2035 California PHEV Mandate challenges

[brad2971]

- Basic legal doctrines here.  The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states.  This clause has been VERY broadly interpreted to give the federal government power over many things.  One off-shoot of this is a doctrine called "preemption" meaning the federal government can make EVERY rule about a subject, such that the states have no power to make further rules.  THIS is why California needs a "waiver" in the first place.  The EPA is "waiving" the fact that it has totally made every rule in this area and the states can do no more.  All Congress need do is say the EPA has no such power, and there you go.  Pretty basic stuff.  Any challenge would be laughed out of court.  This is not a "liberal vs. conservative" or "strict constructionist vs. activist" deal.  Its basic legal doctrines.

- The quasi-religious faith that everything one wishes to be invented eventually will be is just not how science works.  The very point of science is to determine what IS true, not to invent that which one desires.  Some things are simply not possible.  It is totally possible that battery technology, and/or the ability to produce electricity by means other than coal-oil-gas-nuclear in 2035, or 2235, may be the same as today.  No one knows, and until scientists discover whether or not these technologies can be improved upon, it is arrogant and foolish to base public policy upon such assumptions.

- The media, back in the 70s was just quoting what the scientists of the day were saying.  The idea that there is this big conspiracy to cover up some unspoken "truth", like all conspiracy theories, is just so much ho-ha.  Global cooling-global warming-climate change-whatever theory is next.  All theories. 

- IF the type of histrionics that SOME climate activists say are actually true, the solution, not given some major scientific breakthroughs (see above for an explanation of how science works), is not in swapping out some cars.  It is most of society living a vastly reduced (think 18th century) lifestyle, and a massive decline in the population.  Which should scare any people who believes in the basic worth of human life, all to death.

This is all very interesting what you are saying. However, when it comes to new sources of electricity generation or battery development, consider this: My native state of South Dakota is second only to Vermont in the percentage (about 85%) of net electricity generation generated by renewable sources. Principally, wind energy. It's made the state a net exporter of electricity, principally to areas served by the Midcontinent ISO. South Dakota is also not only one of the nation's most politically right-wing states, it also leads the nation in Total Fertility Rate. Yes, even ahead of Utah.

[Rothman]

Global cooling-global warming-climate change-whatever theory is next.  All theories. 

How to destroy all credibility in one sentence—use the word "theory" while clearly having no clue what it means.

^This.

A theory is not a hypothesis, but a conclusion made upon the totality of available evidence.

[Rothman]

- IF the type of histrionics that SOME climate activists say are actually true, the solution, not given some major scientific breakthroughs (see above for an explanation of how science works), is not in swapping out some cars.  It is most of society living a vastly reduced (think 18th century) lifestyle, and a massive decline in the population.  Which should scare any people who believes in the basic worth of human life, all to death.

Histrionics, indeed...

[Scott5114]

histrionics

[kalvado]

Global cooling-global warming-climate change-whatever theory is next.  All theories. 

How to destroy all credibility in one sentence—use the word "theory" while clearly having no clue what it means.

^This.

A theory is not a hypothesis, but a conclusion made upon the totality of available evidence.

Sir Karl is looking at you with amazement.

[jdbx]

Regarding the Kona, the conventional ICE variant doesn't have very good mileage.  The EPA rating I'm looking at is 26-31 MPG.  Yes, the 304 mile claimed range is on the lower end of what I would consider acceptable. 

All the same, I ended up getting a Corolla Hybrid last year for close to the starting price of the base Kona.  The car I got is rated at 47-50 MPG and doesn't have the compromise of having to charge it.  I guess if I really wanted a CUV/EV I probably would have considered the Kona. 

The Kona surprisingly on has 6.7 inches of ground clearance.  I was surprised to see how close it was to my Corolla which has 5.7 inches.  Both vehicles are probably going to be restricted to the same kinds of roads.

I know I've asked you before, but how would you match type of road (pavement, packed dirt, two-track) to how much ground clearance you need?  I still haven't come across a good definition of "high clearance vehicle."

To quote Justice Potter Stewart: "I know it when I see it"

[mgk920]

The current USA federal administration is looking at California's environmental rules with fast increasing disfavor.  We'll see where this all ends up going.

Mike

[Scott5114]

And California is looking at the current USA federal administration with fast increasing disfavor.

Neither of these are news.