Tag: regulations

Europe Is Regulating Its Auto Industry Into Retreat

Brussels apparently believes it can dictate what an industry produces without accepting responsibility when the economics cease to work. Renault is now warning that European production could fall by approximately 300,000 vehicles unless there is greater flexibility around the 2030 emissions requirements. Volkswagen describes the mass market business as under “enormous pressure.” BMW’s global deliveries fell 6.4% in the third quarter, with China down by a quarter. Competition is fierce, customers have choices, and these companies cannot finance a transformation indefinitely by producing vehicles at inadequate margins.

Look at how the target changed. The agreement reached in 2018 called for a 37.5% reduction in new-car CO₂ emissions by 2030 relative to the 2021 target. The subsequently adopted requirement became 55%, an increase of 17.5 percentage points. These are fleet average standards for new cars, but meeting them still depends on what customers actually purchase. A regulation can compel a manufacturer to change its product mix. It cannot compel a family to have the money, charging access, or confidence needed to buy the car.

Volkswagen, Stellantis, and Renault account for more than 60% of European car production. Their mass market operations rely on high volumes and thin margins. That means even a relatively small deterioration in costs or sales can produce a substantial financial problem. The consequences then move through suppliers, machinery makers, transport firms, and communities built around manufacturing. Nobody should imagine that removing 300,000 vehicles from production would affect only Renault’s accounts.

Europe’s own Council describes the wider automotive industry as supporting 12.7 million jobs and contributing more than 7% of EU GDP. Yet its explanation of the emissions rules promises stronger competitiveness and more jobs in new technologies. Fine. Show the workers where those jobs are, what they pay, and when they become available.

Now the Commission proposes easing the 2030 van target from 50% to 40% and the 2035 tailpipe-reduction requirement from 100% to 90%, subject to compensating measures. The passenger car target for 2030 remains 55%. These are proposals, but they expose the problem with planning an industrial transformation around political deadlines. Companies commit capital, develop products, and reorganize factories while officials argue over which requirements should survive. Who pays when the assumptions change? The business, its employees, and eventually the taxpayer asked to support another rescue.

This obsession with the 2030 target is sheer stupidity when Europe is already struggling with expensive energy, mounting debt, war, and competition from manufacturers who can produce cars for less. Where do they imagine the money for this transformation will come from? They are demanding enormous investment while making it harder for the companies expected to provide it to earn a profit. Keep squeezing those margins and production moves, suppliers close, and the industrial skills accumulated over generations disappear with the jobs. Brussels can congratulate itself for reducing emissions within Europe while Europeans buy vehicles manufactured elsewhere. What has that accomplished for the worker whose factory is gone? A deadline means nothing if reaching it helps destroy the industry that supports your economy. Yet they cling to 2030 as though preserving a political promise matters more than preserving the livelihoods of the people paying for it.

Keep reading

More of Connecticut’s AI Law Takes Effect. Lawmakers Already Say It Doesn’t Regulate Enough

More provisions of Connecticut’s artificial intelligence (AI) law, Public Act 26-15, take effect today (Oct. 1), with broader workplace requirements scheduled to begin next year. 

While Connecticut is still implementing the law, legislators are already considering another round of AI regulations. Legislative leaders want tougher rules for AI developers, while labor unions are seeking additional protections for workers affected by the technology. 

Connecticut could be writing another set of AI rules before the largest provisions of its current law have had a chance to take effect. 

What Takes Effect October 1 

The first change concerns large layoffs. Under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, certain employers must give advance notice of a mass layoff or plant closing. Starting today, an employer sending that notice to Connecticut’s Department of Labor must also disclose whether the layoffs are related to its use of AI or another technological change. 

The requirement does not prevent a layoff. It could, however, give the state a better record of where technology is changing employment. 

Employers also remain responsible for discriminatory employment decisions made with automated technology. If a company uses software to screen applicants, it cannot dismiss a discrimination claim by saying the computer made it do it. 

For consumers, companies that make generative AI systems with more than 1 million monthly users and sell subscriptions in Connecticut must spell out key terms, including limits on use and whether they can reduce or cut off access. Customers must accept those terms in writing when they sign up or renew.

Large AI providers face another rule. When technically and commercially reasonable, they must include information that helps identify certain images, audio and video as computer-generated. 

State agencies can still put AI to work, but they must follow state standards when using it to deliver public assistance or perform work that could significantly affect residents’ rights, safety or welfare. Agencies authorized to purchase AI must complete an impact assessment.

Software helping staff answer routine questions is one thing. Software involved in a family’s benefits is another. 

Keep reading

The End EPA Abuse Act targets regulatory overreach and the climate hysteria baked into onerous regulations

The conflict between the EPA and congressional conservatives is not a recent development, but rather the culmination of decades of increasingly aggressive interpretations of the Clean Air Act. Originally enacted in 1970 to address visible air pollution, the statute has been used by successive administrations, particularly under Presidents Obama and Biden, to pursue broader climate policy objectives that many legal scholars argue were never intended by Congress.

The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to shift the nation’s electricity generation away from coal, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2022 under the major questions doctrine, which holds that agencies cannot make decisions of vast economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. The Biden regime continued this approach by pushing electric vehicle mandates and greenhouse gas standards that functioned as indirect bans on traditional combustion engines, according to the bill’s supporters.

Senator Lee did not mince words when describing the EPA’s actions, stating, “They’ve exploited any power they can grab to push Biden and Obama’s climate psychosis at the expense of our energy security.” The senator’s language reflects a growing frustration among conservatives with what they perceive as a regulatory assault on American industry.

Senator Lummis echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of restoring power to elected officials, noting, “The End EPA Abuse Act puts Congress back in the driver’s seat where we belong.” Representative Clyde, who introduced the House companion bill, specifically called out the Biden administration’s approach, saying the EPA “increasingly treated the Clean Air Act as a blank check to push de facto electric vehicle mandates, jeopardize reliable energy sources, and impose costly regulations on American consumers and businesses.”

One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is its prohibition on waivers granted to California, which has historically received special permission under the Clean Air Act to set stricter emissions standards than the federal government. Due to California’s enormous market size, its regulations effectively dictate vehicle production decisions for the entire nation, as automakers cannot afford to produce separate vehicle lines for different states. The bill would eliminate this waiver authority, which supporters argue would return market forces to the automobile industry and bring down costs for all Americans. Democrats contend that California’s leadership has driven innovation in vehicle emissions technology for decades, and removing the waiver could weaken environmental protections in states that choose to adopt stricter standards.

Keep reading

California Energy Commission Bans Sale of Majority of Tires… Far-Left Commissioner Licks Her Lips As She Boasts About New Rules

Meanwhile, in the Democrat hellhole of California…

The California Energy Commission on Monday voted to restrict what type of tires Californians can buy and when they can replace their tires.

The new rules will lead to a ban on the sale of the majority of tires in the state because they don’t meet the new efficiency standards.

The regulatory agency, full of unelected bureaucrats, claimed the new rules would lead to a price increase of only $6.50 per tire in the second phase; however, Bret Gladfelty of Goodyear said the increase would end up being several hundred dollars.

David Hochschild, the chairman of the California Energy Commission, absurdly claimed that the new tire rules are “ultimately about protecting consumers.”

KCRA reported:

At the center of this is a tire’s rolling resistance, or how much energy a tire uses as it rolls down the road. Lower resistance means a vehicle uses less gas or electricity. New cars come with generally efficient tires, but consumers typically replace those with higher rolling resistance tires.

The first phase would begin in 2029, which would allow the sale of tires with a maximum rolling resistance level of 9.1 newtons per kilonewton (N/kN). In phase 2, the standard lowers to 7.2 (N/kN) starting in 2033. The commission came up with the standards after testing 537 types of tires.

According to the commission’s staff, the rules are meant to ensure replacement tires sold in California are at least as energy efficient on average as the tires that come with the car or truck when it’s originally sold. The CEC claims Californians could save $79 in four months in gas or electricity costs under phase 1, and about $153 in phase 2 within seven months.

According to analysis by KCRA, more than 70% of tires will be banned.

Keep reading

Residents of one state paying for politics in their electric bills

When families in Central Pennsylvania open their electric bills, they need an explanation for why electricity keeps getting more expensive. Come November, voters will surely have this issue top of mind.

A quick look on the Pennsylvania 10th Congressional candidate’s websites shows stark contrast. U.S. Rep. Scott Perry addresses this concern and acknowledges, “The Biden-Harris anti-American energy policies threaten our national security and have ruined our economy. America must be energy independent to grow our economy and maintain our security.” He correctly states he, “supports a blended energy portfolio that includes the development of clean energy technologies and using our vast energy resources – to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, turn around the economy, create jobs, reduce inflation, make energy more affordable, and preserve our environment.”

And on Janelle Stelson’s website? Nothing. Even with the find feature on and searching the word “energy,” it’s not mentioned once.

Janelle Stelson may not have released a detailed energy plan, but she has aligned herself with the broader Biden-era Democratic energy agenda on several social media posts. That matters because the policies that came out of the Biden-era White House, combined with policies pushed in Pennsylvania by Govs. Tom Wolf and Josh Shapiro, have made electricity more expensive for consumers. These policies have taken reliable baseload power offline, discouraged investment in new natural gas generation, and created uncertainty for the very projects Pennsylvania needs to keep the lights on and prices affordable.

The answer is pretty straightforward: energy markets run on supply and demand. When government policies make it harder to build and maintain reliable power generation, supply gets tighter. When supply gets tighter and demand keeps growing, prices go up. That is exactly what Pennsylvanians are feeling now.

Because new baseload energy production requires massive investments, the energy cost crunch can’t break or be fixed overnight. The Obama Clean Power Plan began the federal push to force coal-fired power plants and natural gas plants off the grid. Don’t take my word for it: In a 2008 interview President Obama admitted himself that, “my cap-and-trade program will cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket.” The Biden Administration charted a similar course with a new round of regulations aimed at coal and natural gas plants, including rules that would have required major emissions reductions from existing coal plants and new baseload gas plants. EPA has since described those Biden-era regulations as costly rules that raised costs and threatened grid reliability. Ms. Stelson said she supported these policies.

Keep reading

US Nuclear Regulator Seeks Simpler Environmental Reviews To Boost Nuclear Expansion

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on July 8 proposed narrowing environmental reviews for new and renewed nuclear reactor licenses, a move the agency said would reduce costs, as the Trump administration pushes to expand nuclear energy.

The proposal would change how the NRC implements the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), limiting reviews to environmental effects that fall within the agency’s legal authority.

The NRC described the proposal as the “most comprehensive update to its environmental review regulations in decades,” adding that it would remove outdated requirements and make the licensing process more efficient.

NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said the proposal, which is open for public comment until Aug. 21, would better align the agency’s environmental reviews with what Congress intended under NEPA.

He told reporters: “For many, many, many years, NRC did much more than required by law in the National Environmental Policy Act. So this really brings us back to what NEPA demands, nothing more, nothing less.”

Nieh also said, “By concentrating on impacts the NRC can address, we’ll strengthen environmental protection while making licensing reviews more timely and predictable.”

He said that the NRC proposes to limit areas where it does not have authority over effects on the environment, such as the construction of nuclear plants.

“Dust, noise, air impacts, non-radiological water, or non-radiological effects, all of those things are examples of where they’re outside of our regulatory authority, and so we won’t be doing those in the future,” he said.

NRC’s chief environmental review and permitting officer, Kimyata Savoy, said the proposal would save reactor developers and the agency about $135 million in licensing costs for new reactors and license renewals.

Other measures under the proposal include new categorical exclusions, an update of environmental review procedures, and greater flexibility for applicants in providing environmental information.

The proposal follows a series of actions by President Donald Trump aimed at expanding nuclear power in the United States. Trump signed four executive orders on May 23, 2025, directing the NRC to license 10 new reactors by 2030 and supporting a plan to quadruple U.S. nuclear power capacity by 2050.

One of them, executive order 14300, directed the NRC to reform its licensing process. The White House said the commission had slowed nuclear development by imposing unnecessary regulatory requirements.

U.S. Energy Information Administration data show that last year, nuclear energy accounted for about 18 percent of U.S. utility-scale electricity generation.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Has Weakened The Regulatory State

n Trump v. Slaughter, published yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the President has plenary (that is, unfettered) authority to fire the heads of regulatory agencies (though not the governors of the Federal Reserve Board, as explained in a note at the end of this post). The decision is hugely consequential. It is both a massive blow to the regulatory state and a huge—albeit precarious—step to returning our nation to function as the Constitution intended.

For over a century, ever since President Woodrow Wilson ushered in the “progressive era,” Congress has been creating “independent” agencies that have complete power to write regulations with the force and effect of law, and then to enforce those regulations, including deciding cases in their own courts, with penalties that include fines and jail time.

This means that, for most of our lifetimes, we have lived in a nation where federal agencies, which do not exist in the Constitution and are insulated from the ballot box, have had a far greater impact on our daily lives than the other three branches of government. The agencies’ reach has been an ever more intrusive tyranny of the regulatory state, from the EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding (which allows the agency to control every aspect of life) to the Department of Education’s unceasing support for teachers’ unions, which launder money to the Democrat party. (Indeed, Jimmy Carter created the DOE to sustain the unions.)

Almost all federal agencies hew to the same increasingly radical left agenda, as evidenced by political donations. And, indeed, this was President Wilson’s dream: To run roughshod over the Constitution and democracy, substituting rule by technocrats. Until yesterday, Wilson had succeeded.

When Congress created these so-called “independent agencies,” it often provided that the people appointed to operate had long-term sinecures that presidents could end only for malfeasance. This created what some called a fourth branch of government, cementing the “Deep State.” These agency heads, running their own fiefdoms, could thwart an elected president’s preferred policies. As Senator Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly, and rightly, pointed out, “personnel is policy.”

However, despite their seeming entrenchment, these agencies have no place under the Constitution. Art. II Section 1 provides that the “executive power” to enforce the laws resides solely with the duly elected president. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion, the Constitution’s drafters explicitly intended that the executive power include the plenary authority to remove any personnel exercising executive powers. Congress cannot curb that power using legislation.

Keep reading

California’s Self-Inflicted Squeeze

Energy Island

Long time readers may recall the many articles we wrote over many years highlighting the madness of California planners and policymakers. We were born and raised in the land of fruits and nuts and lived and worked there for over four decades.

About four years ago, we made our California exodus. At the time, we thought our coverage of the Golden State’s self-destruction would continue. We still have family and friends there who we visit from time to time. But, as we’ve found, without a front row seat to the big show we’re less inclined to gawk at the insanity. Articles on California have diminished to a slow trickle.

Today, however, following a recent conversation with a friend and California resident, we aim our sights at our former home state. Once again, California delivers a rich example of what happens when central planning outweighs economic reality. Here the specific example involves extreme intervention in oil and gas markets.

Policymakers in Sacramento, over many decades, have operated under the assumption that if petroleum production, refining capacity, and fuel consumption were made sufficiently difficult and expensive, the market would rapidly transition to their preferred alternatives. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been the principal vehicle for implementing this vision through increasingly stringent fuel regulations, emissions mandates, low-carbon fuel standards, permitting requirements, and compliance costs imposed upon refiners operating within the state.

Yet the result has not been the energy transition that was promised. Instead, California has become increasingly dependent on foreign suppliers for products it once produced itself. This trend is particularly problematic because California is effectively an energy island. Unlike much of the United States, California lacks extensive pipeline connections to the major refining centers along the Gulf Coast.

The state also requires unique fuel formulations that relatively few refineries outside California are equipped to produce. Consequently, California’s fuel market functions largely as a self-contained system. When local refining capacity disappears, replacement supplies cannot simply be redirected from Texas or Louisiana with the turn of a valve.

Keep reading

How Government ‘Affordability’ Turns an $18 Antibiotic Into $2,500

Nothing makes anything less affordable than a government promise to make something more affordable, and a Texas pharmacist revealed this week how an $18 generic antibiotic gets listed for $2,500. But from there, things get so seriously stupid that you just know there must be a government program involved.

Brad Hart, along with his wife Glenda, own Forest Park Pharmacy in Fort Worth, so he knows a thing or two about how the system works — and just how dysfunctional it is.

“A family came in wanting to transfer their kid’s antibiotic to us,” he posted to X earlier this week. “The child had already STARTED the course. Then, mid-treatment, the insurance company decided the last 14 tablets suddenly needed a ‘prior authorization’ before the other pharmacy could hand them over.”

All this for Linezolid, a generic antibiotic that costs Forest Park $18.

Why all the fuss for something so inexpensive? 

Hart explained, “Insurance and the PBMs [Pharmacy Benefit Manager] behind them price drugs off a number called AWP — ‘Average Wholesale Price.’ People in my industry have another name for it: ‘Ain’t What’s Paid.’ It’s a benchmark number, not a real-world cost. On paper, the AWP for just those last 14 tablets is about $2,500.”

“The system that’s supposedly ‘protecting’ this family from cost is the same system that inflated an $18 medication into a $2,500 line item, then slapped a prior auth on it to “review the expense” THEY invented,” Hart continued. “They manufactured the problem, then billed everyone for the privilege of solving it.”

PBMs and AWPs were unfamiliar to me, so I asked Grok to explain how they work and why they exist.

The short version is that Washington’s tax incentives and Affordable Care Act (thanks, Obama!) mandates push everything into third-party insurance, disconnecting patients from real costs. Medicare Part D (thanks, W!) and weak transparency rules empower PBM middlemen (another Washington creation) to profit from fictional AWP benchmarks, delaying care and sucking up tax dollars while also overcharging sick people.

You get robbed coming and going.

Really, what the insurance companies do here is play arbitrage games enabled by government meddling in the name of affordability. That’s why Forest Park Pharmacy doesn’t take insurance and just sells medications at a market-rate markup from their wholesale cost.

One solution — and this is exactly what I used to do — is to buy bare-bones high-deductible health plans with catastrophic coverage and pay cash for everything else. But I can’t do that anymore because Obamacare made those plans mostly illegal or unobtainable. 

Why, it’s almost as though the entire system were geared for price-gouging. 

Keep reading

Khanna: California ‘Messed Up Housing’, ‘We Have Too Much Regulation’

On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) stated that California has “messed up housing in this state. We have too much regulation, zoning where we don’t build. We’ve made it very, very hard to build, and that’s been a failure.”

Khanna said, “[W]e’ve done certain things right. We have excellent higher education. The U.C.’s, the California states. And it’s led to, of course, a lot of innovation, $20 trillion in my district, right?”

He added, “But we’ve messed up housing in this state. We have too much regulation, zoning where we don’t build. We’ve made it very, very hard to build, and that’s been a failure. And any person being honest about it needs to acknowledge that we’ve put roadblocks onto building housing. And that would be, in my view, be the biggest failure. And that’s what Fareed was saying that the housing policy here has been bad.”

Khanna added that there are “issues” within the state’s K-12 system.

Keep reading