Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on September 18, 2019, 09:17:52 AM
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-09-17/epa-to-unveil-plan-to-yank-california-s-car-emissions-authority?__twitter_impression=true
The Environmental Protection Agency intends to announce it will revoke the so-called waiver underpinning California’s power to set vehicle greenhouse gas standards separately from the Trump administration’s broader rule to ease federal vehicle-efficiency standards, which is expected in the weeks ahead, the people said. The people asked to not be identified discussing plans prior to announcement.
The EPA didn’t respond to a request for comment but the agency’s administrator, Andrew Wheeler, told the National Automobile Dealers Association, “We will be moving forward with one national standard very soon.”
“We will be taking joint action with the Department of Transportation to bring clarity to the proper -- and improper -- scope and use of the Clean Air Act preemption waiver,” he said in prepared remarks delivered Tuesday.
Dan Becker, director of the Center for Auto Safety’s Safe Climate Campaign, said the move is an attack on states’ authority to set their own air pollution standards that he called a centerpiece of the Clean Air Act.
There isn't much more to the article, but I didn't even know they were looking into this. It does make some sense if California's rules affect interstate commerce.
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/18/761815991/white-house-to-revoke-waiver-allowing-california-to-set-its-own-emissions-standa
This NPR article has more details.
In the agreement between the state and manufacturers on fuel economy standards, which the administration says may be illegal, the automakers pledged to produce passenger vehicles averaging 50 miles per gallon by model year 2026, which is in line with Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards set by the Obama administration.
But the White House wants to roll back the Obama-era requirements with a single, federal guideline that freezes mileage standards at 37 mpg from 2020 to 2026.
-
I didn't read the story at the link, but read another one yesterday, that mentioned several major auto manufacturers were actually backing CA in this. I guess I can understand from the "amount of sales" POV, but if an interstate commerce argument could be made, it seems CA shouldn't matter, so I'm unsure why the car guys are knuckling under to CA.
-
One of the rare things which the commerce clause legitimately applies. I have no problem with CA getting their waiver yanked, if the feds deem air quality is good enough. Remember, it was LA who were really suffering from catastrophic smog, so it kinda made sense to let them set their own standards at one time.
The problem is it will have no effect anyway because the Kali regime is longer lasting than any presidency and car mfgs know it. The car people don't want to redesign cars speculatively based on whether or not they think the regulations will change. They don't like having to comply with regs, but they especially hate getting yanked around by changing regs. If all their competitors have to do the same, the big companies will back the regs vs. any change especially a short lived one that could leave them with unsellable cars or a big sunk development cost.
-
CA's regulations are bad, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment.
The commerce clause has been abused enough.
-
CA's regulations are bad, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment.
The commerce clause has been abused enough.
That's fine on the one side, but then we go back to CA deciding regulations for the other 49 states based simply on numbers (in this case cars sold). I totally get zahc's point, and that of auto manufacturers though - you can't keep changing manufacturing specs based on willy-nilly regs.
-
CA's regulations are bad, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment.
The commerce clause has been abused enough.
IMO, the 10th Amendment is more of an argument for getting rid of the clean air act all together and letting the 50 states do their own thing without federal involvement. If they are going to allow national fuel economy standards via the clear air act, then it becomes an interstate trade issue.
-
IMO, the 10th Amendment is more of an argument for getting rid of the clean air act all together and letting the 50 states do their own thing without federal involvement. If they are going to allow national fuel economy standards via the clear air act, then it becomes an interstate trade issue.
You are right.
Given the fact that the 10th amendment currently means nothing, it is practical for Trump to do this.
-
Yeah, lots of our current political arguments center on the fact that the 10th Amendment is ignored.
-
Of course the problem is that California is one of the largest markets. If they were their own country, they'd be the 5th largest GDP (not counting enormous ca.gov debts...) So it becomes a race to see which blue state can set the strictest standards, and then if they're big enough, the corporations will comply.
On one hand we have the ICC and the 10th Amendment being abused into obscurity, OTOH, it's kind of like the electoral college, where I don't want California "may cause cancer" and emission standards defining what I can buy and use in Wisconsin either.
And the automakers saying they're cool with CA's regs, I'm skeptical. That smacks of corporatist rent-seeking, and them figuring their competitors might not have a way to handle the regs. And other things, like pushing tons of EV's when CA is going around shutting down every power plant they can, and even with growth, the grid not being able to handle a majority of passenger cars being EV's either.
-
From what I have seen, Big Corporations generally have no issue with onerous regulations. They will be able to lobby for tailored language or loopholes and it raises the barrier to market entry for competitors.
-
A J Dual:
That smacks of corporatist rent-seeking, and them figuring their competitors might not have a way to handle the regs.
Mech Ag 94:
They will be able to lobby for tailored language or loopholes and it raises the barrier to market entry for competitors.
I knew there had to be an angle.
(I guess it also means they are confident they can meet the tougher standards.)
-
(I guess it also means they are confident they can meet the tougher standards.)
I doubt they'd be for it if they couldn't, and I wouldn't be surprised if they figure they might be able to upcharge for greater profit based on, "The government made us! We'd charge less if we were allowed to!"
-
A J Dual:
Mech Ag 94:
I knew there had to be an angle.
(I guess it also means they are confident they can meet the tougher standards.)
I doubt they'd be for it if they couldn't, and I wouldn't be surprised if they figure they might be able to upcharge for greater profit based on, "The government made us! We'd charge less if we were allowed to!"
Good corollary. [popcorn]
-
Industry players already have development programs and road-maps planned for current regulations. The design cycle for some of these things is 5+ years. They have sunk costs, which are common cost of doing business for everyone if the regulations stay; if the regulations go away those costs become write-offs. If California mandates a certain percentage of electric cars or zero-emissions features, and then the regulation goes away, companies are stuck with a bunch of electric cars that nobody asked for, or cars with features they had to develop that nobody asked for and possibly make their cars suckier than other companies.
It's a classic conundrum. It's also why it's preferred to change things slowly and incrementally. It's kind of like of like if you were in the business of selling machine guns and the GCA68 were repealed a week after you spent $25,000 adding a Tommy gun to your inventory. Hurray guns are cheaper for everyone, and if you look far enough ahead if might even be good for your business, but you just took a bath, plus, who knows if the next president will just change it back.
If we had a sensible and functioning government then these things wouldn't be so vulnerable to the whims of each legacy-seeking and donation-seeking president. Maybe we could make some system where laws could be drafted and voted on by representatives from each state, or something.
-
If California was able to effectively set the nationwide standards simply because they are the largest market, I wouldn't like it but it's not something I would want the federal government butting in to "fix" it. However, it sounds like they had special treatment from the federal government and now they are being returned to regular treatment:
We are fans of federalism. But Congress, understandably not wanting automakers to have to comply with 50 different sets of regulations, has generally preempted state regulation in this area — with the exception that California, and California alone, may apply for a waiver to create its own emission rules to address “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” Other states may then adopt these rules if they choose.
“Compelling and extraordinary conditions” was intended as a reference to smog. And in contrast to Californian smog, there is nothing compelling and extraordinary about Californian climate change. Climate change is happening to the rest of the country (and indeed the world) too, and climate change is what the state’s greenhouse-gas rules — as opposed to policies regulating other emissions — address. Thus the legal basis for the waiver does not apply here.
If I'm understanding that correctly, it seems quite fair to me.
-
I didn't read the story at the link, but read another one yesterday, that mentioned several major auto manufacturers were actually backing CA in this. I guess I can understand from the "amount of sales" POV, but if an interstate commerce argument could be made, it seems CA shouldn't matter, so I'm unsure why the car guys are knuckling under to CA.
How could there NOT be an interstate commerce argument? In order for there to NOT be an interstate commerce nexus, vehicles sold in California would have to be 100 percent manufactured in California -- every nut, bolt, screw, welding rod, molded plastic trim, adhesives, paints and coatings, tires, and lubricating fluids -- and made FROM raw materials sourced 100 percent from within California. Oh -- and no California cars could be offered for sale outside of California.
Even if California could come up with cars that are 100 percent California, using the same logic the feds have used in actual court cases, there's still the argument that selling 100 percent California cars in California "affects" interstate commerce because Californians who buy the 100 percent California cars aren't buying cars made elsewhere. Ergo ==> interstate commerce is "affected."
-
How could there NOT be an interstate commerce argument? In order for there to NOT be an interstate commerce nexus, vehicles sold in California would have to be 100 percent manufactured in California -- every nut, bolt, screw, welding rod, molded plastic trim, adhesives, paints and coatings, tires, and lubricating fluids -- and made FROM raw materials sourced 100 percent from within California. Oh -- and no California cars could be offered for sale outside of California.
Even if California could come up with cars that are 100 percent California, using the same logic the feds have used in actual court cases, there's still the argument that selling 100 percent California cars in California "affects" interstate commerce because Californians who buy the 100 percent California cars aren't buying cars made elsewhere. Ergo ==> interstate commerce is "affected."
That's a big nutshell, but you managed to fit it all in.
"...regulate interstate commerce..." sure grew, didn't it?
-
. . . Remember, it was LA who were really suffering from catastrophic smog . . .
FWIW, I remember reading an excerpt from the journal of an early explorer (Captain Cook?) which mentioned centuries ago that the air above what was to eventually become LA was comprised of an orange haze from the Indians' cooking fires. So air pollution in the LA basin was an issue a LONG time ago.
-
If I remember correctly, the interstate commerce clause was intended to prevent states from placing tarriffs on importing goods from other states.
Does this apply here? I am not sure.
It is intended to prevent the importation of some vehicles from other states. That is a good argument.
But pollution control within a state is defintely a traditional role of the states.
So I am not sure.
-
But pollution control within a state is defintely a traditional role of the states.
So I am not sure.
I don't know the legalities, I'm just throwing opinions out. :)
Could you argue that giving one state special dispensation - which is apparently the case here - that adversely impacts other states, is in fact in violation of the commerce clause? Or would other laws come into play?
Or is it just, "suck it up Petunia" and if (example) California says they want vehicles with special pollution controls that add $5000 to every vehicle sold, and manufacturers, because of CA's buying power, say "okay", then too bad for everyone else (given, as pointed out earlier, it's not cost effective to make multiple versions)? Interesting argument between free market capitalism and states rights.