EPA grants California authority to ban sales of new gas cars by 2035. Action faces reversal by Trump

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 11:34 AM EST, December 18, 2024


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday granted two requests from California to enforce strict standards for vehicle emissions, including a rule aimed at banning sales of new gasoline-powered cars in the state by 2035. The incoming Trump administration is likely to try to reverse the action.

The California rule is stricter than a federal rule adopted this year that tightens emissions standards but does not require sales of electric vehicles. EPA said its review found that opponents of the two waivers did not meet their legal burden to show how either the EV rule or a separate measure on heavy-duty vehicles was inconsistent with the federal Clean Air Act.

“California has longstanding authority to request waivers from EPA to protect its residents from dangerous air pollution coming from mobile sources like cars and trucks,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement. “Today’s actions follow through on EPA’s commitment to partner with states to reduce emissions and act on the threat of climate change.”

The new waiver is important not only to California but to more than a dozen other states that follow its nation-leading standards on vehicle emissions.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/california-auto-emissions-epa-climate-change-1ce052a131554452f651780baa783ffb

---

Link to EPA PRESS RELEASE - EPA Grants Waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations

[Marthe48]

1. States' rights?

Or are they toilet paper too?

[Karadeniz]

2. My reaction, too!

[Charging Triceratops]

4. They're meaningless unless Felon-47 approves

America leads the world in hypocrisy.

[Igel]

7. In this case, the federal law takes priority over the state's.

We've seen that in other situations. There's the question pending as to whether federal authorization for a drug (or its use) or a state's claim to regulate that drug gets priority.

Here we argue that the supremacy clause makes it a federal issue and the 'other side' argues states' rights. Unless it's THC, in which case we borrow the other side's argument and they take up ours. (It's one of those things I find immensely amusing in a detachedly ironic sort of way.)

We sort of do the same when it comes to immigration enforcement, but that's a bit different.

In this case, the law states that California is privileged in being able to ask the feds/EPA for a waiver to have stronger and more expansive regulations (meaning stricter regulation); however, California must ask and the waiver must be given, otherwise California is no more entitled or privileged than any other state when it comes to environmental administrative laws/regulations.

[Marthe48]

8. Thank you for that explanation

I wonder if the Founding Fathers thought they were writing a document that would allow straight-forward interpretation?

[Polybius]

3. Question:

Let's say Trump reverses this. Can a future Democratic President reinstate it in 2029 or 2033? The 2035 deadline is still 10.1 years away.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. 45 had already reversed it during his first term

Trump Administration Officially Revokes California's Auto Emissions Standards Waiver (9/18/19)


and Biden put it back - Biden restores California’s ability to impose stricter auto pollution limits (3/9/22)

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: EPA Restoration of California Waiver Will Support State Climate Action, Improve Air Quality, and Advance our Electric Vehicle Future

(as a note, Google has wiped stuff that 45 did back in 2019 for this from their search algorithm but it is still available on Bing)

[twodogsbarking]

6. Oil. Any Qs?