Hacker News Reader

Comment by kyrra | Hacker News Reader

It seems odd to me that California gets a pass to make their own rules here. I don't know the law enough, but there does seem to be some minor parallels to the sports betting SCOTUS case that was just ruled on (saying that it was illegal to have special waivers for a single state). Maybe this is different as it was a waiver by the EPA and not a law?

View on HN

To be clear, the exemption has been in place since the 1970's and allows California to pass their own requirements, that meet or exceed federal requirements.

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

Getting downvotes for saying this, but why should California be the only state allowed to set stricter emission standards? Why not New York or Rhode Island?

I don't want standards to be rolled back, but it's hard for me to defend the principle of this waiver even if I like the outcome.

Because, the argument in the 1970's went, is that if the EPA were to allow every state to set their own, competing standards, then the result would be a mess, requiring a different car models for each state with the worst case scenario being contradicting standards. The EPA then granted California a waiver; LA's pollution was quite bad in the 80's which likely helped California's argument.

Other states were allowed the adoption of adopting the stronger California standard or using the weaker EPA's, but the goal was to avoid a hodgepodge of different laws.

I don't believe the EPA granted the waiver, the Clean Air Act itself granted California a perpetual exemption. As such, the EPA can't grant other states the same right.

The history is totally understandable, to avoid a hodgepodge they were granted special powers. Not fair in principle is all, I don't believe any state should have special rights above all others.

There is nothing preventing it, they've all just decided California rules meet their same goals, and it is more advantageous for them to share the same rules than expand further.

Yes there is, 49 states must seek policy exemptions from the EPA and win approval for them, while California has no such burden. CA gets a perpetual exemption allowing them freedom no other state gets.

Edit: I was actually wrong here, no other state may even ask for a waiver.

> This power is reserved alone for California, and it only covers pollution from cars. No other state can ask for a waiver. (In all of federal law, this might be the only time that a specific state is given special authority under such a major statute.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...

Then maybe another state could sue and possibly get make it so all states could get a waiver (since it sounds at least a little like the ports betting law):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/supreme-court...

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act they wrote an exception for California into the law. If they don't like it they should get Congress to change the law.

Because those states haven’t sought an exemption, but there’s no reason to believe they couldn’t have gotten one. The notion that power not reserved default to states is enshrined in the American constitution.

Per this article in the Atlantic, other states are not allowed to even ask for a waiver.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...

No other state can ask for a waiver under the existing exemption. Nothing was stopping other states from seeking similar leeway in the bill, only California tried. Also per the article, the reason for that was the unique geography and circumstances of LA.

One thing to keep in mind is that California is possibly uniquely effected by smog. It doesn’t rain for months at a time, it’s hot, it’s heavily populated, and LA is surrounded by mountains so the LA area is especially impacted. As a result I think Californians are more effected by the smog than people in most of the rest of the country.

In theory, the US system is supposed to allow the states to act as laboratories for trying out different policies and seeing how they work out. But when the federal government passes a law, in an area where both the federal government and the states theoretically could exercise jurisdiction, the federal law often pre-empts any state-level laws.

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.

Why? Min wage uses the same concept. Feds set the bottom threshold and states can make it higher.

They're not rules. They are laws. US is a Federal Republic. Each member of the federation (aka State) has the right to enact it's own laws, whether they conflict with the Federal Government or not.

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.

It's not framed as a waiver applying to a single state - the law doesn't mention California by name at all. It frames it as:

"...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..."

It's fairly normal for laws to create exemptions for regions with special circumstances.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com