Let's Talk Regulations

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

Is it just me or are anti-regulation people a lot like anti-vaxxers? Regulation kills industry! Fuck off. I want clean food and water and don't want my house to cave in on me. I also kinda like breathing clean air.

Whatcha got?

[27-25 2085]

<sarcasm>Why do you hate free enterprise?  Look at Venezuela!</sarcasm>

Edited August 31, 2018 by 27-25

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

In all seriousness, though. Assuming this nightmare ends soon and entities like the EPA and such can get back to doing what they do, what will the actual fallout be from all of these anti-regulation policies?

[Post Oak 20568]

If I was the King of the EPA this would be my only regulation. 

Is this is bad for the environment and/or humans fuck off.  Fuck your industry.  Figure it out.  

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

In all seriousness, though. Assuming this nightmare ends soon and entities like the EPA and such can get back to doing what they do, what will the actual fallout be from all of these anti-regulation policies?

Not sure on the policies, but it may take a very long time to replace the scores of competent and experienced EPAers who were either ought right fired or quit.  These were not just lackeys and  bureaucrats but long time experienced, trained, and cultivated environmental assets for the people and our well being.  The department has spent millions on them and they were just cast aside so dirty business could make and end run to profit. 

 

13 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

If I was the King of the EPA this would be my only regulation. 

Is this is bad for the environment and/or humans fuck off.  Fuck your industry.  Figure it out.  

Pretty much this.  Global warming aside, the reason the EPA was created was because corporate citizens could not be trusted to do the right thing.

[Post Oak 20568]

When I was a kid I was terrified of acid rain.  

[staboner 5084]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Is it just me or are anti-regulation people a lot like anti-vaxxers? Regulation kills industry! Fuck off. I want clean food and water and don't want my house to cave in on me. I also kinda like breathing clean air.

Whatcha got?

just like most conversations in our modern society its all woefully over simplified

all we need is intelligent regulation that achieves the core goals of what our government and society are to stand for. liberty, opportunity, consumer choice, small business, the list goes on. 

Yelling "no regulation" is like yelling "Free Market" from the likes of Pepper Brooks and all the other 25 year old newly discovered Young Republicans who are so happy to have discovered a new ideology. I know because I have been on similar wavelengths before. Life is complicated. Ideologies get in the way of the folks trying to communicate and make things better. 

Happy no nuke Friday my friends. Stay thirsty this weekend, its gonna be a good one. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

The only thing more deceptive and idiotic than our political dialogue about economics is the political dialogue about regulation. It's all vapid ideological platitudes to go with poisonous tribal grievance.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Washpark 176]

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

33 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

When I was a kid I was terrified of acid rain.  

haha, fucking this. I was wondering when it was coming to my city!

[triplehorn 2664]

what staboner said.

I like smart regulations. 

Some are good, some are bad.  You have to be able to have an ongoing informed rational discussion and analysis to justify adding them or removing them over the course of time.

tl;dr: it's fluid

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

15 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

what staboner said.

I like smart regulations. 

Some are good, some are bad.  You have to be able to have an ongoing informed rational discussion and analysis to justify adding them or removing them over the course of time.

tl;dr: it's fluid

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

Abuse brings control. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

This article is a really good read. More regulation is needed 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html?smid=tw-share

 

[Incredulity 11876]

I agree that regulation is needed.  "Smart" regulation sounds great, but who knows what that really is.

 

I don't think there needs to be a 58 page Final Rule on Residential Dishwasher efficiency(issued during the current administration), referring to hundreds of pages of CFR and USC regulations and laws. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/13/2016-29328/energy-conservation-program-energy-conservation-standards-for-residential-dishwashers

 

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

27 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This article is a really good read. More regulation is needed 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html?smid=tw-share

It was a good read, but it was disturbing. I had no idea there was that much material out there.

[Brisketexan 106899]

Philosophically, "regulations" aren't that different from the concept of "parental discipline."

Almost everyone agrees that some parental discipline is necessary.  Likewise, some people get nervous about the concept because they've seen it taken to its extreme.  The point is, we know that both extremes suck and are unacceptable.

Zero discipline -- you let your kids run wild, wreck shit, ruin everyone's dinner at the restaurant, all that shit, is unacceptable.  And we KNOW that with no parental check, kids WILL be shitty.

Abusive discipline -- beating the shit out of a kid because he doesn't eat all his veggies or successfully dress himself at 4 years old is counterproductive and fucking sick.  If the goal is developing functioning children who can contribute to society someday, we know this approach is all wrong.

Great.  So chuck out the extremes.  And neither one should be an argument against "parental discipline" across the board, or for "whatever the parents want to do for parental discipline."

Where's the balance point?  There isn't one.  You never hit the bullseye.  As a parent who has tried hard, I can definitely tell you that we didn't get it perfect. And every other honest parent I know would say the same.  We try.  Sometimes we get pretty close to right, other times, we miss the mark, and have to correct our errors.

Regulations are pretty similar.  Sometimes, they are too weak, other times, they are too burdensome.  They are rarely "perfect."  So, what's most important is that there be a good and genuine process for amendment of regulations that need adjustment.   I know that's a calm and common sense approach, so it has no place in a political discussion, but there you are.

[tantric superman 4668]

On 8/31/2018 at 11:10 AM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Is it just me or are anti-regulation people a lot like anti-vaxxers? Regulation kills industry! Fuck off. I want clean food and water and don't want my house to cave in on me. I also kinda like breathing clean air.

Whatcha got?

Good regulation is good.  Bad regulation is not good.

 

[High Plains Drifter 11189]

 

 

in today's regulatory climate, the kids are determining the discipline.

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

14 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It was a good read, but it was disturbing. I had no idea there was that much material out there.

Yes it is horrifying, but it needs to be read. I'm not saying take porn away, just better regulation is needed to protect non-consenting people. 

[tantric superman 4668]

Discussion of regulation without analysis of enforcement is pointless.

Example.  Both private actions and government actions occur under the FLSA.  Would we be better off shrinking the DOL Wage and Hour enforcement branch and giving more power (via higher potential attorneys fee awards) for private actions?  Some states, like CA, have terrifying private attorney general actions which are great tools for enforcement of wage laws. 

If I were tasked with "lessening regulation" my first task would be on making enforcement more efficient and work from there. 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Philosophically, "regulations" aren't that different from the concept of "parental discipline."

Almost everyone agrees that some parental discipline is necessary.  Likewise, some people get nervous about the concept because they've seen it taken to its extreme.  The point is, we know that both extremes suck and are unacceptable.

Zero discipline -- you let your kids run wild, wreck shit, ruin everyone's dinner at the restaurant, all that shit, is unacceptable.  And we KNOW that with no parental check, kids WILL be shitty.

Abusive discipline -- beating the shit out of a kid because he doesn't eat all his veggies or successfully dress himself at 4 years old is counterproductive and fucking sick.  If the goal is developing functioning children who can contribute to society someday, we know this approach is all wrong.

Great.  So chuck out the extremes.  And neither one should be an argument against "parental discipline" across the board, or for "whatever the parents want to do for parental discipline."

Where's the balance point?  There isn't one.  You never hit the bullseye.  As a parent who has tried hard, I can definitely tell you that we didn't get it perfect. And every other honest parent I know would say the same.  We try.  Sometimes we get pretty close to right, other times, we miss the mark, and have to correct our errors.

Regulations are pretty similar.  Sometimes, they are too weak, other times, they are too burdensome.  They are rarely "perfect."  So, what's most important is that there be a good and genuine process for amendment of regulations that need adjustment.   I know that's a calm and common sense approach, so it has no place in a political discussion, but there you are.

Yep yep.  Gradual, sensible "deregulation" has its place.  Unfortunately, we can't seem to pull it off.  It's either repeal an entire regime (Glass-Steagall, Telecom Act 1996, Net Neutrality) or nothing at all.

Congress, and all legislatures, needs to revisit its legislation from time to time, see what's working and what's not, and fine tune.  I have come around to some notion of "sunsetting" everything just to make sure it gets looked at again from time to time.  Agencies, too.

As an abstract idea, Trump's "enact one, repeal two" has a lot of superficial appeal in terms of just getting agencies to take a good look at what's on the books.  It can't be a hard and fast rule, but it's a good notional starting point.

Edited December 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

19 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I agree that regulation is needed.  "Smart" regulation sounds great, but who knows what that really is.

 

I don't think there needs to be a 58 page Final Rule on Residential Dishwasher efficiency(issued during the current administration), referring to hundreds of pages of CFR and USC regulations and laws. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/13/2016-29328/energy-conservation-program-energy-conservation-standards-for-residential-dishwashers

 

 

 

Usually the combination of the industry stakeholders and regulators that write the regulations know what that really is.

[AnTiM 1695]

I vote they put a limit on how much bullshit a U.S. President can foist off on the American public without somebody kicking his ass.

[Tuco 5093]

43 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I agree that regulation is needed.  "Smart" regulation sounds great, but who knows what that really is.

 

I don't think there needs to be a 58 page Final Rule on Residential Dishwasher efficiency(issued during the current administration), referring to hundreds of pages of CFR and USC regulations and laws. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/13/2016-29328/energy-conservation-program-energy-conservation-standards-for-residential-dishwashers

 

 

 

Did you read it?  Most of it is not the modifications of the rule itself, but rather the rationalization of it dealing with environmental impact, cost impacts, employment impacts, etc..  In other words, most of it is an argument that it is a "smart" regulation.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

39 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Did you read it?  Most of it is not the modifications of the rule itself, but rather the rationalization of it dealing with environmental impact, cost impacts, employment impacts, etc..  In other words, most of it is an argument that it is a "smart" regulation.  

BuT sO mAnY PAgeS!

[Tuco 5093]

For what it's worth, I see a bigger issue with industry codes than (direct) government regulations.  For example, the International Plumbing Code is not developed by government agencies, but rather by the ICC, a private non-profit that is made up of industry stakeholders.  While that may sound great, those stakeholders often represent the companies which will directly profit from more conservative rules.  The IPC is then broadly adopted by local jurisdictions, giving those privately developed rules the force of law.  More government could help.  If the feds were to set up an organization to engage the private boards, review the rules, and then publish their recommendations on which rules to strike at the local level, it could help protect public from onerous requirements.  

[Incredulity 11876]

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

Did you read it?  Most of it is not the modifications of the rule itself, but rather the rationalization of it dealing with environmental impact, cost impacts, employment impacts, etc..  In other words, most of it is an argument that it is a "smart" regulation.  

Casually,

 

I don't think the government should screening out technological options for efficiency, or identifying specific technological options to pursue.  It screams of the top down command and control regulatory environment that stifles competition and innovation.

 

Perhaps the DOE does a great job and this specific set of regulations is a shining example of stakeholder/government collaboration.

 

Anecdotally, my high efficiency dishwasher sucks shit through a straw and only really works if set on "heavy duty".

 

 

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include: (1) A determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of residential dishwashers. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

In the 2014 NOPR market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 16 technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of residential dishwashers, as measured by the DOE test procedure, shown in Table IV.1. 79 FR 76142, 76151 (Dec. 19, 2014).

 Expand Table

Table IV.1—2014 NOPR Technology Options

1. Condensation drying. 2. Control strategies. 3. Fan/jet drying. 4. Flow-through heating. 5. Improved fill control. 6. Improved food filter. 7. Improved motor efficiency. 8. Improved spray-arm geometry. 9. Increased insulation. 10. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 11. Microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soil-sensing controls. 12. Modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps. 13. Reduced inlet-water temperature. 14. Supercritical carbon dioxide washing. 15. Ultrasonic washing. 16. Variable washing pressures and flow rates.

In the 2014 NOPR, DOE requested feedback from manufacturers on its NOPR analyses. After publishing the 2014 NOPR, DOE also conducted manufacturer interviews to discuss the possible design pathways to improve dishwasher efficiencies. From these conversations and additional research, DOE identified desiccant drying as an additional technology option for improving dishwasher efficiency. Along with desiccant drying, all of the technology options identified in the 2014 NOPR were considered in this final rule analysis.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further.

(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b).

In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above four criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed below.

The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.

1. SCREENED-OUT TECHNOLOGIES

In the 2014 NOPR screening analysis, DOE removed three technology options from further consideration: Reduced inlet-water temperature, supercritical carbon dioxide washing, and ultrasonic washing. 79 FR 76142, 76152 (Dec. 19, 2014).

In response to the 2014 NOPR, AHAM commented that DOE did not seek updated information from manufacturers on technology options, resulting in analyzing technology options that should have been removed in the screening analysis. (AHAM, No. 21 at p. 6)

 

 

DOE received no additional comments, either in response to the 2014 NOPR or in additional manufacturer interviews, regarding technology options identified in the 2014 NOPR that would not meet the screening criteria. However, DOE is screening out an additional design Start Printed Page 90080option for the final rule analysis, described below.

[elfenix 34751]

meanwhile, on the deadest day of the year the trump admin decided to let airlines fuck you even harder:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/trump-airline-protection/2020/11/30/df944016-3324-11eb-8d38-6aea1adb3839_story.html

[Tuco 5093]

45 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I don't think the government should screening out technological options for efficiency, or identifying specific technological options to pursue.  It screams of the top down command and control regulatory environment that stifles competition and innovation.

So, you think the DOE should just set efficiency standards without any evaluation of whether they are achievable?  They aren't limiting anyone from developing alternatives to these filtered techs, just establishing which techs are feasible/affordable as the basis for a reasonable goal.  ["Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its analysis any proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain efficiency level."] If someone approaches the DOE and says they could achieve a certain watts/cycle based on using laser cannons, the DOE doesn't just want to set the standards at that level and fuck over the manufacturers, and subsequently the public, when the manufacturers fail to achieve that target.  

Or, let me guess, you don't think the DOE should set efficiency standards beyond what is currently on the market?  

Edited December 4, 2020 by Tuco

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

fwiw I have no memory of creating this thread. carry on