Trump strips California of power to set auto emission standards
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
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.
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)
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.
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 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.
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.)
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).
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.
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...)
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.