Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

I see the government is familiar with interaction-free measurements of quantum systems.

But seriously, it sounds like people will "interpret" anything in any way that is most convenient to them. I almost wish we had a formal system of language so these sorts of things would not occur. Of course, then we would have bugs in that system that would miss important edge cases...

See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17396635

Instead, the issue here would be whether the Act of Congress that specifically governs air efficiency standards gives any quarter to this administration's laughable potential reasoning for not granting a waiver that the law dictates must be granted by the EPA Administrator to allow any state to exceed the federal standard.

That is not the strategy the Trump administration is using, according to the article. California is regulating emissions under a 2009 waiver granted by EPA. The administration is seeking to revoke that waiver.

Such a business, when it makes a choice to not execute a sale that it would have had an opportunity to execute, has “mens rea” for that act’s effects on interstate commerce—because such companies keep track of such things, and their decisions are driven by such metrics.

It’s just like insider trading: not executing a trade that would have otherwise (i.e. given only public knowledge) been in your best interests to execute, where you didn’t execute it because of corporate-internal knowledge, is still just as illegal as the reverse. In either case, since it’s your job as a trader to be aware of the effects of both executing and not executing trades, either “act” can be said to be the result of an explicit, intentional choice you made.

(Of course, that’s different from just not executing a trade that you would have had no particular reason to execute. You can’t blame someone for insider trading just because they don’t short a stock, if they don’t already have a pattern of shorting stocks!)

In all such cases, the guilty party is a more abstract type of actor than an individual (e.g. a corporation; an accredited investor) and their guilt is driven by the fact that such actors behave predictably according to some preference function, such that it’s clear where such actors act against that preference function both through explicit action; and through inaction.

Or, as a formalism: when it’s 100% of your job, as an agent in a system, to decide whether to make deals, then a lack of a deal, together with evidence that you considered the deal, can be regarded as an explicit choice you’ve made to not make that deal.

Given my understanding of how lower courts work on case law, this set a whole bunch of biased precedents from this one ruling. The ability of California to set good environmental law could still prevail if they could get a ruling using some other way like the 10th amendment.

Second: you still don't know what you're talking about, because even if there weren't federal statute explicitly covering this, California's rules apply to cars sold in California. SCOTUS has never reliably pushed far enough into expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence to be able to strike that sort of thing down, and never ever will (hint: because doing so would create a legal precedent for federal gun control to pre-empt more-permissive state-level gun laws, something the Court's conservatives will never allow a hint of a possibility of a thought of an option of a shadow of a consideration of...).

Third: cherry-picking Commerce Clause cases is a really bad way to make an argument. SCOTUS has been all over the damn place on the Commerce Clause at different points in US history, and you can ultimately find a Commerce Clause case to justify basically anything you want to say, which is why any given example tends to be pretty meaningless as an argument.

To clarify, here's the original quote:

> No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—

> (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions

That is, the heightened state standards themselves must be justified by compelling and extraordinary conditions, in the judgement of the EPA administrator. (Your trimmed quote suggests an alternate interpretation where they'd need compelling and extraordinary reasons to reject the state standards, but it's the other way around.)

It doesn't sound hard to me for the EPA administrator to argue that there are no longer "extraordinary" conditions specific to California that justify additional regulation. Apparently, when the language was initially enacted in 1970, it was meant to refer to smog episodes in Los Angeles [1]...

[1] https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its...

We would not be allowed standards that are below federal standards, we're just allowed to be tougher on ourselves than the fed requires.

California's clean-air efforts were one of those laboratory-style experiments, though, and were deemed worthwhile enough that, when the federal Clean Air Act was drafted, it was set up to allow California -- the only state which really was experimenting in this area -- to obtain waivers allowing it to continue exploring its own policies. Other states have the freedom to choose to adopt California's standard, or the federal standard.

Also, the Clean Air Act is a bit interesting in how it works. Rather than applying for a waiver and having to hope it's granted, California is basically entitled to the waiver unless the EPA can show certain conditions have not been met:

https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-e...

Which in turn means that a President who simply dislikes California is not in a position to deny the waiver on a whim. Trump would have to show that the conditions for the waiver were not met, and would likely have to prove it to a court, rather than just give the order to an administrator who's beholden to him for employment.

And anyone can challenge the legality of a law by filing a suit; then it's left to the courts to ultimately decide whether the challenge has merit or not.

The federal government may not prevail in court, so it exerts it's influence elsewhere, typically by with holding federal funding, or refusing to provide federally backed services.

You do, after all, need to get people to agree to the thing. If some party objects, the easiest fix is often to just grant them a waiver.

"...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..."

States don't have rights.

States have certain powers granted them by their and the US constitutions. People too often misinterpret "limited Federal powers" as equating to "states' rights".

Has he looked or been otherwise briefed on how these mandates have crippled the American automakers? I'll be damned if he knows more than a talking point or two.

Didn't you hear? Those coal miners in West Virginia with black lung disease are losing their jobs because those yuppies in California are buying electric vehicles. He must protect BlockBuster. Hell, subsidize the shovels.

This is nothing more than special interests dictating policy, helpfully exposing GOP hypocrisy in its wake. "State's rights" for me when I want to enslave someone, externalize costs, or infringe on civil rights but "federal supremacy" when you don't do what we want.

The comparison is not easy though as the european standards focussus on hydrocarbons and the californian on NOx.

You aren't harmed by California's standards by any stretch of the imagination:

You can't show any actual harm by not being able to purchase specific diesel engines.

> Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars being driven by Americans.

Sure, let's sign a bill telling the smog it can't go to LA anymore. That should do the trick. Do you understand the purpose of the regulations are to give Bay-area residents breathable, healthy air, and these regulations are the ones California can actually enact?

But hey, it's a conservative mantra to only think of the individual, so you fit the mold pretty well. Poor guy, can't buy a BMW 320d, and the damn Bay-area residents should get sick and breath horrible air so he can.

The BMW 320d that is sold in Europe is exactly the same car as the 328d that IS sold in the US, including in CA. I know, because I have one.

So there is obviously a market solution here. It seems wrong to target the CA regulation layer on this one.

Also, are we sure that it costs more on the margin to manufacture cleaner cars?

Plus, I can't help but think it's not that bad if we accidentally have cleaner cars, but that's not really a principled stance, it just worked out in this case.

There's no "more fair to other consumers" here, nor is there any "imposition" by California on consumers in other states. There is, however, an imposition on car manufacturers who wish to have their vehicles operated in California. Not seeing the problem here.

It should also be noted that California is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world that's dramatically disenfranchised with respect to its representation in US government.

Also, it’s important to know that special California emissions standards have been the case for over 50 years. Additionally, I believe 14 other states have also adopted CARB standards.

There is no economic reason to be doing this in 2018.

By keeping the exemption, the state is making things more fair for its residents :)