How are California’s draconic car laws NOT a direct violation of the Commerce Clause?

[George Lucas]

Commerce Clause reference:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-1/ALDE_00013403/

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; . . .

The Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate interstate commerce and restricts states from impairing interstate commerce. Early Supreme Court cases primarily viewed the Commerce Clause as limiting state power rather than as a source of federal power. Of the approximately 1,400 Commerce Clause cases that the Supreme Court heard before 1900, most stemmed from state legislation.1 As a consequence, the Supreme Court’s early interpretations of the Commerce Clause focused on the meaning of commerce while paying less attention to the meaning of regulate. During the 1930s, however, the Supreme Court increasingly heard cases on Congress’s power to regulate commerce, with the result that its interstate Commerce Clause jurisprudence evolved markedly during the twentieth century.

It’s well known that California’s restrictions on vehicles affects car manufacturing and sales in other states. This would make me believe that California is violating the U.S. Constitution. Why aren’t automakers fighting this?

 

[Kendall Motor Oil]

Because the sale is occurring inside California.
CA uses its large economy to bully other states by forcing manufacturers to abide by nonsensical regulations which leads to the affected products changing nationally to save manufacturing costs. The manufacturers don't have to do this but it's easier. This is the same with the US versions of GDPR except people make money on analytics data so there is more resistance.