Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Politics

Trump Will End California's Authority To Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules (nytimes.com) 514

Posted by BeauHD from the erasing-Barack-Obama's-legacy dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The Trump administration is expected on Wednesday to formally revoke California's legal authority to set tailpipe pollution rules that are stricter than federal rules, in a move designed by the White House to strike twin blows against both the liberal-leaning state that President Trump has long antagonized and the environmental legacy of President Barack Obama. The announcement that the White House will revoke one of California's signature environmental policies will come while Mr. Trump is traveling in the state, where he is scheduled to attend fund-raisers in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley. The formal revocation of California's authority to set its own rules on tailpipe pollution -- the United States' largest source of greenhouse emissions -- will be announced Wednesday afternoon at a private event at the Washington headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The move has been widely expected since last summer, when the Trump administration unveiled its draft plan to roll back the strict federal fuel economy standards put in place by the Obama administration. That draft Trump rule also included a plan to revoke a legal waiver, granted to the state of California under the 1970 Clean Air Act, allowing it to set tougher state-level standards than those put forth by the federal government. The revocation of the waiver would also affect 13 other states that follow California's clean air rules. In recent months, the administration's broader weakening of nationwide auto-emissions standards has become plagued with delays as staff members struggled to prepare adequate legal, technical or scientific justifications for the move. As a result, the White House decided to proceed with just one piece of its overall plan -- the move to strip California of its legal authority to set tougher standards -- while delaying the release of its broader rollback, according to these people. The plan comes less than a week after the Trump administration rescinded an Obama-era policy that expanded federal oversight and the threat of steep fines for polluting the country's smaller waterways.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump Will End California's Authority To Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules More

Trump Will End California's Authority To Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Turning America into... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rnturn ( 11092 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:37PM (#59204908)

    ... just another shi*thole country.

    All to satisfy the fossil fuel industry oligarchs. And his mouth-breathing cult members.

    • Re:Turning America into... (Score:4, Funny)

      by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:49PM (#59204980) Homepage
      Fake News Reporter: So how do you plan to run the country now that you're elected Mr. Trump?

      Trump: Oh, I can think of lots of ways to ruin the country. Many ways. The best ways. Many fine ways. Trust me. I promise. I've never seen a business I couldn't bankrupt. Believe me!

      • You know if he actually said that I would feel more reassured.

    • Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RazorSharp ( 1418697 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @10:08PM (#59206592)

      I think this is done just for the sake of undoing what Obama did and trolling environmentalists. The automakers don't want this (they want consistency because their plans are long-term) and if they don't roll out a bunch of gas guzzlers the regulations (or lack thereof) won't affect the fossil fuel industry. I think Trump and his followers just have a general contempt for environmental issues because that's what his opponents care about. If it's motivated by any strategic considerations they probably have to do with golf courses.

      It's like a thirteen year old internet troll is running the country.

  • How to make cars safer (according to Republicans) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:38PM (#59204918) Journal

    To make cars safer, one ensures that they use more fuel, hence cost more to run, resulting in reduced usage of the cars. This (according to this administration) makes cars safer.

    Since the auto manufacturers already sided with California, this shows very clearly where the loyalties of this administration and the Republicans lie: with fossil fuel interests.

    If you vote Republican, you are voting for climate change.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by steveha ( 103154 )

      To make cars safer, one ensures that they use more fuel, hence cost more to run, resulting in reduced usage of the cars.

      I agree with you that costs will influence people's decisions of whether to use cars. I encourage you to consider also the effect of initial purchase price of the cars.

      The Trump administration says [caranddriver.com] that cars will cost $2340 less, which will encourage consumers to buy new cars, and stop driving older and less-safe cars. This makes sense to me.

      You are arguing that consumers should be looki

    • Relax. In many ways, the best thing to happen is let ICE car makers quit making higher efficiency vehicles. This will push EVs faster into the consumer hand.

  • States Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arkham ( 10779 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:39PM (#59204920)

    Whatever happened to states rights? Whatever happened small government?

    • State rights left when we started hating each other instead of getting along.

    • Re:States Rights? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by shanen ( 462549 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:44PM (#59204944) Homepage Journal

      I was thinking about trying to make a joke on this same topic. Something along the lines of "#PresidentTweety leads the Republican Party back to it's roots as the anti-State party!" Things have gotten so twisted these years.

      On the other hand, the Democratic Party has never had any consistent set of principles. More like a wild drunken party than an organized political one? Will Rogers called it properly.

      • Re:States Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @03:55PM (#59205404)

        Republicans betray their principles whenever doing so is convenient. Democrats don't really have consistent principles to betray.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          Republicans betray their principles whenever doing so is convenient. Democrats don't really have consistent principles to betray.

          On the first half, I guess I sort of disagree as regards today's so-called Republicans, because only a fool would believe them enough to make betrayal possible. Politicians of every party eagerly spew out a lot of principles they ignore, but at least the old Republicans actually had a few principles that went deeper than spewage.

          On the second half, I thought that's just what I wrote in the previous comment?

          However I think the most significant difference between the two main American parties is how they get

    • Re:States Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by whoda ( 569082 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:44PM (#59204950) Homepage

      I'm sure if someone mentions abortion you get all anti-states rights in a hurry.

    • Re:States Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:47PM (#59204964) Homepage Journal

      Whatever happened to states rights? Whatever happened small government?

      That's only for slavery and secession.

    • I can't see how this isn't a matter of regulation of international commerce, which is firmly in the federal government's mandate - otherwise you're literally restricting the sale of an automotive product in one state compared to another. Sure, you could argue that a state has the ability to set regulation about pollutants that will damage the local environment, but it's my understanding that carbon dioxide doesn't - it has a _global_ effect rather than a local one. This is probably why the federal law had

    • Whatever happened small government?

      People refused to vote for it. Johnson lost the 2016 presidential election 96% to 4%. It doesn't sell, so the major parties finally dropped all pretenses.

    • Whatever happened to states rights? Whatever happened small government?

      This is one of those areas where it is messier.

      While I have no problem with CA suffering under the rule of CARB if that's what they want to do, the reality is that car manufacturers don't want to make 2 (or conceivably 50) versions of the same car to be sold in specific states. It's simply not practical for them on a cost basis. This gives CARB the implicit power to enforce their views on other states and override their rights.

      Further, if the manufacturers did actually produce CA and non-CA approved cars (l

  • This is surely a victory (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:39PM (#59204922)
    for State's rights.

    Also, the Car Companies _hate_ this. The problem is the uncertainty. Trump may or may not win re-election, it's a toss up. But if he loses the next president is going to put those strict emission rules back in place. Same goes for the fuel economy rules.

    Now, anyone manufacturer who runs with the less strict rules can build a more powerful engine for a lot less money. _But_ (and it's a big, stinky butt) they're going to end up retooling for the dirty, gas guzzling engines and then if Trump loses in 2020 all that work is going to be money down the drain. Meaning anyone who _doesn't_ run with the less strict rules would have a huge competitive edge.

    The uncertainty make it a mess, which is why they tried to get together and agree to make more fuel efficient cars, which immediately got them sued under anti-trust laws because this is why we can't have nice things.

    • It's very easy to take emissions controls off. It's a waste of development budget, but all they have to do is just disable certain drive cycles. This sort of thing is done by tuners all the time, for a variety of reasons.

      There is a ton of headroom in most engines. They tune them for mileage, emissions, and noise level. It's easy to just not equip vehicles with some emissions equipment, and to program it away, and it's easy to trade mileage for power.

      We already have vehicles which US automakers only sell in

  • Disagree with this one (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:40PM (#59204926)

    I think California, or any state, should be able to set whatever rules they like, and then see if car makers will sell autos in that state that meet criteria...

    That is after all the point of states, to be able to experiment with various ways of managing government.

    I find it really interesting that Trump has the power to revoke this waver though. Was the waver itself organically just an executive order from some other president? Was it not something voted on by the house/congress?

    That is why it's so important to work up new laws for things, it's hard to pass new legislation, but even more important it is very hard to UNDO such legislation once enacted. A government built atop rules that the next elected officials can just toss if they feel like it is a house of cards.

    • A government built atop rules that the next elected officials can just toss if they feel like it is a house of cards.

      Oh... now the title of that Netflix show makes sense.

    • Re: Disagree with this one (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      California can set standards that apply only to cars made and sold in California, once they import cars from other states it becomes interstate commerce, this falling under federal regulations - as I understand it.

      Why didn't any previous administration simply adopt CA emission standards? Why did CA have a special waiver for almost 50 years? Every other state could have simply adopted California's standard, but only 13 did.

      Clearly the majority of states (50-14=36, a majority) had no interest in adopting Cali

    • well no (Score:5, Insightful)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:48PM (#59204966)

      As much as I agree with your sentiments and as much as I think the action is very bad, it is one of the most apropos uses of the US constitutions commerce clause in effect. The commerce clause is the single most abused loophole by the feds. It's what is used to allow feds to make laws in state jurisdictions (guns in school zones, hate crimes, etc...) and used by the feds for all drug laws (no you can't grow marijuana even if the state allows it because.....???..... because it might affect interstate commerce. Say what? yes that's the legal basis for that).

      But in this case car regulations directly map to interstate transportation and to the sales of cars and the regulation of cars that all intersect interstate commerce.

      So this is actually something the feds can do like it or not. So your principled argument is 100% against the constitution.

      But, states should be able to create comapcts with the feds to grant them authorities such as the ability to regulate above fed standards in-state when it makes sense. So it's really pernicious to have trump renege on these long standing agreements.

    • I find it really interesting that Trump has the power to revoke this waver though. Was the waver itself organically just an executive order from some other president? Was it not something voted on by the house/congress?

      To massively simplify, Congress passed a law saying "EPA can make rules about pollution from cars". And then the EPA did.

      A government built atop rules that the next elected officials can just toss if they feel like it is a house of cards.

      Which is why a Congress completely choked with veto points is bad - it makes it impossible to pass the "Puppies and Kittens are Cute Act", much less something even slightly controversial.

      It only worked this long because of a Mutually Assured Destruction-like system. But Republicans figured out Democrats are two cowardly to follow through.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kobun ( 668169 )
      Came here to say exactly this. I wish I had mod points for you. Executive Orders intended to be "permanent" are an abomination - be it a Republican or a Democrat, I cannot condone governing by the whimsy of a King/Queen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Altus ( 1034 )

      why would you need a waver at all to limit the sale of things. A state can ban alcohol over a certain percentage (ever clear for instance), states can ban the sale of fireworks... under what clause are cars somehow protected from state laws but these other things aren't?

    • Re:Disagree with this one (Score:5, Interesting)

      by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:58PM (#59205044)

      I find it really interesting that Trump has the power to revoke this waver though. Was the waver itself organically just an executive order from some other president?

      Here you go. 42 U.S. Code 7543

      (a) Prohibition

      No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.

      And then following that...

      (b) Waiver

      (1) The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—
      (A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,
      (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or
      (C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 7521(a) of this title.
      (2) If each State standard is at least as stringent as the comparable applicable Federal standard, such State standard shall be deemed to be at least as protective of health and welfare as such Federal standards for purposes of paragraph (1).
      (3) In the case of any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine to which State standards apply pursuant to a waiver granted under paragraph (1), compliance with such State standards shall be treated as compliance with applicable Federal standards for purposes of this subchapter.

      So it is in the law to grant waivers to States to not comply with subsection (a).

      A government built atop rules that the next elected officials can just toss if they feel like it is a house of cards

      Ah, have you ever worked in DC? Legislators make these kinds of things because then it's the President's fault when things don't go the way everyone wanted. The President is Congress' scapegoat. That's like literally the first thing you learn in DC. You pour as much as you possibly can into the President, so that way you can just blame him or her for when shit hits the fan.

      • Thanks, that was interesting to read... one thought:

        (A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,

        I wonder if it could have been argued in court that California's emission laws were over-strict to the point of being capricious?

        I still do not see why the law set up a waver system instead of simply saying "these are the base requirements, any state is free to impose any requirements above these standards" instead of going through all the complexity of setting up a waver with a public hearing.

      • Which is exactly why this regulation will be struck down by the courts. Congress explicitly granted California and other states the right to set whatever emissions regulations they wanted as long as they were at least as strong as the federal requirements.

        Trump doesn't have the leeway to revoke this, it's written directly into the law by congress and his ability to regulate doesn't cover changing the law, he can set the standard but not take away the states rights to set their own standard. This was explici

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jwdb ( 526327 )

      I think California, or any state, should be able to set whatever rules they like, and then see if car makers will sell autos in that state that meet criteria...

      That is after all the point of states, to be able to experiment with various ways of managing government.

      Being able to experiment is helpful, but the downside is a balkanization of the market. Europe is a good example of this, in that while some aspects of commerce across the block are set at the EU level, many others are not. National broadcasters f

  • I'm sure that California's legislation will announce a retaliatory "gas guzzler" tax to replace the fuel mileage standards that they are losing, and the other blue state legislatures will follow suit.

    Thanks, Trump, I'm blaming you when the taxes go up on my Mustang.

  • Is this left or right? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:49PM (#59204970) Homepage Journal
    So much for the "50 laboratories of democracy." Is there anyone left who is still fooled by his "Republican" label into thinking of him as right of center? That label doesn't seem to mean what it meant a few years ago.

    • Is there anyone left who is still fooled by his "Republican" label

      Ha-Ha, you have fallen victim to the misconception anyone ever thought that. Everyone knew Trump was formerly a Democrat (which explains why he's controlling what California can do with emissions, overriding state rights is what comes natural to a Democrat).

      Actual Republicans (most of them) voted for Trump not because he was supposedly a Republican, but because he was vastly less corrupt than Hillary.

      Interestingly Trump will win on 2020 beca

      • Re:No-one every thought of him as Republican to st (Score:5, Insightful)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @03:43PM (#59205310) Journal

        Actual Republicans (most of them) voted for Trump not because he was supposedly a Republican, but because he was vastly less corrupt than Hillary.

        Well, that may have been the theory. The practice turned out rather differently, given that the only thing preventing Trump from being indicted on multiple federal crimes is the notion that a sitting president can't be indicted, whereas Hillary withstood years of investigation with no such protection and was never indicted.

        Don't misconstrue this as support for Hillary. I have deeply disliked her for a very long time, and refused to vote for her in 2016. But the notion that Trump is less corrupt is beyond laughable.

        • Not just more corrupt than any president since Nixon, Trump is also pretty damn incompetent, he's a paper tiger on the international stage and his blundering about since taking office has effectively wasted the first two years he was in office. On top of that he's a tax-cut and spend president which isn't going to make this country great, it's going to make this country broke. He's not only created the biggest tax cut for businesses but he's also slashed dramatically the taxes on the wealthiest people with

  • The administration doesn't have the right to force a less strict version of policies. So, if the federal government allows for more pollution, states can have stricter requirements. If the issue is all or nothing, then the federal government would have the final say, but the president does not have the right to act as emperor and just declare that everyone must do as he commands. The key is if the level of being more strict ends up being, "you can't do this, even if it is allowed by federal law", as i

  • Great news for the fossil industry. Shame about the car industry, though.

    Good luck exporting those gas guzzlers. US car industry is in for some serious hurt.

  • So petty (Score:3)

    by Ogive17 ( 691899 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:56PM (#59205032)
    The sad thing is the "small government" Republicans support this behavior as long as it's their side expanding the role of government.

    What's the big fucking deal if those 4 automotive manufacturers want to try harder to make a difference.

  • Like Ron Perlman says (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @03:11PM (#59205118)

    "100% of Trump's legacy thus far is the dismantling of 8 years of another man's work. 3rd graders have more leadership skills than this pos."

    The man's got a point. A distressing amount of Trump's time and effort have been spent on un-doing and tearing down the work of others.

  • Naomi Klein's term is "Climate Barbarians" (Score:3)

    by remoteshell ( 1299843 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @04:33PM (#59205588)
    "Money Is the Oxygen on Which the Fire of Global Warming Burns" - Bill McKibben

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close