Month: September 2024

Shares of Israeli autonomous driving company Mobileye Global plunged to a record low on Friday in New York after a Bloomberg report, citing sources, indicated Intel could be preparing to dump some of its stake in the software company on the public market or through a sale to a third party. This comes as the dumpster fire at Intel rages on as Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger prepares to pitch the chipmaker’s board of directors on a turnaround plan.

The chipmaker could offload some of its 88% holding in Mobileye on the public market or via a sale to a third party, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the information was private. Mobileye has a board meeting later this month in New York, where Intel’s plans will be considered, one of the people said. -BBG

Mobileye provides software and hardware for self-driving systems. Intel already dumped a $1.5 billion stake in Mobileye last year.

Shares of Mobileye are down nearly 73% on the year. Any selling by Intel in the public markets could crush shares even lower. As of Friday morning, Mobileye has a market cap of around $9.56 billion. About 14.5%, or approximately 13.4 million shares of the company’s float is short. 

In August, Mobileye slashed its annual revenue and profit forecasts due to dwindling demand for its driver-assistance chips in China. A slowdown in the global automotive market, including EVs, has translated into fewer orders for Mobileye’s chips. Also, a dismal economic recovery in China and weakening growth in the US have weighed on Mobileye. 

Last month, RBC Capital Markets analyst Tom noted, “The narrative on Mobileye is more tied to SuperVision than macro. Winning SuperVision is a huge aspect and that’s what the stock is trading on… More contracts were supposed to come in H2 and we’re already in August, so some investors might be getting a little impatient.” 

Also last month, Bloomberg reported Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs bankers were working with Intel to advise on several scenarios that could stop the market cap hemorrhaging, including a split of the chipmaker’s product design and manufacturing businesses.

A separate report from Reuters this week said Intel’s plan includes cost-cutting measures like selling businesses, such as the programmable chip unit Altera, which Intel can no longer support from its sliding profits. 

Gelsinger and senior executives are set to present a turnaround plan to the board of directors in mid-September. We expect more details to emerge around that time. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

For the second year in a row, Harvard University is ranked dead last among universities and colleges on the annual survey of free speech on campuses by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

Harvard shares a score of 0.00 with Columbia University. They are followed by New York University, University of Pennsylvania and Barnard College.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss free speech on campuses and note that public universities could prove the last line of defense for this right. It is not that faculty members are necessarily any more protective of free speech or intellectual diversity at these schools. However, they are directly subject to the First Amendment as state schools and thus can be taken to court more readily for denials of the right.

Conversely, at schools like Harvard, Columbia, Penn, and NYU, the faculty appears unconcerned about their dismal records on free speech. There is still a growing anti-free speech movement on our campuses. It is notable that these schools also have largely purged conservative and Republican faculty from their ranks. A past survey found that over 75 percent of faculty identify as liberal or very liberal. Another survey found that many departments do not have a single Republican.

I was disappointed that my alma mater University of Chicago has fallen from number 1 to 44, though it still gets a shout out from FIRE as being a consistently strong free speech environment. The concerning fall has occurred under with the presidency of Armand Paul Alivisatos. He replaced one of the greatest advocates of free speech in academia, the late Robert Zimmer.

My proudest moment came when Zimmer sent a famous letter to the class of 2020. The letter warned students that they will not be shielded from views that upset them or given “safe spaces” on campus.

In the letter, the university declared that “our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

It was a moment of clarity that is missing in today’s environment of speech codes, microaggressions, and cancel campaigns.

When Zimmer stepped down in 2021, there was a virtual panic in the free speech community. He was our champion and placed one of the premier academic institutions in the world on the side of free speech.

Notably, Barnard College (unlike the other schools at the bottom) has joined other schools in adopting the Chicago Principles. It released a statement committing itself to a new course. We will have to wait to see if faculty will honor such a commitment.

George Washington University, where I teach, is 161st out of 251 schools with a below average ranking.

What was surprising this year were the schools receiving a “warning” about anti-free speech policies.  They include Pepperdine University, Hillsdale College, and Brigham Young University. FIRE found that all “have policies that clearly and consistently state” that they prioritize “other values over a commitment to freedom of speech.” The President of Hillsdale responded in this column.

If there will be substantial improvements in the anti-free speech environment in higher education in private colleges, they will only come from donors refusing to support these schools until they change their policies and culture. Administrators and faculty feel little pressure to reverse these trends. However, they will respond if their intolerance begins to threaten their own budgets and departments.

Higher education has already plunged in trust among citizens under the current administrators and faculty at our colleges and universities. They are destroying the very institutions that sustain them.

In the meantime, public universities can be a strong line of defense for free speech, offering students not just free speech environments but the direct protection of the First Amendment. What is missing is greater diversity of viewpoints on faculties. I have written about how taxpayers and legislators can exercise their own power to demand more diversified and tolerant environments at these schools.

While some professors have argued that free speech and intellectual diversity are not essential to higher education, most of the public disagrees and has a right to expect a diverse and tolerant environment at state-supported schools.

In my book and past congressional testimony, I have also encouraged Congress to adopt ten basic prerequisites for federal funding for colleges and universities on free speech. If these schools want to continue to deny free speech to students and faculty, they should do so with their own funds and contributions from donors who share their anti-free speech agendas. Taxpayers should not be supporting schools which deny a right considered “indispensable” to our constitution and culture.

You can see the full rankings here.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

At the start of the year, many months after we first pointed out that the biggest untold story of the US labor market was the “great replacement” of native born workers with foreign-born workers (most of whom we subsequently learned were illegal aliens), we asked how is it, that the ongoing replacement (because that’s what it is) of US workers is “not the biggest political talking point right now” considering that “since October 2019, native-born US workers have lost 1.4 million jobs; over the same period foreign-born workers have gained 3 million jobs”

How is this not the biggest political talking point right now: since October 2019, native-born US workers have lost 1.4 million jobs; over the same period foreign-born workers have gained 3 million jobs. pic.twitter.com/Z5HVWmQ24C

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 15, 2024

Nine months later, we are delighted to see that our relentless efforts to bring attention to this critical topic finally worked, and the continued replacement of native-born workers with immigrants and illegal aliens was finally the biggest political and media talking point, as demonstrated by such articles as “How Immigration Remade the U.S. Labor Force“ by the WSJ and “Without Immigrants, US Working-Age Population Would Shrink“ from Bloomberg, both of which are an extension of the latest and greatest narrative, first spawned by Fed chair Powell, and then picked up by Goldman, which came down to the following: you can have (record) illegal immigration, or you can have even more (breakneck) inflation. So don’t be angry, and just accept the roving gangs of Venezuelan murderers in your neighborhood, if you know what’s good for you and if you want to keep prices low (the same prices which are only high because the government decided to inject $20 trillion in fiscal stimmies in the past 4 years).

There it is: You can have illegal immigration or you can have even more inflation https://t.co/4npStzH8ft pic.twitter.com/xYofvgPjXV

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 5, 2024

Which brings us to today’s jobs report… where the native vs foreign-born debate just exploded!

As we discussed earlier, superficially the August payrolls report was a mixed bag. On one hand, it was disappointing in that the payrolls print came in softer than expected, but was a big bounce from sharply downward revised June and July prints. On the other hand, the unemployment rate did drop from the Sahm Rule’s recession trigger level of 4.3% to 4.2%, and effectively eliminated the clear cut case for a 50bps rate cut, especially since the Household survey was not only far stronger than the Establishment survey, but indicated the biggest increase in employment since March.

That, at least, was the quantitative view. And while that was mixed, there was no confusion in the picture painted by the qualtitative aspect of the jobs report. Here, everything was a disaster.

Starting at the top, while the number of employed workers did rise by 168K, looking closer at the composition of this increase is disastrous: that’s because it consisted of an increase of 527K part-time jobs, offset by a 438K plunge in full-time jobs.

This means that since last June, the US has added just over 2 million part-time jobs, and lost over 1.5 million full-time jobs.

Needless to say, part-time jobs pay far less, don’t offer benefits, and generally lead to a suboptimal outcomes for the labor market, one of which is the need to get more than one job, and sure enough, the number of multiple jobholders – or people who for whatever reason have more than one job – jumped above 8.5 million, back to all time highs.

And while the quality of job gains in the past year has clearly been catastrophic – a necessary condition to give the impression that headline, or quantiative, job growth was strong –  there was a very clear reason for that, and it goes back to what we have been pounding the table on in the past: the reason is the continued replacement of native-born workers with immigrants (some legal but mostly illegal). And as the following chart shows, it is anything but a theory: it is cold hard fact.

Presenting exhibit A: the number of native-born vs foreign-born workers in August.

In an absolute shocker of a data point, in the past month, the US added 635K foreign-born workers, while losing 1.325 million native-born workers. This was tied for the biggest one-month drop in native-born workers since the covid crash!

But it’s not just the past month, or two, or three… As regular readers know, the reason why suddenly we are bombarded with media pitches for why illegal immigrants are actually great for you, is that the US has not created a single job for native-born workers since July 2018! And in that interval, it has created 4.7 million jobs for immigrants, both legal and illegal.

Finally for those wondering when the Great Job Replacement Fact (again, not theory) kicked in, the following chart showing the historical divergence between native and non-native born workers will make it clear: the gap first emerged at the start of the Biden administration and has exploded to a record size today!

Finally, for those who would push back that these are mostly legal immigrants, here is what Standard Chartered strategist Steven Englander wrote at the start of June to refute that claims and prove that most of these immigrant workers are virtually all illegal: echoing what we have said for the past two years, Englander wrote that immigration, particularly illegal immigration, “is a political flashpoint that has also become an important factor in assessing economic performance. Detailed data from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) suggest that half of non-farm payroll (NFP) growth to date for FY24 (started 1 October 2023) has been from undocumented immigrants who have received an Employment Authorization Document (EAD)” (he defines undocumented immigrants as those who entered the US through non-traditional immigration pathways, such as asylum seekers, parolees, and refugees, i.e. illegals).

“The ability to track EAD issuance to undocumented workers is an advantage in estimating how much they have contributed to employment growth. NFP counts workers with an EAD just like any other. Using that data, it is easy to estimate that undocumented workers have added 109k jobs per month to NFP out of the average 231k increase so far in FY24.”

Which is a big problem because as the BLS now admitted with its downward payrolls revision two weeks ago, the monthly increase in jobs in the past years was not 230K as it had indicated previously, but rather 150K when one removes the 818K jobs that were never there in the past year to begin with.

So if the true pace of job creation in the past year was 150K, and another 109K jobs per month are illegal aliens, that leaves just about 40K jobs for everyone else, i.e., law abiding Americans.

It also means that, great worker replacement scandal aside, the labor market in the US has – for the past year – been an absolute catastrophe and harbinger of economic disaster.

There was a bizarre reaction in risk assets this morning after the jobs report: after first surging, everything started selling off just after the cash open, led by a huge hammer in bitcoin as usual just around the 10am slam…

… which spilled over into oil, which has been selling off all morning..

… and also the USDJPY which reversed a brief rebound on the kneejerk move higher…

… with some speculating that while the market got a green light for a 25bps rate cut – as many had wanted as an even uglier jobs report would have prompted a 50bps cut on fears of imminent recession – traders decided to push for a 50bps rate cut anyway.

That’s why the S&P, after hitting a session high of 5,530 then went straight down 100 points to 5,431, on what seemed like a familiar game of chicken with the Fed, where stocks dump unless the Fed relents to more easing (especially since the jobs market doesn’t actually require it).

But then S&P futures suddenly rebounded at 11am ET when Fed’s Waller (a voter this year) delivered remarks, in which he said that the current batch of data no longer requires patience, it “requires action” (the data he was referring to is clearly not the drop in the unemployment rate nor the rebound in the average hourly wages, but more likely the continued drop in Kamala Harris betting odds on Polymarket), and that he would advocate to “front-load” rate cuts if appropriate.

He also said some other things, to wit:

• He believes maintaining the economy’s forward momentum means time has come to begin reducing policy rate at upcoming meeting
• Data in past three days indicates labor market is softening but not deteriorating; this judgment important to upcoming policy decision.
• It is likely a series of reductions in policy rate will be appropriate, but determining appropriate pace of cuts will be challenging.
• Is open minded on size and pace of cuts and will depend on data.
• If future data shows significant deterioration in labor market, Fed can act quickly and forcefully.
• He would also cut at consecutive meetings if data calls for it as I would be for larger cuts if needed.
• That said, he does not believe economy is in a recession or necessarily headed for one soon
• He stand ready to act promptly to support the economy as needed, and there is sufficient room to cut policy’ rate and still remain somewhat restrictive to ensure inflation returns to 2%.
• August jobs report and other recent data reinforces view there has been continued moderation in the labor market.
• In light of ‘considerable and ongoing progress’ toward FOMC’s 2% inflation goal, balance of risks has shifted toward employment.
• Monetary policy has to adjust accordingly as balance of risks has shifted to employment side of mandate.
• Softening of labor market pattern consistent with moderate growth in economic activity.
• Labor market and economy performing in a solid manner and future prospects are good.
• See some downside risks to employment, will be watching closely.

But while the kneejerk reaction to the Waller speech was that he is endorsing a 50bps rate cut, a comment by the WSJ’s Nick Timiraos promptly intercepted that, writing that “Fed governor Chris Waller’s speech doesn’t explicitly say “25” or “50” but it leans into endorsing a 25 bps cut to start, explicitly reserving the option to go faster “as appropriate” if “new data” show more deterioration.”

Timiraos then goes on that “Waller pats the Fed on the back for not overreacting to the banking crisis, the lower inflation prints of 2H 23, the higher prints of Q1 24. Then he says, “Based on the evidence I see, I do not believe the economy is in a recession or necessarily headed for one.”

Fed governor Chris Waller’s speech doesn’t explicitly say “25” or “50” but it leans into endorsing a 25 bps cut to start, explicitly reserving the option to go faster “as appropriate” if “new data” show more deterioration

Waller pats the Fed on the back for not overreacting to…

— Nick Timiraos (@NickTimiraos) September 6, 2024

The sharp, violent reversals in rate cut expectations this morning are shown below:

The result of this sequence was just as bizarre as the market reaction to the jobs report: while stocks initially jumped, they then immediately reversed all gains and have since sunk, dropping not just to session lows, but rapidly approaching the lowest level since the early August freakout…

… as the schizophrenic market tries to decide if it wants a 25bps cut, a 50bps cut, and whether it prefers a soft or a hard landing. The on asset that seems to like any outcome, is gold, as it once again trades near all time highs.

In any case, thanks to the surging negative dealer gamma, this morning the selling algos are clearly in control with the dollar plunging, yields sliding to fresh session lows…

… and risk assets a sea of red.

OpenAI’s ChatGPT continues to lead the generative AI chatbot space, but the initial hype—lasting just over a year—appears to be fading quickly, as reflected in the latest monthly website traffic data.

New data from Goldman’s Peter Oppenheimer, citing analytics firm Similarweb, reveals that the total number of monthly visits to ChatGPT’s website sharply declined from spring through mid-summer, as reported in a note to clients on Thursday.

Here’s more from Oppenheimer: 

“Furthermore, the original ‘excitement’ about chat-GPT is fading in terms of monthly users (Exhibit 11). This does not mean, of course, that the growth rates in the industry will not be strong, but it does suggest that the next wave of beneficiaries may come from the new products and services that can be created on the back of these foundation models.”

The implosion in monthly visits doesn’t suggest an end to OpenAI; instead, customers are bored with GPT-4 or have gravitated to other large language models powered by big tech, such as xAI’s Grok. There’s a very real possibility that some users have found no need to integrate chatbots into their daily lives. 

As OpenAI’s LLMs become more advanced, ChatGPT will also improve, allowing the startup run by Sam Altman to unveil new premium chatbots where it can charge white-collar workers well above the $20 a month (current rate for GPT-4). 

On Thursday, The Information said executives at OpenAI have discussed new pricing models that cost as much as $2,000 per month for upcoming advanced LLMs, such as a new reasoning-focused LLM dubbed “Strawberry” and a new flagship LLM called “Orion.” 

People with direct knowledge of OpenAI’s proposed subscription price, which could soon cost some users $2,000 a month for premium LLMs, said nothing is final, suggesting there are ‘strong doubts the final price would be that high.’ 

The Information pointed out, “Still, it’s a notable detail because it suggests that the paid version of ChatGPT, which was recently on pace to generate $2 billion in revenue annually, largely from $20-per-month subscriptions, may not be growing fast enough to cover the outsize costs of running the service. Those costs include the expenses of a free tier used by hundreds of millions of people per month.” 

On Friday, Goldman’s Jacob Malmstrom commented on Oppenheimer’s note to clients: 

“Since 2010 a lot has happened, at least in the markets, which Peter Oppenheimer writes in his latest Global Strategy Paper (I wish I could say the same about my golfgame but on that front I’ve moved from a 12 to 21 handicap). The technology sector has since 2010 generated 32% of the Global Equity return and 40% of the US equity market returns. Over the same time EPS growth for the Global Tech sector has been 400% while all other sectors together have achieved c.25% from the peak pre-GFC. Peter notes that when new technologies come to life it’s associated with enthusiasm and stock prices rise which evidentially can lead to bubbles. When new technologies are introduced, like we are seeing now with AI, investors tend to underestimate new entrants or companies that can use these products to generate higher returns in existing product categories. Peter argues that tech is likely to continue to dominate returns. Concentration risk are however high and investors should look to diversify their portfolios to improve risk-adjusted returns while getting access to winners in smaller tech companies and other parts of the market. Hence he continues to like his basket of “Ex-Tech compounders”…”

Meanwhile, venture capital firm Thrive Capital and a handful of big tech companies, such as Apple and Nvidia, are planning to invest in OpenAI at (or around) a $100 billion valuation. 

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Georgia has temporarily blocked the Biden administration from implementing its latest plan to bring widespread federal student loan cancellation for up to 30 million borrowers.

The 14-day restraining order was handed down Sept. 5, two days after a coalition of seven Republican-led states preemptively sued to stop the plan, claiming that the federal government is “unlawfully trying to mass cancel hundreds of billions of dollars of loans” and planning to do so by Sept. 7.

The plan in question, popularly known as “Plan B,” has been in the works since last summer, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the initial effort by the Biden administration to offer a blanket cancellation of up to $400 billion in student loans. It has yet to be published, although borrowers were asked last month to confirm whether they want to opt-out.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, Plan B would primarily benefit those who owe more than they originally borrowed due to accrued interest. It would erase up to $20,000 beyond the principal balance, regardless of the borrower’s income. Some 23 million may even see their entire interest balances eliminated.

The Education Department could also forgive the debt of those who have been repaying for at least 20 or 25 years, those who qualify for loan forgiveness under other programs but haven’t applied, and those who attended schools that lost access to federal aid, suddenly closed, or left graduates financially worse off.

A fifth category of borrowers would get their debt forgiven based on certain “hardships” that persist after other benefits are exhausted, such as medical debt and expensive child care. The specifics are still under review.

The seven-state coalition, led by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, argued that the Education Department lacks the rule-making authority to cancel debt at such a large scale. It noted that the department’s income-driven loan repayment program, dubbed SAVE, is also halted while an appeals process over its legality plays out.

“This is the third time the Secretary has unlawfully tried to mass cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in loans,” their complaint read.

“Courts stopped him the first two times, when he tried to do so openly. So now he is trying to do so through cloak and dagger.”

Judge J. Randal Hall of the Southern District of Georgia sided with the states. His order paused Plan B pending a Sept. 18 hearing.

“Plaintiffs show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits given the rule’s lack of statutory authority,” the judge wrote.

Bailey welcomed the decision, calling it a “huge victory” for Americans who have already paid off their student loans or didn’t go to college at all.

“I paid for my education in blood, sweat, and tears in service to my country, so this fight is personal for me,” he said in a statement.

“We will continue to lead the way for working Americans who are being preyed upon by unelected federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C.”

The lawsuit is joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, and Ohio.

The Education Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a shocking undercover sting, a top spokesman for the Department of Justice in New York was secretly filmed blasting Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, accusing him of using the legal system as a political weapon to boost his own ambitions.

Nicholas Biase, the chief spokesman for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office, was captured on hidden camera calling Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump a “perversion of justice” and “nonsense” in a damning video released by conservative podcaster Steven Crowder’s “Mug Club.”

The recordings, taken on July 31 and August 14, show Biase, who claimed to have known Bragg for 15 years, savaging the progressive prosecutor’s headline-grabbing case against Trump over hush money payments made to a porn star. Biase is seen talking to an unidentified woman in what appears to be a bar, voicing his belief that Bragg’s motivations were more about self-promotion than justice.

“He wants to be something … a mayor? I’m not sure what he wants to be, but I know he’s not happy just being the DA of New York County,” Biase is heard saying in the clip. “Before he decided to prosecute Trump, did you know who he was? You do now.”

Biase accused Bragg of manipulating charges against Trump to make them fit a narrative.

“This guy is probably going to try to lock him [Trump] up. And it’s going to be ugly…,” he warned, referring to Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case.

Biase also unleashed on state-level justice systems, calling them “the Wild West” compared to the more stringent rules at the federal level. He criticized another high-profile prosecution of Trump by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia, labeling it a “travesty of justice” and a “mockery of justice.”

Watch:

BREAKING: DOJ Chief of Public Affairs Admits Trump Indictments Are a Politically Motivated “Perversion of Justice”; Reveals Lawfare Involved in Making Former President a “Convicted Felon” Backfired on Democrats; Claims His Former Colleague Alvin Bragg’s Case is “Nonsense” And… pic.twitter.com/IQhR0ax2pw

— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) September 5, 2024

Biase’s comments ignited a firestorm of controversy after Crowder shared the clips on social media. The DOJ spokesman, clearly caught off guard by the release of the secret recordings, scrambled to issue an apology.

“I was recently made aware of a video where I regretfully made some statements in a private and social setting that don’t reflect my views about two local and state prosecutions,” Biase said in a statement to The Post. “I said these things in an effort to please and impress someone I just met, who was secretly filming me. I’m deeply sorry to the local and state law enforcement officials working on these matters, who deserve more respect than I showed them.”

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Kamala can hide behind her newfound support (lie) for fracking as long as she has “environment justice” and the courts on her side.

DC Court Vacates LNG Approval

Please note DC Court Vacates LNG Approval at Port of Brownsville

The D.C. Circuit Court on Tuesday ruled against approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and related pipeline projects at the Port of Brownsville, effectively canceling prior approval of three such projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The Sierra Club, in announcing the ruling, said this is the first time a court has vacated FERC approval of an LNG terminal. FERC approved Rio Grande LNG, Texas LNG and the Rio Bravo Pipeline “despite widespread concerns for the harm the projects would cause to the surrounding communities and the climate.”

A lawsuit was filed against FERC by the Sierra Club, the city of Port Isabel, Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, a Floreville-based nonprofit organization, claiming that FERC failed to “adequately consider the environmental justice impacts and greenhouse gas emissions of the three projects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Natural Gas Act.“

The D.C. court upheld the petitioners’ arguments, vacating FERC’s approvals, meaning the agency now has to reconsider the impacts of the three projects. This will require a new draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statements and public comment period before FERC decides whether to issue new project permits.

The court’s ruling follows two other rulings in July that “call into question the adequacy of FERC reviews,” according to the Sierra Club, which noted that last week the D.C. Circuit Court ruled FERC had failed to consider greenhouse gas emissions as well as market need for expansion of Real Energy Access, a Williams company pipeline project in the Northeast.

Also last month, the same court ruled that FERC failed to adequately assess Commonwealth LNG’s air pollution impacts and greenhouse gas emissions, the Sierra Club said, adding that “it is unacceptable for FERC to conduct insufficient environmental justice analysis and to decline to make determinations on the significance of climate-warming emissions.”

Natural Gas Act of 1938

The Natural Gas Act was written in 1938.

It was focused on regulating the rates charged by interstate natural gas transmission companies. In the years prior to the passage of the Act, concern arose about the monopolistic tendencies of the transmission companies and the fact that they were charging higher than competitive prices. The passage of the Act gave the Federal Power Commission (FPC) control over the regulation of interstate natural gas sales. Later on, the FPC was dissolved and became the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to a different act. FERC continues to regulate the natural gas industry to this day.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970.

Since its passage, NEPA has been applied to any major project, whether on a federal, state, or local level, that involves federal funding, work performed by the federal government, or permits issued by a federal agency. Court decisions have expanded the requirement for NEPA-related environmental studies to include actions where permits issued by a federal agency are required regardless of whether federal funds are spent to implement the action, to include actions that are entirely funded and managed by private-sector entities where a federal permit is required. This legal interpretation is based on the rationale that obtaining a permit from a federal agency requires one or more federal employees (or contractors in some instances) to process and approve a permit application, inherently resulting in federal funds being expended to support the proposed action, even if no federal funds are directly allocated to finance the particular action.

Environmental Justice?!

The courts have further expanded the act beyond all recognition to include environmental justice.

Now, on three approved projects, with construction underway, in the name of “environmental justice”, the three projects “will require a new draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statements and public comment period before FERC decides whether to issue new project permits.”

Wikipedia notes the average time for a review is 4.5 years!

I strongly suggest the affected parties challenge this all the way to the Supreme Court. Hopefully the Supreme Court will put a permanent end to this regulatory madness.

Pennsylvania Are You Paying Attention?

Pennsylvania is the second largest natural gas exporter in the US, second only to Texas.

This explains Kamala Harris’ reversal on fracking. Anyone paying attention knows she is a liar.

Fact Checking Harris

The BBC does a bit of Fact-Checking Kamala Harris’s First Campaign Interview

What is Harris’s position on fracking?

CLAIM: In Thursday’s interview, Ms Harris said she would not ban fracking and maintained that she has “not changed that position”.

VERDICT: This needs context and could be misleading as Ms Harris has changed her public position on fracking. In 2019, she said she was “in favour of banning fracking.”

The following year, in the 2020 vice presidential debate when she was on the Biden ticket, Ms Harris said “Joe Biden will not end fracking” and: “I will repeat, and the American people know, that Joe Biden will not ban fracking.”

During the CNN interview on Thursday she was pressed on her 2019 statement, and Ms Harris responded: “I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020, that I would not ban fracking. As vice-president, I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking.”

Has child poverty fallen by over 50%?

CLAIM: “When we do what we did in the first year of being in office to extend the child tax credit, so that we cut child poverty in America by over 50%.”

VERDICT: This is somewhat of an exaggeration and needs context. Child poverty rates did fall, but not by “over 50%” and they rose again the year after, so the impact was only temporary.

In Creampuff Interview, CNN Spoon Feeds Harris the Answers to its Questions

On August 29, I noted In Creampuff Interview, CNN Spoon Feeds Harris the Answers to its Questions

“How should voters look at some of the changes that you’ve made?” Bash asked Harris. “Is it because you have more experience now and you’ve learned more about the information? Is it because you were running for president in a Democratic primary? And should they feel comfortable and confident that what you’re saying now is going to be your policy moving forward?”

Nothing like giving the person interviewed the answer right in the question you ask in case they cannot figure out what to say.

“My values have not changed,” replied Harris, pretending to be pro- and anti-fracking simultaneously.

Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves appeared on CNBC Thursday. He stated that Japan’s Nippon Steel’s $14.9 billion deal for US Steel had already fallen apart and reiterated that his Ohio-based steel company was the only viable buyer. This follows reports that President Biden is preparing to block the Nippon-US Steel merger.

CNBC’s Morgan Brennan asked Goncalves if Cleveland-Cliffs would still entertain purchasing US Steel if the Nippon-US Steel deal falls apart. He responded, “This deal has already fallen …” But stopped short. 

Goncalves continued: 

“So, it was the most predictable outcome that I could ever have seen in our steel business. How come a company, a foreigner, that has been a perpetrator of numerous trade cases and unfair trade practices in the United States, one of the main ones responsible for the decimation of the steel industry in the United States and union jobs, believes that they can come here and scoop assets from one of our companies and take care of their own businesses without any regard to our industry, our national security, and our supply chains? 

‘So, I’m glad that finally you are seeing the end — the light at the end of the tunnel.” 

CNBC highlighted on X that in a December interview, Goncalves predicted Nippon Steel’s bid would collapse, leaving Cleveland-Cliffs as the only viable bidder for US Steel.

Cleveland Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves tells @MorganLBrennan and @JonFortt he is still interested in buying US Steel. He predicted back in December the deal with Nippon Steel would fall apart and would “absolutely” be a bidder.$X $CLF #NipponSteel #Steel pic.twitter.com/zvNnWvIidp

— CNBCOvertime (@CNBCOvertime) September 5, 2024

Goncalves wrote in a statement published on Cleveland-Cliffs’ website that he’s working with JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo to revive a deal to acquire US Steel.  

It’s worth noting that Nippon Steel outbid Cleveland-Cliffs with a $55 per share offer, compared to Cleveland-Cliffs’ $35 per share for US Steel.

Goncalves applauded media reports that suggest the Biden administration is preparing to block the foreign takeover of US Steel officially:

“We commend President Biden and the US government for its reported decision to block foreign ownership of US Steel by Japan’s Nippon Steel. The American steel industry plays a crucial role in safeguarding our national security. President Biden’s courageous move affirms our view that our industry is best served by American companies that are committed to the long-term prosperity of domestic manufacturing, supported by good paying union jobs, under American ownership.”

“After decades of unfair trade practices causing harm to American steel companies and union jobs, it is no surprise to us that the United Steelworkers union (USW) adamantly opposes any transaction involving Nippon Steel, a company with an extensive track-record of injurious trade practices. The last-minute threats by US Steel to shut down integrated steelmaking production, fire union workers, and move their headquarters from Pittsburgh if their deal does not close, is just a pathetic blackmail attempt on the United States government and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. By taking immediate action, our government is showing that this type of shameless behavior will never be tolerated.”

“With the continued exclusive and unwavering support of the United Steelworkers union, and with ample financing support available from our bank group led by J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo, Cleveland-Cliffs stands ready to immediately acquire and invest in any and all union-represented assets that US Steel shuts down, protecting union jobs and investing in the future livelihoods and communities in which the facilities operate.”

In markets, shares of US Steel are up 3% after plunging 25% on Wednesday due to media reports suggesting Biden is preparing to block the deal. 

Bloomberg quoted Wolfe Research analyst Timna Tanners as saying, “For now, steel prices are pretty weak and I don’t think that Cliffs will have the wherewithal to be doing that kind of transaction anytime soon, at least easily.”