In Trump’s Brawl With California, the Law Is With California—but Will That Matter?

“Automakers aren’t asking for this either.”

Bruce Chambers/Orange County Register/AP

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Thursday that it will revoke California’s waiver that allowed the state to enforce its own tailpipe greenhouse gas emission standards. On Friday, California and 23 other states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to challenge the move.

When the Trump administration announced it would roll back Obama-era fuel efficiency standards in 2018, 17 states—including California—sued the EPA. Then, this year in July, California brokered a deal with four automobile companies—Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW of North America—to make cars that would average nearly 50 miles per gallon by 2026, just one year later than the target the Obama administration set. That was quickly followed by an attack by the Trump administration. As I wrote Tuesday:

The move will come after the Justice Department opened an antitrust investigation into the four automakers that had bypassed the White House to reach a deal on emissions rules directly with California. After the Wall Street Journal uncovered details of the probe in September, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Representative David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said in a joint statement that it was “only the latest in a profoundly troubling pattern of abuse of power that has flourished under the Trump presidency.”

The goal of the recent revocation, according to the Trump administration, is to have only one rule for automakers to follow in the US.

“One national standard provides much-needed regulatory certainty for the automotive industry,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement Thursday. The move was immediately challenged by California, and the state followed up by announcing the lawsuit today. “Two courts have already upheld California’s emissions standards…Yet, the Administration insists on attacking the authority of California and other states to tackle air pollution and protect public health,” California’s attorney general Xavier Becerra said in a statement. But even though the administration promises more “certainty” for automakers through having one rule to follow, legal experts say the move actually leads to more uncertainty around fuel efficiency standards. 

Even during the early years of the Clean Air Act, which was initially established in 1970— but had major revisions in 1977 and 1990—there have been two standards for vehicle emissions: the national standard and the California standard. The Clean Air Act was in fact designed to allow a state like California to apply for a waiver to adopt stricter standards than those proposed by the federal government. Once the EPA granted California the waiver to have stricter standards than the federal government, 13 states and the District of Columbia followed California’s lead. After all, states have different levels of pollution and thus, different needs when it comes to emission regulations.

“The rhetoric you’re hearing from the administration is ‘one standard, one standard, one standard,'” says University of San Francisco law professor Alice Kaswan. “But with the Clean Air Act, we’ve always had two standards for the last 40 or 50 years. The automakers appear to have survived that.”

At a time when the market is demanding more fuel efficient cars, the Trump administration’s action to revoke California’s authority to have its own standard while pursuing a more lax federal standard helps neither the environment nor the auto industry.

“One thing that we’ve been over the course of developments on this is automakers aren’t asking for this either,” says UCLA law professor Julia E. Stein. “They’re concerned about regulatory uncertainty.”

The legal battle is likely to be protracted, but if the EPA’s revocation succeeds, the 13 states that follow California’s standard would have a harder time meeting their air pollution reduction goals because they would no longer be able to adopt California’s rules. Instead they would be forced to comply with standards that are less rigorous. That’s why Stein says the Trump administration’s action is also “bad policy” for public health. 

The main reason California implemented the stricter standards for vehicle emissions was because of its smog pollution problem. “Historically, under the Clean Air Act, smog pollution is exactly the kind of pollution that has been recognized as a compelling and extraordinary circumstance” to grant a waiver Stein says. “And there is no reason to think that’s changed because as the administration itself pointed out, California still struggles to get its air pollution under control.”

The EPA’s statement announcing the revocation of California’s waiver concludes: “The state must redouble its efforts to address the worst air quality in the United States…where for decades it has failed to address serious, severe, and extreme non-compliance status in several areas within the state.” If the Trump administration’s revocation succeeds in the court battles to come, California will have lost one important strategy for achieving that goal. 

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate