Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares95 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Curbs Scope of Environmental Reviews

      by

      The question for the justices was whether an agency had complied with a federal law by issuing a 3,600-page report on the impact of a proposed railway in Utah.The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that a federal agency had done enough to consider the environmental impact of a proposed 88-mile railway in Utah. The ruling limits the scope of environmental reviews required by federal law in all sorts of settings.The proposed railway would connect oil fields in the Uinta Basin in northeast Utah to a national rail network that runs next to the Colorado River and then to refineries on the Gulf Coast.“An agency may weigh environmental consequences as the agency reasonably sees fit,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for five justices. The court’s three liberal members agreed with the decision’s bottom line but on narrower grounds. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was recused.The Surface Transportation Board, a federal agency that regulates rail transportation, approved the Utah project in 2021 after conducting a review that yielded a 3,600-page report. Environmental groups and a Colorado county sued, saying the report had not taken account of some ways in which the railway could do harm to the environment.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled for the challengers.The environmental impact statements required by a 1970 federal law, the National Environmental Policy Act, can be quite elaborate. Paul D. Clement, a lawyer representing seven Utah counties that support the project, told the justices when the case was argued in December that the law was “the single most litigated environmental statute.”He added that the board had acted responsibly.“It consulted with dozens of agencies, considered every proximate effect and ordered 91 mitigation measures,” he said, referring to measures intended to, among other things, dampen noise pollution and protect wildlife. “Eighty-eight miles of track should not require more than 3,600 pages of environmental analysis.”William M. Jay, a lawyer for the challengers, said at the argument that the report did not consider all the reasonably foreseeable results of the project, like oil spills and sparks that can cause wildfires, as required by the federal law.The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo., No. 23-975, was argued before an eight-member court after Justice Gorsuch recused himself, apparently over concerns that his ties to Philip F. Anschutz gave rise to a conflict of interest. Neither Mr. Anschutz, a billionaire and Republican donor, nor his companies are parties to the case, and the letter announcing Justice Gorsuch’s recusal gave no reasons.But the proposed railway could benefit companies in which Mr. Anschutz has an interest. Justice Gorsuch represented Mr. Anschutz and his companies as a lawyer, benefited from his support when he was being considered for a seat on an appeals court and once served as a keynote speaker at an annual party at his ranch. More

    • 163 Shares140 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Vote Against E.V. Mandate Felt Like an Attack on California, Democrats Say

      by

      For decades, California has been able to adopt its own emissions regulations, effectively setting the bar for carmakers nationally. And for just as long, Republicans have resented the state’s outsize influence.There is little question that California leaders already see fossil fuels as a relic of the past.At the Southern California headquarters of the state’s powerful clean-air regulator, the centerpiece art installation depicts in limestone a petrified gas station. Fuel nozzles lie on the ground in decay, evoking an imagined extinction of gas pumps.For more than half a century, the federal government has allowed California to set its own stringent pollution limits, a practice that has resulted in more efficient vehicles and the nation’s most aggressive push toward electric cars. Many Democratic-led states have adopted California’s standards, prompting automakers to move their national fleets in the same direction.With that unusual power, however, has come resentment from Republican states where the fossil fuel industry still undergirds their present and future. When Republicans in Congress last week revoked the state’s authority to set three of its mandates on electric vehicles and trucks, they saw it not just as a policy reversal but also as a statement that liberal California should be put in its place.“We’ve created a superstate system where California has more rights than other states,” Representative Morgan Griffith, who represents rural southwestern Virginia, said in an interview. “My constituents think most folks in California are out of touch with reality. You see this stuff coming out of California and say, ‘What?’”Federal law typically pre-empts state law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. But in 1967, the federal government allowed smoggy California to receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact its own clean-air standards that were tougher than federal limits, because the state historically had some of the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards as their own under certain circumstances.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said last week that the state would fight in court to preserve its autonomy in setting emissions rules.Rich Pedroncelli/Associated PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares174 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Republicans Kill California’s Ban on Gas-Powered Cars

      by

      In 50 years, California’s authority to set environmental rules that are tougher than national standards had never been challenged by Congress. Until now.The Senate on Thursday blocked California’s landmark plan to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles, setting up a legal battle that could shape the electric car market in the United States.The 51-44 vote was a victory for the oil and gas industry and for Republicans who muscled through the vote by deploying an unusual legislative tactic that Democrats denounced as a “nuclear” option that would affect the way the Senate operates way beyond climate policy.The repeal deals a blow to California’s ambition of accelerating the nation’s transition to electric vehicles. But the consequences will ripple across the country. That’s because 11 other states intended to follow California’s plan and stop selling new gas-powered cars by 2035. Together, they account for about 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.The resolution, which had already been approved by the House, now goes to President Trump’s desk. Mr. Trump, who opposes clean energy and has taken particular umbrage at California’s efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels, is expected to sign it into law.California leaders have promised to challenge the Senate vote and try to restore the ban.“This Senate vote is illegal,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democrat of California. “Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China.“California’s auto policy was allowed under permission granted by the Biden administration. The 1970 Clean Air Act specifies that California can receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact clean air standards that are tougher than federal limits because the state has historically had the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards under certain circumstances.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares183 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Advances Crypto Regulation Bill With Bipartisan Support

      by

      Democrats who had sided with the rest of their party last week to block the measure over concerns that President Trump could benefit dropped their objections. They argued that regulating the industry was urgent.The Senate on Monday revived a first-of-its-kind bill to regulate parts of the cryptocurrency industry, after a small number of Democrats who had joined the rest of their party in blocking the measure joined Republicans in allowing it to advance.The vote was 66 to 32 to move forward with the legislation, which would create a regulatory framework for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency tied to the value of an existing asset, often the U.S. dollar. Sixteen Democrats joined the majority of Republicans in support, acting over the opposition of most others in their party, who were concerned that President Trump and his family were inappropriately profiting from crypto.The vote was a victory for the cryptocurrency industry, which has made significant advances in Washington with the backing of Mr. Trump and a bipartisan group of lawmakers. It suggested that the measure would have enough support to pass the Senate and potentially make it to Mr. Trump’s desk in short order. A parallel effort in the House has faced similar backlash from Democrats, who earlier this month blocked a hearing on the legislation but are unlikely to have the votes to prevent it from passing.In the Senate, a bloc of Democratic supporters had pressed in recent days to include stronger consumer protections and transparency requirements in the legislation, as well as provisions aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing.But the most animating worry for Democrats was that the legislation could enable the president and his family to profit by issuing their own stablecoins. Concerns over the Trump family’s involvement in the industry intensified after reporting by The New York Times showed how a firm associated with the president had recently become one of the most influential players in the industry.In a prolonged round of bipartisan negotiations over the bill, Republicans steadfastly refused to consider adding any provision to rein in Mr. Trump’s involvement in the industry, or make any modification that could interfere with his or his family’s ability to benefit.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares177 Views

      in Elections

      F.D.A. Approves Novavax Covid Vaccine With Stricter New Conditions

      by

      The agency narrowed who can get the shot and added new study requirements that could cost the company tens of millions.The Food and Drug Administration on Friday approved the Novavax Covid-19 vaccine, but only for older adults and for others over age 12 who have at least one medical condition that puts them at high risk from Covid.Scientific advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who typically make decisions on who should get approved shots and when, have been debating whether to recommend Covid shots only to the most vulnerable Americans. The F.D.A.’s decision appeared to render at least part of their discussion moot.The new restriction will sharply limit access to the Novavax vaccine for people under 65 who are in good health. It may leave Americans who do not have underlying conditions at risk if a more virulent version of the coronavirus were to emerge. It could also limit options for people who want the vaccine for a wide array of reasons, including to protect a vulnerable loved one.The vaccine had previously been authorized under emergency use. Covid vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, which are more widely used by Americans, were granted full approval in 2022. However, the companies are working on updated shots for the fall, and the new restrictions on the Novavax shot portend a more restrictive approach from the F.D.A.The F.D.A.’s new restrictions also appeared to reflect the high degree of skepticism about vaccines from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, and the other leaders he has appointed at health agencies.“This is incredibly disappointing,” said Dr. Camille Kotton, an infectious disease physician at Massachusetts General Hospital who cares for immunocompromised patients, and a former adviser to the C.D.C.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares197 Views

      in Elections

      What Has Changed Since Silicon Valley Bank Collapsed? Not Much.

      by

      Two years later, no major legislation or regulation has passed, and the basic problem that caused the crisis persists.Two years ago, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank sounded an alarm over vulnerabilities in the banking system. And briefly, it looked like a call to action: The Federal Reserve released a 102-page critique of its own failures in oversight; Congress kicked off hearings to examine banking legislation; and columnists (including this one) outlined ideas for preventing the next crisis.Yet all of that talking has led to very little. Regulators tightened up on supervision, at least for a while, but there haven’t been any major new laws or regulations. And the basic problem at the heart of the regional banking crisis remains: The financial system as a whole relies heavily on runnable liabilities — namely, sources of funding, such as uninsured deposits, that can be yanked away abruptly.As long as banks are financially healthy, runnability is not a big problem. Regulators say the current risk is relatively low. Silicon Valley Bank is back in business under new ownership. “Over the past year, vulnerabilities from funding risks have declined to a level in line with historical norms,” the Fed wrote last month in its semiannual Financial Stability Report.But runnability becomes a source of vulnerability when insolvency threatens, as happened to Silicon Valley Bank. And troubles could resurface. For example, President Trump’s tariff war might cause an economic slowdown or recession, which could result in big losses for some banks through their loan portfolios.It doesn’t help that regulators seem to be shifting their focus away from the problems that Silicon Valley Bank brought to the surface. An interagency plan from 2023 to increase bank capital requirements starting this July 1, which bank lobbyists opposed, is being scaled back and postponed. Last month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he wanted to “help get banks back into the business of lending” by reducing how much they needed to keep in liquid assets such as Treasuries. And this past week, The Financial Times reported that regulators were preparing to announce within months a reduction in the supplementary leverage ratio, a backstop safety measure adopted in 2014.The financial system still relies heavily on runnable liabilitiesA bank run occurs when depositors and other creditors of a bank start to worry that their money is unsafe or might become unsafe, and pull it out while they still can. (See: “It’s a Wonderful Life,” 1946.) Deposit insurance is supposed to relieve that worry, but it doesn’t cover all bank liabilities. At Silicon Valley Bank, to take an extreme case, 94 percent of deposits were uninsured. Some other sources of funding that banks rely on can also be snatched back abruptly, such as short-term borrowings from other banks.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares148 Views

      in Elections

      Data Centers’ Hunger for Energy Could Raise All Electric Bills

      by

      Individuals and small businesses may end up bearing some of the cost of grid upgrades needed for large electricity users, a new report found.Individuals and small business have been paying more for power in recent years, and their electricity rates may climb higher still.That’s because the cost of the power plants, transmission lines and other equipment that utilities need to serve data centers, factories and other large users of electricity is likely to be spread to everybody who uses electricity, according to a new report.The report by Wood MacKenzie, an energy research firm, examined 20 large power users. In almost all of those cases, the firm found, the money that large energy users paid to electric utilities would not be enough to cover the cost of the equipment needed to serve them. The rest of the costs would be borne by other utility customers or the utility itself.The utilities “either need to socialize the cost to other ratepayers or absorb that cost — essentially, their shareholders would take the hit,” said Ben Hertz-Shargel, who is the global head of grid edge research for Wood MacKenzie.This is not a theoretical dilemma for utilities and the state officials who oversee their operations and approve or reject their rates. Electricity demand is expected to grow substantially over the next several decades as technology companies build large data centers for their artificial intelligence businesses. Electricity demand in some parts of the United States is expected to increase as much as 15 percent over just the next four years after several decades of little or no growth.The rapid increase in data centers, which use electricity to power computer servers and keep them cool, has strained many utilities. Demand is also growing because of new factories and the greater use of electric cars and electric heating and cooling.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Budget Cuts Hobble Antismoking Programs

      by

      Students at Wyoming East High School in West Virginia’s coal country had different reasons for joining Raze, a state program meant to raise awareness about the health risks of tobacco and e-cigarettes.Cayden Oliver, 17, grew up around generations of people who smoked and vaped, and he wanted to make his own choice. Nathiah Brown, 18, was struggling to quit e-cigarettes and showed up for moral support. Kimberly Mills, 18, wanted to prove that even though she had been a foster child, she would defy the odds.This high school’s program cost West Virginia less than $3,000 a year and was meant to protect teenagers in the state that has the highest vaping rate in their age group. It fell prey to U.S. government health budget cuts that included hundreds of millions of dollars in tobacco control funds that reached far beyond Washington, D.C.At the high school, students pack into stalls in the school restrooms, sneaking puffs between classes. “It’s bad now,” said Logan Stacy, 18, a member of the Raze group. “Imagine what it will be like in two years.”Experts on tobacco control said the Trump administration’s funding cuts would set back a quarter-century of public health efforts that have driven the smoking rate to a record low and saved lives and billions of dollars in health care spending. Still, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly 29 million people in the United States continue to smoke.The decimation of antismoking work follows a year of lavish campaign donations by tobacco and e-cigarette companies to President Trump and congressional Republicans.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More