California's Climate Constitution
Luke Sharrett - Bloomberg
There is an expectation for the state to be at the forefront of emissions reduction, electric vehicles and renewable energy. Because of these expectations, an already tense relationship between California and the Trump administration has been further strained as the state continues to develop its stronghold in the international environmental arena.
In late October of 2019, the Trump administration once again took a constitutional shot at California over the state’s greenhouse gas reduction program, and to limit its ability to further develop its international leadership in curbing the planet’s warming emissions.
The lawsuit, filed in a Sacramento district court, argued that California’s move to enter a climate agreement with Canada’s Quebec province on a cap-and-trade deal (a regulatory program designed to limit the total level of emissions of carbon dioxide as a result of industrial activity) violates the Constitution. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark claimed that the state departed from the proper constitutional lane to enter into an international emissions agreement. Clark stated that ” the power to enter into such agreements [was] reserved to the federal government”. However, this dilemma raises constitutional questions regarding whether the inaction of the administration on climate change, is an international and domestic policy that states must follow.
This complication arises due to the supremacy clause, which within the constitution makes the claim that the federal government, when acting within the confines of the constitution, trumps state government. However, there also exists the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights which states that powers not simply delegated to the federal government in the constitution are not exclusively denied to states.
The lawsuit claims the constitution provides the federal government with exclusive responsibility to conduct the nation’s foreign policy, and by allowing a state within the Union to conduct its own foreign policy, the interests of the current administration are narrowed. However, what does it mean when current proposed state deals are extensions of nationwide deals made in previous administrations? California made a nationwide deal nearly a decade ago with the Obama administration to cap the carbon emissions from motor vehicles. The current lawsuit hopes to dismantle nearly half a century of air standards and progressive movement set by California’s climate policies. These standards were set only to influence California’s communities, however, was able to set the movement that brought California center stage in the climate conversation. The authority that the Trump administration is moving to dismantle is one set by the Clean Air Act, and every effort made by the administration has been dealt with defiantly by California officials.
In July, California officials struck a deal with automakers that were willing to abide by the state’s more stringent gas mileage standards. When the Environmental Protection Agency made efforts to revoke California’s authority, it triggered a lawsuit from California and 13 other states that follow the same stricter standards and wanted to preserve their authority to enact tougher environmental rules.
The merits of the legal accusations that have been brought up, once again, have been varied. The only finite conclusion that can be drawn from the administration finding success with blocking the expansion of California’s cap-and-trade system, is a limit of the state’s defiance. This limitation, both literally and figuratively, would bind states to the jurisdiction of the party and policy of the executive branch in charge. Furthermore, it develops a thesis that the environment is not of interest when there’s no commercial value and capital at stake for the country. Beyond climate policy and the stake of challenging opposition, the success of a lawsuit like this would create a chilling precedent. Any state inclined to enact significant legislation would find itself within intense federal litigation. Although the administration believes that California’s enacting trading system policies would undermine the President’s ability to negotiate competitive agreements within nations, it is difficult for this argument to stand in court; California's agreements only emphasize the trade missions that states and cities routinely take up for state products. In California’s case, instead of physical capital that’s being traded, it is carbon emissions and their impact on trade.
In the long run, if the lawsuits that the Trump administration continually order against California are successful, their progressive climate policies will continue and the costs of compliance entities (and customers) will increase. As long as the actors within the agreements have enduring market confidence, California can (and should) continue developing frameworks until a new administration that sees merit in climate change can hold the reins once again.