Is my math wrong or is reality inconvenient today?
And those are labels, we're not talking about a car, which is obviously going to be more expensive.
No, it's companies being pragmatic. If you want to sell in California you have to comply with certain standards. If you then want to create a separate, inefficient, polluting car to sell to the rest of the US where they don't care about those things, have at it. If you don't think that makes economic sense, then don't.
This is about as pro-states-rights as you can get.
> But look no further than the countless items that now print "Known to California to cause cancer" for another impact.
Nobody here cares about that.
You mean, much like Europe has had an impact on the whole world by introducing GDPR? Borders are no more when the issues are global. Privacy, health, wellbeing, …
When a group of people decides that something has an impact on their lives (health in this case, or anything else for that matter), and introduce regulation because the industry doesn't give enough fucks, what's so bad about it?
I would daresay that its impact on the country is too small, given its contributions.
edit I guess I've been shadow banned for wrong think in here, can't respond to comments.
Some states criminalize possession of substances others don't. Some criminalize certain behaviors and practices that others don't. Why should that stop at the freeways?
At least in the history book I used there is a direct parallel: a precedent setting case had to do with regulations about tractor trailer wheel mudflap sizes. States would set different conflicting values so that they could restrict the traffic through them (or force a waste of time before coming in).
There may also be another argument based on how states must, in general, respect each other's licenses (marriage, driver, etc; but interestingly not concealed carry, something I suspect will be tested again soon).
Right, but in our scenario they're not prohibiting them, they're prohibiting registering them. That's different than the mud-flaps issue, which does actually seem problematic in my opinion for exactly that reason: it inhibits inter-state commerce.
Keeping your post visible while disabling replies is the exact opposite of what shadow banning is.
California has categorized entire model series (spanning years) as "Hugh emitter profile" years after release regardless of what your individual vehicle has ever measured. My small pickup truck is one such victim. I've had to get the full dynamometer test every other year for over 20 years, costing over $80 each time. It's always passed.
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.
You're correct if you're speaking about the tragedy of commons issue with air quality...
But for the individual it should be cheaper _or equal_ to own. Certainly not more expensive
(There are a few limited cases such as medium sized marine engines where diesel is the only safe and practical option.)
I can't find any definitive evidence that exhaust gas recirculation reduces fuel economy, though a sourced statement on wikipedia says there was a 3% drop in fuel economy when EGR was first introduced. Quora also doesn't mention anything about EGR lowering fuel economy.
Regardless, environmental regulations are done for a reason. Reducing NOx is a very good thing.
> I'd guess wildfire emissions(smoke) are several orders of magnitude more dangerous than vehicles.
I can't take this seriously.
The car companies are backing california.
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.
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.
...and if you DID pay sales tax on it, but the rate is lower than the Washington use tax, you have to pay the difference.
Funny story about this. My Constitutional Law professor at the University of Washington School of Law had been at or near the top of his class at Harvard or Yale or whichever top law school he went to, then clerked at the Supreme Court. So he was pretty well versed in Constitutional law.
Then he accepted the position at UW, hoped into his newly purchased car, and headed cross country to Seattle. Washington's sales/use tax was considerably higher than that of whatever state he came from...and when he was told he had to pay the difference, he was outraged, and was sure this had to be unconstitutional.
He was quite surprised when he hit the UW law library to research this and found out that it was legal.
See exemptions page: