Hacker News Reader

Comment by m463 | Hacker News Reader

Not that I think this way, but...

There are people who think US corporations should be able to compete without any hindrance.

Having a car with lower emissions might mean it is more expensive, or less efficient, or have some other factor that makes it less competitive.

They think competing is better for the environment than regulation.

There are theories that support this, "the solution to pollution is economic growth"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Ku...

though not without controversy.

View on HN

Competing with whom? Foreign car makers face the same constraints and if not in the US they certainly will in Europe.

What better way to turn up the innovation engine of competition than to raise the bar with a baseline standard?

I think regulation is the issue here - the trump administration has a history of fighting regulation.

And although I don't mind california regulating cleaner cars, and everyone wants clean air, water, food and medicine, not every regulation is great.

For example, regulation and electricity.

Why can PG&E charge california residents 0.22/0.27/0.48 per kwh when their cost of electricity is 0.03 per kwh?

This is regulatory capture.

I've heard that before. Most recently from someone who thought ig completely unreasonable that he had to pay to withdraw money from his account.

What are PG&E's costs OTHER than electricity? Why don't you just buy that 3¢ electricity on those terms, which I presume means include advance warning before any usage change, and you pay for transport from seller's location.

Perhaps the only rationale (not that I necessarily agree with the outcome) is that California imposing such restrictions violates the interstate commerce clause. The test involved does not consider intent, only whether or not out-of-state businesses are disadvantaged because of state law. So if (e.g.) bespoke carmakers have problems selling to CA because of this then it is a discriminatory law.

This is potentially permissible (in contrast to the Hong Kong holding company vs. Australia suit about cigarette packaging) as the functioning of the US is predicated on states that can work together despite their regulations. Note how states must recognize each other's wedding certificates and driver's licenses, for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com