Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    Trump administration’s drive to block California “clean car” rules moves forward

    Trump administration’s drive to block California “clean car” rules moves forward

    #Counter-Resistance speeding along a road called Regulatory Rollback.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SGkeFYMFNU

    In April, we reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had taken steps to challenge California’s decades-old right to set its own air pollution rules, setting up a showdown between the federal government and the West Coast headquarters of the #Resistance.

    Since then, the administration has prepared its plan to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions, included its mandate for electric-car sales, and is gearing up for its release.

    The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

    The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it would cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the Obama plan, according to the people.

    As part of the effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell a minimum number of electric vehicles in the state, the people said.

    The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) joins the EPA in this action, as the rationale for the revocation is enhanced safety.

    The EPA and NHTSA revealed in a regulatory notice Friday that its upcoming proposal to reduce vehicle efficiency and emissions standards will be dubbed the “Safer and Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles Rule,” indicating that administration officials will likely argue that stricter standards would compromise safety.

    Then-EPA head Scott Pruitt formally declared in April that the Obama plan to make emissions and efficiency standards stricter through 2026 is not appropriate. It was the first step toward potentially rolling the standards back.

    The agencies are expected in the coming days to float a proposal with a handful of ideas, including various levels of looser rules through 2026 and freezing the standards in 2020 with no additional ramping up.

    The response from green justice activists is fascinating, especially their newfound love of federalism.

    At this point, the green justice warriors may be regretting their decision to target Scott Pruitt so viciously. The new acting head of the EPA seems to have taken the driver’s seat and is speeding along a road called Regulatory Rollback.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     5
    Real American | July 25, 2018 at 5:32 pm

    hopefully, they’ll get rid of the communist green building code next.


     
     0 
     
     0
    MajorWood | July 25, 2018 at 5:40 pm

    If CA fights this and loses, then they need to adopt the most-permissive CHL policy in the country. You either have full states-rights, or none at all.


     
     1 
     
     9
    Elric | July 25, 2018 at 6:21 pm

    I’m all for it. The EPA should not be able to dictate mileage requirements to automobile manufacturers. Period. I don’t see where thay is authorized in the U.S. Constitution. Let the markets decide.

    That being said, everyone would get a nice boost in mpg immediately if they would stop putting ethanol in our gasoline. And we would eliminate a pretty big subsidy and hidden tax as well.


       
       0 
       
       1
      Dave in reply to Elric. | July 25, 2018 at 8:39 pm

      Great idea wrt to ethanol, but the farm state Senators and Congresscritters would clutch their chests and inhale loudly, followed by screeching the likes of which even CNN’s anti-Trump hosts haven’t reached were it even to be proposed officially by the Trump administration.


     
     0 
     
     1
    Aarradin | July 25, 2018 at 11:22 pm

    “The “state’s rights party” is dead.”

    I guess he forgot that it was the Democrats that were the “State’s Rights Party” back when we had a war over it, because they didn’t want us to free their slaves.


     
     0 
     
     2
    DaveGinOly | July 26, 2018 at 12:04 am

    This has nothing to do with “states’ rights.” States’ rights are composed of authority retained by the states because it was not granted to Congress by the Constitution (or specifically reserved to the states). The Constitution gives Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce, meaning that the states surrendered any authority they may have had over items moving in interstate commerce. Automobiles move in interstate commerce, so Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over any regulations concerning their manufacture and sale, hence the exemption necessary for California.

    BTW, this should also apply to firearms, making all state regulation as to types (e.g., “assault rifles”) and specifics (semiautomatic operating systems, magazine capacity limits, etc.) of firearms that may be sold and possessed in a state unconstitutional. If it’s a common article of trade moving in interstate commerce, the states have no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of said article. This same principle was invoked against Arizona when it tried to make and enforce its own immigration and border laws – the states have surrendered any jurisdiction they may have had over same to Congress, and Congress’ jurisdiction over the subject matter is exclusive.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 26, 2018 at 11:30 am

      The Constitution gives Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce, meaning that the states surrendered any authority they may have had over items moving in interstate commerce. Automobiles move in interstate commerce, so Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over any regulations concerning their manufacture and sale, hence the exemption necessary for California. […] If it’s a common article of trade moving in interstate commerce, the states have no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of said article.

      Your entire premise is wrong. The constitution does not give Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce. Congress’s enumerated powers are not exclusive. States are free to make their own legislation on those subjects.

      The only time they can’t is if Congress chooses to enact a comprehensive national regulatory scheme for some industry, that leaves no room for state or local legislation. In such a case the federal law preempts state laws that contradict it. That is the case with cars, which is why CA needed an exemption.

      Congress could enact comprehensive regulation of the gun industry (subject, of course, to the second amendment), but it hasn’t done so, so states and cities are free to make their own laws (subject again, of course, to the second amendment).

      This same principle was invoked against Arizona when it tried to make and enforce its own immigration and border laws

      No, it was not. That case had nothing to do with the interstate commerce clause, or any other enumerated power. The decision in that case was based on the principle that immigration, unlike interstate commerce, is inherently an area that belongs exclusively to the federal government. This was not based on anything explicitly in the constitution; indeed the constitution doesn’t give Congress any power over immigration at all. But in the late 19th century the Supreme Court declared that by its very nature immigration is a subject on which Congress has plenary and exclusive power, so no explicit grant of power is needed. Not very originalist, but it’s been the controlling precedent for over a century now.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend