California Emissions Standards-Cost and Power
03-13-2019, 03:55 PM
#21
Drifting
I don't think you understood what I was saying. I was replying to another comment that more or less said that the rest of the world following Calif. That's why I put part of my reply in quotes showing what was said in the earlier comment.
03-13-2019, 04:28 PM
#22
Melting Slicks
See earlier post. A car can be brought into the state and nothing anyone can do to stop them. However if the car becomes registered in that state due to someone living in that state that’s a different story. The state can restrict that activity. With regard to a classic car, if suddenly a classic car became non-compliant causing someone to change the car or get it out of state, that would be a taking, again not allowed. Therefore no one‘s classic car will ever be bothered.
Not trying to make the post political.
03-13-2019, 04:44 PM
#23
Double edged sword there though (and the right isn't the only group of hypocrites). What happens if California bans all cars that don't meet CARB requirements? Now a US citizen can't take a non-CARB car into California? Or what about a Californian with a classic car that gets banned? That too is a slippery slope.
The balance between Federal power and State power has always been a difficult balancing act. That was actually a major factor in the Civil War.
The balance between Federal power and State power has always been a difficult balancing act. That was actually a major factor in the Civil War.
And AFE is based in CALIFORNIA.
Slippery slope? We're WAY past that. All of this hysteria about how California, CARB, and how EPA needs to reign in our law makers? I'm sorry, but federal 50 state legal cars already follow California's stringent CARB standards. You can't buy a new car today, period, that does not meet OUR rules, in any of the 50 states. It's all a bunch of hysterical rants about nothing.
And it's not like said rules are the only things that CA does differently. Certain high capacity magazines and assault rifle style weapons are banned in California. Is that something that the Federal Government should also tell CA to do differently? Like have the commerce department mandate that CA MUST allow high capacity magazines and assault rifle style guns to be sold so that we're not "choking off" gun sales? That's hogwash and intrusion of state rights to the utmost.
No one mandated that all states follow CA's lead when it comes to CARB status. Manufacturers chose to do so because, well, it's THE most populous state and their biggest market out of the 50 states. For anyone to suggest that CARB and its rules are infringing upon other state and other state's residents "rights" is preposterous.
Reign in California because you don't like our policies? Please. And the right calls us on the left coast Libtards and snowflakes.
Don't like our rules? Don't live in California. Don't live in California? Don't complain about how we do things here, because you don't have the right to vote to change things.
03-13-2019, 04:49 PM
#24
Well this conversation has morphed.
It comes down to two areas of Constitutional law, rights and interstate commerce. Putting it in simple terms, you are guaranteed certain rights under the Constitution, the states may add rights to that list but they cannot take any that are on the list away. In this context, cars were not a big thing in the late 1700s so there is nothing in the Constitution about cars at all. As a result, a state, any state, can make whatever laws they want regarding what cars can be on the roads in their state at least with respect to their citizens. Without getting too heavy into whether a federal law is binding upon the states, generally the pattern follows the same. The federal government makes a law, the states add to it if they so desire. So in this respect states are free to add emissions laws, license plates, heck they could even require armor plating if they wanted. If the federal government wishes to challenge a state law, they have one recourse and one recourse alone, does the law have a detrimental impact on interstate commerce. Essentiatially it works out like this, State wants to do X, the fed gov't says you can't do X, the matter goes to the Supreme Court and the court determines if the state law creates a substantial negative impact on interstate commerce. If yes, the law goes away, if no, the law stays. The state is free to control what emissions govern vehicles in its state, but this is limited to vehicles registered in that state because if they attempted to control the emissions of vehicles registered in other states and only driving through their state that would have an impact on interstate commerce and another concept in the Constitution of free travel among the states. Cutting to the end of this, the federal government has no power whatsoever to say that a state cannot place additional emissons requirements on vehicles in a given state. By doing so the state is adding additional rights to protect its citizens. Some might say what about my right to live free and without interference by the government. Sorry, when it comes to your car, you don't have any rights in that regard because no one is asking you to change what you already own, thus it is not another concept under the Constitution called a 'taking'.
It comes down to two areas of Constitutional law, rights and interstate commerce. Putting it in simple terms, you are guaranteed certain rights under the Constitution, the states may add rights to that list but they cannot take any that are on the list away. In this context, cars were not a big thing in the late 1700s so there is nothing in the Constitution about cars at all. As a result, a state, any state, can make whatever laws they want regarding what cars can be on the roads in their state at least with respect to their citizens. Without getting too heavy into whether a federal law is binding upon the states, generally the pattern follows the same. The federal government makes a law, the states add to it if they so desire. So in this respect states are free to add emissions laws, license plates, heck they could even require armor plating if they wanted. If the federal government wishes to challenge a state law, they have one recourse and one recourse alone, does the law have a detrimental impact on interstate commerce. Essentiatially it works out like this, State wants to do X, the fed gov't says you can't do X, the matter goes to the Supreme Court and the court determines if the state law creates a substantial negative impact on interstate commerce. If yes, the law goes away, if no, the law stays. The state is free to control what emissions govern vehicles in its state, but this is limited to vehicles registered in that state because if they attempted to control the emissions of vehicles registered in other states and only driving through their state that would have an impact on interstate commerce and another concept in the Constitution of free travel among the states. Cutting to the end of this, the federal government has no power whatsoever to say that a state cannot place additional emissons requirements on vehicles in a given state. By doing so the state is adding additional rights to protect its citizens. Some might say what about my right to live free and without interference by the government. Sorry, when it comes to your car, you don't have any rights in that regard because no one is asking you to change what you already own, thus it is not another concept under the Constitution called a 'taking'.
OMG I've seen it all. This truly IS the 10th sign of the impending apocalypse. Time to stock up on my high capacity magazines and assault rifles and dig my bunker.
Oh wait. I live in California.
03-13-2019, 11:33 PM
#25
Burning Brakes
there has not been a CA specific car produced in many years. my last Corvette, a C7, museum delivery, produced 2/15, was compliant with no special CA add ons.
03-14-2019, 12:17 AM
#26
As long as CARB exists, other states have the right to join them. This renders the EPA federal standard useless, because the manufacturers aren't going to adhere to one standard for 30 states, and another much more stringent standard for California and 19 states which join them. CARB can pursue the "green new deal" standard on their own, they could outlaw the V8 engine if they wanted to under current rules. CARB has to go if you want to enjoy cars like the C8 into the future. If you want to give CA the right to set their own standards - fine, then I want the right to register a car federally under the EPA standards and drive it anywhere in the united states.
03-14-2019, 01:21 AM
#27
Melting Slicks
I've no dog in this fight as I have no idea whether the EPA is actually trying to squash CARB or not. But your statement is incorrect. IF (that's a big IF!!) the EPA decides to "take on CARB", CARB loses. It's how our country runs. Simply and easily: if it's not specifically called out by the federal government, it's left to the states to define. But as soon as the federal government makes a law/statement/etc that contradicts something a state has done: the state loses. Full stop.
So rest assured: IF the EPA comes after CARB and decides to press Congress for specific laws that contradict CARB, CARB loses.
So rest assured: IF the EPA comes after CARB and decides to press Congress for specific laws that contradict CARB, CARB loses.
This power is reserved alone for California, and it only covers pollution from cars. No other state can ask for a waiver. However, other states can join California and many have.
03-14-2019, 02:16 AM
#28
Keep in mind that there are two completely different types of emissions being discussed here: "Criteria pollutants" like CO, NOx, and VOHCs (hydrocarbons) contribute to smog and some have proven health effects. CO2 "emissions" are greenhouse gases that presumably contribute to global warming, but they have nothing to do with smog. I don't think there is any disagreement between EPA and CARB about criteria pollutants. My understanding is that the disagreement is about CAFE standards, which are the main rule-making mechanism pertinent to automotive greenhouse gas emissions. EPA wants to level off the increasingly strict CAFE standards while CARB wants them to continue to be increasingly strict.
The above is fact as I understand it, but I'll be pleased to read factual corrections. Below is pure opinion:
Global warming (and EV and FCV) zealots love to mix up fuel economy standards and criteria pollutant standards. This enables them to leave the impression that any CAFE compromise will bring us back to 1950s LA smog make thousands of children suffer with asthma. Unknowing journalists buy this and write stuff about how the current administration wants to let automakers manufacture cars releasing dirty emissions. Since CAFE is the only contentious issue, these dirty emissions are the same ones emitted by trees.
The above is fact as I understand it, but I'll be pleased to read factual corrections. Below is pure opinion:
Global warming (and EV and FCV) zealots love to mix up fuel economy standards and criteria pollutant standards. This enables them to leave the impression that any CAFE compromise will bring us back to 1950s LA smog make thousands of children suffer with asthma. Unknowing journalists buy this and write stuff about how the current administration wants to let automakers manufacture cars releasing dirty emissions. Since CAFE is the only contentious issue, these dirty emissions are the same ones emitted by trees.
03-14-2019, 10:55 AM
#31
Melting Slicks
California has ALREADY banned all cars that are not CARB legal. You can not buy or sell a new vehicle that does not meet the stringent CARB standards in California. You can't even register a car that has parts installed that does not pass the stringent CARB standards in California. You can't register a car that requires a smog certificate if it was found to have parts that alter the original manufacturer's CARB compliant emissions control system. Heck the AFE cold air intake that is so popular on the C7? Can't buy it. Can't install it. Not unless you want to register the car past the 6 years exemption.
And AFE is based in CALIFORNIA.
Slippery slope? We're WAY past that. All of this hysteria about how California, CARB, and how EPA needs to reign in our law makers? I'm sorry, but federal 50 state legal cars already follow California's stringent CARB standards. You can't buy a new car today, period, that does not meet OUR rules, in any of the 50 states. It's all a bunch of hysterical rants about nothing.
And it's not like said rules are the only things that CA does differently. Certain high capacity magazines and assault rifle style weapons are banned in California. Is that something that the Federal Government should also tell CA to do differently? Like have the commerce department mandate that CA MUST allow high capacity magazines and assault rifle style guns to be sold so that we're not "choking off" gun sales? That's hogwash and intrusion of state rights to the utmost.
No one mandated that all states follow CA's lead when it comes to CARB status. Manufacturers chose to do so because, well, it's THE most populous state and their biggest market out of the 50 states. For anyone to suggest that CARB and its rules are infringing upon other state and other state's residents "rights" is preposterous.
Reign in California because you don't like our policies? Please. And the right calls us on the left coast Libtards and snowflakes.
Don't like our rules? Don't live in California. Don't live in California? Don't complain about how we do things here, because you don't have the right to vote to change things.
And AFE is based in CALIFORNIA.
Slippery slope? We're WAY past that. All of this hysteria about how California, CARB, and how EPA needs to reign in our law makers? I'm sorry, but federal 50 state legal cars already follow California's stringent CARB standards. You can't buy a new car today, period, that does not meet OUR rules, in any of the 50 states. It's all a bunch of hysterical rants about nothing.
And it's not like said rules are the only things that CA does differently. Certain high capacity magazines and assault rifle style weapons are banned in California. Is that something that the Federal Government should also tell CA to do differently? Like have the commerce department mandate that CA MUST allow high capacity magazines and assault rifle style guns to be sold so that we're not "choking off" gun sales? That's hogwash and intrusion of state rights to the utmost.
No one mandated that all states follow CA's lead when it comes to CARB status. Manufacturers chose to do so because, well, it's THE most populous state and their biggest market out of the 50 states. For anyone to suggest that CARB and its rules are infringing upon other state and other state's residents "rights" is preposterous.
Reign in California because you don't like our policies? Please. And the right calls us on the left coast Libtards and snowflakes.
Don't like our rules? Don't live in California. Don't live in California? Don't complain about how we do things here, because you don't have the right to vote to change things.
A lot of CA haters on this forum...
03-14-2019, 02:03 PM
#33
03-14-2019, 10:02 PM
#34
Melting Slicks
Not sure the OP got his answer so I'll provide one for you. Don't worry about it! All cars including the current ZR1 can be certified for CA emissions. They just need to be ordered as "CA Emissions Compliant". This package does not add cost nor take away HP!
03-15-2019, 07:47 AM
#35
I've no dog in this fight as I have no idea whether the EPA is actually trying to squash CARB or not. But your statement is incorrect. IF (that's a big IF!!) the EPA decides to "take on CARB", CARB loses. It's how our country runs. Simply and easily: if it's not specifically called out by the federal government, it's left to the states to define. But as soon as the federal government makes a law/statement/etc that contradicts something a state has done: the state loses. Full stop.
So rest assured: IF the EPA comes after CARB and decides to press Congress for specific laws that contradict CARB, CARB loses.
So rest assured: IF the EPA comes after CARB and decides to press Congress for specific laws that contradict CARB, CARB loses.
Having said that, I find it implausible that the current EPA would be pursuing such a course after not contesting CA's power to set its own standards for half a century. Moreover, I don't think there is any groundswell of support for doing so.
03-15-2019, 08:21 AM
#36
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Mar 1999
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,060
Received 3,792 Likes
on
1,141 Posts
"Ask Tadge" Producer
That's why I emphasized the IF in my statement. :-)
03-15-2019, 01:09 PM
#37
We do have States Rights in this country. As long as the state rules comply with federal law, they are legal. EPA standards set MINIMUM requirements, but if a state sets more restrictive standards, then they meet the minimum.
Just moved to Delaware, and they require that all cars comply with EPA standards for year of manufacture. PA, like most states have 25-year grandfather rules, such as "Classic" car registration exempting cars from emission testing, but DE choses to enforce EPA rules on any car dated 1968 or later... no exemptions.
I have several collector cars, and decided to sell 2 of them, rather than deal with it, but its the law, and if you don't like it, move to Ohio.
Just moved to Delaware, and they require that all cars comply with EPA standards for year of manufacture. PA, like most states have 25-year grandfather rules, such as "Classic" car registration exempting cars from emission testing, but DE choses to enforce EPA rules on any car dated 1968 or later... no exemptions.
I have several collector cars, and decided to sell 2 of them, rather than deal with it, but its the law, and if you don't like it, move to Ohio.
03-15-2019, 02:12 PM
#38
Melting Slicks
Except your statement was based on "If" they took on CARB now - not if the law was changed. As the law presently stands the EPA would lose. Could Congress change the law? Perhaps if the Republicans control it all again at some point, but not with the Democrats in power of the House. And I am not sure any Republicans from the state of California would even vote for that. Remember no one is "Forcing" manufacturers to build to California standards, they only do it if they want to sell cars here. Not sure why anyone would object to that.
03-15-2019, 02:19 PM
#39
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Mar 1999
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,060
Received 3,792 Likes
on
1,141 Posts
"Ask Tadge" Producer
So rest assured: IF the EPA comes after CARB and decides to press Congress for specific laws that contradict CARB, CARB loses.
03-15-2019, 02:23 PM
#40
Obviously, no one has tested this with regard to laws governing emissions. Moreover, in this case, CA is doing much of the rest of the US a big favor by being tougher on emissions since the air over CA at any given point in time is going to travel across state lines into much of the rest of the country later.
Last edited by Foosh; 03-15-2019 at 02:29 PM.