Voice For Liberty

Category: Regulation

  • Pompeo: Obama, EPA not to be trusted on regulation

    U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents the Kansas fourth district, wrote this op-ed to warn us of the many ways in which President Barack Obama seeks to implement his radical agenda through regulation, this time through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The remedy in this case is in the form of legislation, H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. The bill was voted on today in the House of Representatives and passed 268 to 150.

    While Pompeo focuses primarily on the direct impact of this regulation on farmers and ranchers, anything that makes these activities more difficult and expensive will drive up food costs for everyone, and many complain that these costs have been rising rapidly. Part of that rise, we might note, is due to regulations that require the use of ethanol in fuel, which diverts corn production away from food.

    A version of this appeared in the Washington Examiner.

    EPA must stop playing in the dust

    By U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would like to regulate farm dust all across the nation. I know it sounds ridiculous, but given the Obama Administration’s demonstrated hostility toward rural America, it should not come as a huge surprise. Although EPA has verbally reversed course in recent weeks and said it has “no intention” of regulating farm dust, my 11 months in Washington have taught me quickly that we must pay attention to what politicians do and not what they say. EPA’s actions continue to show that radical environmentalists desire to regulate dust. To stop the EPA in its tracks, I have worked to advance H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, through the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. I look forward to final passage on the House Floor later this week.

    In Kansas and across the country, businesses are struggling to stay afloat. At best, EPA is oblivious to this fact. At worst, it deliberately presses forward in spite of the damaging consequences of new regulations. Rather than helping farmers, ranchers, business owners and other entrepreneurs, EPA continually bombards these job creators with undue and costly new regulations. The agriculture sector is now holding its collective breath as EPA considers new air quality standards, which it revises every five years. Under the Clean Air Act, the Agency asserts the authority to regulate farm dust as “coarse particulate matter.” This dust is known very well to rural Kansans. It is merely the dust created from driving down unpaved roads, moving livestock, and working the fields.

    As it is, the current standard already imposes costs and restrictions on farmers, ranchers, agribusiness entities, and small businesses, particularly in arid parts of the West where dust is easily kicked up. Earlier this year, EPA staff suggested tightening standards to levels that would push most of the West — including Kansas — out of compliance.

    In a recent House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing, we heard from individuals who live in these areas, including Arizona farmer Kevin Rogers, who is already threatened by strict dust regulations. Because parts of Arizona already struggle to meet the current dust standards, he and other farmers may be required to halt tillage, drive at a snail’s pace on unpaved roads, stop work entirely on windy days, or take other expensive measures to reduce dust. If the dust standards are actually tightened to the levels suggested by EPA staff, other parts of the country would have to implement similar policies that will destroy the efficiency and productivity our farmers and ranchers are known for.

    Opponents of our efforts call the desire to regulate farm dust a ‘myth’ and liken these concerns to worrying about regulation of fairy dust. While these theatrics garnered some snickers, I was not amused — and neither were the 500 plus Kansas Farm Bureau members I met with just before Thanksgiving who agree that this is a real problem. We need the bipartisan Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. The American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and over 180 other organizations also agree that this valid concern with what EPA might do is more than fairy dust, and they know that this bill is vitally important to the survival of their industry.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has announced that the agency has “no intention” of further regulating dust. But that announcement sounds more like political rhetoric designed to appease opponents as the 2012 election cycle nears, rather than a genuine promise rural Americans can count on. Given what I know, I would be letting farmers and ranchers down if I simply trusted the Obama Administration on their stated farm dust intentions. Besides, there is also a threat that an environmental group could sue and persuade a pliant EPA to regulate farm dust as a settlement condition. We need smart and clear laws set by Congress — not unelected bureaucrats. The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act is one. We must ensure that the federal government creates a positive atmosphere for businesses to prosper — including farming and livestock operations. It’s time to forget about regulating farm dust and give rural America some breathing room from the crushing regulations of which this Administration is so fond.

  • Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011

    Last week the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3010: Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011. This law would, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, would require regulatory agencies to “base all preliminary and final determinations on evidence,” among other reforms. It might surprise citizens to realize that regulations may be made for other reasons.

    The act would also requires agencies to address “specific nature and significance of the problem,” the “significance of the problem the agency may address with a rule,” and also to recognize “the legal authority under which the rule may be proposed.”

    In commentary on this legislation, James L. Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation wrote: “On the whole, the Regulatory Accountability Act represents a positive step toward regulatory reform, imposing clear obligations on agencies with review by the courts. It should, however, be considered by Congress as a supplement — not an alternative — to other needed reforms.”

    All Kansas representatives voted for the bill, which passed 253 to 167. Votes were split primarily along party lines, although 19 Democrats voted in favor. Two Kansas members provided comments on the bill, and shared Gattuso’s opinion that this bill is just the start of controlling harmful and unneeded regulation.

    Representative Tim Huelskamp of the Kansas first district commented on the bill and the potential of it passing the Senate: “HR 3010 — like several other bills that would require economic impact to be taken into account when regulation is being written — has the potential to control the costs of federal regulations. But, it’s just potential. I am about as optimistic as the Senate taking up this bill as I am about the Senate taking up any one of the nearly two dozen other ‘jobs’ bills or passing a budget. Majority Leader Reid is doing America a great disservice by allowing these jobs bills to go untouched in the Senate; the American people don’t send their Senators to Washington to loiter for six years.”

    Representative Mike Pompeo of the Kansas fourth district was also cautious about relying on this bill to provide needed regulatory reform: “The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011 (HR 3010) is a great piece of legislation, but it is not the silver bullet for reining in the Obama Administration’s rampant regulatory overreach, which is severely hindering job creation across the country and here in Wichita. While the Administration is ‘strongly opposed’ to the bill, they have not issued a veto threat, yet. Even still, I doubt this bill will pass the Senate. Tomorrow the House will consider a stronger piece of legislation — The REINS Act (HR 10), of which I am a co-sponsor. HR 10 would require Congressional approval of every major new regulation proposed by this Administration. Ultimately, if passed into law, it will radically slow the expansion of government which is something that I have been working to do in every way since I got here in January.”

    The House is expected to vote on the REINS Act today.

  • Kansas gas storage regulation might not improve safety

    Due to a jurisdictional issue, underground natural gas storage facilities in Kansas have not been inspected for 19 months — at least not inspected by government regulators. Senators Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran have introduced legislation that would allow Kansas to resume inspections.

    The safety of underground natural gas storage is important, especially in Kansas, where in 2001 gas leaked under Hutchinson and caused fires and explosions that killed two people and caused much property damage. So should Kansans be relieved that government regulation and inspection may be resumed soon?

    Reading news stories from after the January 2001 Hutchinson disaster should teach us to be wary of relying on government regulation and inspection for ensuring safety. For example, a February 2001 in the Wichita Eagle contained this: “State officials in Kansas knew that the 20-year-old regulations governing underground gas storage were inadequate, years before a gas leak in Hutchinson claimed two lives. Officials with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment met with industry representatives in 1996 and told them new regulations were needed to ensure safe operation of 630 gas storage wells in the state. The new regulations were never written. The update was delayed because the KDHE was short staffed, said Don Carlson, chief of the industrial programs section. The department has two people assigned to permit, inspect, oversee and write regulations for the 6,000 underground injection wells in Kansas that are used to store natural gas and propane, dispose of hazardous waste or mine salt, he said.” (emphasis added)

    So for 20 years Kansas operated with inadequate regulations. Was this know by the general public? It doesn’t appear that it was. Instead, people assumed that government was watching out for their safety.

    The Hutchinson News concluded in 2004: “True, some of the company’s reports misled the regulator. But the state official also did little, if anything, to check the company’s information or to inspect the site. A local diner serving two dozen cheeseburgers a day received more attention than an underground facility storing billions of cubic feet of natural gas and other volatile hydrocarbons.”

    So how well were Kansans served by its regulators? Not well at all, we must conclude.

    Eventually the operators of the gas storage facility were held accountable for their errors. But it wasn’t direct government action that did that, although the operators were fined $180,000. But government operates courts where the victims received compensation for their losses — if it is possible to compensate for loss of life with mere money.

    What about the other party to this disaster — the State of Kansas: Was it held accountable? Not at all. Examples of regulatory failure rarely result in punishment of government or those who work for it.

    A recent example is the Washington Post story Eight SEC employees disciplined over failures in Madoff fraud case; none are fired. Bernie Madoff stole tens of billions from clients over a long period of time in a highly-regulated industry. The Securities and Exchange Commission chief was advised to fire one person, but declined to do even that. Instead, eight employees received punishments such as “suspensions, pay cuts and demotions.”

    Not only did the state not perform adequate inspections, and not only did the SEC fail to detect Madoff’s ongoing theft, the presence of government regulation makes people think things are safe.

    Sadly, it is only after disasters like Hutchinson or sensational cases like Madoff’s that we become aware of the weak protections that government regulation provides.

  • The use of regulation by business, contrary to markets

    There are many examples of how the conventional wisdom regarding regulation is wrong: Republicans and conservatives are in bed with government, seeking to unshackle business from the burden of government regulation. Democrats and liberals, on the other hand, are busy crafting regulations to protect the common man from the evils of big business. As it turns out, both Democrats and Republicans love creating regulations, and big business loves these regulations.

    For example, in 2005 Walmart came out in favor of raising the national minimum wage. The company’s CEO said that he was concerned for the plight of working families, and that he thought the minimum wage level of $5.15 per hour was too low. If Walmart — a company the political left loves to hate as much as any other — can be in favor of increased regulation of the workplace, can regulation be a good thing? Had Walmart discovered the joys of big government?

    The answer is yes. Walmart discovered a way of using government regulation as a competitive weapon. This is often the motivation for business support of regulation. In the case of Walmart, it was already paying its employees well over the current minimum wage. At the time, some sources thought that the minimum wage could be raised as much as 50 percent and not cause Walmart any additional cost — its employees already made that much.

    But its competitors didn’t pay wages that high. If the minimum wage rose very much, these competitors to Walmart would be forced to increase their wages. Their costs would rise. Their ability to compete with Walmart would be harmed.

    In short, Walmart supported government regulation as a way to impose higher costs on its competitors. It found a way to compete outside the marketplace. It abandoned principles of free markets and capitalism, and provided a lesson as to the difference between capitalism and business. Many, particularly liberals, make no distinction between business and capitalism. But we need to learn to recognize the difference if we are to have a thriving economy based on free-wheeling, competitive markets that foster innovation, or continue our decline into unproductive crony capitalism.

    In the following excerpt from his book The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money, author Timothy P. Carney explains that big business is able to use regulation as a blunt and powerful tool against competitors, and also as a way to improve its image.

    How does regulation help big business?

    Excerpt from The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money, by Timothy P. Carney

    If regulation is costly, why would big business favor it? Precisely because it is costly.

    Regulation adds to the basic cost of doing business, thus heightening barriers to entry and reducing the number of competitors. Thinning out the competition allows surviving firms to charge higher prices to customers and demand lower prices from suppliers. Overall regulation adds to overhead and is a net boon to those who can afford it — big business.

    Put another way, regulation can stultify the market. If you’re already at the top, stultification is better than the robust dynamism of the free market. And according to Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman:

    The great virtue of free enterprise is that it forces existing businesses to meet the test of the market continuously, to produce products that meet consumer demands at lowest cost, or else be driven from the market. It is a profit-and-loss system. Naturally, existing businesses prefer to keep out competitors in other ways. That is why the business community, despite its rhetoric, has so often been a major enemy of truly free enterprise.

    There is an additional systemic reason why regulation will help big business. Congress passes the laws that order new regulations, and executive branch agencies actually construct the regulations. The politicians and government lawyers who write these rules rarely do so without input. Often the rule makers ask for advice and information from labor unions, consumer groups, environmental groups, and industry itself. Among industry the stakeholders (beltway parlance to describe affected parties) who have the most input are those who can hire the most effective and most connective lobbyists. You can guess this isn’t Mom and Pop.

    As a result, the details of the regulation are often carefully crafted to benefit, or at least not hurt, big business. If something does not hurt you, or hurts you a little while seriously hindering your competition, it is a boon, on balance.

    Another reason big business often cries “regulate me!” is the goodwill factor. If a politician or bureaucrat wants to play a role in some industry, and some executive says, “get lost,” he runs the risk of offending this powerful person. That’s bad diplomacy. Bureaucrats, by their nature, do not like to be told to mind their own business. Supporting the idea of regulation but lobbying for particular details is usually better politics.

  • ‘Sustainable planning’ not so sustainable

    By Randal O’Toole, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A version of this appeared in the Wichita Eagle.

    The vast majority of Americans, surveys say, aspire to live in a single-family home with a yard. The vast majority of American travel — around 85 percent — is by automobile. Yet the Obama administration thinks more Americans should live in apartments and travel on foot, bicycle, or mass transit.

    To promote this idea, the administration wants to give the south central Regional Economic Area Partnership (REAP) the opportunity to apply for a $1.5 million grant to participate in “sustainable communities.” Also sometimes called “smart growth,” the ideas promoted by these programs are anything but sustainable or smart. (As members of REAP, the governing bodies for both Wichita and Sedgwick County endorsed this grant.)

    The urban plans that come out of these kinds of programs typically call for:

    • Redesigning streets to increase traffic congestion in order to discourage people from driving;
    • Increasing subsidies to transit, bike paths, and other “alternative” forms of travel even though these alternatives are used by few people;
    • Denying owners of land on the urban fringes the right to develop their property in order to make single-family housing more expensive;
    • Subsidizing high-density, developments that combine housing with retail shops in the hope that people will walk to shopping rather than drive;
    • Rezoning neighborhoods of single-family homes for apartments with zoning so strict that, if someone’s house burns down, they will have to replace it with an apartment.

    My former hometown of Portland, Oregon has followed these policies for two decades, and the results have been a disaster. In their zeal to subsidize transit and high-density developments, the region’s officials have taken money from schools, libraries, fire, and police, leaving those programs starved and in disarray.

    Since 1980, Portland has spent more than $3 billion building light-rail lines. Far from improving transit, the share of commuters taking transit to work has fallen from 9.8 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent today, mainly because the region cut bus service to pay for the trains. Traffic congestion quadrupled between 1984 and 2004, which planners say was necessary to get people to ride transit.

    The region’s housing policies made single-family homes so expensive that most families with children moved to distant suburbs where they can afford a house with a yard. Residents of subsidized high-density housing projects drive just about as much as anyone else in the Portland area, and developers have learned to their sorrow that if they follow planners’ guidelines in providing less parking for these projects, they will end up with high vacancy rates.

    Despite these problems, Portland has received lots of positive publicity. The reason for this is simple: by forcing out families with children, inner Portland is left mainly with young singles and childless couples who eat out a lot, making Portland a Mecca for tourists who like exciting new restaurants. This makes Portland a great place to visit, but you wouldn’t want to live there unless you like noisy, congested streets.

    The idea of “sustainable communities” is that planners can socially engineer people into changing their travel behavior by redesigning cities to favor pedestrians and transit over automobiles. Beyond the fact that this is an outrageous intrusion of government into people’s lives, it simply doesn’t work. Such experts as University of California economist David Brownstone and University of Southern California planning professor Genevieve Giuliano have shown that the link between urban design and driving is too weak to make a difference.

    To protect livability and avoid unsustainable subsidies to transit and high-density development, Wichita, Sedgwick County, and other REAP members of south central Kansas should reject the $1.5 million grant offered by the federal government.

    Randal O’Toole (rot@cato.org) is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future.

    For more about the local grant, see Sedgwick County considers a planning grant.

  • Kerpen on Obama’s regulatory extremism

    In the introduction to his book Democracy Denied, Phil Kerpen gives us a history lesson on a topic that doesn’t receive much discussion in public: the grab for executive power by presidents through the use of “signing statements.”

    Elizabeth Drew made the case against Bush’s abuse of executive power in a lengthy New York Review of Books piece called “Power Grab.” She specifically highlighted Bush’s use of signing statements (a technique to object to elements of a law while signing it, and refusing to enforce those elements), the detention of foreign combatants at Guantanamo, and warrantless wiretaps. She concluded that Bush was a tyrant.

    Kerpen explains how the view from the oval office can make one forget campaign promises:

    Even the Bush practice that raised the most ire — the use of signing statements — was embraced by Obama just weeks after he took office, when he said: “it is a legitimate constitutional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections.” Contrast that with what Obama had said about signing statements on the campaign trail: “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.”

    Not that Obama alone takes criticism for exercising presidential power contrary to the actions of Congress, as he describes the auto industry bailout in the last days of the presidency of George W. Bush. A bill didn’t make it through Congress, but Bush “repurposed” TARP funds — intended for banks — and used them for an auto bailout in the amount of $17.4 billion.

    It is this use of executive power and agencies to bypass the will of people — as expressed through Congress — that is detailed in a book authored by Phil Kerpen and published this week: Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America — and How to Stop Him.

    Kerpen is Vice President for Policy at Americans for Prosperity, a national group that advocates for free markets and limited government at all levels. His website is philkerpen.com, and it features excerpts from the book along with a theatrical trailer.

    Kerpen explains the problem by describing a solution: The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, or REINS Act. This proposed law would require any major regulatory action to be approved by Congress and receive the president’s signature. Kerpen writes: “We have regulators who are effectively writing and executing their own laws. The major policy decisions that affect every aspect of our economic lives are moving forward without consent of the people’s legitimately elected legislative branch.”

    The problem is that often Congress passes generic laws and leaves it to regulatory agencies to write the rules that implement the law. By requiring Congressional and Presidential approval of major regulations, agencies will be accountable to the current Congress, and lawmakers will have a chance to ensure that actual regulations are consistent with the intent of enabling legislation.

    Cap-and-trade energy legislation provides an example of Kerpen’s thesis, which is “how the Obama administration was disregarding Congress and the American people to accomplish its objectives through regulatory backdoors.” The legislation passed the House, but couldn’t pass the Senate. So what happened next? Kerpen explains Obama’s detour around Congress:

    Just to show you how unfazed the Obama administration was by the political defeat of cap-and-trade, consider what’s on page 146 of Obama’s 2012 budget: “The administration continues to support greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the United States in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% percent by 2050.” Those just happen to be the same levels required by the failed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Obama is telling the EPA to just pretend that the bill passed and regulate away.

    In fact Obama’s EPA was already moving full steam ahead to implement a global warming regulatory scheme that could even be more costly than cap and trade — without the approval of the American people and without so much as a vote in Congress.

    The remainder of the chapter details some of the ways EPA is accomplishing this backdoor regulation.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, is another topic Kerpen covers where regulation is replacing lawmaking by Congress:

    Nancy Pelosi was right in more ways then she realized when she infamously said “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Not only was the more than 2,000-page bill negotiated in secret and so densely complex that few humans could understand it, it also deferred most of the really difficult and important decisions to the regulators, including dozens of brand-new boards, committees, councils, and working groups. So even after ObamaCare had been passed there was no way to know what was really in it until the bureaucracy was assembled and began issuing regulations.

    Kerpen describes the bill that passed as not “finished legislation,” and is now being interpreted by bureaucrats, the most powerful being HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Her office is now, according to Kerpen, “issuing a whole string of official guidelines and regulations that attempt to ‘correct’ the draft law, often by asserting things that the law doesn’t actually say.”

    Other chapters describe regulation of the internet (net neutrality), card check, the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, and energy regulation. All of these represent the Obama administration either ignoring Congress or creating vast new powers for itself. The chart Kerpen created shows the plays being made.

    Obama regulatory extremismKerpen’s chart of Obama regulatory extremism. Click for larger version.

    What about regulatory reform? Obama’s doing that. In January he wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “We’re looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation. And finally, today I am directing federal agencies to do more to account for — and reduce — the burdens regulations may place on small businesses.”

    In a chapter titled “The Back Door to the Back Door: Phony Regulation Reform” Kerpen explains that this promise or regulatory reform by the president is a sham. Kerpen describes the executive order that implements regulatory review this way: “The new executive order is the regulatory parallel to the Obama administration’s strategy on federal spending, which is to spend at astonishing, record rates and rack up trillions of dollars in deficits while paying lip service to fiscal responsibility by establishing a fiscal commission.”

    And in a gesture of true public service, Kerpen introduces us to Cass Sunstein, the man who is heading the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the agency that will be conducting the purported review of regulations. A quote from Sunstein: “In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?”

    Kerpen sums up Sunstein’s political philosophy of central planning:

    The idea of Sunstein’s “nudge” philosophy is that the fatal conceit of central economic planning can somehow succeed if it is subtly hidden from view. Sunstein thinks that if he imposes regulations that steer our choices instead of outright forcing them, he can achieve desirable social objectives. … Given Suinstein’s views and the central role he will have in reshaping federal regulation to be “more effective,” we need to be deeply concerned that any changes that come out of the process may make regulation less apparent, but no less costly — and more effective at crushing genuine individual choice and responsibility and substituting the judgment (even if by a nudge instead of a shove) of a central planner.

    The challenge, Kerpen writes in his conclusion to the book, “is to change the political calculus to elevate regulatory fights to the appropriate level in the public consciousness. We must make sure the American people understand that a disastrously bad idea becomes even worse when it’s implemented by backdoor, unaccountable, illegitimate means.”

    Kerpen recommends passage of the REINS Act as a way to restore accountability over regulatory agencies to Congress. The two messages Congress needs, he writes, are: “You can delegate authority, but you can never delegate responsibility,” and “If you fail to stop out-of-control regulators, voters will hold you accountable.”

  • Kansas automobile dealers benefit from protectionist law

    This week the Kansas Register contains two items titled “Notice of Intent to Establish a New Motor Vehicle Dealer License.” People in Kansas want to open new automobile dealerships. But if a privileged class of people are able to persuade the Kansas director of vehicles, these actions won’t be allowed.

    In Kansas, like many states, existing new car dealers are able to weigh in as to whether competition will be allowed into their market areas. In Kansas, the statue is 8-2430, captioned “Establishment of additional or relocation of existing new vehicle dealer; procedure; relevant market area.”

    Examination of this statute lets us learn of its anti-competitive nature. A person proposing a new dealership must state in writing why the new dealership should be allowed to be formed. The law requires that the applicant provide “a short and plain statement of the evidence the licensee, or proposed licensee, intends to rely upon in meeting the burden of proof for establishing good cause for an additional new vehicle dealer.”

    If the director of vehicles holds a hearing and finds that “good cause has not been established,” the director shall deny the application, according to the statute. The burden of proof is on the applicant for the new license, and must be proved “by a preponderance of the evidence presented.”

    The statute says that in determining whether there is good cause for a new dealer, the director of vehicles shall consider:

    • “permanency of the investment of both the existing and proposed new vehicle dealers”
    • growth in population
    • “effect on the consuming public in the relevant market area”
    • “whether it is injurious or beneficial to the public welfare for an additional new vehicle dealer to be established”
    • whether dealers of the same make of cars are “providing adequate competition and convenient customer care”
    • whether the proposed new dealer would increase competition and if that increased competition would be “in the public interest”
    • the effect of a new dealer on existing dealer(s)

    The decision of the director is not limited to these considerations, says the statute. Some of these factors are so vague and open-ended that they give the director reason to deny a new license virtually at his discretion. Will a new dealer have an effect on an existing dealer? Sure. Licensed denied.

    These laws that restrain trade and competition are harmful to the consumer. In his recfent book The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law, author Timothy Sandefur discusses the Illinois Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, which has language similar to the Kansas law. He writes:

    Although cloaked in the language of public benefit, such laws are really private-interest legislation designed to allow the government to choose each company’s “fair share” of the trade. But the only way of determining what share of the trade is “fair” for any business is its success with consumers who are free to choose. If bureaucrats, rather than consumers, decide what amount of economic success is “fair,” businesses will devote their time not to providing quality products at affordable prices but to wooing government officials to give them special favors. … Consumers, again, are victims of anti-competitive laws of which most of them are not even aware.

    Sandefur cites studies that show that states with laws like Kansas’ have fewer new-car dealerships, and higher prices for new cars. “This price difference means that consumers are forced to pay more for cars without getting any increased value; the extra money is merely transferred into the pockets of politically influential car dealers.”

    This law is bad for all Kansans except those who own automobile dealerships. It ought to be repealed. There’s a mechanism in place. Kansas Governor Brownback’s Executive Order 11-01, creates the “Office of the Repealer.” In its preamble, the order recognizes the administration’s priority to promote “growth of liberty and economic opportunities for the citizens of Kansas and for Kansas businesses” and our state’s “mutual interest in a system of government, laws, regulations, and other governing instruments that are reasonable, comprehensible, consistent, predictable, and minimally burdensome.”

    I suggest to the repealer — Dennis Taylor is his name — that we’ve found the law that should be first to go by the wayside.

  • Greenpeace and allies again attack Koch Industries

    Last week saw the release of two reports criticizing Koch Industries for its opposition to heavy-handed regulation of the chemical industry. Greenpeace released a report with highly charged words in its title: “Toxic Koch: Keeping Americans at Risk of a Poison Gas Disaster.” Other articles commenting on this were highly sensational, such as this example: “Do the Koch Brothers Want a Toxic Disaster?”

    Koch Industries has responded to these articles in a response on KochFacts.com website. Among many facts, we can see that Koch companies have received 386 safety awards and 28 environmental awards just since President Obama took office.

    Much of the Greenpeace report criticized Koch for its opposition to H.R. 2868, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009. Koch and most of the chemical industry instead favored continuation of Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, a set of less intrusive standards that have been effective.

    Greenpeace characterizes the regulatory measures in H.R. 2868 as so mild that it can’t imagine why anyone would object. At issue is a concept known as “Inherently Safer Technology” or IST. If passed into law or regulation, regulators could require manufacturers to substitute alternative processes, in the name of safety. That, however, poses many problems, as explained below.

    The Greenpeace report contains an economic analysis of what H.R. 2868 might do to the economy. This bill passed the House of Representatives, but not the Senate. The report estimates that the cost of IST would be slightly less than $1 billion per year. The analysis concludes that the extra costs of IST regulation would eliminate jobs, but the extra spending on IST would add roughly the same number of jobs. The net impact is therefore zero.

    But we shouldn’t infer that a net loss of zero jobs means no economic harm is done. There will be dislocation, as the people who gain jobs won’t likely be the people who lost jobs.

    But most importantly, this extra cost is spent paying for something that isn’t a problem. The Greenpeace report concedes there have been no attacks on U.S. chemical plants since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The reports says various terrorists would like to conduct such attacks. That’s hardly news. What is news is that, for whatever reason, they haven’t succeeded.

    It’s true that the words “Inherently Safer Technology” don’t appear in H.R. 2868. But in an explanatory document produced by Greenpeace, we see the bill isn’t as mild as Greenpeace claims: “If a facility disagrees with the DHS’s finding they have 120 days to appeal and the DHS must consult with a wide range of experts and those expert recommendations must be included in any order to implement safer chemical processes.” (emphasis added)

    That sounds like heavy-handed regulation and the implementation of IST. Or maybe it’s just wishful thinking on Greenpeace’s part. At any rate, once initiated these regulatory regimes have a way of growing, often far exceeding the intent of Congress when it passed the legislation creating the initial regulation.

    But that’s the goal of the political left: Regulation. And if they can accomplish this goal while at the same time beating up on Koch Industries, the chemical industry, the oil industry, and capitalism in general, so much the better for them. Underlying the quest of Greenpeace and its allies is a hatred of capitalism, hated so much that they will do whatever it takes to discredit and defeat its proponents and practitioners.

    The problems with Inherently Safer Technology regulation

    A document titled Final Report: Definition for Inherently Safer Technology in Production, Transportation, Storage, and Use supplies some useful information about IST:

    IST’s are relative: A technology can only be described as inherently safer when compared to a different technology, including a description of the hazard or set of hazards being considered, their location, and the potentially affected population. A technology may be inherently safer than another with respect to some hazards while being inherently less safe with respect to others, and may not be safe enough to meet societal expectations.

    IST’s are based on an informed decision process: Because an option may be inherently safer with regard to some hazards and inherently less safe with regard to others, decisions about the optimum strategy for managing risks from all hazards are required. The decision process must consider the entire life cycle, the full spectrum of hazards and risks, and the potential for transfer of risk from one impacted population to another.

    This hints at the difficulty in regulating complex processes such as manufacturing. There may be many tradeoffs to make. An an example, a process might use a toxic catalyst. It would seem that eliminating its use would lead to greater safety.

    But: the tradeoff. Eliminating the use of the catalyst would mean the company has to increase the temperature and pressure of the process, two factors that increase risk. The end result might be a process with more risk than the original process.

    At a committee hearing in 2009, Senator Susan M. Collins gave another example of how IST might force more hazardous trucks on highways:

    According to one water utility located in an isolated area of the Northwest, if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to achieve comparable water quality results. In turn, the utility would have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into the watershed. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed. In fact, the accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation and streams than a gaseous chlorine release in this remote area.

    In its discussion on IST, the “Final Report: Definition for Inherently Safer Technology in Production, Transportation, Storage, and Use” report notes the tradeoffs that are commonplace:

    IST options can be location and release scenario dependent, and different potentially exposed populations may not agree on the relative inherent safety characteristics of the same set of options. For example, two options for handling a toxic gas might be receiving the material in ten, 1-ton cylinders or one, 10-ton truckloads. To a population several miles from the site, the 1-ton cylinders would be inherently safer because the maximum potential release size is smaller and less likely to expose them to a hazardous concentration of the gas. However, operators, who would now have to connect and disconnect 10 cylinders for every 10 tons of material used, instead of a single truck, would consider the truck shipments to be inherently safer. Thus, evaluation of IST options can be quite complex, and dependent on the local environment. There is currently no consensus on either a quantification method for IST or a scientific assessment method for evaluation of IST options.

    We need to consider also who is in the best position to judge the relative risks: government bureaucrats, or the operators of the plant. The view of government regulators is that any risk is bad, and through technology — IST in this example — we can eliminate risk.

    But this ignores the tradeoffs involved, as illustrated above. It also ignore the costs of these regulations in their attempt to lessen risk, notwithstanding the economic analysis commissioned by Greenpeace.

    A common response we see in the media — certainly we see it from the political left and attack groups like Greenpeace as well as government regulators — is that greedy plant owners will use whichever method is cheapest, so as to produce the greatest profit.

    This ignores the fact that there are laws and regulations already in place. It ignores the fact that market forces give plant operators a huge incentive to operate safely, for their own safety, the safety of the employees they can’t operate without, and the safety of the surrounding communities. Besides the potential loss of human life, unsafe plants expose their operators to huge economic costs. Besides being liable for damage and loss of life due to accidents, unsafe workplaces have to pay employees more to work there. Insurers charge higher rates for unsafe plants they believe present a high risk of having to pay claims.

  • KDHE, Sunflower Electric, Earthjustice, Center for Climate Strategies: different peas in the same pod

    Evidence that a business seeking regulatory approval of its project enjoyed an apparently close relationship with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment should not be surprising.

    Reporting in the Kansas City Star leads with “Hundreds of emails document that officials of a Kansas power plant enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Kansas regulators who issued them a building permit in December.” (Kansas agency, utility worked closely on permit for plant)

    A press release from Earthjustice, the legal advocacy arm of the Sierra Club, proclaimed “A new report reveals Sunflower Electric (Sunflower) enjoyed a cozy relationship with Kansas regulators during the permitting process for the highly controversial coal-fired power plant Sunflower seeks to build in Holcomb.”

    This incident — the details are not important for understanding the broad lesson — may be looked on as an example of regulatory capture. As defined in Wikipedia, “regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.”

    In more detail, the Wikipedia article explains: “For public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. Regulatory capture refers to when this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at ‘capturing’ influence with the staff or commission members of the regulatory agency, so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented.”

    Regulatory capture — or at least the heavy-handed attempt by special interest groups to influence public policy to fit their interests — is a non-partisan sport. We shouldn’t be surprised to see this form of government failure taking place at all times, no matter which party or politicians are in power.

    As an example on point, the same type of activity happened during the administration of former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius regarding the same electric plant that is the focus of controversy today. Her regulator, former KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby, denied the permit for the plant based on its carbon dioxide emissions, the first time that had been done in the United States.

    Radical environmentalists rejoiced. Sebelius was invited to speak at an Earthjustice conference held in Denver in June, 2008. Here are a portion of her written remarks, as supplied to me at that time by her press office, thanking Earthjustice for all it had done in Kansas to help Sebelius and mold her regulatory regime:

    When Big Coal pumped their money and politics into Kansas, EarthJustice was there to fight back:

    • Provided litigation and public support
    • Helped shape the media messaging and outreach
    • Rallied supporters and engaged the public to get involved

    It was a victory for all of us and I appreciate their help.

    About that time Sebelius established the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP. The activities of this group were managed — at no cost to the state — by the Center for Climate Strategies, a group that expressly advocates for energy policies and regulations based on an extremist view of climate science.

    The invasion of Kansas — at least the Sebelius administration — by Earthjustice and Center for Climate Studies proves the point: Regulatory capture is a non-partisan opportunity.