If airlines are no longer required to disclose fees upfront, passengers may face a barrage of surprise charges, from baggage fees to seat selection costs. The cost of air travel could increase significantly, even if base fares appear lower. //

The proposal to eliminate the guarantee that families will be seated together without extra charges could lead to more stress for families travelling with young children. Parents may find themselves paying additional fees just to sit next to their kids. //

Airlines would have more power to decide whether or not to refund passengers for flight cancellations. //

In Europe, stricter regulations have led to fewer delays and cancellations, and the market remains competitive with budget airlines thriving under the current system. The fear is that deregulation in the U.S. could result in a situation where airlines dominate the market, and passengers are left with fewer rights and more fees.

Then, in the mid '70s, the federal government instituted the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and at a stroke, all those huge station wagons weren't being built anymore. But there was a loophole: Light trucks had a more lax standard, which led to the rise of minivans and SUVs. People want big vehicles, and they're going to have them.

Now, though, in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), Congress pulled a good one - they didn't repeal the CAFE standards, but they zeroed out the fines manufacturers pay for exceeding them. //

Obama imposed a fuel economy mandate that was supposed to hit 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025, which, as we pointed out in the pages of Investor’s Business Daily at the time, was designed to force EVs onto the market, because even compact hybrid cars can’t get that kind of mileage. //

Trump is again planning to roll the CAFE standards back. But Congress did him one better. Rather than wait for regulators to rewrite the rule, which can take years and be subject be endless lobbying and litigation from various interest groups – lawmakers simply zeroed out the penalty as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill.

Now, if a car company sells cars that, on average, exceed whatever the fuel-economy limit is technically in force in a given year, they pay… nothing.

MOSAIC is done. After more than a decade of work by EAA, the FAA, and numerous others, MOSAIC (Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification) is now a final rule. The rule was announced by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy on Tuesday afternoon at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2025. A generation after the creation of the original sport pilot and light-sport aircraft (LSA) rules, today we celebrate Sport Pilot 2.0 and LSA 2.0. Ninety days from now, about three-quarters of the general aviation fleet will be accessible to sport pilots and those exercising sport pilot privileges. One year from now, new and modern aircraft will begin entering the fleet with minimal certification costs. //

With MOSAIC, the weight limitation is removed. GONE! In its place is a new set of limitations; the primary limitation will now be a “clean” stall speed (VS1) of 59 knots calibrated airspeed. Aircraft with up to four seats are now allowed, although sport pilots will still be limited to one passenger. Sport pilots are also now allowed to fly aircraft with controllable-pitch propellers and retractable landing gear, with the appropriate training and endorsements.

Equally exciting to the future of aviation is the aircraft certification reform included in the rule. New aircraft are on the way! The original LSA rule proved that safe, modern aircraft could be certified with a minimum of FAA oversight by using industry consensus standards and simple forms of validation. Now, LSA 2.0 is set to deliver far more capability.

Regulations are always fully thought through and serve a clear purpose—thus always achieving their goals, right? Recently, I’ve started to question some of them and invite everyone to second-guess with me.

In Europe, many airports have strict curfews for noise abatement purposes. We can all agree on how important a good night’s sleep is. But is it always sensible to comply with a restriction if the outcome doesn’t actually uphold its intended purpose? If that sounds puzzling, the real-world example I’m about to share might strike you as equally amusing and frustrating. //

However, the point of this article isn’t to speculate on what-ifs. The pilots of NH203 and the tower controller played the cards they were dealt. And it all culminated at 04:59:42—just 18 seconds before the earliest allowed landing time—when the radio transmitted: “ALLNIPPON 203, GO AROUND”

A go-around call requires immediate compliance—no discussion, no delay. It’s part of our safety culture and rigorous training. Once stabilized, we can begin to ask “why.” Moments later, the tower controller explained: the aircraft had arrived too early. And this is why I’m writing this.

Have We Lost Sight of the Original Goal?

Somewhere along the line, we’ve lost the plot. Pilots, passengers, airlines—and the environment—were penalized for being early. //

The direct consequences?

• An additional 16 minutes of flight time
• Additional high-workload scenarios for the crew after nearly 14 hours of overnight flying
• A stressful experience for passengers, many of whom may never have experienced a go-around

Environmentally, an extra 1,900 kg of fuel burned, additional uncalled for CO₂ emitted, and perhaps the loudest possible noise event as the aircraft roared over Frankfurt and its surroundings—including, no doubt, a wake-up call—before the official opening hour.

All of this—done in the name of avoiding noise pollution.

I have to ask again, what was achieved here?

Two added critical phases of flight.

Higher operating cost.

And the very thing the regulation was supposed to prevent: excessive noise.

Likely most alarming to critics, the desired reforms emphasized tossing out the standards that the NRC currently uses that "posit there is no safe threshold of radiation exposure, and that harm is directly proportional to the amount of exposure."

Until Trump started meddling, the NRC established those guidelines after agreeing with studies examining "cancer cases among 86,600 survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during World War II," Science reported. Those studies concluded that "the incidence of cancer in the survivors rose linearly—in a straight line—with the radiation dose." By rejecting that evidence, Trump could be slowly creeping up the radiation dose and leading Americans to blindly take greater risks.

But according to Trump, by adopting those current standards, the NRC is supposedly bogging down the nuclear industry by trying to "insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion." Instead, the US should prioritize solving the riddle of what might be safe radiation levels, Trump suggests, while restoring US dominance in the nuclear industry, which Trump views as vital to national security and economic growth.

Although Trump claimed the NRC's current standards were "irrational" and "lack scientific basis," Science reported that the so-called "linear no-threshold (LNT) model of ionizing radiation" that Trump is criticizing "is widely accepted in the scientific community and informs almost all regulation of the US nuclear industry."

It is received wisdom in pro-nuclear circles that sinister fossil fuel interests are partly if not largely responsible for nuclear's abject failure to live up to its remarkable promise. To examine this premise, we must divide fossil fuel into coal, oil, and gas. There has never been much overlap between coal and oil and, until recently, surprisingly little overlap between oil and gas. //

Jack Devanney
Dec 8, 2022

US nuclear died in the early, mid-1970's. There were only a handful of orders after 1975 and none after 1978 in the 20th century. Given the promethean promise of nuclear, we need to know what caused this demise. Some say it was Big Oil. But Big Oil was making a big investment in nuclear during this period. Gotta be something else. What happened in the last 15 or so years is irrelevant to to the question on the table.

We have been fed two lies about nuclear electricity by the nuclear power establishment.

The Negligible Probability Lie

The probability of a sizable release of radioactive material from a nuclear power plant is so low that we can just assume it won't happen. //

The Intolerable Harm Lie

Any significant release of radioactive material would be so catastrophic that it cannot be allowed to happen. //

Nuclear power emerged at just about the most difficult time possible economically. In the early-mid 1960's, the real cost of oil was at a all time low. The majors were buying oil in the Middle East at about a penny a liter. Oil was so cheap that it was pushing into electricity generation, the long time preserve of coal. This in turn forced the price of coal down, so it too was at an all time low. This was the cutthroat market that a technology that did not exist 15 years earlier, a technology that was just starting down a steep learning curve, had to enter and compete in. Amazingly it did so. Thanks to nuclear's incredible energy density, these fledgling plants were able to produce electricity at 0.37 cents per kWh in 1965. That's less than 3 cents/kWh in 2020 money.

But the cost of nuclear power escalated rapidly. In the boom of the late 60's and early 70's, nuclear lost control of its costs. This was accompanied by regulatory attempts to ensure we would never have a release. These attempts led to ALARA, the principle that any exposure to radiation is unacceptable if the plant can afford to reduce it further. In other words, there are no limits. //

The Intolerable Harm Lie is false. LNT is not a realistic model of radiation harm. The dose response curve is highly non-linear and critically dependent on dose rate. Cell based laboratory experiments, extensive animal testing, and human study after human study detected no statistically reliable harm unless the dose rates are well above the natural background dose rates in the highest background areas. At very low dose rates, LNT is off by orders of magnitude.

Perhaps the most compelling background radiation study was done in Kerala, India. //

For the US nuclear establishment, abandoning the Intolerable Harm Lie would be suicidal. And as long as you are promulgating the Intolerable Harm Lie, you need the Negligible Probability Lie to stay in business.

The EO starts out on a weak note, while falling into the threshold trap.

The NRC utilizes safety models that posit there is no safe threshold of radiation exposure and that harm is directly proportional to the amount of exposure. Those models lack sound scientific basis.

Here's what Trump should have said.

The NRC's regulatory philosophy is based on a 90 year old radiation harm model called LNT. LNT is biological nonsense. It denies our remarkable ability to repair radiation damage to our DNA. As a result, LNT over-predicts radiation harm to the public in a nuclear power plant release by many orders of magnitude. This ability is indisputable. To conform to undisputed science, LNT must be replaced.

A little later on, we find:

When carrying out its licensing and related regulatory functions, the NRC shall consider the benefits of increased availability of, and innovation in, nuclear power to our economic and national security in addition to safety, health, and environmental considerations.

This call to consider has no teeth. How about:

Any regulatory requirement or action shall be supported by a cost/benefit analysis. These analyses shall explicitly include the reduction in harm from displacing alternate sources of this power. //

It sounds good; but all it really requires is the delivery of some paperwork. The NRC gets to decide what's in these revisions. Once again we are asking the NRC to judge itself. We've done that before, most recently with NEIMA and the Advance Act, with nothing to show for it. There is no reason to believe that this time the results will be different. //

The sad truth is Trump can't change the incentives that will dictate the NRC's behavior. Whatever all the preambles and declaration of purposes, etc say the NRC will continue to be judged on its ability to prevent a release. And as long as we give such a bureaucracy the final say, it will be the bureaucrats' incentives that rule, not society's. But Trump could have outlawed LNT. And he could have forced ALARA underground. //

Business as usual, and the business is extracting money from the taxpayer.

News News News
@NewsNew97351204
·
Follow
Mayor Karen Bass used Walter Lopes’ Pacific Palisades home as a prop to pat herself on the back for helping the neighborhood rebuild after the January wildfires.

But SWR can reveal that Lopes’ house is the only structure standing for blocks and blocks in the charred, desolate Show more
6:34 PM · Jun 1, 2025

Lopes said he was only able to get started so quickly because he was rebuilding his house exactly as it was constructed just a few years ago — and he’s shelled out millions of dollars and pulled out all the stops to get it done. //

The reality is, five months after the wildfires tore through the Pacific Palisades, fewer than 300 homeowners have even applied for rebuilding permits – out of more than 7,000 structures destroyed.

Just 52 addresses have had permits approved, and fewer still have actually seen any construction – despite a batch of executive orders from state and local government meant to free homeowners from bureaucratic hell.

In case you missed it, the below EO is a big deal. Trump is forcing the federal government to spell out everything that is a crime under federal law. The other thing the EO does is to force the government to add a "mens rea" element to most of these "crimes"; i.e., you have to be aware of the fact that you are committing a crime in order for it to be a crime.

Thus, if you decide to build a pond on your property and the EPA has some obscure regulation saying that is a crime, you would need to be aware of the criminal nature of the act before you did it in order to be guilty of anything.

This is great.

The whole EO is linked in my post below, but I wanted to call attention to one tangential aspect of it. The EO says:

"It privileges large corporations, which can afford to hire expensive legal teams to navigate complex regulatory schemes and fence out new market entrants, over average Americans.”

This is really important and is a theme I keep coming back to. Regulatory schemes like Dodd-Frank and the CFPB are created ostensibly to help the “little guy,” when in reality they create byzantine layers upon layers of compliance requirements that only mega-corporations can afford to navigate. Those sorts of laws are anti-competitive and hurt most of all the “little guy” they purport to help.

When you hear the likes of Bernie Sanders and Big Chief Lizzie Warren railing against the “oligarchy,” realize that they regulatory schemes they propose serve the oligarchy MOST OF ALL. In fact, Bernie and Lizzie and AOC are the oligarchs, not us.

Presidential Actions
FIGHTING OVERCRIMINALIZATION IN FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Executive Orders
May 9, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. The United States is drastically overregulated. The Code of Federal Regulations contains over 48,000 sections, stretching over 175,000 pages — far more than any citizen can possibly read, let alone fully understand. Worse, many carry potential criminal penalties for violations. The situation has become so dire that no one -– likely including those charged with enforcing our criminal laws at the Department of Justice — knows how many separate criminal offenses are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, with at least one source estimating hundreds of thousands of such crimes. Many of these regulatory crimes are “strict liability” offenses, meaning that citizens need not have a guilty mental state to be convicted of a crime.

This status quo is absurd and unjust. It allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it. That situation can lend itself to abuse and weaponization by providing Government officials tools to target unwitting individuals. It privileges large corporations, which can afford to hire expensive legal teams to navigate complex regulatory schemes and fence out new market entrants, over average Americans.

The purpose of this order is to ease the regulatory burden on everyday Americans and ensure no American is transformed into a criminal for violating a regulation they have no reason to know exists.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States that:

(a) Criminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored.

(b) Prosecution of criminal regulatory offenses is most appropriate for persons who know or can be presumed to know what is prohibited or required by the regulation and willingly choose not to comply, thereby causing or risking substantial public harm. Prosecutions of criminal regulatory offenses should focus on matters where a putative defendant is alleged to have known his conduct was unlawful.

(c) Strict liability offenses are “generally disfavored.” United States v. United States Gypsum, Co., 438 U.S. 422, 438 (1978). Where enforcement is appropriate, agencies should consider civil rather than criminal enforcement of strict liability regulatory offenses or, if appropriate and consistent with due process and the right to jury trial, see Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), administrative enforcement.

(d) Agencies promulgating regulations potentially subject to criminal enforcement should explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to those offenses.

Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Agency” has the meaning given to “Executive agency” in section 105 of title 5, United States Code;

(b) “Criminal regulatory offense” means a Federal regulation that is enforceable by a criminal penalty; and

(c) “Mens rea” means the state of mind that by law must be proven to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime.

Sec. 4. Report on Criminal Regulatory Offenses. (a) Within 365 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a report containing:

(i) a list of all criminal regulatory offenses enforceable by the agency or the Department of Justice; and

(ii) for each criminal regulatory offense identified in subsection (a)(i) of this section, the range of potential criminal penalties for a violation and the applicable mens rea standard for the criminal regulatory offense.

(b) At the same time the head of each agency provides to the Director of OMB the report required by subsection (a) of this section, the agency head shall publicly post the report on its agency webpage.

This family, targeted solely over what should have been a civil dispute over grazing rights over 25 acres of government land, was prosecuted, credibly threatened with jail sentences, so extreme that they were told to find alternatives to raise their young children. Charles and Maude live on a 5th-generation family farm in Pennington County, South Dakota, close to Mount Rushmore. There, they farm 400 acres. They raise about 250 head of cattle, and about 40 sows. //

The Biden administration criminally charged the Maude family for theft of government property. And for too long, for years now, they have endured a torturous legal process and suffered as victims of the Biden regime's reckless lawfare. Just imagine, a government that would be willing to de facto orphan American children over a mere dispute over 25 acres of land. The men of Lexington and Concord knew what (this) sort of government was like, and they knew what to do about it. The Maude family too, faced with destruction at the hand of the state, made their appeal to heaven, and providence answered. Thanks to the leadership and the unequivocal, bold leadership of President Trump and his directive to put Americans first, we now have the pleasure to announce that the criminal prosecution of the Maudes is now over. They will not be driven from their home. They will not be jailed. They will not be fined. And their children will grow up with a mother and a father who they love and who love them. //

This dispute - and there was, legitimately, some confusion over the status of the 25 acres and the exact boundaries between that acreage and the Maude family land - should never have come to this in the first place. In a sane world, this would have been resolved by having one or two Department of Agriculture officials come out, sit down with the Maudes, make sure everybody understood and agreed to a solution to the dispute, and arrive at a mutually agreed-upon survey of the property boundaries.

Instead, the Biden administration threatened the Maudes with jail time. The Biden administration threatened to break up the Maude family, to effectively orphan the Maude children. And all of this is over a dispute over 25 acres of grazing land. This is the same administration, mind you, that allowed millions of unscreened, unvetted, illegal immigrants to flood into the United States. //

DarthCY
an hour ago
You should go deeper into the story. The Government was even more heavy handed than you present. They were cooperating and were waiting for a survey to come back to discuss when they raided their house, arrested them and tried them separately. They also barred them from communicating with each other on their defense. This is pure evil. //

anon-259e
an hour ago
Every Federal employee involved with this abomination needs to be fired and the Maude family must be reimbursed for all legal expenses + an extra 100% as damages.

An 18-year-old woman died this year after complications from her 22-week abortion at a Planned Parenthood in Fort Collins, Colorado. A recent testimony given to the state’s Health and Human Services committee noted she lost a significant amount of blood — a known risk of later abortions — and that she was transported too late for the emergency care she needed. She deserved prompt diagnosis and critical care in her moment of need.

But blue-state legislators, instead of showing concern and protecting women from preventable complications and deaths, are more interested in pushing abortion access than they are in ensuring women’s safety. //

Shamefully, Colorado legislators not only rejected recent legislation that would have implemented common-sense public health and safety standards for facilities performing second and third-trimester abortions, they also shockingly claimed the woman would have died of similar complications in childbirth.

As a board-certified OB-GYN, I can attest that this “medical” conclusion is doubtful since amniotic fluid embolus (AFE), the condition they speculated about, is a unique occurrence in a specific clinical situation. Furthermore, their refusal to truly understand the facts surrounding this young woman’s death distracts from the disastrous risks of unregulated, uninspected, unlicensed dangerous second and third-trimester abortions enshrined into Colorado law.

Tragically, media reaction to this case has been virtually non-existent. When women die in states with any abortion limits on the books, the media is quick to highlight their stories, but when women die where there is unrestricted abortion with no safety protections whatsoever, we hear crickets. //

But countless women who enter abortion facilities are unknowingly denied assurance that they will be cared for by competent, credentialed staff who are prepared to identify and promptly transfer patients suffering complications to nearby hospitals for life-saving treatment when needed or if they are prepared to provide adequate emergency care to the vulnerable women who place their health in the hands of their abortionists.

It seems wildly contradictory that states rightly require other healthcare facilities dealing with maternal care, labor, and delivery to uphold rigorous medical standards but place none on abortion facilities. In Colorado, birthing centers undergo licensing and regulation to define their scope of practice, credential their providers, establish emergency preparedness and staff drills, collect data, and more. Likewise, ambulatory surgery centers may only treat “those that do not generally result in extensive blood loss; require major or prolonged invasion of body cavities; directly involve major blood vessels; or constitute an emergency or life-threatening procedure.”

Hospital labor and delivery units are subject to even more rigorous regulation and inspection, including inspections by the Joint Commission and Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services. These measures are commonsense and exactly what anyone would expect from safe healthcare providers.

Even tattoo parlors are required to prove basic first-aid capabilities and sterilization procedures; yet abortion facilities aren’t even held to these standards.

Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday rolling back a federal regulation he has blamed for poor water pressure. His order would eliminate restrictions the Obama administration placed on how much water can flow from shower heads, an effort to conserve resources. Trump relaxed those standards during his first term, but President Joe Biden put them back in place.

“No longer will shower heads be weak and worthless,” said a draft of Trump’s order, adding that it intended to “make America’s showers great again.”

Trump has for years lamented the effect of low water pressure on his “gorgeous” and “perfect” hair.

Decades of efficiency mandates have made dishwashers weaker, A.C. units feebler, and appliances more expensive. A new rollback offers a rare win for function over dogma.

Baptiste @BaptisteVicini
·
Apr 7
"They amputated their own legs on this," Stewart admitted.

This reveals a deeper issue: complexity as a control mechanism.

By making internet deployment convoluted, officials control who gets access.

The implications are troubling for democracy.

Internet access isn't just convenience—it's opportunity.

When bureaucracy blocks connectivity, it creates knowledge gaps.

Those in power benefit when information access is limited.

Musk retweeted Stewart's viral reaction and ...

Stewart's realization reflects a growing consensus:

The problem isn't about politics—it's about effectiveness.

When these systems prioritize process over people, we all lose.

Technology should connect us, not be used to divide us further.

While the government spends years on paperwork, companies like Starlink deploy solutions in weeks.

This raises questions about whether bureaucracy is intentional.

By keeping access complicated, information flow remains controlled.

This affects our entire society.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited ruling in Bondi v. Vanderstok, upholding the Biden administration’s 2022 rule that allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate so-called “ghost guns.” But while headlines may frame this as a Second Amendment loss, that’s not the real story here.

The real story is this: the administrative state just scored another narrow, but important, win—and once again, it did so not through an act of Congress, but through bureaucratic interpretation.

Let’s walk through what actually happened. //

This case was a challenge to the ATF’s rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—a law meant to prevent executive agencies from exceeding their statutory authority. //

This may sound reasonable on paper—especially given concerns over untraceable firearms—but it opens the door to something much more troubling: the broadening of executive power through regulation rather than legislation.

Congress never passed a law banning or regulating ghost guns. Instead, the ATF reinterpreted existing law to give itself that authority. And the Supreme Court just signed off on that approach.

That’s the real concern here. Not the regulation itself, but the process. //

In a blistering dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas warned that the Court was effectively rewriting the statute to allow the executive branch to regulate products Congress never intended to regulate. He pointed out that the Gun Control Act only allows the ATF to regulate certain gun parts, not any part or unfinished frame that might one day become part of a gun.

He also noted that the logic behind the majority’s ruling could eventually be used to justify classifying AR-15 receivers as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act—an outcome that would have massive legal implications for millions of gun owners nationwide.

The bill overturns the 2009 Shell Egg Rule, allowing these eggs to be processed safely and efficiently, increasing supply and lowering costs for consumers. […]

In 2009, the FDA required shell eggs to be refrigerated at 45°F within 36 hours to reduce salmonella risk. The rule was originally meant for grocery store eggs, but it was later expanded to include broiler eggs, which come from chickens raised for meat. Before this change, broiler eggs were safely pasteurized and used in processed foods. This unnecessary requirement now forces the disposal of 400 million usable eggs each year, driving up prices and limiting supply.

Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social
@TrumpDailyPosts
·
I am hereby instructing Secretary Lee Zeldin to immediately go back to my Environmental Orders, which were terminated by Crooked Joe Biden, on Water Standards and Flow pertaining to SINKS, SHOWERS, TOILETS, WASHING MACHINES, DISHWASHERS, etc., and to likewise go back to the common sense standards on LIGHTBULBS, that were put in place by the Trump Administration, but terminated by Crooked Joe. I look forward to signing these Orders. THANK YOU!!!
2:13 PM · Feb 11, 2025. //

Most of Biden's regulations would do little to lower emissions significantly or affect the vast climate system. They mostly seemed designed to punish the American people, virtue signal, and send billions to the Green New Deal scammers.

BECS are officially referred to as “voluntary,” and supposedly developed by “consensus,” for state and local governments to implement building energy efficiency requirements. The International Code Council (ICC), through its numerous committees, publishes these codes and generates revenues by selling them to whoever needs them (e.g., code officials, builders, trades, etc.). ICC energy codes are organized and managed under a separate division of the ICC called the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). //

“Consensus” building energy codes have been largely and silently commandeered by EERE which has accelerated under the Biden administration. “Consensus” comes through “packing the bleachers” of committees with loyalists to further the Net-Zero concept. Tactics include “improving” building energy efficiency codes through “public/private partnerships.” However, the true cause of Net-Zero policies is to advance electrified “energy efficiency” via “clean” (a.k.a. renewable) energy so that consumers can be more readily controlled. //

RedStorm
9 hours ago
I find energy consumption information useful as a consumer on major appliances, for example. Not that I think I’m ‘saving the planet’ by buying an appliance that uses less energy, but I like knowing relatively what that sucker is going to cost me to operate. Same with mileage information about an automobile. Those are useful regulations, requiring producers to provide information that is of value to consumers. Give me information to make decisions that make sense to me and my lifestyle, don’t restrict my options, let the market take care of that. If only regulators could stay in that lane…