Trump strips California of power to set auto emission standards

[Wyrt]

Clean Air Act

The 1970 Clean Air Act required states to develop State Implementation Plans for how they would meet new national ambient air quality standards by 1977.[52] Although the 1990 Clean Air Act is a federal law covering the entire country, the states do much of the work to carry out the Act.

The federal law recognizes that states should lead in carrying out the Clean Air Act, because pollution control problems often require special understanding of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. However, states are not allowed to have weaker pollution controls than the national minimum criteria set by EPA.

Most notably, the law prevents states from setting standards that are more strict than the federal standards, but carves out a special exemption for California due to its past issues with smog pollution in the metropolitan areas. In practice, when California's environmental agencies decide on new vehicle emission standards, they submit these to the EPA for approval under this waiver, with the most recent approval in 2009. The California standard was adopted by twelve other states, and it based on the de facto standard that automobile manufactures have subsequently built towards, as to avoid having to develop multiple lines of emission systems in their vehicles for different states.

Yep. By law, California is allowed to set their own standards. Trump is violating the law by not allowing California to do it.

That's a quick, easy win for California in the courts.

[Shadowferal]

Looks like another state wants in on the action: Washington will sue Trump for blocking states' clean vehicle standards

Washington will take the Trump Administration to court over its decision to block California and other states from setting vehicle emission standards more stringent than those of the federal government.

The administration acted after California infuriated the 45th president. It negotiated standards with four automakers just as Trump's Environmental Protection Agency was rolling back requirements set under the Obama Administration.

We will file a lawsuit challenging this unlawful action," Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who has beaten the administration in court 21 times, said in a statement.

"If the Trump administration has its way, Washingtonians will be left with fewer options for cleaner, more efficient cars that get more gas mileage or use no gas at all. This means driving would cost more and pollute more."

[masterhorus8]

Minus the fact that California doesn't produce cars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._in_California

You want to repeat that?

[Wyrt]

Minus the fact that California doesn't produce cars. So they're telling manufacturers in other states, and around the world - "Adhere to us or we won't allow our citizens to buy it." Which does in fact impose their standard on others. I do suppose they could make the Cali edition of each car more than just trim - more eco friendly - and 30% green new deal tax.

Good luck getting me to stop driving my 66 Mustang - which I bought in 14 years ago using that sweet sweet 8$hr hungry howies job in HS.

Automakers already have to meet similar standards to sell cars in the EU and a variety of countries. California is only dictating what cars can and cannot be sold in California. That's it.

[Orbitus]

Minus the fact that California doesn't produce cars. So they're telling manufacturers in other states, and around the world - "Adhere to us or we won't allow our citizens to buy it." Which does in fact impose their standard on others. I do suppose they could make the Cali edition of each car more than just trim - more eco friendly - and 30% green new deal tax.

Good luck getting me to stop driving my 66 Mustang - which I bought in 14 years ago using that sweet sweet 8$hr hungry howies job in HS.

So, you made another account, just to be wrong? Reported.

[Stormdash]

Do you find it's intelligent to break your own car (for rolling coal) because you are told it's going to annoy liberals ?

No, I mean they weren't "wrecked" as easily when they were able to be built more durably, i.e. before the imposition of fuel economy standards that required lighter and more pliable construction. Funny now as it was then, that line in Back to the Future, Part II when Marty proposes landing the time machine on Biff to stop him.

"He's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean, he'd rip through us like we were tin foil".

[Wyrt]

No, I mean they weren't "wrecked" as easily when they were able to be built more durably, i.e. before the imposition of fuel economy standards that required lighter and more pliable construction. Funny now as it was then, that line in Back to the Future, Part II when Marty proposes landing the time machine on Biff to stop him.

"He's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean, he'd rip through us like we were tin foil".

Um, cars are built with materials that crumple easier now for safety reasons. The crumpling helps slow the car down and reduces injuries. New cars are much safer than old cars.

[sarahtasher]

No, I mean they weren't "wrecked" as easily when they were able to be built more durably, i.e. before the imposition of fuel economy standards that required lighter and more pliable construction. Funny now as it was then, that line in Back to the Future, Part II when Marty proposes landing the time machine on Biff to stop him.

"He's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean, he'd rip through us like we were tin foil".

That argument is ridiculous, since typically cars end up crashing other cars or pedestrians. Cars are DESIGNED to ''bend'' and not break on crashes.

But I would not be surprised if people in the deep south remove seat belts and airbags if told by someone on YouTube that they are ''SJW''

[Masark]

No, I mean they weren't "wrecked" as easily when they were able to be built more durably

Yeah, and when you crashed that land yacht, they'd wipe you off the dash and sell the car to the next sucker, because while the car would survive the crash, you wouldn't.

[Slybak]

Um, cars are built with materials that crumple easier now for safety reasons. The crumpling helps slow the car down and reduces injuries. New cars are much safer than old cars.

Shattering both my tibias and getting impaled by the steering column to own the libs.

[sarahtasher]

Shattering both my tibias and getting impaled by the steering column to own the libs.

Again, I gave it a year or two until someone start ordering on YouTube to remove seatbelts KAUZE DAH LIBS LIKE THEM.

[Slybak]

Again, I gave it a year or two until someone start ordering on YouTube to remove seatbelts KAUZE DAH LIBS LIKE THEM.

You don't understand cars back in the day were made with a special ingredient, called Freedom

[Rasulis]

Uh, honestly the fact that the statute kicks the decision making authority here to the executive branch kinda makes it a slam dunk that he's on good ground here. Remember, the executive branch has no divisions within it as a matter of constitutional law, there is no separation of powers between the White House and departments of the executive branch. The authorizing statute making this the executive branch's call basically takes out any separation of powers argument, and the 10th Amendment argument is a complete non-starter.

The Clean Air Act gave the Feds the right to reject CA waiver application under three very specific circumstances: (1) CA standards do not meet Fed standards, (2) the conditions in CA are such that the waiver is not required, and (3) the application does not meet the conditions set forth in the CFR. Since CA standards are more stringent than the proposed federal standards, air qualities in several counties in CA are still below federal air quality thresholds, and the Clean Air Act has not changed, none of the circumstances apply.

Out of 110 CA waiver applications, the EPA has granted it 109 times. The only time it was rejected was in December 2007, the Bush's EPA denied the waiver and CA sued. It never went to trial because when Obama took over his EPA granted the waiver. The current waiver dated back to 2013 and was granted under the Obama administration.

The Clean Air Act does not have any provisions for revoking CA's right to set it's own standards. Nor for revoking waiver that had already been granted. NONE. What the Feds is trying to do requires changing the law.

For the record, out 25 lawsuits against Trump's EPA by state's AGs, 12 cases are pending, EPA lost 12 cases and won 1 case. Not a good batting average. Just in case people think I am making up numbers. Here is a searchable database of all multistate lawsuits against the Federal government dating back to 1980. Set the search engine to Trump Administration and EPA. Have fun.

https://attorneysgeneral.org/multist...-1980-present/

[Anevers]

Trump is a pitiful fool looking to lose again in court.

Needless to say, this is headed to court, where Team Trump will have the weaker hand to play. First of all, there is an awful lot of jurisprudence, based on the Tenth Amendment, that says that states can pass laws more aggressive than the ones written into the U.S. code. To take one obvious example, many states have set a minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum wage. On top of that, once this gets before a judge, that judge is going to want to know about the underlying reasoning for each side's positions. California has a strong, public-policy based rationale (remember the dirty skies of the 1980s). The administration can't exactly say "We're here because California makes the President angry," so they're going to have to come up with something compelling, which they have often struggled to do in other situations like this.

Long term, Trump is definitely going to lose this one. Automobile development takes years and years. If an automaker is working to meet the California standards, then switches to the more lax standards, they could be left holding the bag if the Golden State triumphs in court. Or when a Democrat takes the White House again and, inevitably, tightens up standards and/or reissues California's Clean Air Act waiver. On top of that, there is the aforementioned issue of sales in Asia and Europe. So, the great likelihood is that the Fords and GMs of the world ignore what the administration is up to, and stay the course they were already on.
(https://www.electoral-vote.com/#item-4)

[Wyrt]

Trump is a pitiful fool looking to lose again in court.

I really hope they use the "We're here because California makes the President angry," argument in court. Just for the hilarity of it.

[Captain N]

Yeah, and when you crashed that land yacht, they'd wipe you off the dash and sell the car to the next sucker, because while the car would survive the crash, you wouldn't.

Only if they hit other land yachts. Years ago someone in an Escort ran a red light and ran right into the passenger side of my Oldsmobile. Their entire front disappeared. I paid a junk yard for a new door and a body shop to match the color. There was no impact life that gif above suggests.

It's like that scene in Back to the Future II when they're flying over Biff's car and Marty suggests landing on him. Doc tells him that the DeLorean would be ripped apart like a can against the steel bodied car from that era.

[Dontrike]

So, you're saying one state should set THE standard for the entire union?

What exactly do you have against more fuel efficient cars again? How exactly does this negatively impact you? what's the actual problem that you're trying to say here?

if multiple car manufacturers are okay with the rules that California has set into place and there's no problem here.

[Draco-Onis]

As a ferociously vehement states rights advocate, I feel obliged to point out that California has, like, no 10th Amendment argument here at all. Which is not to say they have no argument, there is always a separation of powers argument. If their exemption came from Congress, it's unlikely the President can just void it unless the exemption came from Congress via them giving the executive branch power to make those kinds of determinations.

But on the states rights theory? They've got nothing. What's at issue there is what is called the "dormant" Commerce Clause or the "negative implications" of the Commerce Clause. Congress has power to regulate commerce between the states, but as a related doctrine, it is also law that states are prohibited the power to make regulations that substantially effect interstate commerce in ways that contradict Congress' intent or authority. Setting much more restrictive emission standards affect the strategy for manufacture of cars nationwise, so it obviously, obviously has dormant commerce clause implications.

The DCC is considered to be implicit in the commerce clause, so where the 10th Amendment says "... or prohibited by it to the States", that's one of the things it's talking about.

So, TL;DR if they have a case it's that Trump overstepped into Congress' powers, not that he overstepped into California's.

As stated by Endus this is a pointless fight because Canada's new standards will force car companies to meet the same ones as California anyways. This is a lose lose for the right if you win you still lose because of Canada and then the next president gets to trample on state rights based on loose arguments.

It seems none of you think beyond Trump everything he does is precedence don't bitch and moan when the next president abuses executive powers to do shit you don't like.

[Crispin]

Only if they hit other land yachts. Years ago someone in an Escort ran a red light and ran right into the passenger side of my Oldsmobile. Their entire front disappeared. I paid a junk yard for a new door and a body shop to match the color. There was no impact life that gif above suggests.

It's like that scene in Back to the Future II when they're flying over Biff's car and Marty suggests landing on him. Doc tells him that the DeLorean would be ripped apart like a can against the steel bodied car from that era.

So your argument is an anecdote and a line from a movie where they time-travel? I'M CONVINCED!

[Fincayra]

So your argument is an anecdote and a line from a movie where they time-travel? I'M CONVINCED!

it's not really an argument, just that cars from back in the day were built pretty much like tanks compared to cars nowadays. I'd much rather be behind the wheel of my dad's old Buick (if it wasn't a rusting out shithole filled with lawn supplies) than a new car if I was solely concerned about safety on the road.

On topic, I tend to lean right, and I'm against Trump on this one. State's rights is state's rights.