Well the feds have a point. Perhaps if the law were to have all producers, no matter their location, reduce emissions by 10% the feds wouldn't get involved?

Yay for states rights.

Bschott007: Well the feds have a point. Perhaps if the law were to have all producers, no matter their location, reduce emissions by 10% the feds wouldn't get involved?

Yeah, it sounds like the court is just ordering them to go back to their equations. The fuel that had to travel the farthest would get dinged the most, thus it's a backhanded bias towards in state producers.

/why are we putting food into cars...

California Air Resources Board's low-carbon fuel regulations violated the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause by discriminating against crude oil and biofuels producers located outside California.


Hmm, well then there must be something specific in the Commerce Clause, let's read that.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;


Nope, not seeing it. If a state passed a law saying that its people could only buy in-state products, it would not be a violation of the commerce clause. It would be un-touchable by the commerce clause because it is not inter-state commerce. Of course the Supreme Court has interpreted it differently. The wording alone makes me think this is an attempt to tell his corporate sponsors he tried to do their bidding, but those darn Californians just weaseled out of it somehow.

He should have said it's a violation of case law regarding the Commerce Clause. It's clearly not a violation of the clause itself. And don't argue that the clause now means what the court thinks it means, because that's not true. Its meaning is always up for debate if you can show standing to challenge the current interpretation. Only the case law establishes the current interpretation.

Rain-Monkey: Is there any hope at all for reducing carbon outputs while oil can afford any lawyer to produce any argument indefinitely?

Stop voting for free market neoliberals.

This is bad news...for Obamacare

"Commerce clause trumps environmentalism and states rights. Could see some good head explosions here."

Long term? Doubtful, the 9th COA is one of the most liberal Circuit Courts in the country. Unless it gets appealed to SCOTUS after that

Bschott007: Well the feds have a point. Perhaps if the law were to have all producers, no matter their location, reduce emissions by 10% the feds wouldn't get involved?

The program calculated footprints including transport footprints of gas to the state. So transporting the same oil from alabama would have a larger footprint that from texas. Even if it was the exact same grade of fuel. This makes it so only local manufacturers could compete in the market. Essentially it's a tariff on out of state products.,

I'm just shocked to see the Commerce Clause being used in the manner it was actually written; to stop tariff wars among the states.

Lemme guess - Bush-appointed judge rules in favor of oil industry.

*quick google search*

Bingo, what do I win?

Occam's Chainsaw: MyRandomName: I'm just shocked to see the Commerce Clause being used in the manner it was actually written; to stop tariff wars among the states.

Agreed. This is actually one where it's hard to invoke overstepping of the commerce clause. It's a state-levied fee that directly fluctuates based upon state of origin. Good intent, there, California, but you're going to have to figure out a different way to go about it.


No kidding. Instead of the usual "you can't set your own drinking age even though it says you can in the amendment appealing prohibition....because commerce clause"

What's stopping refineries in other states from making gasoline that meets California's requirements?

Oil companies are the 51st state?

GAT_00: Commerce clause trumps environmentalism and states rights. Could see some good head explosions here.

If it has any impact beyond the borders of a state, Commerce Clause trumps it.

When I heard about these emission rules on NPR I wondered how that can be constitutional, guess the courts did too.

Death_Poot: Long term? Doubtful, the 9th COA is one of the most liberal Circuit Courts in the country. Unless it gets appealed to SCOTUS after that

It's also the most overturned Federal Appeals Court too.

TofuTheAlmighty: Lemme guess - Bush-appointed judge rules in favor of oil industryupholding the constitution.

*quick google search*

Bingo, what do I win?

ftfy

unyon: brandent: Occam's Chainsaw: MyRandomName: I'm just shocked to see the Commerce Clause being used in the manner it was actually written; to stop tariff wars among the states.

Agreed. This is actually one where it's hard to invoke overstepping of the commerce clause. It's a state-levied fee that directly fluctuates based upon state of origin. Good intent, there, California, but you're going to have to figure out a different way to go about it.


No kidding. Instead of the usual "you can't set your own drinking age even though it says you can in the amendment appealing prohibition....because commerce clause"

I'm confused. Doesn't this attach a cost to fuels based on their environmental impact? And aren't Cali energy companies subjected to the same rules as 'imported' fuels? The fact that it cost less to get the fuels to market for Cali energy companies is a feature, not a bug. They should just build in a clause where the entirety of the additional environmental surcharge will be waived if the company (or state) in question provides proof that they removed the amount of CO2 from California's air equal to the amount used in transporting the fuel to their market.

What it sounds like is the cost of fuels based on the source. So fuel from Maine will have a higher tariff than fuel from Nevada. This is not legal.

Are we reading the same article? I don't see any tax anywhere. I follwed the link, and several links from there, and at most I see "The regulation requires producers, refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to reduce the carbon footprint of their fuel by 10% over the next decade."

There's no tax, it's only punitive if someone sells it in California. Producers outside of California can do the same, reduce the footprint and qualify.

If a state decides that a product needs to meet certain guidelines to be sold, I don't see a problem with that. California has already mandated cars be more efficient. The only difference here is there aren't major car manufacturers in CA that would have had an advantage by doing the extra work to meet the guidelines.

I see no difference between this and the various different state regulations for other industries. Is this truly the only regulation that has ever carried a financial punishment? Or have others just been open-ended punishments decided on based on each individual case? Were auto manufacturers threatened with only having their cars off the market?

Asking cos it doesn't make sense. Is this just a new administration making stupid mistakes out of inexperience? They have done this successfully before without problem.

tenpoundsofcheese: TofuTheAlmighty: Lemme guess - Bush-appointed judge rules in favor of oil industryupholding the constitution.

*quick google search*

Bingo, what do I win?

ftfy

Don't bring logic or facts into this... Everybody knows that oil companies are the the minions of Satan and Bush is only worser.... or somethin'.

clovis69: If it has any impact beyond the borders of a state, Commerce Clause trumps it.

The commerce clause has been invoked to force a farmer to destroy crops used for personal consumption on the grounds that he was not engaging in interstate commerce and the resulting decrease in demand triggered the authority. So-called "judicial review" was never a power granted to the courts in article III yet we continue to accept interpretations of the constitution which have changed wildly over time.

The Case was Wickard v. Filburn and the goons who ordered the destruction of the farm were new deal commodity price-fixers

mauricecano: Uh someone is spouting BS here to try and make the commerce clause seem bad. Every state is allowed to set their own drinking age and the federal government can't stop them from doing it. But why do we have 21 as the drinking age and see all the states comply...well it isn't the commerce clause, that's just stupid to say.

The feds used their power of spending and the rules attached to spending. They attached a condition to highway road money, if they states did not set the drinking age to 21 then they would do without a certain % of the federal highway money they would have received. If the state decided it could do without the money then they could set their drinking age to whatever. If the state wanted the money then they had to comply with the minimum drinking age condition on the money; this rule was mere pressure to make the states comply, it did not force them to comply.

The particular clause invoked in this argument by the feds happens to be the commerce clause. SD sued the federal government because they stated the loss of highway funds violated their right to set drinking ages. The government's argument was the commerce clause allowed them to pretty much do as they please. It's the federal government's standard argument to everything when placing regulation on states.

The problem is, they are including the cost of bringing the fuel to market in the "carbon footprint" of the fuel. Therefore, a fuel from a gulf coast refinery would incur penalties for the fuel used to bring it into the state. It's not a question of the fuel meeting standards, it penalizes fuels based on the distance they traveled. First good use of the commerce clause I've seen in years.

/lives in CA
//CA already has highest gas prices in lower 48.
///and yeah, 9th CCoA is crazy.

andychrist420: The problem is, they are including the cost of bringing the fuel to market in the "carbon footprint" of the fuel. Therefore, a fuel from a gulf coast refinery would incur penalties for the fuel used to bring it into the state. It's not a question of the fuel meeting standards, it penalizes fuels based on the distance they traveled. First good use of the commerce clause I've seen in years.

/lives in CA
//CA already has highest gas prices in lower 48.
///and yeah, 9th CCoA is crazy.

So states can't control what they import? no state can ever control what is import into their state?

If something is made from slave labor in another country or state a state can't out law it?

If they are murder children to produce something a state can't ban the importing of the item?


That really makes sense to you?

andychrist420: it penalizes fuels based on the distance they traveled.

No it doesn't if the fuel is transported with non-C02 transportation then it is not penalized. The distance is indirect. Why should CA (and US tax payers) pay for other people's bad choices?

I AM SICK OF TAX PAYERS PAYING TO CLEAN UP OTHER PEOPLE"S MESSES!

whither_apophis:
/why are we putting food into cars...

In a brief, because "environmentalists" are usually activists rather than actual environmentalists, and do and advocate retarded things to cater to their own dunning-kruger driven feelings of superiority rather than bothering to learn the first damned thing about the environment before opening their dumbass mouths.

It's a bit more complex than that, but the complexity rises form the political factors that make perfectly decently educated government officials go along (willing or unwilling) with said stupid ideas, as far as the root cause goes it's basically that people are stupid, and people that call themselves environmentalists are, on average, slightly stupider.

//Actual environmentalists do exist, but most of them are engineers, scientists or monitoring officials, you know, people that actually do something about it on a regular basis. We're the people facepalming in the back of every thread, and we make fun of the 'moral' vegetarians/vegans even harder than the average internet denizen.

Corvus: andychrist420: The problem is, they are including the cost of bringing the fuel to market in the "carbon footprint" of the fuel. Therefore, a fuel from a gulf coast refinery would incur penalties for the fuel used to bring it into the state. It's not a question of the fuel meeting standards, it penalizes fuels based on the distance they traveled. First good use of the commerce clause I've seen in years.

/lives in CA
//CA already has highest gas prices in lower 48.
///and yeah, 9th CCoA is crazy.

So states can't control what they import? no state can ever control what is import into their state?

If something is made from slave labor in another country or state a state can't out law it?

If they are murder children to produce something a state can't ban the importing of the item?


That really makes sense to you?

That would be the responsibility of the federal government. Commerce Clause. To learn more, read up on the Articles of Confederation.

Is there anything the commerce clause can't do? It's like the Superman of laws.

Another case of liberal activist judges legislating from the bench.

pkellmey: Is there anything the commerce clause can't do? It's like the Superman of laws.

Commerce Clause for benevolent dictator!

Occam's Chainsaw: MyRandomName: I'm just shocked to see the Commerce Clause being used in the manner it was actually written; to stop tariff wars among the states.

Agreed. This is actually one where it's hard to invoke overstepping of the commerce clause. It's a state-levied fee that directly fluctuates based upon state of origin. Good intent, there, California, but you're going to have to figure out a different way to go about it.

Yup. The standard actually makes a lot of sense, taking into account the entire carbon output of the fuel's production, transportation, and use. It wouldn't be a bad idea to determine the energy use and waste output of, well, anything we produce, transport, and use, instead of just fixating on that ever-so-objective standard of monetary price.

That said, CA may be stuck, and may have to work through Congress if they wish to get this approved (good bloody luck).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Gotta love watching libs have their favorite weapon used against them.

What California keeps forgetting is that these companies don't have to do business in California. Yes California is a major market. Yes the companies make money there, but they don't have to do business there

At some point, Companies will look at the requirements California is trying to push on them, and will say, Fark it, Its not worth it.