California, 17 other states, sue over proposed EPA changes to fuel efficiency

[K1052]

So this has started now...

ighteen states on Tuesday sued President Trump’s administration over its push to “reconsider” greenhouse gas emission rules for the nation’s auto fleet, launching a legal battle over one of President Barack Obama’s most significant efforts to address climate change.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt in April said he would revisit the Obama-era rules, which aim to raise efficiency requirements to about 50 miles per gallon by 2025. Pruitt’s agency said that the standards are “based on outdated information” and that new data suggests “the current standards may be too stringent.”

But in the lawsuit, the states contend that the EPA acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in changing course on the greenhouse gas regulations.

“This phalanx of states will defend the nation’s clean car standards to boost gas mileage and curb toxic air pollution,” California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said in a statement announcing the suit, which was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

California has been given multiple waivers to set its own, more strict auto emissions standards, including one in 1967.

But the Trump administration is poised to argue that the state’s current efforts conflict with a 1975 law setting up federal fuel-economy standards — a contention California has vowed to fight in court.

Automakers could wind up caught in the middle of a massive legal battle, and they are divided over the Trump administration’s latest actions.

The Auto Alliance, an industry consortium, has said it backs the EPA’s moves, but executives at major automakers have balked at the plans.

“We support increasing clean car standards through 2025 and are not asking for a rollback,” Ford’s executive chairman, Bill Ford, and president and chief executive Jim Hackett, wrote last week. A top executive at Honda has also voiced concerns about where EPA is heading.

https://wapo.st/2jitER8?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.cb4297a4c188

Automakers wanted them to tweak the rules a bit but not toss out the standard which could lead to different rules in the CARB following states. They should have known the risk inherent in asking this administration to do this in that if you ask them to turn up the thermostat a bit they'll set the whole fucking building on fire instead.

Even if, in the unlikely event, the EPA prevails in court CA has more dramatic remedies at is disposal which the car companies will like much much less.

 

[fskimospy]

This is just the tip of the iceberg for the EPA. When people freak out about how they are rolling back all these environmental rules they don’t realize that these rules came into being as the result of a long process involving extensive scientific input. If EPA wants to change them they need to show how the science was wrong, how their new implementation is better, etc. since the science wasn’t wrong and they have put next to no effort into making the new rules these regulatory rollbacks are extremely vulnerable to legal challenges.

I imagine the end result for Pruitt’s tenure st the EPA will be a gigantic pile of court losses for the government and Obama’s environmental regulations mostly intact. Pruitt can cause other damage of course, but his new regulations don’t seem likely to be part of it.

 

[Thebobo]

I think pruitt and his administration has like 30 some suits against them now.

 

[thilanliyan]

This is just the tip of the iceberg for the EPA. When people freak out about how they are rolling back all these environmental rules they don’t realize that these rules came into being as the result of a long process involving extensive scientific input. If EPA wants to change them they need to show how the science was wrong, how their new implementation is better, etc. since the science wasn’t wrong and they have put next to no effort into making the new rules these regulatory rollbacks are extremely vulnerable to legal challenges.

Your first mistake is thinking the EPA under Pruitt is interested in science and facts...

 

[Moonbeam]

Your first mistake is thinking the EPA under Pruitt is interested in science and facts...

It seemed to me, implicit in his comment, that it would be the courts that would need scientific evidence to prove downgrades advantageous or neutral before they could change the rules not the executive branch.

 

[Moonbeam]

It seemed to me, implicit in his comment, that it would be the courts that would need scientific evidence to prove downgrades advantageous or neutral before they could roll back the law, not the executive branch.

 

[interchange]

Not sure how I understand your words Moonie, but it will be interesting to understand in court if it will be necessary for:
- the EPA to prove that lowering standards isn't unsafe
or
- the states to prove that lowering standards is unsafe
or
- it really doesn't matter; the legal question is whether states have the right to set more stringent standards than the EPA

I think though that the states may have to prove at least that the actions of the federal government causes them some harm. That doesn't seem too hard.

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure how I understand your words Moonie, but it will be interesting to understand in court if it will be necessary for:
- the EPA to prove that lowering standards isn't unsafe
or
- the states to prove that lowering standards is unsafe
or
- it really doesn't matter; the legal question is whether states have the right to set more stringent standards than the EPA

I think though that the states may have to prove at least that the actions of the federal government causes them some harm. That doesn't seem too hard.

The way the EPA deregulates something is the same means by which it regulates something, it makes a rule and puts it into the federal register. When rules are made they have to be based on the best scientific evidence available and reach logical/defensible conclusions from them. The thing is, for the most part Pruitt's EPA hasn't bothered to make a scientific case for their rules, they've just kind of hand waved things away.

Basically their problem is this: the EPA is already on record saying 'X pollutant is dangerous to human health and needs to be regulated because of X, Y, and Z.' Most of these rules were challenged by people like...well...Scott Pruitt and the EPA won. If/when these new rules are challenged in court the question will immediately be 'the EPA already established that these pollutants are threats to human health. How can you demonstrate that this determination was wrong?' You can't just say 'we changed our mind', you have to establish a set of scientific facts. That's not going to be easy because they haven't done their homework.

This is likely one of the reasons why Pruitt is trying to change the scientific evidence that can be considered in the rulemaking process, limiting it to only data sets that are publicly available. Since you're a doctor I imagine you're familiar with how many studies on human health do not make their data sets public because of the sensitivity of personal health information. If he's successful in doing this he might be able to dismiss a lot of the science he's currently fighting against.

 

[glenn1]

The way the EPA deregulates something is the same means by which it regulates something, it makes a rule and puts it into the federal register. When rules are made they have to be based on the best scientific evidence available and reach logical/defensible conclusions from them. The thing is, for the most part Pruitt's EPA hasn't bothered to make a scientific case for their rules, they've just kind of hand waved things away.

Basically their problem is this: the EPA is already on record saying 'X pollutant is dangerous to human health and needs to be regulated because of X, Y, and Z.' Most of these rules were challenged by people like...well...Scott Pruitt and the EPA won. If/when these new rules are challenged in court the question will immediately be 'the EPA already established that these pollutants are threats to human health. How can you demonstrate that this determination was wrong?' You can't just say 'we changed our mind', you have to establish a set of scientific facts. That's not going to be easy because they haven't done their homework.

This is likely one of the reasons why Pruitt is trying to change the scientific evidence that can be considered in the rulemaking process, limiting it to only data sets that are publicly available. Since you're a doctor I imagine you're familiar with how many studies on human health do not make their data sets public because of the sensitivity of personal health information. If he's successful in doing this he might be able to dismiss a lot of the science he's currently fighting against.

They don’t need to prove the “science” was wrong, they can say the benefit analysis used to justify the rule last time no longer is in the national interest. Cost-benefit is an inherently political decision. This is pretty much the same set of circumstances as when Dubya overturned the Clinton arsenic laws. While the admin does need to publish on the Federal Register that’s a formality.

Even if a court overrules the change, how would they get the EPA to enforce the higher standard? They’ll defer any action on companies that don’t comply the same way Obama deferred action against large companies for not complying with the employer mandate for Obamacare.

 

[Indus]

Can we divide the country already?

1. Common sense land

2. Conservaterrorist Nazi land where they gas themselves through automobile and factory emissions LOL.

 

[Thebobo]

[QUOTE

Can we divide the country already?

1. Common sense land

2. Conservaterrorist Nazi land where they gas themselves through automobile and factory emissions LOL.

I want to live in Common sense land.

 

[fskimospy]

They don’t need to prove the “science” was wrong, they can say the benefit analysis used to justify the rule last time no longer is in the national interest. Cost-benefit is an inherently political decision. This is pretty much the same set of circumstances as when Dubya overturned the Clinton arsenic laws. While the admin does need to publish on the Federal Register that’s a formality.

Even if a court overrules the change, how would they get the EPA to enforce the higher standard? They’ll defer any action on companies that don’t comply the same way Obama deferred action against large companies for not complying with the employer mandate for Obamacare.

Nah, court orders will do that. It’s the great part of our system. Isn’t it great?

 

[Incorruptible]

This is not the role of government, they have no right to tell these automakers how to build their cars. These morons can go screw themselves.

 

[glenn1]

Can we divide the country already?

1. Common sense land

2. Conservaterrorist Nazi land where they gas themselves through automobile and factory emissions LOL.

The U.S. has already exported most of our emissions to China. We’re now arguing over whether cars should be a good enjoyed by all or tuned into exotic transport only enjoyed by the wealthy like Gulfstream Jets. Because the poors sure as hell aren’t affording electric cars, and families aren’t driving Smart for 2 cars.

 

[glenn1]

Nah, court orders will do that. It’s the great part of our system. Isn’t it great?

Yeah that SCOTUS decision worked great with President Jackson. I’m sure Trump will get to enforcement actions against automakers right away if ruled against.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah that SCOTUS decision worked great with President Jackson. I’m sure Trump will get to enforcement actions against automakers right away if ruled against.

Did you just try to rely on a two century old court decision?

Honestly you’re so angry all the time. We all find it super funny.

 

[sactoking]

So what I'm hearing is the EPA should be able to arbitrarily and capriciously change the rules whenever they see fit and even if they can't its OK because the "Rule of Law" administration can just ignore the law.

 

[glenn1]

So what I'm hearing is the EPA should be able to arbitrarily and capriciously change the rules whenever they see fit and even if they can't its OK because the "Rule of Law" administration can just ignore the law.

Congress delegated authority to the EPA so it is working within the rule of law. Congress can change the law or overturn the regulation if they wish.

 

[thilanliyan]

This is not the role of government, they have no right to tell these automakers how to build their cars. These morons can go screw themselves.

If it wasn't for the "government" telling automakers we need seatbelts and airbags, we would be driving much more dangerous cars.
Sorry but you are wrong. A car company's profit motive is too big an elephant to ignore and assume that they will come to the best solution that benefits the public.

In terms of emissions, they don't want these standards because it will cost them money, not because they don't think pollution is not a big deal.

 

[sactoking]

Congress delegated authority to the EPA so it is working within the rule of law. Congress can change the law or overturn the regulation if they wish.

Wait, so you're telling me that when I worked for the state writing regulations I could just do whatever the fuck I wanted because the Legislature delegated authority to us? Damn, I was doing it all wrong. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the Administrative Procedure Act and years of jurisprudence precedent set strict guidelines on how regulations had to be adopted, amended and repealed.

 

[Jhhnn]

They don’t need to prove the “science” was wrong, they can say the benefit analysis used to justify the rule last time no longer is in the national interest. Cost-benefit is an inherently political decision. This is pretty much the same set of circumstances as when Dubya overturned the Clinton arsenic laws. While the admin does need to publish on the Federal Register that’s a formality.

Even if a court overrules the change, how would they get the EPA to enforce the higher standard? They’ll defer any action on companies that don’t comply the same way Obama deferred action against large companies for not complying with the employer mandate for Obamacare.

Highly inaccurate-

https://www.iatp.org/news/bush-admi...rsenic-standard-in-drinking-water-will-be-10-

 

[zinfamous]

This is not the role of government, they have no right to tell these automakers how to build their cars. These morons can go screw themselves.

they've been doing it for decades, much to your benefit as a consumer and to their benefit with greater efficiency, you drooling imbecile.

Why do you just make up blatantly stupid shit that is so obviously counter to known history?

 

[fskimospy]

Congress delegated authority to the EPA so it is working within the rule of law. Congress can change the law or overturn the regulation if they wish.

Yet again you have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[K1052]

The U.S. has already exported most of our emissions to China. We’re now arguing over whether cars should be a good enjoyed by all or tuned into exotic transport only enjoyed by the wealthy like Gulfstream Jets. Because the poors sure as hell aren’t affording electric cars, and families aren’t driving Smart for 2 cars.

Your false concern for the poor is always reliable but this is getting preposterous.

 

[brycejones]

Your false concern for the poor is always reliable but this is getting preposterous.

You don't enjoy his FYGM concern trolling?