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.
> You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this...
When the Commerce clause was used to enable certain regulations on the sale and transfer of firearms, these same Californians argued for the power. If the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (which Americans have a protected right to keep and bear), then the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles (which Americans have no particular protected right to possess).
> 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.
Does the Federal Government have the right to regulate firearms through the Commerce clause? The Federal Government's powers to preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (somewhat separate from the right to keep and bear) are the same powers that enable them to preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles.
The way I see it, it is mostly about motivating his base.
Creating a negative feedback from the opposition rallies his base united against "the enemy" and has a larger reach and impact than whatever he does in the first place.
That is impact on his support, anything else doesn't matter.
If it fails in court, he will use _that_ to drum up his base.
So it's not a failure in that context.
There is a valid reason based in dismantling regulatory capture. The California rules make it necessary for carmakers to produce multiple types of cars for different regions of the country, or just produce all cars based on California's costlier standards. Car prices are already raised due to the regulations. The big automakers support it because they've already built infrastructure for it and they have the resources to continue to pay for it. Small new competitors might not.
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).
If I were president, knowing that I would certainly have my own chapter in the history books, I would spend at least some of my thoughts on how it would read. "President rootusrootus spent the entirety of his term in office attempting unsuccessfully to undo the legacy of the previous occupant." is not exactly what I would be going for. Tearing down a legacy is not the same as building one.
I hope the adults are back in charge next time around. This was not a fun experiment.
It's interesting to see populism take hold in real time. Growing up, I remember teachers and student asking, "well how did $HORRIBLE_LEADER even come into power." Now we know.
Turns out it's ridiculously easy to get people to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Someone recently made the observation that we should not describe people who did terrible things in the past as monsters, because it allows us to rationalize away our own action or inaction.
"We could never do <whatever bad thing our ancestors did> because they were monsters and we are not." Better to keep in mind that they were very much human, just as we are, and take the history lesson as a warning. And we just got a shot across the bow.
...which was extremely controversial when published, because people thought it was diminishing the Nazis' atrocities. I always felt your point to be the far more immediate lesson, apart from any argument of her view of Eichmann (that he was a paper-pushing bore as well as a mass murderer) simply being the correct one.
I think it makes complete sense to describe us as terrible. We are what we are. No point in sugar coating it.
Write the books to talk about how a lot of people were upset with the way things went. But don't forget to include the part about how lots of people were happy with it.
Especially given the fact that Henry Ford was an incredibly pernicious anti-semite who supported Adolf Hitler's movement in its infancy with financing for vehicles and uniforms. Nazism got its start in America and for us to pretend like it's some foreign ideology is bonkers.
Of course. I advocate writing both perspectives, knowing that the bias of the victor would show up.
But looking back, I think we’ve done a major disservice in the US by not including the dark parts of history in our stories: civil war -> states rights. Nazis -> no american ever supported that idea.
Stuff like that. It makes the times we live through now feel like a surprise to many I think. They’re shocked people could actually support racists, bigots, worthless people.
> "President rootusrootus spent the entirety of his term in office attempting unsuccessfully to undo the legacy of the previous occupant." is not exactly what I would be going for. Tearing down a legacy is not the same as building one.
That assumes the previous occupant had a legacy worth preserving. The real underlying problem is that a lot of people honestly believe the previous occupant's legacy needed to be torn down.
It’s not about rational, every president disagrees with the previous one to some degree. I mean the point of the political system is to make changes they believe in.
However, the world is a chaotic place so no president can actually remove the legacy of the previous one. Revert all policies on day one, and the next president reverts all yours in an endless cycle that’s not a legacy. The actual legacy is the impact of your choices.
They didn't though. Just recall during the Healthcare repeal debacle, the very same voting base was foaming at the mouth against Obamacare while complaining about the threat against the Affordable Care Act.
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.
>This move will probably result in money for Trump's 2020 campaign, because he's saving the automotive industry money.
Unsure why you're being downvoted. This sounds like, at minimum, one of the lines of calculation.
"Hey, we're not going to win California anyway. Let's screw those Americans over and make some money for our buddies over here. Remember fellas, some of that money's gonna come to us!"
Do the auto manufacturers actually have in their R&D pipeline engines that achieve California's 54.5 mpg target that they can bring to market before 2026?
Europe's measuring standards are very different from here and the "80-mpg" economy figures you see touted actually work out to be more like 50 real world...similar to what happens here.
Auto manufacturers aren't set to increase standards for the EU until 2030.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's a calculated move to get/keep support of automotive execs and investors.
Except that the main way it might do so is if they're afraid of being targeted by Trump of they don't support him.
In practical terms the auto makers likely need to meet California's desired standards as well as international ones in order to sell cars globally, and if they don't meet them domestically they're vulnerable to competitor ads "$BRANDX, so bad they're illegal to sell in most of the world," etc.
Even without those factors, a following Democratic (or Republican, frankly) administration is likely to return to the standards in question.
Look at some the most popular cars from US car makers in the US, like the Ford Fx50 series, Dodge Ram series of trucks, the Chevrolet Silverado, Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee etc. Non of those cars sell in any significant number outside the US.
But does it? A change like this is going to result in years of legal cases. The uncertainty means that investing in new designs is more risky as the companies doesn’t know what emissions standards they are aiming for.
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.
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.
> If you want stricter emissions standards, fine. But figure out how to do it through the federal government, and not via a side channel.
I agree that it would be better if this was federal, but if the federal government cannot or will not implement good regulations, I'd rather states do it via a side channel than just leave the problem as it is.
California wasn't forcing anyone else to follow their rules. And this is a perfect example of federalism. California wants cleaner air than Florida, so it sets stricter standards. Which is fine, Florida doesn't have to follow. If the cost difference is enough to matter, Ford can create two catalytic converters, the California 'hypochondriac' model and the Florida 'lunger' model, and all will be as it should be.
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.
The issue is - only California had that special right - but thats more of an issue with the framing of the original clean air act - the special rule was put in because California had standards on emissions before the rest of the country
I think that's a relevant point. I don't like California having a unique exception on an issue where every other state has been preempted by federal law.
> A bill of attainder is one that says “$Foo $Bar and $Baz of people will be punished/have properly removed”
Correct. However, I see no difference between this, and attempting to formulate a set of criteria that is obviously intended to make the law only apply to someone (or some entity) the legislature has already selected. I think we have lots of examples of laws in the current US code that clearly were written with criteria designed to uniquely punish certain individuals or businesses, and I don't see a substantive difference between this and a 'traditional' bill of attainder.
I don't like California having a unique exception on an issue where every other state has been preempted by federal law.
Which isn't the case. California has a unique exemption because the federal law was inspired by California's existing law, driven by CA's unique needs for strong pollution controls due to a combination of population density, climate, and geography. The federal law actually grants CA an exemption only so long as CA's standards exceed the federal government's standards.
Which is something that our current president doesn't quite understand. It's not just that CA wants to have higher standards to give him the middle finger--it's that CA is legally required to have higher standards to maintain its legal exemption.
As a strict constructionist, I object pretty heavily to the idea that it is legal for the federal government to 'pre-empt' state law. The federal government ought to be subservient to the states except for the fairly limited scope it is granted by the constitution. Air quality control is not within the enumerated powers of the federal government (except by heavy abuse of the interstate commerce clause, IMO). Thus, it is completely upon the states to decide, and any proper judge ought to refuse to enforce any federal punitive action against a state government.
California has unquie requirements though. Due to the geography of San Francisco air pollution gets trapped within the Bay Area. Combined with s high population density a vehicle emitting the same amount of pollution will have a greater health impact within San Francisco then outside of it.
Regulations are a trade off between the needs of different stakeholders. If the needs of the stakeholders differ then the regulations need to as well.
Several other states have adopted California's rules-- why bother creating your own, presumably rigorous science based emission rules are costly to design-- when you can adopt someone elses'?
"the special rule was put in because California had standards on emissions before the rest of the country"
No, we were granted the exception because of the unique geography of the LA Basin and the pollution that it naturally traps and holds which required stricter standards than the minimum the Federal government was allowing.
The reason this is federal is California is free on states rights to set rules for cars sold in their state. However the federal government can force California to all someone to go elsewhere and buy a polluting car and register it. Because of this federal exception California can violate normal interstate commerce rules.
Note, I'm talking strictly states rights as I think they should be by the constitution. There are other areas of this where the feds have done things I disagree with (such as not allowing each state to set their own standards)
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.
Add in the consideration that air and water don't respect state boundaries, it would be an even bigger mess.
To be fair, the federal government has a history of abusing the interstate commerce clause -- it's not clear that just because something is capable of crossing a state line, it should automatically fall under federal purview.
Yeah. The EU doesn't allow individual states to set their own emissions standards for cars for similar reasons, even though they're nowhere near as unified as the US in general - it affects trade between the member states and therefore is centrally controlled. (This has caused some problems due to the European NO2 and PM5 standards for diesels being rather on the lax side.)
Interstate commerce yes, but going by the perspective of the original unmutilated Commerce Clause what California is doing involves only intrastate markets and thus should be untouchable.
This is one of the funniest things about this whole mess, California's "exemption" is much more legal than the EPA ever was (along with pretty much every other regulatory 3 letter agency).
Yes, they can. California does this today. California has a border patrol that will throw away any contraband you attempt to smuggle in to the state of California. Border stations exist between Mexico and California, Nevada and California, Arizona and California, and Oregon and California. For example, if California discovers you have a ferret, they will fine you or put you in jail. If you attempt to bring a ferret into California via the interstate highway, and go through a california border station, they will likely confiscate and euthanize the ferret. This is not just for ferrets but all sorts of pests, plants, etc. California keeps a tight border. Last time I crossed the border from Oregon, we were stopped, and questioned, and our car inspected with a mirror underneath, at the border station.
The Constitution guarantees that you -- an American citizen or legal immigrant or tourist -- can enter and leave the state at will -- not your stuff.
while you are correct, you happen to replying to someone who owned a ferret for 4 years while living in CA. Yes, I did smuggle the ferrets into CA, but there is a ferret owners group in CA. Also the vets are very nice to ferret owners, and will even sell you ferret food. :-)
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.
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.
States can regulate products without running afoul of interstate commerce rules. The key is for the regulations to not depend on the origin of the product. What gets you in trouble under the interstate commerce rules is trying to disadvantage out of states manufacturers relative to in states ones.
It is perfectly fine under the interstate commerce rules for California rules and Ohio rules and Texas rules for a given product to make it so that a manufacturer can't make a single product that works in all three states.
As long as someone who decides that they wants to make products that meets California rules can make those products in Ohio or Texas, and someone who wants to make products for the Ohio market can make them in California and Texas, and so on, that's fine.
As a person who comes from a traditionally Republican family and has myself transitioned from center-right to pretty far left, it is reassuring to see a consistency of opinion like yours from those who still identify as Republicans. One of the biggest symptoms of our current political polarization seems to be people on both sides giving carte blanche to their respective leaders to backtrack or redefine their espoused values. Just as it angers me when Democrats throw nuclear power under the bus due to its status as a political non-starter, it angers me when GOP supporters do gymnastics to explain selective abandoning of their most dearly held ideals like states' rights.
Meh... you can be a right-leaning or left-leaning strict constructionist. The two terms are not correlated really. It all comes down to how much you believe the law should be enforced equally and impartially (in my possibly controversial opinion).
To my mind much of the polarization is in part the result of more and more power being handed to a winner-takes-all Federal system. If more power were in the States, then it is more likely that the laws will reflect your political views, and/or have an option to move to another State without having to leave your nation. With most eggs being in the Federal basket, which (generally) does not make laws for one state but not another, you are going to have a bunch of unhappy folks no matter what law gets passed.
If you disagree in this case you should be blaming the interstate commerce clause. I strongly suspect the union is going to eventually rattle apart due to being held together too tightly by its abuse.
Given that auto manufacturers already build all their cars to meet California's requirements, then it would have made sense to simultaneously adopt their standards right along with stripping their future right to change them. Unilaterally rolling back the standard means this decision had nothing to do with federalizing the standards and everything to do with attacking a blue state.
This is tricky. California cars generally emit more CO2, but less of other things. The right choice for a rural area (has to drive a lot, and air quality isn't a problem) is different for dense areas (air quality is a problem)
California cars generally emit exactly the same as any other American car. Back when emissions standards were coming into effect, there were "California cars" with separate emissions equipment. That was because said emissions equipment was expensive and unreliable.
Today, almost all US sold cars conform to CA emissions, regardless of where they are sold. Sometimes you will see cars or trucks with the option for CA Emissions, but this does effect power or performance, it just has different parameters for determining when to trigger check engine lights for emissions-related issues.
Though, heavy duty truck can be equipped with an emissions exemption. I think this is, ironically, limited to government vehicles.
Auto makers don't have to use california's rules to determine how they design the whole US fleet. They choose to do so because the cost to comply nationwide is low if they're already doing it anyway. A company could absolutely design cars for the 31 states with lax standards and attempt to compete with lower costs. That nobody has done so in the last 50 years seems to imply that you actually wouldn't see much in the way of savings. Realistically international car companies will want to make as few changes as possible between markets, and so even if California's regulations are removed we'll still have Europe effectively dictating the floor of emissions standards.
This is a thing with motorcycles, the California models are often different. The California version of my model has an Evaporative Emissions Control System; I am in Indiana and unfortunately did not have the option of getting it on my bike.
> what sense does it make for California to dictate
Many California cities are among the worst in air quality in the nation, even though there are stricter standards in California.
The fact that different locations may have different air quality needs due to geography, ecology, or activity is a pretty good reason for the law to allow locally stricter versions.
Auto makers could make different cars for California, that they choose to not do so-- presumably much of the compliance costs are non-reoccurring expenses-- and instead use the same cars elsewhere is just the free market at work.
Automakers make their cars and trucks comply with CAlifornia emissions standards because they sell most of their cars in California. California sets the market.
> because they sell most of their cars in California.
11% of US auto sales are in California.
But even if it were 50%, they could still make different cars for California. They are simply choosing not to because the costs are high enough to bother. They seem to perfectly manage to produce cars in different colors or with dozens of other options, including ones that are picked in less than 10% of sales.
I've heard that before. Most recently from someone who thought ig completely unreasonable that he had to pay to withdraw money from his account.
What are PG&E's costs OTHER than electricity? Why don't you just buy that 3¢ electricity on those terms, which I presume means include advance warning before any usage change, and you pay for transport from seller's location.
Perhaps the only rationale (not that I necessarily agree with the outcome) is that California imposing such restrictions violates the interstate commerce clause. The test involved does not consider intent, only whether or not out-of-state businesses are disadvantaged because of state law. So if (e.g.) bespoke carmakers have problems selling to CA because of this then it is a discriminatory law.
This is potentially permissible (in contrast to the Hong Kong holding company vs. Australia suit about cigarette packaging) as the functioning of the US is predicated on states that can work together despite their regulations. Note how states must recognize each other's wedding certificates and driver's licenses, for example.
I know your question was likely rhetorical and you know this, but I'll say it anyway...
He is actively looking for ways to antagonize California. This issue and homelessness, he couldn't give two craps about. He is just looking for ways to make California look bad or powerless, and he's just starting a fight because he's going to use that fight on his red-state roadshow. California will never give him its electoral votes and therefore it's of no use to him. BUT, Trump is astute, and knows that people across the country don't give two hoots about California either, and will be happy to trash talk them.
Many people live their lives or conduct their work by seeking out friends and allies. Trump actively seeks out enemies. And, it works (if you concede that ascending to the most powerful leadership role in the world is a success), so is he a dummy or a genius?
Does it? I think almost always not. It just happened to work spectacularly in 2016 because of a number of factors that have been building up for years, or longer.
I don't think Trump himself deserves much if any of the credit -- he was just the right dummy at the right time.
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.
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.
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.
Do you know that the reason California was able to set their own standards is because Congress passed a law and part of that law enabled the executive branch to grant waivers? This 100% is following the law as written by Congress.
That being said, when you say "enforce the rules congress sets up", you are touching on an issue that many on the conservative side of the aisle frequently complain about, specifically that Congress often passes laws that leave enormous amounts of discretion to regulatory agencies. Sometimes literally saying "establish regulations that are meant to achieve X goal" and leaving the actual rules, that have the full force of law, up to bureaucrats to establish.
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.
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.
The Executive Branch does not have the power to just unilaterally violate something granted by Congress to a State. There is a whole slew of States rights and checks and balances issues in this one simple action.
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.
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.
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.
No, the 54.5 mpg goal by 2025 was from the Obama administration. The Trump administration nixed that and set the fleet fuel economy target to 37 mpg.
Several auto manufacturers actually came out against lowering the standard because it would put them in a worse place for global markets and they've already made big investments in alternative drivetrains.
California decided that they did not want to lower their standard to follow the Trump standard and 4 manufacturers made an agreement to a CA standard that was a bit less aggressive than the original Obama fuel economy target.
Then the Trump administration sued those 4 car companies, and moved to rescind California's exception under the Clean Air Act that allowed them to set their own emissions standards.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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....)
132 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadAny 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.
You'd think that all the states' rights people out there would be up in arms about this...
When the Commerce clause was used to enable certain regulations on the sale and transfer of firearms, these same Californians argued for the power. If the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of firearms (which Americans have a protected right to keep and bear), then the Federal Government can preempt or enact legislation on the sale and transfer of automobiles (which Americans have no particular protected right to possess).
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...
Trump is undoing that.
If it fails in court, he will use _that_ to drum up his base. So it's not a failure in that context.
I hope the adults are back in charge next time around. This was not a fun experiment.
Turns out it's ridiculously easy to get people to cut off their nose to spite their face.
...which was extremely controversial when published, because people thought it was diminishing the Nazis' atrocities. I always felt your point to be the far more immediate lesson, apart from any argument of her view of Eichmann (that he was a paper-pushing bore as well as a mass murderer) simply being the correct one.
Write the books to talk about how a lot of people were upset with the way things went. But don't forget to include the part about how lots of people were happy with it.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/09/hitler-th...
But looking back, I think we’ve done a major disservice in the US by not including the dark parts of history in our stories: civil war -> states rights. Nazis -> no american ever supported that idea.
Stuff like that. It makes the times we live through now feel like a surprise to many I think. They’re shocked people could actually support racists, bigots, worthless people.
But here we are.
Oh please. Just take a look at the shenanigans around HRC's nomination. Democrats have no claim to moral authority, if that's what you're suggesting.
That assumes the previous occupant had a legacy worth preserving. The real underlying problem is that a lot of people honestly believe the previous occupant's legacy needed to be torn down.
However, the world is a chaotic place so no president can actually remove the legacy of the previous one. Revert all policies on day one, and the next president reverts all yours in an endless cycle that’s not a legacy. The actual legacy is the impact of your choices.
This move will probably result in money for Trump's 2020 campaign, because he's saving the automotive industry money.
Unsure why you're being downvoted. This sounds like, at minimum, one of the lines of calculation.
"Hey, we're not going to win California anyway. Let's screw those Americans over and make some money for our buddies over here. Remember fellas, some of that money's gonna come to us!"
Do the auto manufacturers actually have in their R&D pipeline engines that achieve California's 54.5 mpg target that they can bring to market before 2026?
Europe's measuring standards are very different from here and the "80-mpg" economy figures you see touted actually work out to be more like 50 real world...similar to what happens here.
Auto manufacturers aren't set to increase standards for the EU until 2030.
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.
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.
Except that the main way it might do so is if they're afraid of being targeted by Trump of they don't support him.
In practical terms the auto makers likely need to meet California's desired standards as well as international ones in order to sell cars globally, and if they don't meet them domestically they're vulnerable to competitor ads "$BRANDX, so bad they're illegal to sell in most of the world," etc.
Even without those factors, a following Democratic (or Republican, frankly) administration is likely to return to the standards in question.
This is "respect mah authoritah!" spite.
Look at some the most popular cars from US car makers in the US, like the Ford Fx50 series, Dodge Ram series of trucks, the Chevrolet Silverado, Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee etc. Non of those cars sell in any significant number outside the US.
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?
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.
I agree that it would be better if this was federal, but if the federal government cannot or will not implement good regulations, I'd rather states do it via a side channel than just leave the problem as it is.
Trump has violated states rights and deserves to be criticized for it.
And exemption from a regulation is “If you fulfill this criteria/make an application then different set of regulations take effect”.
Correct. However, I see no difference between this, and attempting to formulate a set of criteria that is obviously intended to make the law only apply to someone (or some entity) the legislature has already selected. I think we have lots of examples of laws in the current US code that clearly were written with criteria designed to uniquely punish certain individuals or businesses, and I don't see a substantive difference between this and a 'traditional' bill of attainder.
Which isn't the case. California has a unique exemption because the federal law was inspired by California's existing law, driven by CA's unique needs for strong pollution controls due to a combination of population density, climate, and geography. The federal law actually grants CA an exemption only so long as CA's standards exceed the federal government's standards.
Which is something that our current president doesn't quite understand. It's not just that CA wants to have higher standards to give him the middle finger--it's that CA is legally required to have higher standards to maintain its legal exemption.
But, yes, every state should have been equally free to have higher standards, but taking away California's waiver is going to the wrong direction.
Regulations are a trade off between the needs of different stakeholders. If the needs of the stakeholders differ then the regulations need to as well.
No, we were granted the exception because of the unique geography of the LA Basin and the pollution that it naturally traps and holds which required stricter standards than the minimum the Federal government was allowing.
Note, I'm talking strictly states rights as I think they should be by the constitution. There are other areas of this where the feds have done things I disagree with (such as not allowing each state to set their own standards)
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.
To be fair, the federal government has a history of abusing the interstate commerce clause -- it's not clear that just because something is capable of crossing a state line, it should automatically fall under federal purview.
This is one of the funniest things about this whole mess, California's "exemption" is much more legal than the EPA ever was (along with pretty much every other regulatory 3 letter agency).
The Constitution guarantees that you -- an American citizen or legal immigrant or tourist -- can enter and leave the state at will -- not your stuff.
You mean a criminal? It is a crime to own a ferret into california or to smuggle them in.
And article 1, section 8 gives feds power to regulate (normalize) interstate commerce.
It is perfectly fine under the interstate commerce rules for California rules and Ohio rules and Texas rules for a given product to make it so that a manufacturer can't make a single product that works in all three states.
As long as someone who decides that they wants to make products that meets California rules can make those products in Ohio or Texas, and someone who wants to make products for the Ohio market can make them in California and Texas, and so on, that's fine.
Today, almost all US sold cars conform to CA emissions, regardless of where they are sold. Sometimes you will see cars or trucks with the option for CA Emissions, but this does effect power or performance, it just has different parameters for determining when to trigger check engine lights for emissions-related issues.
Though, heavy duty truck can be equipped with an emissions exemption. I think this is, ironically, limited to government vehicles.
Many California cities are among the worst in air quality in the nation, even though there are stricter standards in California.
The fact that different locations may have different air quality needs due to geography, ecology, or activity is a pretty good reason for the law to allow locally stricter versions.
Auto makers could make different cars for California, that they choose to not do so-- presumably much of the compliance costs are non-reoccurring expenses-- and instead use the same cars elsewhere is just the free market at work.
11% of US auto sales are in California.
But even if it were 50%, they could still make different cars for California. They are simply choosing not to because the costs are high enough to bother. They seem to perfectly manage to produce cars in different colors or with dozens of other options, including ones that are picked in less than 10% of sales.
Um, money and power.
Not saying it's right, but they stand to get on the good side of some deep pocketed donors.
There are people who think US corporations should be able to compete without any hindrance.
Having a car with lower emissions might mean it is more expensive, or less efficient, or have some other factor that makes it less competitive.
They think competing is better for the environment than regulation.
There are theories that support this, "the solution to pollution is economic growth"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Ku...
though not without controversy.
And although I don't mind california regulating cleaner cars, and everyone wants clean air, water, food and medicine, not every regulation is great.
For example, regulation and electricity.
Why can PG&E charge california residents 0.22/0.27/0.48 per kwh when their cost of electricity is 0.03 per kwh?
This is regulatory capture.
What are PG&E's costs OTHER than electricity? Why don't you just buy that 3¢ electricity on those terms, which I presume means include advance warning before any usage change, and you pay for transport from seller's location.
This is potentially permissible (in contrast to the Hong Kong holding company vs. Australia suit about cigarette packaging) as the functioning of the US is predicated on states that can work together despite their regulations. Note how states must recognize each other's wedding certificates and driver's licenses, for example.
He is actively looking for ways to antagonize California. This issue and homelessness, he couldn't give two craps about. He is just looking for ways to make California look bad or powerless, and he's just starting a fight because he's going to use that fight on his red-state roadshow. California will never give him its electoral votes and therefore it's of no use to him. BUT, Trump is astute, and knows that people across the country don't give two hoots about California either, and will be happy to trash talk them.
Many people live their lives or conduct their work by seeking out friends and allies. Trump actively seeks out enemies. And, it works (if you concede that ascending to the most powerful leadership role in the world is a success), so is he a dummy or a genius?
Does it? I think almost always not. It just happened to work spectacularly in 2016 because of a number of factors that have been building up for years, or longer.
I don't think Trump himself deserves much if any of the credit -- he was just the right dummy at the right time.
The above is not an argument that has seen much success though.
That being said, when you say "enforce the rules congress sets up", you are touching on an issue that many on the conservative side of the aisle frequently complain about, specifically that Congress often passes laws that leave enormous amounts of discretion to regulatory agencies. Sometimes literally saying "establish regulations that are meant to achieve X goal" and leaving the actual rules, that have the full force of law, up to bureaucrats to establish.
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.
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.
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.
Several auto manufacturers actually came out against lowering the standard because it would put them in a worse place for global markets and they've already made big investments in alternative drivetrains.
California decided that they did not want to lower their standard to follow the Trump standard and 4 manufacturers made an agreement to a CA standard that was a bit less aggressive than the original Obama fuel economy target.
Then the Trump administration sued those 4 car companies, and moved to rescind California's exception under the Clean Air Act that allowed them to set their own emissions standards.
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.
Not that I agree with the outcome in this case. The interstate commerce clause is a horrible abuse. But that is what it is.
Essentially, they would just be an extension of existing state vehicle registration fees.
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.
The object becomes more desirable (the complete opposite intention of the fees) in part because wealthy influencers buy the object.
A law acts differently because rich purchasers have to follow the same rules (almost!).
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)
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...
(Note: Unlike NYT, LA Times links work just fine in incognito mode.)
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...)
[2](https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-epa-mileage-standa...)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998870