I thought L was was always in the denominator of the Fe equation. So it not clear why the 2016 edition would make a difference.
I think this has to do with the critical slenderness.
Euler’s critical stress curve is similar to the Seismic Response curve up to Lr (plastic and elastic range). Above the critical slenderness ratio, Euler works well. Below that theoretically it follows the curve, and was assumed to plateau when it reaches fy(cf Plastic in seismic response). But it does not account for material failure modes such as yield which has been shown to lower the critical buckling stress. This works for slender columns (“long”.
With short columns, below the critical slenderness ratio, the critical buckling stress becomes lower than predicted by Euler.
Johnson did empirical work in early 1900s and came up with a parabolic transition to fy when slenderness ratio approaches zero. Johnson's formula interpolates between the yield stress of the column material and the critical stress given by Euler's formula.
As an example for 50 ksi steel, critical slenderness ratio below say 65 would not work well with Euler. The Johnson parabolic transition is a better predictor.
When KL/r is zero, wouldn’t the required strength exceed the available strength and no stiffness reduction (Tau) is available?