California Can’t Go Its Own Way: Trump’s fuel policy intervention is right on policy and the law.

Wall Street Journal ^ | September 18, 2019

[karpov]

...

The 1970 Clean Air Act prohibits states from regulating tailpipe emissions, but it allows California to request a waiver to “meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” This waiver authority was intended to help California reduce tailpipe pollutants such as NOx and sulphur that contribute to smog. The LA haze in those days could be as thick as San Francisco’s fog.

Yet the Obama Administration in 2009 issued California a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions despite the lack of legal or environmental justification. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act pre-empts state regulations of fuel economy, and CO2 emissions don’t cause smog. CO2 wasn’t even considered a pollutant until the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) decision.

The Trump Administration now has strong economic, regulatory and constitutional reasons to revoke the waiver. California has used its waiver to impose electric car quotas that will raise costs for consumers across the country. Manufacturing an electric car costs $12,000 more than an equivalent gas-powered vehicle. Despite generous federal and state consumer subsidies, auto makers will probably have to sell EVs below cost in California and raise prices on gas-powered cars everywhere else.

The state’s EV mandate doesn’t even account for all CO2 emissions since it awards more credit for longer-range batteries, even though they require more energy (and fossil fuels) to manufacture. A Tesla Model S, for instance, receives almost twice as much regulatory credit as a Nissan Leaf. It also provides credit for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles that derive energy mostly from natural gas. This scheme encourages regulatory arbitrage.

[rktman]

Butt, butt, butt............... Where’s the ‘prop 65’ warning on this message? I thought anything in regards to kali had to have the prop 65 warning on it.

[DUMBGRUNT]

California intends to sue to enforce its own rules, and the Supreme Court may have an opportunity to consider the case before the end of President Trump’s term. If that happens, the Justices might also consider setting guardrails on Massachusetts v. EPA, which liberals have invoked to demand climate regulation not authorized by Congress.

...might also consider setting guardrails on Massachusetts v. EPA

You... you've got nice little dicta going for you... We wouldn't want anything to happen to it...
Would be a real shame.

[maxtheripper]

I say the feds need to stay out of it. States rights.

[Dr. Sivana]

I say the feds need to stay out of it. States rights.

That time is past. If California wants state's rights on environmental/commerce regs, they should support a full-spectrum states' rights bill. We can no longer play their "Heads I Win/Tails You Lose" game.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[gibsonguy]

Wrong, CA is such a huge market they can effectively bully the entire country because no major car company can make a red state version and a blue state version of their car lines so they end up making cars that can be sold in both. So to satisfy CA standards we all will end up driving $45,000 golf carts.

[dljordan]

NPR was going full bore propaganda about it this morning. They even had Gavin Nuisance on explaining how Cali is in better shape the the Trump led Feds.

[jmclemore]

I will agree with both of you but only up to the point where California asks for Federal regulatory relief and tax payer funding.

If they like the rules for everyone else, then play by the rules. If they want to do it their way, then pay for it..

Don’t demand special treatment while supporting restrictions on other states.

Don’t demand federal funding with a budget based on the tax payer genie granting endless wishes.

[mmichaels1970]

I say the feds need to stay out of it. States rights.

I consider myself a federalist at heart. However, I would think this would fit the classic definition of the interstate commerce clause. I think the feds have overall jurisdiction when an automaker makes a car in one state and sells it in another. Or if it partially assembles a car in a variety of out-of-state locations. That could even get dicey if a single nut or bolt was manufactured elsewhere.

I would think that Cali would only have the right to impose its own standards on vehicles that were entirely made and sold within Cali limits.

Cali could petition the government for waivers, as it has, to deal with extenuating circumstances or emergency situations. But I believe, constitutionally, that the ultimate decision rests with the feds.

What do others think?

[Wuli]

The 1970 law granted California the ability to ask for a waiver from strictly federal controls on tailpipe emissions, but it did not mandate that the waiver had to be approved, and the waiver itself was conditioned on special needs regarding the pollutants coming from automobile exhaust, which have largely been equaled and taken care of now by federal standards. Also, the law did not classify CO2 as a pollutant nor mandate its coverage in any automobile standards. Obama tried to rewrite the law by executive fiat to include CO2. He won that argument, temporarily in a Supreme Court case, which the Trump administration is also contesting.

The entire current episode is that California has been able to cajole the major automakers to bend to its will on new standards, which would result in California’s standard becoming the de facto national standard, lest the automakers have to manufacture one set of cars for California and another set for the rest of the country.

Trump is right to withdraw the waiver. It’s original intent is no longer germane.

[jimfr]

What is left out of this discussion is that the environment in the west is different than in the east. What causes smog in the west is directly opposite than in the east. The catalytic converter works in the west but makes things worst in the east.

[Truthoverpower]

Electric vehicles suck

That being said Tesla are pretty sexy and fast