As I understand things, California is proposing that all new sales of cars be electric, hybrid, or hydrogen by 2035 (roughly 35% by 2026, 65% by 2030, and 100% by 2035). But to do so they apparently need a waiver of the Clean Air Act, which I'm not sure I understand the reason for. Does this new federal law not help their compliance with the Clean Air Act? Why do they need a waiver to enact something at the federal level that is superior to the national level? Is that not something they can do? Why is this not like a state banning, say, (certain types of) gambling? If car producers can't, or won't produce electric cars then why should California be told to allow the sale of higher polluting cars? Or am I misunderstanding things?
It's probably a technical detail: They wish to do something (A) in excess of, and (B) not recognized by the CAA. Simply exceeding the federal legislation is one thing, but if doing so involves saying, "No, we're not going to follow your law, because it works better if we do this," then they need permission.
You've used Federal incorrectly although I understand why as it's used that way in certain other countries in their political system organization. Federal and National are one and the same here so it's Federal and State. The State level (California) is what you are referring to as Federal which is incorrect. I think California needs it's clean air regulation to match that of the Federal level but it needs higher standards due to its smog, wild fires, etc. As this is just a technicality (as Tiassa mentions) to allow for their standard to vary for the wording of the Federal standard, but it is more strict so this shouldn't be an issue. I think (not sure) that the variation has more to do with off road vehicles and machines. An example may be as simple as tighter standards for lawn mowers but there is a whole list of various exceptions (logging trucks, mining equipment, etc).
Thanks. I should have known, though. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Aha! I have found the answer! The Clean Air Act prohibits states from enacting emission standards for new vehicles! Hence they need a waiver so that they can do so! All makes sense now. And of course, those invested in the sale of non-electric/hybrid cars will lobby for the waiver not to be granted. Not sure why the Clean Air Act made such a prohibition, though. Wouldn't it have been better to stipulate that a State are free to implement standards as long as they are stricter than those set by the Clean Air Act? Ah, well. Thanks, both.
The answer is both simple and complex. If I ask what you mean by "stricter", it's just to establish its relationship to other terms, such as "better", "enhanced", and "optimized", which, when left to business executives, lawyers, and politicians, can have wildly variable meanings. For instance, if we transfer more ownership of an artist's work to the publishing company, what does it mean if we say we have enhanced copyright protections against plagiarism and intellectual property theft? If we make it easier for big companies to pay no taxes, and increase the tax burden paid by waitstaff and retail sales workers, what does the politician mean when celebrating tax reform? In that context, maybe you and I can generally agree on what a word like "stricter" means, but compared to politicians, executives, and attorneys, which do you trust to say their standard is stricter? I mean, we could set it up like lawn-water scheduels on rotating days, complete with the implication of needing to have two vehicles per working household¹, and that could be argued to be pretty strict, though the auto executive would love it. The waiver process involves certifying that the stricter standard meets or exceeds the CAA. ____________________ Notes: ¹ Imagine a standard, {S}, and two classification schedules, {A} and {B}. Vehicles that meet or exceed {S} are classified as {A}, while vehicles that do not are classified as {B}. Whatever other solution we implement, the basic gist is that an individual can operate schedule {A} vehicles on any day, while schedule {B} vehicles are restricted to Tuesdays, Thursdays, and one weekend day for personal, non-work use, thus encouraging consumers to drive more fuel efficient cars. It can be hashed out to be a strict regimen, but it's also the sort of plan only an automobile industry executive could love. Imagine the small business owner who now can't drive their pickup trucks for personal transportation.
