Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

Over-Regulation Is Doubling the Cost by Peter Reinhardt

itsdrewmiller

> As one example, one state agency has asked Revoy to do certified engine testing to prove that the Revoy doesn’t increase emissions of semi trucks. And that Revoy must do this certification across every single truck engine family. It costs $100,000 per certification and there are more than 270 engine families for the 9 engines that our initial partners use. That’s $27,000,000 for this one regulatory item. And keep in mind that this is to certify that a device—whose sole reason for existence is to cut pollution by >90%, and which has demonstrably done so across nearly 100,000 miles of testing and operations—is not increasing the emissions of the truck. It’s a complete waste of money for everyone.

Wild - whoever did this should lose their job.

darth_avocado

The problem isn’t that regulations exist. The problem is that they are defined in a way that reasonable work arounds or alternative pathways do not exist for situations like this. 270 engine families for 9 engine suggests that the designs may be small variations that would not significantly change the emissions between them. The bureaucrats should waive off some requirements here.

The other alternative that I can think of is that experimental engines get an exception to be not certified for X miles of operation. Once the candidates are chosen for mass production, mandatory certifications can be introduced. Even if your new design doubles the emissions for some reason, over 100000 miles, that’s barely a drop in the bucket. For reference, double the emissions for 100000 miles is roughly equivalent to having an extra semi on the road for a year, which is nothing.

nerdponx

[delayed]

cool_dude85

>Wild - whoever did this should lose their job.

Why's that? Because a guy who's apparently friends with the owner of the company that produces these things told you that it saves emissions? Doesn't it seem reasonable to verify these claims?

appreciatorBus

Of course we should verify such claims.

Just as we should also verify claims that every regulation that has ever been written into law is by definition Good (tm) and can never be questioned.

It's possible for the friend of the company owner to astroturf an online form to get a good regulation eliminated, just because it didn't benefit him.

It's also possible for the such wealthy individuals to astrotruf in favour of bad regulations, just because it would benefit him.

some_random

No that doesn't seem reasonable at all if it's been proven to work _really well_ in several configurations and there's no particular reason to expect that the results would be drastically different in other very similar configurations.

cool_dude85

Who proved it works really well in several configurations?

squigz

And how do you codify the threshold for what "very similar" configurations don't need to be tested and those that do?

shortrounddev2

Some kind of testing should be required but 27mil seems egregious

dangus

Seems somewhat reasonable. I don’t know why the company is supporting all 270 engine families.

This company wants to put a bunch of stuff on the road going 70mph that could crash into you and kill you and is complaining about a measly $27 million of regulatory cost.

They are making up a bunch of scary numbers about the cost of the status quo and the tone of the article is basically holding us all hostage. Speed out special snowflake startup company through the regulatory process (written in blood) or else you’ll lose bajillions of dollars in suffering and pain from the “status quo.”

$27 million is basically a rounding error for automotive companies. Maybe do better at raising funds next time, bro.

some_random

Why wouldn't they try to support a large number of engines, the testing was about emissions not safety, and they're not a huge automotive company.

dangus

Emissions = safety.

I assume that out of 270 entire families that some are more popular than others? Why not pick the 20-30 most popular ones?

The tone of this article is that OP’s company has a savior complex. If they aren’t given expedient special treatment regulatory approval, the status quo is causing a bunch of fake make up dollar values of damage. It’s kind of a gross tone.

k1musab1

Edison Motors, a manufacturer of hybrid and electric semi and other trucks in Canada, is currently battling regulation. They have a series of videos on their Youtube channel going over what's been taking place.

samdoesnothing

Everyone should read or at least be familiar with Joseph Tainter and his research on societal collapse.

> “It is suggested that the increased costs of sociopolitical evolution frequently reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. This is to say that the benefit/investment ratio of sociopolitical complexity follows the marginal product curve… After a certain point, increased investments in complexity fail to yield proportionately increasing returns. Marginal returns decline and marginal costs rise. Complexity as a strategy becomes increasingly costly, and yields decreasing marginal benefits.”

Government regulation and intervention are one such contributor to complexity, and as Michael Huemer demonstrates in his paper In Praise of Passivity we are akin to medieval doctors administering medical procedures on society that are more likely to cause harm than create benefits.

It's fairly clear to me that our civilization is in decline, and it pains me to no end to see people push for more regulation and government intervention. "The patient is getting sicker, we need to let more blood! Fetch me more leaches!"

The good news is that collapse, as Tainter puts it, isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a return to less complexity, and it often brings great benefits to large swathes of people. For example, the collapse of the Roman Empire was beneficial to serfs who would actually welcome raiding parties into their villages.

faidit

Meanwhile the established players with connections can break all the laws they want, and pay zero taxes to boot.

I think the problem isn't regulation (which the current admin is aggressively destroying, e.g. with the EPA) so much as corruption - which manifests partly as critical government functions being deliberately starved of resources. Regulatory bodies should get more funding to study and approve new technologies, and there should be more subsidies available for smaller innovators to offset the R&D investments and application waiting periods. That wouldn't be in the interest of big polluters and their captive politicians though.

dangus

I was just reading an NYT article about lead battery recyclers in Africa and how their operations are basically unregulated and are poisoning entire towns.

Things going a little slow or costing a little more is very often preferable to the alternative where you begin operations recklessly and negatively impact neighbors, sometimes irreparably.

nemomarx

I think part of the story here is that as we regulate things at home we also out source activity that wouldn't fly here to those African regions?

That may keep it out of sight but if it's still happening it might have been better to do it in a managed way at home.

shswkna

Its exactly this. And the majority of persons in powerful regulatory roles completely don’t get or comprehend this effect.

When regulatory efforts depart from reality,and fail to find the correct middle ground, this happens:

The reality still exists, and will always find its expression in one of the following:

- people circumvent rules and go criminal

- undesired behaviours move elsewhere where the regulation doesn’t exist

- sections of an economy die

- issues remain unaddressed with the over regulated issues becoming too taboo to even discuss in a sane way.

dangus

“All outsourced, vendor, and subcontractor companies down the entire production/waste chain to the raw material must meet US environmental regulations.”

Done, fixed the loophole.

some_random

Oh of course, just identify your entire supply chain in both directions and make sure they're compliant. What an obviously easy thing to do.

energy123

It's a false choice to say we must choose between what OP describes versus what you describe. A wealthy country should be capable of effective, efficient and low-corruption state capacity. To the extent that it isn't serving the public good due to being overly slow, we should be pushing for reform to make things better, instead of adopting this defeatist mindset that the only alternative is to become some anarcho-capitalist strawman.

null

[deleted]

nocoiner

He described “the missed acceleration in sales” of pumping Liquid Smoke down old oil wells as “a direct hard cost” of the regulatory regime. That tells me all I need to know about our narrator’s intellectual honesty.

I’m open to being convinced that there are better ways of doing things, but despite what half a century of propaganda has been saying, regulations generally aren’t enacted for funsies. They’re there for a reason, specially the reason that in the absence of those regulations, commercial actors were privatizing profit at the expense of society as a whole, and democratic society made a decision to make rules to stop that from happening.