Hacker News Reader

Comment by zupzupper | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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 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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com