________ has a troubled past...

[daepp]

"(Insert name here) has had a troubled past with regulators."

I have heard this repeatedly in the news. Whether they are referring to the electrical company in charge of the damaged reactors, a coal mining company, a manufacturer, a petroleum/drilling operation, a refinery.

Do people realize that these are heavily regulated industries, and their a millions paid to review their procedures? Of course they will find violations - that is the job of the regulator, and they will be considered lacking if they do not pursue perfection.

But their are inherent dangers in a great many industries, and the simple fact that they have been cited in the past is usually apropos of nothing. Nukes are held to a very high standard; mining is dangerous - always has been.

/rant off.

[red-beard]

The job of the inspector is to find something. When I was a GE field Engineer, we had our office in a trailer, provided by the customer. OSHA did a site inspection. They found a refrigerator plugged into a cheater cord. The frig's cord was long enough to reach the outlet, so we fixed it. We didn't provide the frig, the trailer or setup the office.

GE was fined by OSHA for something stupid like $3000 for this!!! I know GE fought it even though it would be cheaper to pay the fine, because they did not want the record of an OSHA violation.

The stupid thing is, we fixed the problem, which we didn't create, as soon as it was pointed out. But OSHA wrote it up anyway.

[Superman]

Yup, inspectors will find things. Nature of the beast. Companies will get dinged and fined. No surprise there. Even companies that work hard to get things right. Standard Operating Practice. And so, nearly every company could be tagged with that "......troubled past with regulators." And I could imagine news organizations misrepresenting stuff. Granted. But......

There are companies who have figured out that it's cheaper to ignore safety regulations, emphasize production at any human cost, and just hire a team of lawyers to fight the regulatory agency. Or pay off the regulators. Profits soar. Massey Energy is one of those companies and that is why those West Virginia families are without fathers and husbands today. In my humble opinion, that company's CEO should go to jail. Along with a hundred others. For starters.

[daepp]

For that matter, why don't the regulators ever get dinged? How come they did not foresee the need for a higher sea wall at the reactors? Why didn't they tell TEPCO to get the generators out of a pit and raised above sea level? Why didn't the baking regulators get fired over all the bank failures and bad loans?

[sammyg2]

A perfect example is SCAQMD.
most if not all of their budget comes from fines. If they want a bigger budget, they collect more fines. Raise the fines, they get a raise. But here's where it gets tricky:

The make their own rules.
They interpret ther own rules.
They enforce their own rules.
They levy their own fines.
They collect their own fines.
They keep their own fine money.
They arbitrate their own fine disputes.

In other words, they stack the deck so that NO COMPANY can fully comply. It's impossible by design.
A large company can easily spend tens of millions every year trying to comply, but it's all a waste of time and money.
They'd be better off not trying at all and just paying AQMD huge fines.

AQMD would be happy and would protect them, the parasite can't live long without the host.
The company would actually save money by paying 20 million in fines instead of 30 or 40 million trying to comply (hypothetical numbers).

Then you have the tree-hugger enviro-tards who say things about good companies like "oh they were fined, they pollute on purpose, they're evil, they're trying to kill people and destroy our planet".
They have no idea how stoopid statements like that make them look. They are truly clueless.

[sammyg2]

From 2006:

The Expensive Unchecked Power of California's Arrogant SCAQMD
by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore
04/25/2006

America's founders rightly feared the concentration of power in government, leading George Washington to remark, "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master." This is why we have three branches of government in America -- each checking the others' power.

Unfortunately, the modern Administrative State has seen the breakdown of checks and balances. For instance, when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 they gave the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the power to unilaterally raise taxes through the universal service subsidy program. Having the power of taxation without representation, the FCC proceeded to double rates, hiking the universal service fees from less than $2 billion in 1996 to more than $6 billion today -- all while phone revenues remained flat.

Another version of investing the power to regulate, tax, and spend in a single agency can be found at the state level with the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The mission of the SCAQMD is vast and noble, as is always the case in government: to improve air quality. The SCAQMD covers the urban portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties, as well as all of Orange County. It oversees a total of 10,743 square miles housing 16 million people. The SCAQMD has a 12 member governing board, none of whom are directly elected for the task. The district has a budget in excess of $100 million per year (much higher now), 67% of which comes from fees on business.


The SCAQMD's sense of mission, combined with insulation from the voters and its blending of executive, legislative and judicial power, provides absolute power in its domain. A domain, by the way, that it has the power to redefine at will as it takes on new tasks and powers.

As if this regulatory agency's unchecked power wasn't enough, it has now started using taxpayer money to influence the Legislature. In just this last legislative session alone, it paid more than $590,000 in lobbying fees. Meanwhile its executive director, Barry Wallerstein, pulls down $183,855 per year. That's more than the Governor, any legislator, or either of California's two U.S. Senators. He receives this generous salary while traveling on taxpayer money to such swank getaways as the Resort at Squaw Creek and Granlibakken (both at Lake Tahoe), La Quinta (Palm Springs) and Idaho's Coeur d’Alene Resort.
Apparently, environmental regulation has become just another big business, replete with incentives, profit motive, perks, and high-priced lobbyists.

Perhaps it's time to ask some questions.

For instance, beleaguered businesses in Southern California have been taking orders and paying fines to finance the SCAQMD for decades. Is that even legal or constitutional?

What about the SCAQMD's impact on the free market? There is considerable evidence that shows industry is constantly seeking ways to cut costs by improving efficiency, improving air quality in the process. Might SCAQMD regulations actually discourage some air quality improvements by discouraging industry from investing in plant upgrades? For example, the significant emission reductions we have seen in the rail industry recently were achieved through voluntary agreements, not via regulatory fiat.

Perhaps what is more troubling in the short term is the SCAQMD's response to the many proposed transportation improvements for Southern California. Will the SCAQMD play a responsible role as a partner, or will they throw up immovable roadblocks as California's elected leaders seek to reduce transportation gridlock?

Finally, we should take a step back and consider whether it is right to bestow an unelected agency with the near-limitless combination of the authority of the legislative (rule making), executive (enforcement), and judicial (fine levying) while being run by a high-salaried staff with expensive travel tastes and a half-million dollar lobbying budget? My answer is most assuredly, "no."
- HUMAN EVENTS

[sammyg2]

Remove from Reserves and Designations all amounts associated with the FY 2008-09 Budget;
AQMD
Approve appropriations in the Major Objects for:

Salary and Employee Benefits $ 100,946,393
Services and Supplies 29,272,969
Capital Outlays 1,473,267
Total $131,692,629

Approve a projected June 30, 2010 Fund Balance of the following:
Reserve for Encumbrances $ 7,240,000
Reserve for Inventory of Supplies 80,000
Designated for Enhanced Compliance Activities 2,394,818
Designated for Facility Refurbishing 876,142
Designated for Equipment Replacement 884,900
Designated for Self-Insurance 2,000,000
Designated for Litigation/Enforcement 1,000,000
Designated for Retirement Actuarial Increases 9,000,000
Designated for Permit Streamlining 477,195
Designated for Unemployment Claims 80,000
Designated for Budget Stabilization 8,000,000
Total $32,033,055
Undesignated: $20,910,282

Approve revenues from the following:
2009-10 Revenues $126,783,943

Fund Balance – Prior Year Revenue 4,908,686

Total $131,692,629

[RWebb]

what you do is to compare various entities within an industry segment

e.g Intel has won numerous Green awards, but Hynix (formerly Hyundai Semiconductors) has had their top executives put in prison, not to mention other problems. Beavertron got Intel; Corvallis got hp, and my town got Hynix (who promptly closed their plant when their tax subsidies expired).

another issue is that compliance with new regs. may require capital investment, and if you slice firms by size and further by profitability, you could potentially find a correlation there -- this possibility is why new regs. usually are delayed for smaller businesses

I can cite numerous examples from plywood mills and other forest products firms - it is not limited to tech at all.