17 states push EPA to revoke California's ability to set its own vehicle emission sta

[Rasulis]

17 states push EPA to revoke California's ability to set its own vehicle emission standards

The states of Missouri, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia joined in a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. They claim the EPA's decision would require all states to adopt California's strict vehicle emission standards for all new cars under the authority of the Clean Air Act.

"The act simply leaves California with a slice of its sovereign authority that Congress withdraws from every other state,” West Virginia Atty. Gen. Patrick Morrisey of Virginia said in a statement.

Missouri Atty. Gen. Eric Schmitt said in a statement that if California is allowed to set nationwide standards, then manufacturing would become "astronomically expensive, and those additional costs are passed onto consumers." He added that the Golden State's standards are "oppressive."

California first negotiated its own set of tougher emission standards with Congress during the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. The state has a carve-out agreement in the Clean Air Act but each year requires a waiver from the EPA. The 2009 update reinstated a 40-year interpretation of the act that was rescinded by the Bush administration and reinstated under the Obama administration.

In 2019, the EPA threatened to cut federal transportation funds to California for not submitting timely pollution-control plans. The open feud between the state and the Trump administration seemed to come to a head after California secretly negotiated a deal with four major automakers to voluntarily follow the state's emission rules and increase fuel efficiency.

At the time, the EPA rescinded a decades-old rule that allowed California to set tougher-than-required car emissions standards than those required by federal regulators. After the waiver was rescinded, California sued the federal government, arguing the tougher standards were necessary to improve air quality in the state.

Three years later, under the Biden administration in 2022, the EPA reversed its hostile stance toward California's vehicle emission standards and reinstated the waiver under the Clean Air Act. Multiple attorneys general called California's special treatment unconstitutional, including many of the states that joined the recent petition.

In March, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, “President Biden’s strict auto emissions regulations are yet another example of this administration putting a radical rush-to-green regulatory regime ahead of restoring America’s energy dominance and leadership.”

They may be too late. So far GM, Ford, BMW, Honda, Tesla, Volkswagen and Volvo have agreed to meeting the standards. Toyota and Nissan are expected to join soon.

[Edge-]

17 states push EPA to revoke California's ability to set its own vehicle emission standards



They may be too late. So far GM, Ford, BMW, Honda, Tesla, Volkswagen and Volvo have agreed to meeting the standards. Toyota and Nissan are expected to join soon.

"What? We want our residents to spend more on gas by buying lower mileage vehicles! Also please breathe less healthy air and have more chronic health problems and lower life expectancies, that'll really help out the problem with Social Security...just maybe not Medicare."

[Unholyground]

"What? We want our residents to spend more on gas by buying lower mileage vehicles! Also please breathe less healthy air and have more chronic health problems and lower life expectancies, that'll really help out the problem with Social Security...just maybe not Medicare."

You need sick people so you can sell more drugs to them legally.

[gondrin]

17 states push EPA to revoke California's ability to set its own vehicle emission standards



They may be too late. So far GM, Ford, BMW, Honda, Tesla, Volkswagen and Volvo have agreed to meeting the standards. Toyota and Nissan are expected to join soon.

The part I love is this.

Multiple attorneys general called California's special treatment unconstitutional, including many of the states that joined the recent petition.

Isn't the whole point of state laws is to set better or higher policies. I thought the whole point of federal laws is to set a baseline that states cannot go below but can go above.

[Edge-]

The part I love is this.



Isn't the whole point of state laws is to set better or higher policies. I thought the whole point of federal laws is to set a baseline that states cannot go below but can go above.

Yes. Feds either do the baseline or the limit, and states have the freedom to do anything below the limit or above the baseline.

In instances like this, it's cheaper/easier for automakers to use the highest standard set (CA) rather than tool multiple production facilities aimed at producing cars meeting different requirements, which is extremely expensive.

The states are just unhappy that capitalism works the way it works and they wish it worked in their favor in this instance.

I swear, proud capitalists actually hate capitalism as much as us dirty socialists, they just don't realize it.

[Masark]

I swear, proud capitalists actually hate capitalism as much as us dirty socialists, they just don't realize it.

"Ask a socialist why they hate capitalism, and they'll give you a myriad of reasons. Ask a capitalist why they hate socialism and they'll describe capitalism."

[Endus]

17 states push EPA to revoke California's ability to set its own vehicle emission standards

They may be too late. So far GM, Ford, BMW, Honda, Tesla, Volkswagen and Volvo have agreed to meeting the standards. Toyota and Nissan are expected to join soon.

It's a completely dishonest complaint.

California wants to require tougher standards, that require better emissions quality than the federal standards. So they're not asking for an exception to a federal rule, they're adding further additional standards. Which is how the Federal/State divide generally works.

Manufacturers don't want to have multiple production lines held to differing standards if they can avoid it, so they just produce to California's standards, since that means they'll exceed the standards everywhere else they want to sell the vehicles, and don't need to design two different engines for the same production vehicle.

And even if California's standards were abolished, it won't make any fuckin' difference, since Canada's standards were largely built using California's as a model baseline for good practice, and guess what? They'll produce to Canada's standards if California's drop. For the same reason as the above.

This whole scam is a show put on by bitchy fascist shitheads, to make their base feel angry at illusionary phantoms, because keeping the stupids angry is how fascism works.

[Elegiac]

Can't wait to see the "muh states rights!" crowd do a complete 180 on sweeping federal legislation over this. Rofl.

[uuuhname]

the state with one of the largest markets for buying cars in the country has influence over said market that operates inside it's borders!? and they said capitalism could never.

[Kaleredar]

Alrighty, so lemme get this straight... current GOP mindset is:


1) federal should protect the interests of drivers, so that they aren't being strong-armed by laws in different states into buying cars that are more efficient than they care about.

2) federal law should not protect the rights of women, and states should be allowed to decide whether they're oppressed or not. And even then states that don't allow the oppression should ultimately still be subject to states that do, and allow those oppressive states to seek bounties or punish women for activities that happen in other states.


Do I have that about right?




This is more evidence of "California being such a powerhouse of a state that they don't have to give a fuck what the GOP think, say, or do" that pisses them off. Strongest economy in the country, running on a budget surplus, able to use its capitalistic soft power to determine policy the nation over, and it's run by liberals?! The GOP can't have other states seeing that!

[callipygoustp]

Where California leads, the rest of the states (10-20 years later) follow.

[PACOX]

The irony of some of the states on the list.

All the states.

[Mihalik]

This is more evidence of "California being such a powerhouse of a state that they don't have to give a fuck what the GOP think, say, or do" that pisses them off. Strongest economy in the country, running on a budget surplus, able to use its capitalistic soft power to determine policy the nation over, and it's run by liberals?! The GOP can't have other states seeing that!

I always want to ask Republicans, how do they reconcile the fact that the most lib, progressive states are always the ones that perform best economically?

Or even on a more local level, why is that the most hippy dippy lib, progressive counties and cities are the ones doing best in a sea of red?

Why? What is their explanation?

[Kaleredar]

I always want to ask Republicans, how do they reconcile the fact that the most lib, progressive states are always the ones that perform best economically?

Or even on a more local level, why is that the most hippy dippy lib, progressive counties and cities are the ones doing best in a sea of red?

Why? What is their explanation?

"Something something living expenses, something something taxes"

But I'd argue that skyrocketing living expenses are from a lack of government controls on things like the housing and rent market. And they're happening in big cities in every state, regardless of state governance.

[Fugus]

I always want to ask Republicans, how do they reconcile the fact that the most lib, progressive states are always the ones that perform best economically?

Or even on a more local level, why is that the most hippy dippy lib, progressive counties and cities are the ones doing best in a sea of red?

Why? What is their explanation?

Have actually tried to bring that up to them, I either got a response that that was a lie and all the data that says it is faked or that it the liberals in those areas that’s screwing it all up and taking in all the welfare.

Then I pointed out that while the Democratic areas might take in more in shear numbers that is because that’s where the most people are and those people are still living under Republican policies and that the Democratic states still do better than them which then gets back to being fake or lies.

Was as far as debating one of our senators daughters on Facebook back when I was on it. She enjoyed that she could talk circles around most of them in the group, failed pretty quick when she I joined in and could refute her point by point. She would never admit any fact that made the party or her dad look good, she would rage, knitpick a minor detail, try and change the subject or just stop talking and responding entirely than risk saying anything negative about them. By the time I stopped the rest of the group caught on that she wasn’t trying to debate anything in good faith and was just trying to convince others even if she had to play dumb to do it. Made it a game to talk her into a corner where she was forced to admit something she didn’t like if she were to answer just to see how far she would take it. She never once could say anything negative about the party or Trump.

The dumb ones call it lies while the smart ones know but don’t care because it isn’t about the nation, it’s about them, the nation can burn so long as they end up on the winning end of it.

Edit: Remember asking a few hear to join it once or twice because they could go circles around me, but none ever did.

[Gestopft]

Next thing you know they'll be using this precedent to challenge states' ability to set their own minimum wage...

[Lynarii]

And all this ignores why California needed the law the way it is to begin with. It has nothing to do with exceptionalism or a desire to strong arm the rest of the country for profit, it was because major cities in California are in areas where smog and pollution have a tendency to sit, and it was becoming a health risk to residents. These aren't rules that were put in place for partisan reasons.

[Masark]

it was becoming a health risk to residents. These aren't rules that were put in place for partisan reasons.

Republicans have turned giving a fuck about health risks into a partisan issue.

[Spectral]

"Something something living expenses, something something taxes"

But I'd argue that skyrocketing living expenses are from a lack of government controls on things like the housing and rent market. And they're happening in big cities in every state, regardless of state governance.

There actually is something to be said for differences in living expenses by state. This Wiki is pretty good in outlining that, with a table showing purchasing power by state compared to unadjusted per capita income. Unsurprisingly, rich states with strong tech, manufacturing, and finance stay rich even after adjusting for higher expenses. Some sparsely populated states move from middle of the pack up into the top ten though - the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Nebraska all crack the top ten. California falls from 6th to 22nd. Despite having per capita income that's ~25% higher than Wisconsin and Iowa, Californians have roughly the same purchasing power.

- - - Updated - - -

Next thing you know they'll be using this precedent to challenge states' ability to set their own minimum wage...

I don't think there's any question that the federal government could prevent states from setting their own minimum wages. The commerce clause has been given such a comically broad reading that it allows the federal government to prevent a farmer from growing wheat that he won't be selling. Post-Wickard, there is no meaningful limit on federal regulation of economic activity.

I think that would be a pretty stupid policy and I'd surely love to see some of that precedent rolled back, but current precedent is pretty clear.

[D3thray]

Yes. Feds either do the baseline or the limit, and states have the freedom to do anything below the limit or above the baseline.

In instances like this, it's cheaper/easier for automakers to use the highest standard set (CA) rather than tool multiple production facilities aimed at producing cars meeting different requirements, which is extremely expensive.

The states are just unhappy that capitalism works the way it works and they wish it worked in their favor in this instance.

I swear, proud capitalists actually hate capitalism as much as us dirty socialists, they just don't realize it.

Slight nuance here, though I’m not sure it makes a difference, but California negotiated with the manufacturers and did not use force of law as I understand it. Which they’re perfectly allowed to do I believe as I can’t quite see how they’re acting as proxies of the state here. I mean even if California had no special treatment from the EPA, there would be nothing stopping manufacturers forming an industry trade group like IEEE to set their own standards above and beyond what is required by law.

It’s kinda gray sure, but the remedy here if the other states want the minimum standard set by the EPA to be the rule would be to pass laws to that effect. And as that seems like it would be more trouble than it’s worth enforcement-wise they’re going to Daddy to get Susie to stop doing something instead.