Photo by AnaBonita

Hi guys- Just a quick post, but moreso a question to our readers: (especially any with a legal background) [digg=http://digg.com/environment/How_can_California_make_those_car_laws]

California passed their controversial auto-emissions bill this week, but with admittedly reduced standards.

Initially, California was demanding that a large number of all-electric or fuel-cell vehicles be made available to the market by the major auto-manufacturers by 2012. The federal government was not pleased by what they saw as a disproportionate restriction to manufacturing and trade, but California filed suit to force the Environmental Protection Agency to rule on the proposal, a move that could have allowed California an exemption waiver from federal energy laws. I don’t think it’s common for the federal government to decide that a state cannot impose further restrictions on their population (it’s typically when the states try to allow freedoms not extended under federal law, another California favorite, that the feds take a vested interest)

However, in this case, the implications of California’s attempted law would be far-reaching within the auto industry. As has been widely publicized, the state of California is one of the largest economies in the world, rivaling many international powers and beating out very many countries. As such, the introduction of a law in Califonia on a nationally or internationally manufactured product would be tantamount to a regulation on the industry as a whole, and to my knowledge, this is the first time that California has wielded that considerable influence to enact its population’s will on the rest of the country.

Then again, can you really blame them? The size or implication of a California law can’t really be considered in deciding whether it is constitutional or not. (and I suspect you’d find that it would be, especially if the restrictions were on the kind of new cars allowed to be bought in California, as opposed to those that could be sold, so that the burden is not directly on the car companies, but instead the citizen)

Still, California has apparently decided that it would be easier to come to some sort of conciliation, instead of beginning a protracted legal battle against the federal legislature. The state legislature has cut the number of zero-emissions vehicles required in the next few years by 70%, but has instead placed greater pressure on the introduction of hybrid vehicles.

I applaud California’s efforts, and I’m proud of the state, but I have to wonder - is any of this evil legal? What exactly can a given state require of manufacturers, and how can they consciously lobby that influence without running afoul of some sort of business laws? I love what California’s trying to do, and I think that as a result of their pressure, the auto industry will finally begin to change (you know they know how - but why spend the money until they have to, right? Ugh) but I just don’t know how these restrictions will hold up - some higher-ups in the major auto companies are already laughing at Cali’s gall.

Still, I think the California Air Resources Board made a good strategic move by striking hard, then backing off, but still instituting the toughest restrictions in the country: they limited their demands to a goal that could reasonably be met, without compromising their principles. There’s a degree to which Detroit (and other American industries as well) are dragging their feet to stick to the traditional business model instead of leaping ahead, unsure, into the future. While this might protect their bottom line, it can’t really go on any longer, especially among the major polluters. However, it’s very wise of the California legislators to set goals that will be hard, but which no company can deny is possible.

If someone could fill me in, though, on how this is legal in the first place, I would love to know. Thanks. - Jeff

No related posts.

If you enjoyed this post, why not or subscribe! for updates on more political and environmental coverage like this.