Connect with us

Government

Irony Of The Day: California Regulations Boost Diesel Truck Orders

Irony Of The Day: California Regulations Boost Diesel Truck Orders

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

New restrictions on diesel…

Published

on

Irony Of The Day: California Regulations Boost Diesel Truck Orders

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

New restrictions on diesel trucks starts January 1. A rush to buy new diesel trucks is underway.

California’s Zero-Emissions Rule Triggers a Run on Diesel Rigs

The Wall Street Journal reports California’s Zero-Emissions Rule Triggers a Run on Diesel Rigs

The California rule will phase out the use of diesel trucks until the more than 30,000 diesel big rigs that now serve the state’s ports are banned by 2035.

The regulation is already proving a challenge for truckers across California, from the agricultural export hub at the Port of Oakland to the nation’s busiest gateway for containerized imports at the Southern California ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Trucking executives say the state’s regulators are getting far out in front of the industry’s ability to deliver zero-emission rigs.

The technology underpinning electric vehicles is still developing, they say, and the zero-emission trucks are triple the cost of diesel trucks, while the vehicles and charging stations are in limited supply. “I have to think every trucker in California is doing all they can to get as many pre-mandate trucks in place as they possibly can,” said Kenny Vieth, president of ACT Research.

Production of the [electric] vehicles is so limited and the cost and complexity of running the trucks so high that there are fewer than 150 zero-emission trucks in service at the Southern California ports today, said Matt Schrap, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association trade group. The most advanced of those trucks, say trucking executives, can’t travel more than a few hundred miles between charges, so they can only run short trips between ports and nearby rail yards and warehouses.

The electric trucks themselves are also proving a problem. Nikola and Volvo Trucks North America this summer recalled trucks because of defective parts thought to pose a fire risk. Jim Gillis, president of port trucker Pacific Drayage Services, said he is on his third recall since receiving six Volvo electric trucks in January. Gillis said that when a diesel truck needs repair it is usually in the shop for three to four days. When a $400,000 electric truck is recalled it is usually out of action for longer. “That’s an expensive asset to lose for three to four weeks,” he said.

Manufacturers and California Reach a Deal

On July 6, Cal Matters reported California and Manufacturers Strike Deal Over Zero-Emission Trucks.

California and major truck manufacturers announced a deal today that would avoid a legal battle over the state’s landmark mandate phasing out diesel big rigs and other trucks.

In return, the Air Resources Board will relax some near-term requirements for trucks to reduce emissions of a key ingredient of smog to more closely align with new federal standards.

The powerful Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association as well as 10 manufacturers, including Cummins, Inc., Daimler Truck North America, Volvo Group North America and Navistar, Inc. signed on to the deal.

What About the Truckers?

How nice of the manufacturers and the state to come to an agreement. But it seems like they left the truckers, especially the small independents, out of the discussion.

How many of them can afford to pay two or three times as much for a truck?

Once again, note the huge inflationary madness that the tag team of Biden and California have brought the nation.

‘Impossible’ and ‘Likely to Fail’

Please consider ‘Impossible’ and ‘likely to fail’? Or ‘putting lives over profits’? Behind California’s battle to electrify trucks

“The amount of chaos and dysfunction that is going to be created by this rule will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before,” Chris Shimoda, senior vice president of the California Trucking Association, an industry trade group, told CalMatters. “The likelihood that it is going to fail pretty spectacularly is very high. It’s very unfortunate.”

Trucking companies and local government officials call the deadlines in the rule unachievable. They say the new technology still has major drawbacks, including the high cost of electric trucks and their low vehicle range. The state also has not yet developed a charging network to support electric trucks, and the existing chargers can take hours to recharge, industry officials say.

Under the proposal, in 2036, 100% of new sales of medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks must be zero emissions in California, scaling up from phased-in timelines that vary by the type of truck. The rules also would force companies that operate 50 or more trucks to gradually convert their fleets into electric or hydrogen models, reaching 100% zero-emissions by 2042, with these timelines also based on the type of truck.

The earliest requirements would be for drayage trucks, which carry cargo to and from the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland and cause severe air pollution in nearby communities. All of them must be converted to electric models by 2035, and new sales beginning in 2024 must be zero emissions.

“There are many of us in the drayage industry that run our trucks 400 plus miles a day,” Cory Peters, chief financial officer of Best Drayage, a trucking company based in the Central Valley, told the board. “Currently, there is no zero-emission truck available today that can make that trip. You are requiring that all new drayage trucks be zero emissions starting in less than nine months from now. This will have a devastating effect on Central Valley shippers who rely on getting their goods to the rest of the world.”

Local governments call the deadlines ‘impossible’

It’s not just the trucking industry that is vehemently opposed. Local governments are opposed, too, since they own truck fleets. With some exceptions, half of the specified truck purchases for public agencies must be zero emissions by 2024, ramping up to 100% by 2027.

“The vehicles don’t exist, the infrastructure does not exist, grid reliability is sketchy, there’s nothing to protect public agencies from price gouging,” said the League of California Cities and State association of Counties in a letter to the air board.

Golden Powers

It’s the Golden State’s Special Powers that allowed this bargain.

For decades, California has relied on the bureaucratic equivalent of a superpower: It has had special federal permission to make tougher air regulations than the U.S. government.

The origin of this dates back to the smog that began choking Los Angeles in the 1940s.

So when changes to the Clean Air Act decades ago stopped individual states from making their own tailpipe emissions rules, California got a pass. If California’s rules are just as tough, or tougher, than the federal ones, the EPA must grant it a waiver. There are only a few specific circumstances when the EPA can deny the waiver, including if it decides California is being “arbitrary and capricious,” or that California doesn’t actually need the waiver to address “compelling and extraordinary conditions.”

California still needs to ask the EPA for a waiver whenever it wants to make new rules for vehicle exhaust or change existing rules on the books. The state has received dozens of these waivers, covering everything from refrigerated truck trailers to ships at berth in California ports.

Obama sided with California in disputes. Trump reversed Obama. And then Biden promptly reversed Trump.

I suggest this needs to go to the Supreme Court which hopefully will put an end to this silliness.

It’s not that I am a big fan of diesel. In fact, I am no diesel fan at all. But you cannot double or triple costs on the industry when the infrastructure is not even in place.

If the manufacturers want to make a deal with the devil, OK fine. But the costs better not be prohibitive to the truckers.

Unfortunately, the independent truckers are trapped in this Faustian bargain they were not even a part of.

It would be more than a bit fitting if the truckers responded by refusing to make deliveries in California. Let that message roar 10-4.

Huge Backlash Against Climate Change Has Started

Please note The Shocking Truth About Biden’s Proposed Energy Fuel Standards

Also, note A Huge Backlash Against Climate Change and Immigration Madness Has Started

The backlash cannot hit Biden and the state of California fast enough.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/28/2023 - 12:25

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Angry Shouting Aside, Here’s What Biden Is Running On

Angry Shouting Aside, Here’s What Biden Is Running On

Last night, Joe Biden gave an extremely dark, threatening, angry State of the Union…

Published

on

Angry Shouting Aside, Here's What Biden Is Running On

Last night, Joe Biden gave an extremely dark, threatening, angry State of the Union address - in which he insisted that the American economy is doing better than ever, blamed inflation on 'corporate greed,' and warned that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to the republic.

But in between the angry rhetoric, he also laid out his 2024 election platform - for which additional details will be released on March 11, when the White House sends its proposed budget to Congress.

To that end, Goldman Sachs' Alec Phillips and Tim Krupa have summarized the key points:

Taxes

While railing against billionaires (nothing new there), Biden repeated the claim that anyone making under $400,000 per year won't see an increase in their taxes.  He also proposed a 21% corporate minimum tax, up from 15% on book income outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), as well as raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% (which would promptly be passed along to consumers in the form of more inflation). Goldman notes that "Congress is unlikely to consider any of these proposals this year, they would only come into play in a second Biden term, if Democrats also won House and Senate majorities."

Biden also called on Congress to restore the pandemic-era child tax credit.

Immigration

Instead of simply passing a slew of border security Executive Orders like the Trump ones he shredded on day one, Biden repeated the lie that Congress 'needs to act' before he can (translation: send money to Ukraine or the US border will continue to be a sieve).

As immigration comes into even greater focus heading into the election, we continue to expect the Administration to tighten policy (e.g., immigration has surged 20pp the last 7 months to first place with 28% in Gallup’s “most important problem” survey). As such, we estimate the foreign-born contribution to monthly labor force growth will moderate from 110k/month in 2023 to around 70-90k/month in 2024. -GS

Ukraine

Biden, with House Speaker Mike Johnson doing his best impression of a bobble-head, urged Congress to pass additional assistance for Ukraine based entirely on the premise that Russia 'won't stop' there (and would what, trigger article 5 and WW3 no matter what?), despite the fact that Putin explicitly told Tucker Carlson he has no further ambitions, and in fact seeks a settlement.

As Goldman estimates, "While there is still a clear chance that such a deal could come together, for now there is no clear path forward for Ukraine aid in Congress."

China

Biden, forgetting about all the aggressive tariffs, suggested that Trump had been soft on China, and that he will stand up "against China's unfair economic practices" and "for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait."

Healthcare

Lastly, Biden proposed to expand drug price negotiations to 50 additional drugs each year (an increase from 20 outlined in the IRA), which Goldman said would likely require bipartisan support "even if Democrats controlled Congress and the White House," as such policies would likely be ineligible for the budget "reconciliation" process which has been used in previous years to pass the IRA and other major fiscal party when Congressional margins are just too thin.

So there you have it. With no actual accomplishments to speak of, Biden can only attack Trump, lie, and make empty promises.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 18:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Jack Smith Says Trump Retention Of Documents “Starkly Different” From Biden

Jack Smith Says Trump Retention Of Documents "Starkly Different" From Biden

Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Special…

Published

on

Jack Smith Says Trump Retention Of Documents "Starkly Different" From Biden

Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Special counsel Jack Smith has argued the case he is prosecuting against former President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified information is “starkly different” from the case the Department of Justice declined to bring against President Joe Biden over retention of classified documents.

(Left) Special counsel Jack Smith in Washington on Aug. 1, 2023. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images); (Right) Former President Donald Trump. (David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

Prosecutors, in responding to a motion President Trump filed to dismiss the case based on selective and vindictive prosecution, said on Thursday this is not the case of “two men ‘commit[ting] the same basic crime in substantially the same manner.”

They argue the similarities are only “superficial,” and that there are two main differences: that President Trump allegedly “engaged in extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of documents” and the “evidence concerning the two men’s intent.”

Special counsel Robert Hur’s report found that there was evidence that President Biden “willfully” retained classified Afghanistan documents, but that evidence “fell short” of concluding guilt of willful retention beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors argue the “strength of the evidence” is a crucial element showing these cases are not “similarly situated.”

Trump may dispute the Hur Report’s conclusions but he should not be allowed to misrepresent them,” prosecutors wrote, arguing that the defense’s argument to dismiss the case fell short of legal standards.

They point to volume as another distinction: President Biden had 88 classified documents and President Trump had 337. Prosecutors also argued that while President Biden’s Delaware garage “was plainly an unsecured location ... whatever risks are posed by storing documents in a private garage” were “dwarfed” by President Trump storing documents at an “active social club” with 150 staff members and hundreds of visitors.

Defense attorneys had also cited a New York Times report where President Biden was reported to have held the view that President Trump should be prosecuted, expressing concern about his retention of documents at Mar-a-lago.

Prosecutors argued that this case was not “foisted” upon the special counsel, who had not been appointed at the time of these comments.

“Trump appears to contend that it was President Biden who actually made the decision to seek the charges in this case; that Biden did so solely for unconstitutional reasons,” the filing reads. “He presents no evidence whatsoever to show that Biden’s comments about him had any bearing on the Special Counsel’s decision to seek charges, much less that the Special Counsel is a ’stalking horse.'”

8 Other Cases

President Trump has argued he is being subjected to selective and vindictive prosecution, warranting dismissal of the case, but prosecutors argue that the defense has not “identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar battery of criminal conduct and not been prosecuted as a result.”

In addition to President Biden, defense attorneys offered eight other examples.

Former Vice President Mike Pence had, after 2023 reports about President Biden retaining classified documents surfaced, retained legal counsel to search his home for classified documents. Some documents were found, and he sent them to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Prosecutors say this was different from President Trump’s situation, as Vice President Pence returned the documents out of his own initiative and had fewer than 15 classified documents.

Former President Bill Clinton had retained a historian to put together “The Clinton Tapes” project, and it was later reported that NARA did not have those tapes years after his presidency. A court had ruled it could not compel NARA to try to recover the records, and NARA had defined the tapes as personal records.

Prosecutors argue those were tape diaries and the situation was “far different” from President Trump’s.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had “used private email servers ... to conduct official State Department business,” the DOJ found, and the FBI opened a criminal investigation.

Prosecutors argued this was a different situation where the secretary’s emails showed no “classified” markings and the deletion of more than 31,000 emails was done by an employee and not the secretary.

Former FBI Director James Comey had retained four memos “believing that they contained no classified information.” These memos were part of seven he authored addressing interactions he had with President Trump.

Prosecutors argued there was no obstructive behavior here.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus kept bound notebooks that contained classified and unclassified notes, which he allowed a biographer to review. The FBI later seized the notebooks and Mr. Petraeus took a guilty plea.

Prosecutors argued there was prosecution in Mr. Petraeus’s case, and so President Trump’s case is not selective.

Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed five copies of a classified document and kept them at his personal office, later shredding three of the copies. When confronted by NARA, he returned the remaining two copies and took a guilty plea.

Former CIA director John Deutch kept a journal with classified information on an unclassified computer, and also took a guilty plea.

Prosecutors argued both Mr. Berger and Mr. Deutch’s behavior was “vastly less egregious than Trump’s” and they had been prosecuted.

Former White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx had possession of classified materials according to documents retrieved by NARA.

Prosecutors argued that there was no indication she knew she had classified information or “attempted to obstruct justice.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 17:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

United Airlines adds new flights to faraway destinations

The airline said that it has been working hard to "find hidden gem destinations."

Published

on

Since countries started opening up after the pandemic in 2021 and 2022, airlines have been seeing demand soar not just for major global cities and popular routes but also for farther-away destinations.

Numerous reports, including a recent TripAdvisor survey of trending destinations, showed that there has been a rise in U.S. traveler interest in Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and Vietnam as well as growing tourism traction in off-the-beaten-path European countries such as Slovenia, Estonia and Montenegro.

Related: 'No more flying for you': Travel agency sounds alarm over risk of 'carbon passports'

As a result, airlines have been looking at their networks to include more faraway destinations as well as smaller cities that are growing increasingly popular with tourists and may not be served by their competitors.

The Philippines has been popular among tourists in recent years.

Shutterstock

United brings back more routes, says it is committed to 'finding hidden gems'

This week, United Airlines  (UAL)  announced that it will be launching a new route from Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) to Morocco's Marrakesh. While it is only the country's fourth-largest city, Marrakesh is a particularly popular place for tourists to seek out the sights and experiences that many associate with the country — colorful souks, gardens with ornate architecture and mosques from the Moorish period.

More Travel:

"We have consistently been ahead of the curve in finding hidden gem destinations for our customers to explore and remain committed to providing the most unique slate of travel options for their adventures abroad," United's SVP of Global Network Planning Patrick Quayle, said in a press statement.

The new route will launch on Oct. 24 and take place three times a week on a Boeing 767-300ER  (BA)  plane that is equipped with 46 Polaris business class and 22 Premium Plus seats. The plane choice was a way to reach a luxury customer customer looking to start their holiday in Marrakesh in the plane.

Along with the new Morocco route, United is also launching a flight between Houston (IAH) and Colombia's Medellín on Oct. 27 as well as a route between Tokyo and Cebu in the Philippines on July 31 — the latter is known as a "fifth freedom" flight in which the airline flies to the larger hub from the mainland U.S. and then goes on to smaller Asian city popular with tourists after some travelers get off (and others get on) in Tokyo.

United's network expansion includes new 'fifth freedom' flight

In the fall of 2023, United became the first U.S. airline to fly to the Philippines with a new Manila-San Francisco flight. It has expanded its service to Asia from different U.S. cities earlier last year. Cebu has been on its radar amid growing tourist interest in the region known for marine parks, rainforests and Spanish-style architecture.

With the summer coming up, United also announced that it plans to run its current flights to Hong Kong, Seoul, and Portugal's Porto more frequently at different points of the week and reach four weekly flights between Los Angeles and Shanghai by August 29.

"This is your normal, exciting network planning team back in action," Quayle told travel website The Points Guy of the airline's plans for the new routes.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending