Hate gun roster, hmm how about tire roster?

[RustVendor]

As far as I know, the constitution doesn't grant power to the politician's to delegate their responsibility to other non elected individuals

That didn't happen here, it makes sense why you guys are so angry though becuase you absolutely don't know how any of this works. The agencies can't do anything that is not granted authority by the legislature. These rules had to be passed by the legislature, the only thing the board voted on was the language of the regulations but that language had to fit within the authority of the bill that passed the legislature. None of this is controversial and it's how it works in every single state, it's not a blue state thing it's everywhere. And if you read that case law you will see the SC interpretation of it.

 

[mrbieler]

it's how our government works, in every state. So the constitution disagrees with you. over 100 years of SC case law:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/government-agencies/

None of that means it’s representative democracy.

Delegated authority is not representative.

 

[mrbieler]

That didn't happen here, it makes sense why you guys are so angry though becuase you absolutely don't know how any of this works. The agencies can't do anything that is not granted authority by the legislature. These rules had to be passed by the legislature, the only thing the board voted on was the language of the regulations but that language had to fit within the authority of the bill that passed the legislature. None of this is controversial and it's how it works in every single state, it's not a blue state thing it's everywhere. And if you read that case law you will see the SC interpretation of it.

Thank God you’re hear to explain all this.

 

[1911-CV]

That didn't happen here, it makes sense why you guys are so angry though because you absolutely don't know how any of this works. The agencies can't do anything that is not granted authority by the legislature. These rules had to be passed by the legislature, the only thing the board voted on was the language of the regulations but that language had to fit within the authority of the bill that passed the legislature. None of this is controversial and it's how it works in every single state, it's not a blue state thing it's everywhere. And if you read that case law you will see the SC interpretation of it.

I think you are saying the board structure is not controversial and has case law backing.

The actual action that the board has taken appears to be within their mandate but is itself controversial and I would say overly restrictive 'nanny state' regulation.

 

[RustVendor]

I think you are saying the board structure is not controversial and has case law backing.

The actual action that the board has taken appears to be within their mandate but is itself controversial and I would say overly restrictive 'nanny state' regulation.

Fair enough but what if they are right and it does actually save Californians a billion dollars a year in fuel costs? I don't actually see the downside and I think people are pretty naive to think the free market cares about their interests. I would go so far as to say if this kind of thing annoys you ( not you specifically but anyone) why would you live in California where overwhelmingly people vote for things like this to exist and have for a long time. Even our Republican governors have.

 

[RustVendor]

None of that means it’s representative democracy.

Delegated authority is not representative.

Thats the danger of taking an abstract concept like "representative democracy" and ignoring the nuance and subsequent case law interpretation of the actual constitution

 

[mrbieler]

Thats the danger of taking an abstract concept like "representative democracy" and ignoring the nuance and subsequent case law interpretation of the actual constitution

It’s not abstract. We have an unelected board dictating policy for the state. The legislation did not set this policy. They voted to empower a board to do it.

 

[RustVendor]

It’s not abstract. We have an unelected board dictating policy for the state. The legislation did not set this policy. They voted to empower a board to do it.

You just tried to make fun of me for explaining the concept but you still don't understand the concept. The legislation is the policy, the regulation is the rules that were written under the authority of the policy. It doesn't make sense for the legislature to write the regulations which is why they delegate authority to the agencies. But the agency cannot change the underlying policy they can only do as directed by the legislature.

 

[1911-CV]

Fair enough but what if they are right and it does actually save Californians a billion dollars a year in fuel costs? I don't actually see the downside and I think people are pretty naive to think the free market cares about their interests. I would go so far as to say if this kind of thing annoys you ( not you specifically but anyone) why would you live in California where overwhelmingly people vote for things like this to exist and have for a long time. Even our Republican governors have.

Why should we expect them to be correct about the potential savings? When was the last time that restricting the consumer's choices by limiting the set of products you can buy resulted in lower costs. Their mandate wasn't to provide savings. Let the free market work and keep the state's hands off it.

 

[RustVendor]

Why should we expect them to be correct about the potential savings? When was the last time that restricting the consumer's choices by limiting the set of products you can buy resulted in lower costs. Their mandate wasn't to provide savings. Let the free market work and keep the state's hands off it.

A perfect example is the CECs other rules regarding appliance, toilet and faucet efficiency. The "free market" didn't save any water on its own, it doesn't care about outcomes. Those rules saved everyone money in ways to you can't imagine, a non obvious one is that it allowed farmers more water to grow food. The free market is a myth, I'll refer you to the game Monopoly for an example of how competition doesn't actually exist and how power abhors a vacuum. Consumer protections are a good thing.

 

[RustVendor]

Why should we expect them to be correct about the potential savings? When was the last time that restricting the consumer's choices by limiting the set of products you can buy resulted in lower costs. Their mandate wasn't to provide savings. Let the free market work and keep the state's hands off it.

Another thing is the analysis was based on tires that already exist which are all "premium" priced tires, it's likely that lower priced tires will show up as a result

 

[Hit Factor]

People are to F-ing stupid and think that the state is there to save them.

This is the only reason anyone would willingly support the creation of a Nanny State like California. It feels like we are heading straight towards Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.”

 

[RustVendor]

This is the only reason anyone would willingly support the creation of a Nanny State like California. It feels like we are heading straight towards Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.”

You guys are choosing to live here though, it seems very stressful

 

[RustVendor]

There's nothing more regulated than public lands, and hunting and fishing and yet those things are why our hunting and fishing and recreation on public land is the best in the world. Y'all are starting with an abstract concept like "nanny state" but aren't thinking through why it exists. Another great example is that the vast majority of water supply in the state is from state and federal water projects. the nanny is the backbone of so much of our success as a state and country. There's infinite other examples of how public investment is what made our country great and I honestly feel like you havent actually thought it through beyond your own minor inconveniences.

 

[1911-CV]

And power regulation has been a raving success!

 

[RustVendor]

And power regulation has been a raving success!

As opposed to what? remember what happened when Pete Wilson deregulated energy? Enron immediately started manipulating prices and pge went bankrupt. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say power abhors a vacuum. This isn't theoretical this happened 25 years ago. The same thing happened in banking under Clinton which resulted in the 2008 crisis.

 

[Gawernator]

Governor Newsom announces appointments 1.7.25 | Governor of California

www.gov.ca.gov

Nancy Skinner, of Berkeley, has been appointed to the California Energy Commission. Skinner was a State Senator at the California State Senate from 2016 to 2024. She was a Senior Advisor at the Energy and Efficiency Institute at the University of California, Davis from 2015 to 2016. Skinner was a Lecturer at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley from 2015 to 2016. She was an Assembly member at the California State Assembly from 2008 to 2014. Skinner was the United States Director at The Climate Group from 2004 to 2007. She held multiple roles at the ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability Climate Protection Campaign from 1994 to 2004, including International Director and United States Director. She was the Executive Director at ICLEI-US Local Governments for Sustainability from 1992 to 2004. Skinner was a Writer/Researcher at Earthworks Press from 1989 to 1992. She was a City Council Member at Berkeley City Council from 1984 to 1992. Skinner was the Executive Director of the Graduate Assembly, University of California, Berkeley from 1982 to 1988. She earned a Master of Arts degree in Education and a Bachelor of Science degree in Conservation and Resource Studies from the University of California, Berkeley. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $199,380. Skinner is a Democrat.

It’s crazy how she never had a real job

 

[RustyIron]

It’s crazy how she never had a real job

Many of our leaders lack the skills to live a successful life outside the government pig trough.

I don't see how it's possible to effectively regulate the rolling resistance of tires. The tires on my mountain bike are HIGH rolling resistance. They're like pedaling uphill in the mud with the brakes on. Slow rolling tires allow me to ride accurately. If we wanted fast rolling car tires, we'd just need a hard rubber compound, make 'em skinny, and pump 'em up to 100 psi. Nobody wants that.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

The reporter who initially “broke” the story was challenged online for leaving out meaningful context - just running with “70% less tire options”.

Someone from the committee asked her to consider the full scope in her reporting then she ranted “you don’t tell reporters what to do”. Then she did release a correction but still one-sided.

My gut reaction is to be skeptical of new restrictions but this seems aimed at better efficiency which could be good all-around if successful. Also, there is an actual exception for high-performance/sticky, off-road, motorcycle, winter/snow, all-season... It’s primarily aimed at street/regular use tire efficiency.

Also, there’s no clear partisan lean based on proponents/opponents:

Proponents
- Michelin
- Bridgestone
- Consumer Reports and a bunch of similar interest groups
- Coalition for Clean Air and a bunch of environmental groups

Opponents
- Goodyear
- Continental
- SEMA and a bunch of tire agencies

Neutral(ish)
- Dunlop - they just point out it could hurt consumers if manufacturers don’t catch up to the current standards

My take
- If it leads to better tire efficiency (cost/energy) without sacrificing safety
- phased strategy through 2033 giving manufacturers the opportunity to catch up
- has a much broader coalition of proponents
- just ends up being purely environmental increasing overall consumer costs
- compromised safety/increased traction related accidents

I suspect that Michelin and Bridgestone have a current advantage over Goodyear and Continental. Bridgestone reportedly worked with the CEC on rule.

Overall I’d give it a
- provided it lives up to the claims
- the high-performance exemption remains in place
- there’s no enforcement, citing people who buy tires out of state

 

[1911-CV]

The supposed 'deregulation' of the California market in the 2000's was a HUGE give-away to the investor owned utilities. They were able to divest themselves of billions of dollars worth of money losing power plants and focus on guaranteed returns from being middle-men and transporters. It never was deregulation, simply a gift to investors that continues today with our governor's attempt to shift fire costs from lack of powerline maintenance from the utility owners to rate payers.