California already working on emission regulations for beyond 2016

[silvrsvt]

http://www.leftlanenews.com/california-alr...eyond-2016.html

 

“California will be immediately getting to work on what the standards should be for beyond 2016,” Mary Nichols, who chairs the California Air Resources Board, told Reuters. Nichols added future regulations will like be “much more stringent”.

 

California is by far the most aggressive state when it come to vehicle emissions and will likely become the first to regulate exhaust emissions this June. The California Air Resources Board hasn’t indicated what standards it will push for beyond 2016, but a number in the 40 mpg range would not be out of the question for the early 2020s

 

How can one State (well technically 13 total) force the rest of the country to follow its "standards"? Maybe CARB will have be shut down to close the multi-billon dollar deficit that California has.

 

I thought the current regs just released earlier this week was a compromise with CARB?

[7Mary3]

Since the California Air Resources Board existed before the Environmental Protection Agency, the C.A.R.B. has the right to inact whatever air quality laws it deems fit, and does not have to follow the E.P.A.. All other states can make their own decision to follow C.A.R.B. or the E.P.A., but cannot inact their own standards.

[wildosvt]

Another plug for "FK California" :fan:

[nelsonlu]

http://www.leftlanenews.com/california-alr...eyond-2016.html

 

 

 

How can one State (well technically 13 total) force the rest of the country to follow its "standards"? Maybe CARB will have be shut down to close the multi-billon dollar deficit that California has.

 

I thought the current regs just released earlier this week was a compromise with CARB?

 

Read the article more carefully. The CARB standards being worked on are standards after 2016. The compromise reached this week between the federal government and CARB included a promise for California not to enforce its own standards until 2016.

[Cougarpower]

By that time I hope the Mr Fusion and the Flux capacitor are ready for production :happy feet:

[RichardJensen]

Since the California Air Resources Board existed before the Environmental Protection Agency, the C.A.R.B. has the right to inact whatever air quality laws it deems fit, and does not have to follow the E.P.A.

Not entirely accurate.

 

CARB's regulations must be approved by the EPA.

 

Also, IIRC, the EPA & CARB collaborate on emissions standards such that the CARB standards are equivalent to an EPA standard..

 

In a practical sense the only CARB regulation that hasn't been approved is the CO2 regulation, and CARB's standards are, by and large, equivalent to, if a few years ahead of EPA standards.

[macattak1]

http://www.leftlanenews.com/california-alr...eyond-2016.html

 

How can one State (well technically 13 total) force the rest of the country to follow its "standards"? Maybe CARB will have be shut down to close the multi-billon dollar deficit that California has.

 

I thought the current regs just released earlier this week was a compromise with CARB?

 

Sounds like it is about time for a grass roots group to sue the state of CA and CARB for forcing their positions on the rest of the states.

 

Regardless. Ford should just notify dealers now that starting now and over the coming years Ford will be cutting down the number SUVs and Trucks Ford will be selling in CA. They could do this to the smaller states, but then they would be just like CA.

 

Yea, I know Ford can't survive with out CA and the other 11. But perhaps, just cutting out CA for a year or two will see some impact not just against Ford. Maybe the other ~11 or so won't be so interested in an angry populace?

 

Anyway. I think CA is really pushing it. Its like every year they push a little harder to run the country a little bit more. Problem is, they can't pay their own bills or run their own state well. Certainly TX can pay its own bills and does not force its positions on the rest of the states to this magnitude. CA is full of people that want to tell others how to do everything.

 

CA started out as a state that did not want to be told what to do. Now they are the state telling everyone else what to do.

 

Really, CA should just not allow registration of more than X number of large vehicles. Driving in CA is a privilege. So why don't they just tell people what they can drive?

 

Peace and Blessings

[RichardJensen]

Also score one for Rooters' "ignorance is no obstacle to reporting" motto.

 

California will not, this fall become 'the first state to regulate exhaust emissions' NOR are they 'the most aggressive state...' in that they are the ONLY state (as 7Mary3 pointed out) that is allowed to regulate tailpipe emissions.

[rmc523]

By that time I hope the Mr Fusion and the Flux capacitor are ready for production :happy feet:

 

Hmmm......I think those are both available..........Fusion and Flex.... :lol:

[Noah Harbinger]

Sounds like it is about time for a grass roots group to sue the state of CA and CARB for forcing their positions on the rest of the states.

 

I don't see California putting a gun to anyone's head...

[V8 Ford]

I guess California is too good to use the same car emmisions standards as the rest of the country. CARB's sole purpose in this world is to enact slightly higher emmmisions standards in an already well regulated industry with huge diminishing returns to scale, a complete exercise of arrogance, stupidity and waste.

[Noah Harbinger]

I guess California is too good to use the same car emmisions standards as the rest of the country. CARB's sole purpose in this world is to enact slightly higher emmmisions standards in an already well regulated industry with huge diminishing returns to scale, a complete exercise of arrogance, stupidity and waste.

 

It's such a complete waste and devastation that every country in the world is doing it

 

[V8 Ford]

I was thinking of nox, pm, etc emmisions, where CARB basically chooses to use US standards a couple years in advance, which is a complete waste of time, effort and money. As your graph shows, their fuel economy standards are no different.

[7Mary3]

Not entirely accurate.

 

CARB's regulations must be approved by the EPA.

 

Also, IIRC, the EPA & CARB collaborate on emissions standards such that the CARB standards are equivalent to an EPA standard..

 

In a practical sense the only CARB regulation that hasn't been approved is the CO2 regulation, and CARB's standards are, by and large, equivalent to, if a few years ahead of EPA standards.

 

Ah, not entirely accurate. If CARB were to inact a regulation LESS stringent than an EPA regulation, then the EPA regulation would overrule and be in effect in California. We all know that is not going to happen! CARB's attempt to regulate CO2 emissions ran into trouble with the EPA because at the time CO2 was not considered to be a 'polutant' and therefore outside CARB's authority. The attempt was viewed as a way California could mandate their own fuel eonomy standards, which could have got the NHTSA involved as they are solely responsible for fuel economy standards (CAFE). Now that CO2 is considered to be a 'polutant' it opens up an interesting debate whether or not CARB has the authority to regulate it as it was not discovered to be a problem until after the EPA was formed. CARB's considerable authority only comes from the fact that they existed before the EPA did, and ostensibly the only have the right to regulate polution that was known to be a problem in California before the EPA was formed. Everything else is under the EPA's authority. However, it looks like the EPA is going to follow the CARB's leed and adopt their proposed standard if the CARB keeps their mouths shut until 2016.

[RichardJensen]

2005 CARB requests a waiver in order to enact a more stringent standard for CO2 emissions:

http://uscarbonreport.com/carb-asks-epa-to...ions-from-cars/

 

manufacturers and EPA sue alleging that CO2 is not a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA)

 

Apr. 2007 The Supreme Court declared CO2 a pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA:

http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Dec. 2007 The EPA denies CARB's waiver request

http://uscarbonreport.com/carb-asks-epa-to...ions-from-cars/

 

Mar. 2009 CARB agrees (in principal) to drop waiver request if EPA regulations are substantially in line with its request.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...letter-business

 

May 2009 EPA announces draft regs that are substantially equivalent to CARB's proposals.

 

-----

 

This should illustrate that CARB's regulations must be approved by the EPA. In fact, the CO2 reg was the first reg that was not approved. Regardless of CARB's prior existence, CARB's mandate is based solely and exclusively in the tenth amendment. It is, and has always been, perilously close to constituting regulation of interstate commerce.

 

This fuel economy debate illustrates especially well how CARB's tenth amendment right to exist (under the reserved powers clause) can--if extended far enough--constitute de facto regulation of interstate commerce.

 

At any rate, CARB was carved out an exception under the Clean Air Act that subjected all of its regulatory actions to approval by the EPA.

 

For instance, if CARB were to demand that EVERY vehicle sold in California be a plug-in-hybrid, the EPA would be well within the bounds of the CAA to deny that request.

Edited May 22, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Critic]

Could there now be regulation that supersedes CARB and returns all rule making to the Fed. Gov. so from here on out we are all on the same page?

 

I thought this was the great landmark about all of this. CARB has come out with other reg's that couldn't be met before and had to scale back a few times.

[RichardJensen]

The thing is, CARB sits on some pretty solid constitutional grounds:

 

The tenth amendment grants states what are called the 'police powers', or the authority to legislate for public welfare (e.g. reducing pollution).

 

Any attempt to strip CARB of its authority would be open to a challenge on constitutional grounds.

 

The EPA has to balance the states' police powers with the commerce clause.

 

See, per Art. 1, Sect. 8, EPA is allowed to exist because Congress can regulate commerce, and the EPA regulates commerce. Per the 10th Amendment, CARB has a right to exist.

 

---

 

It's a balancing act.

[theoldwizard]

From a state that is $24B in the red and getting deeper in debt every day.

 

Maybe they should spend more time cleaning their own house.

[Alcibiades]

Maybe in the next couple of years the adults will take over the job of running California, and kick out the children. We can only hope. Otherwise, California will go down the tubes. How can a state of such great beauty, natural resources, talent, etc. be so poorly run? And the worst of it is California is exporting its terrible ideas and "leaders" (e.g. Pelosi, Waxman) to the rest of the country.

[Harley Lover]

The thing is, CARB sits on some pretty solid constitutional grounds:

 

The tenth amendment grants states what are called the 'police powers', or the authority to legislate for public welfare (e.g. reducing pollution).

 

Any attempt to strip CARB of its authority would be open to a challenge on constitutional grounds.

 

The EPA has to balance the states' police powers with the commerce clause.

 

See, per Art. 1, Sect. 8, EPA is allowed to exist because Congress can regulate commerce, and the EPA regulates commerce. Per the 10th Amendment, CARB has a right to exist.

 

---

 

It's a balancing act.

 

Richard, I read an article the other day that stated that the Clean Air Act of 1970 specifically gave California the right to regulate auto emissions within California. I can't remember if any other details were offered, but this might explain why they have to get approval from the feds before they can implement regs that are more strict than the federal regs - they are required to get permission via the CAA of 1970. Also, IIRC, over the years their requests were approved every single time until the most recent refusal during the Bush administration, which of course has now been resolved with this week's announcement.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the government place a "special" gas tax on California related to its more stringent regs, if they choose to enact them after 2016. Raise the price of gas to, say $8.00/gallon, and I don't think any of the manufacturers will have a problem selling the type of product mix the politicians seem to want. Of course, the politicians will never grow a set large enough to actually confront their constituency with the reality of things - that's why California is in such a mess today.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Harley Lover

[LSFan00]

Link...

 

...t is difficult not to marvel at the demagoguery and corruption that's employed to get it done. Take this supposed coming together of California, the United Auto Workers, Washington, and the auto industry in support of stringent new standards that would cut an entire 0.05 percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

 

The United States government, if you haven't noticed, owns the auto manufacturing industry, props up the last vestiges of "labor," and soon will bail out the failed state of California. So this harmonizing of disparate interests is what a gracious person might call a "conflict of interest" and an honest person refers to as "racketeering."

 

Though using California's tough fuel-efficiency standards for the entire nation (and hasn't that state excelled?) brings some certitude to Detroit, why would the auto industry suddenly change course and drop its opposition to onerous regulations?

 

According to Forbes magazine, less than two years ago Chrysler officially put the cost of meeting similar standards at $6,700 per vehicle. Cerberus, which is a private equity firm, threatened to walk away from the auto giant because the new requirements would have meant the end of Chrysler.

 

Yet yesterday, there he was, the Chrysler CEO, with a gaggle of other paid-off shills at a Rose Garden news conference falling in line with President Barack Obama.

[Pioneer]

I don't see California putting a gun to anyone's head...

 

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Threatening federal lawsuits to force their views on the rest of the country seems like a pretty big gun to me.

 

If California hates the rest of the United States laws so much, let them start their own country. They already have the deficit for it.

[RichardJensen]

Richard, I read an article the other day that stated that the Clean Air Act of 1970 specifically gave California the right to regulate auto emissions within California. I can't remember if any other details were offered, but this might explain why they have to get approval from the feds before they can implement regs that are more strict than the federal regs - they are required to get permission via the CAA of 1970. Also, IIRC, over the years their requests were approved every single time until the most recent refusal during the Bush administration, which of course has now been resolved with this week's announcement.

All correct, and that waiver request, BTW is not going to be granted.

[Deanh]

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Threatening federal lawsuits to force their views on the rest of the country seems like a pretty big gun to me.

 

If California hates the rest of the United States laws so much, let them start their own country. They already have the deficit for it.

re phrase please....should read if the rest of the United States hates California this much...and judging by a majority of posts seems that is more accurate....

[NickF1011]

re phrase please....should read if the rest of the United States hates California this much...and judging by a majority of posts seems that is more accurate....

 

I don't hate California. I just rather resent that something they pass into law can somehow become law in my state when I didn't vote for any members of California's government.