By on May 17, 2022

Last week, a group of Republican attorneys general decided to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its decision to reinstate the waiver allowing California to set its own limitations on exhaust gasses and zero-emission vehicle mandates that would exceed federal standards.

The agency approved the waiver after it had been eliminated as part of the Trump administration’s fuel rollback on the grounds that it would create a schism within the industry by forcing automakers to produce vehicles that catered to the Californian market at the expense of products that might be appreciated in other parts of the country. However, Joe Biden’s EPA sees things differently and has aligned itself with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in giving the state more leeway to govern itself in regard to emissions policing. 

In fact, Biden issued an executive order in January 2021 that directed the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the EPA to reconsider the Trump administration’s 2019 decision to revoke California’s ability to self-regulate.

The coalition of AGs is said to be headed by Ohio’s Dave Yost and is asserting in the courts that Clean Air Act waiver violates the Constitution’s equal sovereignty doctrine. Yost was joined by officials from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia who have joined the federal lawsuit.

Though this is all fair play considering that the emissions fracas has become a never-ending saga of partisan bickering, large states (usually California) throwing their weight around, and constant lawsuits funded by the American taxpayer. When the Trump administration was attempting to negotiate the revised fuel economy standards, the relevant hearings showed officials and legislators throwing tantrums and occasionally refusing to sit near members of the opposition. While some compromises were made, continuing to allow California to set its own rules was not among them. Trump’s EPA even went so far as to cite the Golden State as having the worst air quality in the union, noting an inability to “carry out its most basic tasks under the Clean Air Act.”

Meanwhile, California was encouraging other Democratic-controlled states and a subset of multinational automakers to promise adherence to its emissions laws — rather than the federally issued standards. Several of those states later joined forces to sue the Trump administration in 2020 under the claim that the whole fueling rollback was illegal and based on faulty information. Though it ultimately didn’t matter, since the Biden administration immediately committed itself to dissolve any changes made under the previous White House. This included reinstating California’s waiver, originally issued under the Obama administration in 2013, and reforming the EPA and DOT leadership.

The shoe is now on the other foot and Republicans are attempting to sue the EPA on the grounds that California has been allotted special treatment. IHS Markit reported that the lawsuit was filed on May 13th  in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The AGs are claiming that the waiver effectively violates the Constitution, which West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said creates a federalist framework in which all states are equal and none is more equal than others.

“The Trump administration understood that, and prohibited California from setting its own oppressive standards,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt stated. “The Biden administration has since repealed the Trump order and given California the go-ahead to set ‘green’ manufacturing standards, which in reality, crush the average American who is already facing astronomical prices at the pump because of the Biden administration’s failed policies.”

This issue is definitely larger than just cars. Republicans have sued the EPA on a couple of items relating to how it wants to regulate emissions from manufacturing and energy production. The Supreme Court is even looking into where the agency’s authority should stop in terms of coal-fired power plants. But the general trend has been for emissions regulations to become increasingly stringent, regardless of who is occupying the White House or what letter appends the name of your governor. Leadership from seventeen states have opted to run with California’s plan — including bans of internal combustion vehicles by 2035 — and the rest are subject to enhanced tailpipe regulations under Biden’s EPA.

This one doesn’t have an easy answer. Automakers are largely split on the issue and there is a clear conflict between what constitutes states’ rights and allowing one region’s influence to supersede the rest. Frankly, California’s overbearing environmental policies don’t seem to have been all that realistic or successful. It may be foolhardy to extend them to the rest of the nation, undoubtedly altering the kind of vehicles that will be produced. But one should probably have serious reservations about limiting any local body’s ability to govern itself. It’s just a shame that this unproductive circus, led by uncompromising and litigious partisans, is likely to determine the fate of the industry and perhaps the next vehicle you’ll be buying.

[Image: Siripatv/Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

83 Comments on “Gas War: Republican States Sue EPA Over Californian Standards...”


  • avatar
    dal20402

    “Frankly, California’s overbearing environmental policies don’t seem to have been all that realistic or successful.”

    Today, Los Angeles has the worst year-round air quality in the country. That is mostly because of decisions that happened long before any of California’s current leaders came to power: specifically, the decision to build a car-centric, sprawling metropolis in a desert valley with terrible air circulation.

    But if CARB had never existed, how much worse would air quality in that valley be today? Remember, we’ve had an administration about every 10-15 years that effectively suspends federal CAA enforcement.

    Alternately, how much better would things be there if Los Angeles had been built as densely as New York and right on the coast? You could have the same population with less than half the vehicle emissions.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I don’t think the red states care about the smog-related/particulate waivers that much. It’s the GHG waiver that’s in their sights. The W Bush admin refused to issue CA a waiver related to carbon emissions and it has been a fight ever since.

      But I don’t see how the Republicans can win in this case. The argument that California doesn’t have a *unique* need to regulate GHG like do for particulates could probably have legs but that has to do with revoking/issuing a specific waiver.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      @dal20402–I believe that if the Republicans could they would eliminate the EPA and any clean air and clean water laws. Maybe I am wrong but that is just my opinion.

      • 0 avatar
        Oberkanone

        One nation, one standard. It’s a disaster to allow each individual state to set it’s own emissions standards. Elevating the rights of California above every other state violates the Constitution. Trump administration was correct to revoke California exemption even if the motivation was incorrect.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          @Oberkanonone:

          I get your point and generally agree, but 1 in 8 Americans lives in California. It’s arguable that CA has unique conditions that demand unique standards – including population centers, weather, and politics.

          What’s good for Wyoming may not really make sense in California.

          Heck, here in PA emissions testing varies *by county*. Flyover country has no requirement, but the population zones do, and even they are not the same.

          http://www.drivecleanpa.state.pa.us/info_non.htm

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @SCE to AUX–Agree what you have stated is reasonable and not extreme.

          • 0 avatar
            Oberkanone

            “What’s good for Wyoming may not really make sense in California.”

            Agree with your statement above. Allowing California or any other state to set emissions standards impacts all the states. National Standard is the answer.

            California already has the tools to regulate the vehicles owned by it’s residents. Vehicle registration and plates allow California to control the vehicle fleets registered in it’s state. Emissions standard unique to California is not needed.
            Were California to use registration as tool to selectively encourage or discourage ownership of vehicles it’s win-win for California and for the nation of states.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          Try to attempt some constitutional legalisms to justify your position that states can’t set their own standards?

          BTW. Hold onto your hats with the Roe v. Wade decision getting overturned. It is not gonna just be automotive issues that are going to become a states rights can of worms.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            Agree Roe v Wade opens the door to overturning many current laws including those specific to the states. Upcoming Republican majority in both Congress and the Senate and a majority of the Supreme Court being Republican appointees what cannot be overturned legislatively will go through the courts and get overturned. I can see a lot of legislation that are now up to the states that does not agree with the majority Republicans will get challenged and overturned. I don’t want either party to have a majority. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        • 0 avatar
          Charliej

          It effectively is one country, one standard. Detroit makes all cars and truck to California[s standard. They certainly are not going to make two set of vehicles, one for states following California and one set for the rest of the country. This is the least expensive solution for Detroit and it is what they are doing.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            True the auto makers are not going to make vehicles to 2 standards and less populated states and cities usually do not have emission testing. I am fine either way whether California is granted a waiver or not. The only real problems I can see is in more rural areas of California like the farming communities and vehicles coming from Mexico. Since I don’t live in California it does not effect me.

      • 0 avatar
        turbo_awd

        Decision out of Texas 5th-circuit today seems to possibly gut the SEC, and by extension, EPA, FDA, etc.. They not only would – they ARE doing it..

      • 0 avatar
        Dartdude

        I willing to bet that a majority of people in prison identify as democrats, yet you think republicans are bad. Republicans know that you should not throw trash on the ground and don’t do it. Democrats need a law to tell them NOT to do it. That is the difference

    • 0 avatar
      spookiness

      This weekend I was with a friend and was following at a distance through my inner-ring suburban area a lovely and tastefully restored mid-60’s Ford Galaxie sedan or something. The exhaust bouquet was noticeable, not overpowering, but my non-car friend commented on it. I replied “imagine if every other car around us was like that, or worse. That’s the way it used to be.”

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        @spookiness: 100% correct.

        A well-tuned 60s car emitted 100x the pollution of a modern car, and lead was part of that toxic plume.

        I’m old enough to remember orange skies over Pittsburgh, and being able to taste the air – with pollution warnings posted every night on the news.

        Finally, people say “something’s got to be done”, and hence, you get the EPA.

        The EPA may not always be right, but I’m glad we have it.

        • 0 avatar
          theflyersfan

          I might have posted it before but it bears repeating. On my Dad’s side of the family, he has relatives who have lived in Anaheim (near Disney) since WW2 ended and before Disney set up shop. Orange County was still filled with orange trees. And most days, everyone could see the snow-covered peaks north of downtown LA and points east. And then, especially with the boom of the freeways and the mass migration to Southern California, by the 1960s, there was no way, even on “good days,” that the mountains could be seen. I remember visiting them in the 1980s and even then, on a Santa Ana windy day, all of the smoke, haze, and exhaust just clung to your clothes and skin. It’s like Mexico City – you build a huge metropolis in a bowl with poor circulation, and this is what you get.
          Now, even with far more cars on the road, ships idling at ports, and semis stalling up the freeways, you can once again see the mountains. The air has been cleaned up that much, unless the brushfires and choking up the air again. When I lived out there, there were few days where it felt like the air was going to rip out your lungs.
          So, why are people screaming that this is wrong? Do you REALLY want to go back to the days where you had to stay indoors if you wanted to breathe? How about your small children having breathing difficulty because they played outside? If anything, California’s laws should be nationwide because the brown haze still sits over places all around the East Coast, Midwest, and Southeast. Clean air isn’t free, and we will pay more for cleaner fuels, but it beats the alternative of having cities that look like the skyline of Los Angeles in the original Blade Runner.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Sorry to say but the haze on east coast vs west has nothing to do with vehicle emissions. It’s called humidity. And maybe the fact that cities are more condensed on the east coast.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Nobody wants to go back to the days of leaded gasoline and cars belching fumes, nor is anyone wanting to abolish the EPA, those are just some convenient straw men. California shouldn’t get to set the fuel economy and emissions standards for the rest of the country just because Los Angeles and some of their other large cities have a pollution problem, problems they created, not us. If they want to jack up the price of gas to discourage poor people from driving so much and mandate only electric cars in California, that’s ok with me. Forcing the rest of us to pay more and be forced to drive what they want us to is not. If California wants to make abortion legal up to the 82nd trimester, that’s ok with me, and it has no effect on what happens in my state. That is not the case with letting them to effectively decide what everyone else should drive.

      • 0 avatar
        SoCalMikester

        until the 70s it was EVERY car.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        I remember getting home and out of rush-hour freeway traffic in Denver in the 60s and my clothes reeked of unburned hydrocarbons. Sort of like being a smoky bar but different hydrocarbons.

    • 0 avatar
      SoCalMikester

      ive been here since the 80s. photochemical smog was horrible then. CARB and the AQMD take their jobs seriously.

      if those janky flyover states dont care about their air? awesome! let em breathe all that crap in. but getting pissy about something that they dont even have to do? sounds about right.

    • 0 avatar
      Imagefont

      I have to say I admire the civil discourse these days. Someone is missing from the comments as I see far fewer Brandon remarks, which were really getting old and served no purpose.
      I’m going from memory but in parts of Europe I believe the VAT was graduated to much higher levels on cars as their engine displacement increased. I think 2.0 liters was a cut off – and it may still be the same. Basically, you were more heavily taxed of a larger vehicle with a larger engine that used more fuel and polluted more. And that would not be popular but would be an effective tool in cleaning up the air. Tax the snot out of people, force them into econobox hybrids or EV’s we don’t really have the infrastructure to charge. Hell, it’s not even June and ERCOT here is Texas is already telling us to take it easy with the thermostat because they had four generators go down – it’s not even hot yet. Our electric grid seems to have been built by KIA in the early 90’s.
      And I predict that this stupid lawsuit will go no where because AG’s in other states have no cause of action against California, they simply cannot show that they have standing.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I don’t like the waiver system but the odds it will be ruled unconstitutional is very small.
    Despite the occasional internet comments to the contrary this isn’t really a state’s rights or 10th amendment issue.
    The Clean Air Act is a federal law that was passed by Congress and the waiver system available to California is fairly specific within that law.

    • 0 avatar
      tomLU86

      As such, it appears to me the law is unconstitutional, since it treats one state differently.

      Now, if it was worded “any state, may, at it’s discretion, enact standards to reduce pollutants less than Federal law”, that would treat all states equally.

      The fact that only California enjoys this privilege makes the law discriminatory and unconstitutional.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        It’s possible but that’s going to be a *big* reach. The current court doesn’t have an issue invalidating executive orders or prior court rulings but they seem to defer to legislative action.

        • 0 avatar
          spookiness

          ajla: I haven’t read the opinion, but I believe the campaign finance law that the Court delivered an opinion on yesterday was passed by Congress as well. They’ll do whatever they want.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            The waiver provision of the CAA is extremely succinct for a federal law.
            When this goes 2-7 or 0-9 in favor of the EPA I hope to see you back in the comments.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          Still early yet wait for the Supreme Court to strike down legislation that doesn’t agree with their views. If you really want to get into the Constitution there is nothing in the Constitution that addresses regulating air and water pollution or sets mileage standards because those didn’t exist during the time the Constitution was created therefore literal interpretation is that Government does not have the right to regulate things that are not specifically addressed in the Constitution.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        “The fact that only California enjoys this privilege makes the law discriminatory and unconstitutional.”

        How so? There are specific things that the Constitution says states must be treated equally for: apportionment of Senators and proportionate representation in the House and the Electoral College; duties, imposts and excises; and “Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another.” But there’s no general rule that all states must be treated equally in all matters. The Supreme Court itself once put it, “Congress chose to limit its attention to the geographic areas where immediate action seemed necessary. The doctrine of the equality of States, invoked by South Carolina, does not bar this approach, for that doctrine applies only to the terms upon which States are admitted to the Union, and not to the remedies for local evils which have subsequently appeared.”

        In fact, there are thousands upon thousands of federal laws that specifically call out individual states for certain things, whether it be federal spending, or the ability to regulate fisheries in a certain way, or siting military bases. Nothing unconstitutional about it.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      I have reservations as well on the waiver system but I understand that California has a more unique problem than the rest of the 49 states. Don’t want to adopt California standards for the rest of the states but I also don’t want all pollution standards eliminated.

      • 0 avatar
        bullnuke

        Jeff S – I also have reservations about the waiver system. California has a rather unique geographical location that exacerbates air pollution and has since time immemorial. I grew up breathing coal smoke from home furnaces and flathead engines spewing noxious fumes from the tailpipes and road draft tubes and never want that again – I seriously doubt that anyone regardless of political stripe desires a return to those days past but issues unique to one of the fifty that predate the rise of the automobile are somewhat different. Some automakers have recently marketed green vehicles in California that are not available elsewhere and have done so in the past – I remember the one Corvette model with the small V8 and automatic that was the only Corvette available in California for a few years because of the local smog issues there. This shows that manufactures are and have in the past adjusted marketing in California. I believe that finally other states have decided to no longer support nor endure the requirements limiting sales of vehicles and industry based upon the unique needs of another state that are in excess of the base EPA regulation and adversely impact their populations.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        If California has a unique problem, then maybe there should be a unique solution, not a common one that affects all the other states that do not have that problem.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of California setting their own separate standards that are stricter than the EPA has nationally. With the current Supreme Court it would not surprise me if the case against California having its own waiver were brought forth and the Supreme Court ruled against California. I can see the Republicans in Congress making this a political issue.

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    Elections have consequences. We elected the most incompetent president in history of America. Because we didn’t like a president that tweeted too much, even if his policies meant great stock market, lowest ever unemployment, low inflation, secure borders, pushing China back, and low crime rate.

    Yes more incompetent than Herbert Hoover. More incompetent than even my own state’s Jimmy THE PEANUT FARMER Carter. At least those two had an agenda. This president has others tell him what the agenda should be. He is a radarless mess and as such we are where we are at. Being told electric is the way to go, when electric is neither affordable nor even available(or forget infrastructure for it). But hey, no worries. If you don’t like it, gas is $5 a gallon. And still going up. And Branden and cronies still wanted to inject more money into economy with build better plan that only Manchin was able to stop. You can’t make these things up.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      Sounds like you have more of an issue with the price of gas than some of us. The price of oil is determined by a commodities market and not by a politician.

    • 0 avatar
      redapple

      pmi….>

      Brandon said last week. 50 % of all cars will be BV by 2030.
      Also, coal generated electric will be gone by then (25% today).
      OK. Back of the napkin.>> 35 million total BEV on the road in 2030.
      Each 1 million BEV require 1% increase in Elec generating.
      ~ 25 + 35 = 60

      Does anybody really think, the USA will bring on line 60% more electric between now and 2030.
      The Government is incompetent in EVERYTHING THEY DO.
      Example 1. Abbot lab baby formula. Plant Shut for 4 months.
      In 1 month they proved with dna testing and Knew the plant was nt the cause of the 4 baby deaths. But drag feet to not reopen-i guess to hurt the country. Plant is still not operating.

      Bird chopper solar cell with battery electric is going to cost $0.50/kWh electric. Enjoy it perv demoncats.

      (Every person i know that is into BDSM is a demon cat)

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        I think you might consider shopping around for a better nation to live in if this one is so messed up.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          I might too especially if they start gathering people up and forcing them to become a member of the majority ruling party. If we become a banana republic my wife and I will become refugees. Hopefully that will never happen but it could look at Nazi Germany.

          • 0 avatar
            Charliej

            I left the US just over ten years ago and have been happily living in Mexico ever since. I live in the mountains of Mexico, where the climate is almost perfect. I left Alabama for a few reasons, number one being that the people and I did not get along. I was not racist, bigoted or anti black. Also the climate in Alabama is very poor. Ninety degree heat and ninety percent humidity for nine months of the year. When I left, the republicans had just taken over Alabama. Predictably, things changed. Within four years the governor was forced out for giving his mistress a high paying state job. The chief justice of the Alabama was forced out for telling Alabama judges that they did not have to obey supreme court rules. Then the speaker of the Alabama state house was sentenced to prison for corruption. This was all done by republicans since they ran the state. I was back in Alabama four years later to visit my son, being back in Alabama was like walking around in a cloud of ignorance.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            That’s crazy. I love here and US News and World Report just voted my hometown the best place in the country to live. Different strokes I guess.

            Things change man. I saw a woman molesting a donkey in TJ back in the mid 90s for example but I highly doubt the whole of the country is in to beastiality.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Charliej, it sounds like just over 10 years ago that the average ignorance and bigotry in Alabama went down and in Mexico it went up.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        The President cannot mandate what the manufactures make but Government agencies can set standards. I doubt anyone has the will to delay the manufacturing of new vehicles when supplies have been limited and prices are escalating. Such action would be political suicide. Most manufacturers would push back on that and most of Congress would be right there with them because they want to be re-elected. As for coal it is less about legislating it out of existence and more about the price of natural gas has become more competitive which is more market driven. It will be decades before we get away from using coal and other fossil fuels and as for oil it might be around long after we are all dead.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “his policies meant great stock market, lowest ever unemployment, low inflation, secure borders, pushing China back, and low crime rate.”

      I thought you were talking about the Clinton Administration. At one time, Bill Clinton was the worst president, then it was Obama. We were told Bush 2 was incompetent, and Reagan was simply an aging puppet of his advisers. The EPA was born during the Nixon Administration, but then he’s accused of not being a True Republican.

      Electricity is available everywhere, and it’s cheaper than liquid fuel. Are you living in the 1920s or the 2020s?

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        Yes and we didn’t have a deficit under Clinton. After Trump I have a new appreciation for Bush 2.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Clinton did a great job managing the economy. He had some great advantages (the end of the cold war and the tech boom) but he was smart enough to not screw it up.

          Remember how Greenspan proactively raised rates to fend off inflation BEFORE it happened? Yeah, I’m sure there is a lesson there somewhere.

          Bill Clinton is too moderate (and rapey) for both parties nowadays.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Are you here to discuss the legalities of exemptions for California or are you here to just have a Fox News style let’s all bash Biden rant?

  • avatar
    mcs

    Interesting. This suit could end up allowing blue states to sue red states over lax gun laws.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      Don’t think that will happen with the Supreme Court being mostly Republican appointees upholding the literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. We might see state voter laws challenged by red states and a possible challenge to absentee balloting. Wouldn’t surprise me if absentee ballots were found illegal in all states.

      • 0 avatar
        Dartdude

        Dude , the mail in ballots and the unsupervised drop boxes were the problem. Voting should be in person only in supervised location on one day only. Absentee ballots should be requested only and granted for a valid reason and NO ballot harvesting

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    States’ rights, baby!

    By the way, in case anyone’s interested in something that isn’t a rehash of the same “California wants to set its’ own pollution standards and other people think that sucks” story that we’ve seen like 1,221 times already, along with the associated right wing/left wing poo-flinging, there’s this:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/17/us-traffic-deaths-hit-16-year-high-in-2021-dot-says.html

    Oh, and apparently Tesla screens can overheat go blank, thus a recall of 100,000 vehicles:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/tesla-recalls-130000-vehicles-touch-screens-may-go-blank-rcna28176

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      @FreedMike–States Rights until it infringes on their own opinions.

    • 0 avatar
      Tim Healey

      @FreedMike — Please be careful with spamming the comments with links to other outlets, especially those that are off-topic. If you feel we’re not covering everything — and remember our staff is small these days, smaller than it was before Steph left — feel free to hit me up or hit up the editors inbox. Can’t pronise we’ll cover everything but we can at least check it out.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Fair enough, thanks. And if I’m harping on this, it’s because it seems like we’re seeing a lot of the same old arguments about the same old issues, and the inevitable silly political food fights, and it’s getting a bit old.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      I don’t think you meant this as anything other than sarcasm, but I agree with you. Many states have some unique environmental issues – Louisiana has NO, which has a levy system I don’t understand to prevent the city from flooding, Florida has hurricanes, TX now has deep freezes and CA has fire, flood, earthquake and mudslides. And an air quality problem due to geography.

      This should be up to the states. It’s the least bad solution.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      You don’t get to fling poo and then complain that you have poo on you and smell like $#!+.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    CA wants everywhere to suck, or why stay in stinkin’ CA? It’s not the vehicles (sold new) that need fixing, it’s how
    they’ve used. Just let CA/CARB fool with the where/when ICE vehicles can be driven in LA city or county, if not banned entirely.

    It’s how Paris deals with old dirty diesel cars especially.
    That’ll fix their own wagon for themselves. And directly too. Otherwise it’s a long, long, long term solution, if at all. Never mind all the new cars leaving CA, mass exodus and replaced with old junk arriving. But obviously, none of this sh!t is about air quality, hasn’t been since the ‘70s.

    • 0 avatar
      SoCalMikester

      how much of this “old junk” is arriving? anything since 1975 needs to pass a smog check or it will eventually be towed and scrapped

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        The slammed Acuras seem to find illegal smogs no problem. No one really cares to take old junk off the road in CA anyway. Look at all the old broken down RVs many untold are living in. Almost none of them have current tags. The towing companies only want newer cars/trucks that they can actually make money on and basically refuse all else.

        What’s in it for the cops to stop them anyway. It’s business like any other, and they may find someone with warrants.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          @DenverMike–So if its an old enough and bad enough heap they will not tow it. It does seem it would be hard to enforce especially RVs where the price of housing is so expensive in California that people live in them. Do they have problems with abandoned clunkers along the roads?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s selective enforcement. They might as well run their credit when they run their tags. It wouldn’t surprise me if they do.

            Deadbeats driving beaters with several warrants aren’t good for business. And heck yeah it’s a business, courts, prisons, the works. If they happen to prevent or decrease crime in the process, it’s a byproduct.

            You can see how dragging poor, old, mentally ill and or homeless people out of the derelict RV they’re living in is a job nobody wants.

            Junk cars, stolen, abandoned, etc, don’t litter the roads necessarily, but they accumulate on open land, vacant lots, etc.

            And the CA sh!t show powers on.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Commenters are conflating particulate and traditional pollution with CO2 emissions, which are a whole different animal.

    Climate change, if you believe in such a thing, is a GLOBAL problem. California having its own regulations regarding CO2 emissions will do absolutely nothing to combat climate change while China is adding dozens of new coal-fire power plants every month.

    Propagandizing this issue relies on the ignorance of the population; the commenters here prove it’s working.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Yes, this always happens when California’s waiver provision comes up. Half the comments are about how bad smog was in the 1960s and 1970s even though the “fight” is about the GHG waiver. Bush refused to issue a GHG waiver and Trump revoked the GHG waiver, but neither altered California’s waiver that gave it the ability to regulate smog emissions. The Republican states here aren’t mad about about smog regulations, they are mad about fuel economy rules.

      I don’t think CA should have a GHG waiver because I don’t think they have a unique climate change situation compared to other states. And, as you pointed out, climate change is seen as a global issue while particulate impacts are much more local.

      That said, I don’t believe CA having a GHG waiver is unconstitutional under current laws and I don’t expect this lawsuit to succeed. I do think the next Republican president will revoke CA’s GHG waiver and will be within the bounds of those same laws when they do so.

      That said,

  • avatar
    Number6

    Oh we are all for states rights unless it involves micromanaging menstrual cycles, unfavorable elections, fair federal taxation, environmental policy, stopping indoctrination (unless it involves religion) or guns.

    Then we stick our hands down everyone’s pants. Anything else I missed?

  • avatar
    SoCalMikester

    Trump’s EPA even went so far as to cite the Golden State as having the worst air quality in the union, noting an inability to “carry out its most basic tasks under the Clean Air Act.”

    what EXACTLY did they “cite”?
    making more crap up again

  • avatar
    BEPLA

    California emissions standards have existed since 1966.
    Californians have paid for this in the past with higher costs for cars that met those standards – and currently with periodic emissions testing and higher-priced fuels due to the California-specific blends.
    This is nothing new.

    According to the GOP: States should have rights to decide abortion, marriage, racial and voting rights.
    But Clean Air (or lack thereof) must be commanded from the Federal level.

    Just because the Orange Twitterbater or one of his minions said something doesn’t make it true – But the writer of this article wouldn’t understand that either.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    “According to the GOP: States should have rights to decide abortion, marriage, racial and voting rights.”

    Fortunately the 14th Amendment protects discrimination on the basis of race and the 15th Amendment protects voting rights but there is no mention of absentee ballots. Mitch McConnell, Senior Senator from Kentucky, has already said that if the Republicans get a majority that there could be federal legislation outlawing abortions which would take this right away from states that are pro choice. As for marriage there is no Constitutional amendment addressing marriage so the Supreme Court could rule that interracial and same sex marriages are not protected and this could be upheld as a right to be determined by each state. Hopefully that will not happen but since it is not specifically protected under the Constitution the Supreme Court could make a ruling not protecting interracial or same sex marriages regardless of how the majority of Americans view marriage. There are a lot of things that the Supreme Court could reverse because they are not specifically addressed by the Constitution especially if the majority of the Court takes a literal interpretation of the Constitution and not addressing what should be protected by a more modern definition of the Constitution which considers ethics and current social acceptance. Kind of like the Old Testament that says an eye for an eye which if followed literally would mean we do not practice forgiveness but seek equal punishment for a wrong doing regardless of conscious.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Man, that sounds serious. I’d probably pass a common sense law while I controlled both houses and the White house. Or they could just cry about what the next Congress may or may not do.

      Anyway, given the lack of a major shift in midterm polling it would seem abortion is something that is very important to loud minorities on both sides.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        It is serious because the reasoning by the Supreme Court in reversing Roe v Wade could be used to reverse other court decisions and a strict interpretation of what is covered and not covered in the Constitution could be used to strike down existing laws. Personally I am not effected by Roe v Wade but it can be used as a precedent that would effect other prior court decisions and legislation unrelated to abortions. This could be opening a Pandora’s Box. Agree about common sense but the problem is that common sense is no longer so common.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          All the draft ruling said was that it was an overreach by the court and the legislature should pass laws about it which is of course there freaking job. They should try doing it instead of raising money off of not doing it.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            Even a law can be overturned if it is not a Constitutional Amendment. Not saying laws will be overturned but a strict interpretation of the Constitution the Court could rule that a law is in violation because it was not specifically addressed in the Constitution. That is one reason that the 14th and 15th Amendment were passed to protect racial equality and the right to vote otherwise these rights could later be reversed because they were not specifically protected under the Constitution.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Well yeah…the ability to vote people out that pass laws out of step with those they represent is a feature of our government…not a bug.

            Democracy in Action is the phrase for which you are searching

    • 0 avatar
      BEPLA

      The Constitution doesn’t say anything about any marriage – So based on that argument, we should outlaw all marriages.
      The Constitution says nothing about Air Traffic Control, an Interstate Highway system, a permanent Military Force, or the CIA, FBI or Secret Service – and definitely nothing about Oil Subsidies – So they should be abolished as well.

      So let’s just chuck 95% of the Federal Government – Because barely any of it is in the Constitution.

    • 0 avatar
      mason

      “Mitch McConnell, Senior Senator from Kentucky, has already said that if the Republicans get a majority that there could be federal legislation outlawing abortions which would take this right away from states that are pro choice”

      I don’t know if this misquote is intentional or not but it is incorrect. If you find a video of him speaking to this point you will see he is being misquoted.
      Also, preventing loss of life should never be compared with anything except preventing loss of life. Ain’t nobody in the senate gonna try and block a marriage. Despite what the progressive talking heads say everyone is way past that. Time to move on to something relevant.

  • avatar
    kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh

    “”We WaNt FrEeDuMb Of ChOiCe!!1111!!!!”” scream the pubes …

    “”How dare you make that choice!!” then the scream …

  • avatar
    tylanner

    States rights

    • 0 avatar
      Oberkanone

      Article VI, Clause 2
      Fundamentally the conflicting standards of California will be overturned on basis the Federal Standards take priority over California standards.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I was hoping that this article about California Gas Wars was what happens if you eat too many re fried beans. That is definitely a concern in a crowded room and might require intervention by the EPA.

  • avatar
    probert

    Oh yes – the entire country should be held in the thrall of Wyoming and Idaho. You got 2 senators each, purchased for about 50large at k-mart. People actually have to listen to your nutbaggery. Say thank you and shut up.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Hasn’t Idaho gotten pretty popular for California Refugees?

      Anyway, sure…they should just hush up. You guys should figure out your little.watwr issues too and hush up.

    • 0 avatar
      bullnuke

      Ahh, the joys of a Constitutional Republic where folks with different values are allowed to espouse “nutbaggery” through their elected representatives that causes angst and juvenile name calling from folks to support their own opposing views.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Oberkanone–That definitely is a possibility.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • DenverMike: Hell yeah they’re awesome. In a Perfect World I’d have a vehicle from every, OK multiple segments, except...
  • THX1136: Had a good friend, Brian, in high school whose dad had been a Pontiac dealer in their very small town....
  • DenverMike: The Beatles are way overrated. I’m 53 and not a hater by any means, but they sort between Steely Dan and...
  • bullnuke: I well remember the big Edsel reveal. Those were the days when the next year’s models were wrapped up...
  • bunkie: I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember that Thunderbirds didn’t carry any Ford badging at all, just...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber