Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 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 Shares149 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

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why New York City Is Removing Padlocks on Illegal Weed Shops It Closed

      by

      With the court orders that allowed the city to seal illicit cannabis stores starting to expire, questions remain about whether the shops could reopen.Mayor Eric Adams of New York on Wednesday visited a pizzeria in Queens that was once an illegal smoke shop to celebrate the success of his administration’s crackdown on illegal cannabis shops, even as the city is bracing for a potential resurgence.Mr. Adams said the pizzeria, which is named Salsa and opened in Rego Park in March, demonstrated how the enforcement against illegal weed sellers has paved the way for other small businesses to open and for the legal cannabis industry to thrive.“We went from illegal items that were harmful to communities to pizza, good food, good-paying jobs and a support system,” he said.The mayor said his administration has shut down about 1,400 smoke shops since the crackdown started last May. At the same time, the number of licensed cannabis dispensaries in the city has surpassed 160 and generated more than $350 million in sales.In the wake of state lawmakers’ decision to legalize recreational marijuana in 2021, the number of unlicensed weed shops exploded throughout the city, undercutting licensed dispensaries before they had the chance to open. The move to shutter the renegade shops — which in Manhattan alone vastly exceeded the number of Starbucks coffee shops — was widely applauded.But the court orders that allowed the city sheriff to seal the illegal businesses with padlocks for one year have begun to expire, requiring the city to remove the locks.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration to Uphold Some PFAS Limits but Eliminate Others

      by

      The E.P.A. said it would maintain limits on the two most common “forever chemicals” in tap water. Rules for four others will be rolled back.The Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday that it would uphold drinking water standards for two harmful “forever chemicals,” present in the tap water of millions of Americans. But it said it would delay deadlines to meet those standards and roll back limits on four other related chemicals.Known as forever chemicals because of their virtually indestructible nature, PFAS are a class of thousands of chemicals used widely in everyday products like nonstick cookware, water-repellent clothing and stain-resistant carpets, as well as in firefighting foams.Exposure to PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, has been associated with metabolic disorders, decreased fertility in women, developmental delays in children and increased risk of some prostate, kidney and testicular cancers, according to the E.P.A.President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had, for the first time, required water utilities to start bringing down levels of six types of PFAS chemicals to near zero. He set a particularly stringent limit of four parts per trillion for two of those chemicals, called PFOA and PFOS, which are most commonly found in drinking water systems.The Trump administration said it would uphold the limits for those two types of PFAS, but would delay a deadline for water utilities to meet those limits by two years, to 2031.The E.P.A. said it would rescind the limits for the other four chemicals.“We are on a path to uphold the agency’s nationwide standards to protect Americans from PFOA and PFOS in their water,” Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, said in a statement. “At the same time, we will work to provide common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance,” he said. “EPA will also continue to use its regulatory and enforcement tools to hold polluters accountable.”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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What’s the Cost to Society of Pollution? Trump Says Zero.

      by

      The Trump administration has directed agencies to stop estimating the economic impact of climate change when developing policies and regulations.The White House has ordered federal agencies to stop considering the economic damage caused by climate change when writing regulations, except in cases where it is “plainly required” by law.The directive effectively shelves a powerful tool that has been used for more than two decades by the federal government to weigh the costs and benefits of a particular policy or regulation.The Biden administration had used the tool to strengthen limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, factories and oil refineries.Known as the “social cost of carbon,” the metric reflects the estimated damage from global warming, including wildfires, floods and droughts. It affixes a cost to the economy from one ton of carbon dioxide pollution, the main greenhouse gas that is heating the planet.When considering a regulation or policy to limit carbon pollution, policymakers have weighed the cost to an industry of meeting that requirement against the economic impact of that pollution on society.During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The first Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under the Biden administration, the cost was adjusted for inflation and jumped to $190 per ton.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

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      House Votes to Block California Plan to Ban New Gas-Powered Cars in 2035

      by

      Republicans, joined by a handful of Democrats, voted to eliminate California’s electric vehicle policy, which had been adopted by 11 other states.The House on Thursday voted to bar California from imposing its landmark ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, the first step in an effort by the Republican majority to stop a state policy designed to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles.The 246-to-164 vote came a day after Republicans, joined by a few Democrats, voted to block California from requiring dealers in the state to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission, medium and heavy-duty trucks over time. And, lawmakers also voted on Wednesday to stop a state effort to reduce California’s levels of smog.All three policies were implemented under permissions granted to California by the Biden administration. They pose an extraordinary challenge to California’s longstanding authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to set pollution standards that are more strict than federal limits.And the legality of the congressional action is in dispute. Two authorities, the Senate parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office, have ruled that Congress cannot revoke the waivers.California leaders condemned the actions and promised a battle.Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called the move “lawless” and an attack on states’ rights. “Trump Republicans are hellbent on making California smoggy again,” Governor Newsom said in a statement.“Clean air didn’t used to be political,” he said, adding, “The only thing that’s changed is that big polluters and the right-wing propaganda machine have succeeded in buying off the Republican Party.”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

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Rebukes Apple and Orders It to Loosen Grip on App Store

      by

      The ruling was a stinging defeat for Apple in a long-running antitrust case brought by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, on behalf of app developers.A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Apple must loosen its grip on its App Store and stop collecting a commission on some app sales, capping a five-year antitrust case brought by Epic Games that aimed to change the power that Apple wields over a large slice of the digital economy.The judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, rebuked Apple for thwarting a previous ruling in the lawsuit and said the company needed to be stopped from further disobeying the court. She criticized Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, and accused other executives at the company of lying.In her earlier ruling, Judge Gonzales Rogers ordered Apple to allow apps to provide users with external links to pay developers directly for services. The apps could then avoid the 30 percent commission that Apple charges in its App Store and potentially charge less for services.Instead, Judge Gonzalez Rogers said on Wednesday, Apple created a new system that forced apps with external sales to pay a 27 percent commission to the company. Apple also created pop-up screens that discouraged customers from paying elsewhere, telling them that payments outside the App Store may not be secure.“Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this court’s injunction,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote.In response, she said Apple could no longer take commissions from sales outside the App Store. She also restricted the company from writing rules that would prevent developers from creating buttons or links to pay outside the store and said it could not create messages to discourage users from making purchases. In addition, Judge Gonzalez Rogers asked the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate the company for criminal contempt.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