Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 15, 2024

'California’s controversial new law aimed at preventing gas price spikes'

 California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday signed into law a controversial slate of plans to tighten fuel refinery storage rules in an effort to prevent future fuel shortages and price spikes at the pump.

The ABx2-1 bill, approved during a special legislative session by the California Assembly on Monday morning and by the state Senate on Friday, will allow state regulators to oversee the amounts of fuel that oil refiners keep in their inventories. The maintenance of these stocks will serve to avert deficits that end up raising gasoline prices, according to the governor’s office. 

“What I’m so proud of is that we stood up, we didn’t step back. Everybody here had the courage of their convictions, and they stood tall,” Newsom said at a press conference after signing the bill into law. “Big oil does not have your back — period. Full stop.”

Although ABx2-1 ultimately earned the Legislature’s favor to become state law, its advancement was neither unanimous nor without pushback — from oil companies, labor unions, Republican lawmakers and even some state Democrats.

Here’s what you should know about the legislation.

What will the bill do?

When the bill takes effect in 90 days, a state regulatory agency, the California Energy Commission, will have the authority to set constraints on storage levels for each refiner, each fuel and each blending component, per the bill. The agency will also be able to adjust inventory minimums, as well as establish conditions under which refiners can draw down or rebuild reserves.

The legislation will also allow the regulator to ensure that refiners have resupply plans in place ahead of maintenance outages and to set criteria that must be met before such events occur. 

“This bill will protect Californians from surging gas prices by requiring refineries to plan for shutdowns and supply chain disruptions,” ABx2-1 co-author and Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D) said prior to Monday’s final concurrence vote on the Assembly floor.

Why is it controversial?

The final concurrence on the legislation on the Assembly floor, required after the state Senate amended the initial text, concluded in a vote of 41 ayes and 16 noes.  

The Senate tally on Friday was 23-9, following a 44-18 Assembly floor vote on the initial version earlier in the month. Certain Democrats sided with Republicans in opposition, while many legislators chose to abstain from voting entirely.

Debate has mounted over both the terms of the bill itself and the need for the rushed gathering of a special legislative session, just as the regular session was ending, in order to pass it.

Per California’s constitution, the governor can call for a special session — although doing so doesn’t guarantee that the chambers will convene, according to CalMatters.

Measures approved and signed into law during such a session take effect after 90 days. As a basis of comparison, if lawmakers had postponed this bill until the next regular session, the earliest it could have gone into force would have been Jan. 1, 2026.

Newsom called for this session on Aug. 31, with his office explaining that “price spikes on consumers are profit spikes for oil companies, and they’re overwhelmingly caused by refiners not backfilling supplies when they go down for maintenance.”

The day before Newsom made the official proclamation, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D) signaled his chamber’s readiness to take on the legislation outside of the regular session.

“The Assembly has been ready to stop skyrocketing prices at the gas pump and deliver significant relief to Californians to lower their monthly energy bills,” Rivas said in a statement at the time.

“We’re on the same page with Governor Newsom about the absolute urgency of getting this done,” he continued. “If the Governor calls a special session, we’re going to do the work and deliver results.”

Rivas stressed, however, that he was unwilling to “push through bills that haven’t been sufficiently vetted with public hearings,” adding that “doing so could lead to unintended consequences on Californians’ pocketbooks.”

Unlike the Assembly, the state Senate was not immediately on board. Just after Newsom called for the session, state Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire (D) declared that his chamber would not hold a special session. He said that the Senate worked on a related package “for the better part of a year” and had been ready with sufficient votes to get it “across the finish line this legislative year.”

“We won’t be convening a special session this fall, but we look forward to continuing conversations with the Governor and Speaker about this critical issue in the days and weeks to come,” McGuire said at the time.

Ultimately, however, McGuire agreed to convene a special session following the Assembly’s Oct. 1 passage of the initial text — clarifying that the state Senate planned “to work quickly and efficiently” to bring Californians relief at the pump.

The legislation faced opposition from both oil companies and labor unions.

After ABx2-1 received Assembly approval but before it went to the Senate floor, Chevron sent a letter to lawmakers describing the bill as “inaccurate and flawed,” as first reported by local television station KRCA.

The letter warned that “economic fundamentals force prices up when demand outstrips supply” and that imposing further constraints on inventory would only result in price increases.

Another letter, sent from multiple labor unions last week, took issue with the fact that the California Energy Commission, an unelected, ratepayer-funded entity, would gain “unprecedented regulatory authority to bureaucratically dictate safety maintenance at in-state refineries.”

The writers warned that “leaving out the workforce with direct knowledge and insight into refinery operations and maintenance” could jeopardize the safety of their members.

“Fuel prices are currently down in California, and there is absolutely no policy reason that this issue could not have been raised in January,” they concluded, referring to the start date of the next regular legislative session. 

State Sen. Brian Dahle (R) raised concerns last week that the plans would “create artificial shortages by limiting supply,” describing the legislation as “a scheme to collect money from oil refineries and consumers at the pump.”

Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria (D) voted against ABx2-1 during the initial Assembly floor hearing due to her unwillingness to “take a risk on new regulations that could result in higher gas prices.”

Stressing that she is a daughter of farmworkers and is familiar with the everyday struggles Californians face firsthand, Soria described the bill’s measures as “unproven [and] risky,” adding that it “could ultimately hurt the communities that can least afford it.”

How did lawmakers address criticism of the bill?

The amended version of ABx2-1 passed by the state Senate on Friday, and then approved by the Assembly on Monday, did contain some changes that were more inclusive of workers.

The final text specifies that the Independent Consumer Fuels Advisory Committee — a watchdog for the California Energy Commission — will have a gubernatorial appointee who represents “a labor organization with experience in refinery operations.” 

The amended text also maintains the authority of workers to conduct emergency shutdowns and necessary maintenance work for safety reasons, while prioritizing “the health and safety of employees, local communities and the public.”

“The amendments taken in the Senate provide more protections for workers and the public,” Aguiar-Curry said prior to the Assembly floor vote. “This bill clearly states that no regulations will move forward unless there is a direct benefit to the California Gas consumers.”

Assemblymember Gregg Hart (D), co-author of the bill, touted the legislation for clarifying existing law in a way “that protects refinery workers’ health and safety, including stop work authority for emergency and necessary maintenance shutdowns.”

“The amendments make it clear that any regulations issued under this bill will not modify skilled and trained workforce requirements at refineries,” Hart added.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4933177-california-legislation-gas-prices/

Bloomberg editor: Harris declined interview on economy

 Vice President Harris has “so far declined” an invitation to talk about her economic agenda with the Economic Club of Chicago and Bloomberg News, one of the outlet’s editors said Tuesday.

“For the record and for those watching on television, the Economic Club of Chicago and Bloomberg both invited Vice President Harris to a similar interview about her economic plans,” Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait said during an event with former President Trump. “She has so far declined.”

Micklethwait clashed with Trump during the live sit-down over the Republican nominee’s insistence that tariffs would not have negative consequences in a possible second term.

Trump canceled a previously scheduled interview with CNBC earlier Tuesday, citing his upcoming chat with Micklethwait.

With three weeks until Election Day and polls showing the race for president closer than ever, both Harris and Trump are participating in a flurry of media interviews and public appearances as they seek to shore up support.

Harris is slated to sit for a high-stakes interview with Fox News on Wednesday evening, while Trump is scheduled to appear on the network hours earlier as part of a town hall focusing on women’s issues.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4934566-bloomberg-editor-harris-trump-economy/

'SBA disaster loan program is out of money, says Biden'

 President Biden said on Tuesday that a key federal program that provides disaster loans to businesses and homeowners is tapped out on funds in the aftermath of back-to-back hurricanes.

Biden said in a statement first reported by The Washington Post that the Small Business Adminstration’s disaster loan program, which he described as “a critical lifeline to small businesses, homeowners, and renters affected by disasters, has been exhausted.”

“Speaker Johnson has promised that this and other disaster programs will be replenished when Congress returns, so Americans should continue to apply for these loans. SBA will continue to process applications and will disburse loans as soon as Congress provides the needed funding,” he added.

The Hill has reached out to the Small Business Administration and the White House for comment. 

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Thursday that there’s “no question these devastating back-to-back storms have stressed the SBA funding program.” However, he also said the administration “has the necessary disaster funding right now to address the immediate needs of American people in these hurricane affected areas.”

“Congress is tracking this situation closely, and when members return in just a few short weeks, the administration should have an accurate assessment of the actual dollar amount needed and there will be strong bipartisan support to provide the necessary funding.”

Biden administration officials have been sounding alarm over the program’s finances in recent weeks after it became clearer its funds were in danger of running out before Congress is scheduled to return next month. 

Officials said the program needs about $1.6 billion amid heightened demand following Hurricane Helene.

Congress last month passed a temporary stopgap measure to keep federal funding from lapsing in October and to prevent a government shutdown. The bill did not include additional funding for the SBA, despite repeated requests from the administration.

However, the Biden administration also has not yet released a new emergency supplemental funding request in the aftermath of Helene and Milton. 

Pressed on calls for an early return, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) office also said last week that he is “awaiting estimates from agencies working diligently on the ground.”

https://thehill.com/business/4935159-federal-disaster-program-tapped-out/

"Skipping COVID Booster Could Reduce Your IQ": Vax Propaganda Thrives At LA Times

 The LA Times is out with an opinion piece by two Yale professors who suggest that failing to get a COVID booster could reduce your IQ.

Their argument: a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that COVID itself reduces IQ, which "suggests yet another reason to get the vaccine: It may protect your intellect."

Many people regard their ability to reason as a core aspect of their identity; that’s one reason the prospect of dementia is so frighteningThis research suggests that getting your booster may be one way to preserve that ability and promote brain health. If you want to keep solving Wordle or the Saturday crossword, you have an additional reason to get boosted. -LA Times

For starters, the study's authors found that the cognitive deficits were largely observed in those who had the original COVID strains, not recent strains.

"The largest deficits in global cognitive scores were observed in the group of participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods in which the original virus or the alpha variant was predominant as compared with those infected with later variants."

The authors specifically looked at vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and only observed "a small cognitive advantage among participants who had received multiple vaccinations."

The LA Times article also ignores the fact that COVID-19 vaccines and boosters do not prevent infection. It also ignores that the NEJM study authors "found smaller cognitive deficits among participants who had been infected during recent variant periods than among those who had been infected with the original virus or the alpha variant."

According to a study released in May, current boosters are just 52% effective at protecting against infection after 4 weeks, and 20.4% after 20 weeks. So essentially - take the vaccine - risking its potential side-effects - for a coin toss as to whether you'll get COVID.

The authors also suggest that "Young people, whose more active social lives often drive the spread of COVID, can safeguard not just their health but also their intelligence and their futures by getting vaccinated."

Yet, FDA adviser Paul A. Offitt says young and healthy people shouldn't get the latest COVID boosters, citing two studies suggesting that bivalent boosters, which target the original COVID-19 strain and two Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA. 5, do not "elicit superior immune responses."

Meanwhile, Sweden, Norway and Finland suspended or limited use of Moderna's COVID jab for people under children, while the UK has scaled back COVID vax efforts for healthy children after a study showed "an increased risk of hospital admission for myocarditis following a first or second dose of BNT162b2" in adolescents aged 12-17 years.

Waning immunity

Their thesis also fails to acknowledge waning immunity from boosters. A recent study which appeared last month in Nature Medicine found that "people who received repeated doses of vaccine, and in some cases also became infected with SARS-CoV-2, largely failed to make special antibody-producing cells called long-lived plasma cells (LLPCs)," according to Science.org.

Lee and her colleagues found that nearly all participants had LLPCs in their bone marrow that secreted antibodies against tetanus and flu. But only one-third had plasma cells generating the same defense against SARS-CoV-2. Even in those subjects, just 0.1% of the antibodies generated by their LLPCs were specific for SARS-CoV-2, an order of magnitude less than for tetanus and flu. “The paper is very informative,” Iwasaki says.

Click into this thread for a breakdown:

Outdated data

The LA Times article also falsely claims that "more than 95% of a group that knows COVID better than most — physicians — get their shots."

That claim is based on data from June 2021, before the boosters even existed. In reality, a growing number of doctors are not getting their boosters, while almost half of healthcare workers are hesitant to get the jab.

The comments section reveals that even LA Times readers aren't buying this shit anymore...

"This piece is extremely misleading and as a physician, I am insulted that the LA Times didn't fact check it better. It closes, "That’s why more than 95% of a group that knows COVID better than most — physicians — get their shots." As you can see by clicking the source above, that statistic about 95% of physicians getting their shots is from June 2021 - before the COVID booster even existed (it was authorized in September 2021). 95% of physicians do NOT currently get their booster shots, though the conclusion makes it sound like they do - this is overtly misleading. There is so much vaccine misinformation out there already, and it is infuriating that the LA Times would contribute to this. Please correct."

*  *  *

"There are plenty of people out there who were "fully vaccinated" with multiple boosters and still got COVID numerous times. It's even more of a stretch to tie vaccination to higher IQs when it can't even do much to quell the disease."

*  *  *

"This ad brought to you by your friends at Pfizer."

*  *  *

"A recent study in the UK shows that the vaccine does almost nothing to prevent covid in children, being completely ineffective after 14-15 weeks. The study shows that the vaccine causes severe inflammation (myocarditis and pericarditis) of the heart tissues and it is unclear how long this lasts, but it may be permanent."

Amazing.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/skipping-covid-booster-could-reduce-your-iq-vax-propaganda-thrives-la-times

'Most Doctors Regularly Engage With Healthcare Influencers on Social Media'

 

Survey found half reported changing their prescribing choices based on this engagement

The vast majority of physicians engaged with content created by healthcare influencers or key opinion leaders (KOLs) on social media at least weekly, and many also cited online creators as influential in their perception of medications and prescribing choices, according to a survey of more than 300 practitioners.

Nearly half of physicians (48%) reported engaging with healthcare influencers or KOLs on social media multiple times a day, with another 42% indicating they do so daily (21%) or weekly (21%), survey results showedopens in a new tab or window.

Additionally, 60% of physicians reported changing their perception of a medication based on content from a healthcare influencer or KOL on social media, and 50% reported changing their prescribing choices.

The survey was conducted by Sermo, an online platform that provides the healthcare industry with business insights and physician engagement, in partnership with LiveWorld, a digital and social marketing agency.

"Social media, in general, has helped to connect the global healthcare professional community," Joanna Molke, vice president of marketing at Sermo, told MedPage Today.

Accordingly, the survey on physicians' engagement with healthcare influencers and KOLs was aimed at better understanding who is on social media and who is trusted, as well as the impacts of information gathered by physicians from social media, she said.

In total, 11 specialties and three generations were represented in the survey, which was conducted online in July during an 8-hour period; the survey length was 10 minutes.

Looking at representation among specialties, allergy and immunology had the smallest sample (25) and general/family practice had the largest (38). There were 197 millennials (born 1981-1996) represented in the study, 76 Gen X participants (born 1965-1980), and 44 baby boomers (born 1946-1964).

Though 62% of respondents reported they would most prefer to receive medication information from a physician peer, 15% indicated they would prefer to receive this information from a healthcare influencer or KOL, 13% from a medical science liaison, and 10% from a pharmaceutical sales representative.

Some 36% of physicians said they considered information provided by healthcare influencers or KOLs on social media as "extremely or very trustworthy," and 37% said such information is "extremely or very effective" in keeping them updated on treatments.

As for who healthcare influencers and KOLs are, "there is a wide spectrum from micro-influencers and rising stars to established opinion leaders," according to the report about the survey's findings.

Rather than the size of someone's social media following, influence is tied more to the "types of content" being shared and whether physicians "find value in it," Molke explained, adding that it is more of an "information contest" than a "popularity contest."

However, credentials are incredibly important, survey results indicated.

The top factors that made a healthcare influencer or KOL credible to physicians included professional credentials (82%), evidence-based content (80%), and peer endorsements (47%).

Physicians also have cited information obtained from healthcare influencers and KOLs as a "spark" for them "to do additional research on the content itself," Molke said.

Indeed, 51% of physicians reported that healthcare influencers and KOLs had inspired them to conduct additional treatment research.

Furthermore, 74% said they were likely to consider information about a pharmaceutical product if it was presented by a trusted healthcare influencer or KOL, and 84% said they have shared a healthcare influencer's or KOL's content with a colleague or friend.

Ultimately, it is important for physicians to be "cautious" when it comes to information from social media, and to make sure to confirm information with "another reputable source," Molke noted.

Information from healthcare influencers and KOLs on social media should not replace medical congresses or publications, but social media is a "great way to see what is trending," and to get smaller pieces of information, often referred to as "snackable content," to lead physicians on an "educational journey," she said.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/112410

Mich. to Pay $13M After Shooter Drill Terrified Kids' Psych Hospital

 A judge has approved a $13 million settlement in a lawsuit over an unannounced active shooter drill at a Michigan psychiatric hospital for children, an event that terrified kids and staff and caused them to scramble for cover, text family, and urgently call 911.

Someone at the front desk declared through a speaker system that two armed men were inside the state-run Hawthorn Center in suburban Detroit and that shots were fired, attorney Robin Wagner said.

It wasn't true, but the message on Dec. 21, 2022, set off a frenzy.

"Everyone went into, 'Oh my God. This is the worst day of my life,'" Wagner said Tuesday. "People were hiding under their desks. They were barricading the doors, trying to figure out how to protect the children."

Police apparently didn't know anything about a drill. Dozens of officers responding to 911 calls showed up with body armor and high-powered weapons, anticipating the worst.

Two people who were told to pose as shooters were captured, Wagner said. They were not armed.

"It was horrifying," she said.

Fifty children at the hospital each will receive roughly $60,000. Among staff, 90 people will receive an average of more than $50,000, depending on their score on a trauma exam, Wagner said. Two dozen others will get smaller amounts.

"The state recognized that this was really a bad decision and harmed a lot of people," Wagner said of the drill.

Court of Claims Judge James Redford approved the settlement on October 4, records show. More than $3 million will go to attorneys in the case.

In 2023, when a lawsuit was filed, the state Department of Health and Human Services said the hospital was required to conduct a "hazard vulnerability analysis" to identify potential emergencies, including active shooter drills.

Spokesperson Lynn Sutfin also said the department was working with police on improving active intruder training.

She didn't immediately respond to an email Tuesday about the settlement.

Wagner said the drill was organized by the Hawthorn Center's safety director, who still works for the state. Hawthorn Center was subsequently closed for reasons unrelated to what happened.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/generalpsychiatry/112409

Cruise Ship Flunks CDC Inspection — Several others just made "satisfactory" cutoff

 One cruise ship "flunked" its CDC inspection this year, and five others just barely passed with scores right on the satisfactory cutoff.

That's based on an analysis of data from CDC's Vessel Sanitation Programopens in a new tab or window, originally flagged by maritime newsletter gCaptainopens in a new tab or window.

The Hanseatic Inspiration -- owned by the large shipping company Hapag-Lloyd -- scored a 62, which is well below the 86 needed to be deemed "satisfactory" by the agency.

Some of the violations noted in the reportopens in a new tab or window included unsafe practices in food preparation areas; concerns about the wash/rinse/sanitize process; the whirlpool not being shock cleaned every 24 hours; and a lack of disinfection for the swimming pool's hair and lint strainer during a 2-week period.

The report also stated that a "beer tap was soiled with more than a day's accumulation of thick brown residue" and three waffle irons "were soiled with sticky residue, which was peeling off the food-contact and nonfood-contact surfaces."

For the five ships that scored on the cusp, an 86 is "not terrible ... and could indicate notable deficiencies in the health plan, crew training, or other factors besides germs and dirt," the article stated. "Conversely, there could be inconsistent sanitation practices, lapses in cleaning procedures, or failures in adhering to proper hygiene standards among the crew."

"Check the CDC website for reports for individual ships before you make judgments," the article noted.

CDC's Vessel Sanitation Program has existed since the 1990s, and vessels are subject to two unannounced inspections per year. They usually take 6 to 8 hours, and they cover a lot of ground, including kitchens, pools, and children's play areas.

Among the 119 ships inspected this year, the majority passed with flying colors, scoring above 95, gCaptain reported. There were even 19 ships that have earned a perfect scoreopens in a new tab or window of 100 this year.

However, even a perfect score can't completely prevent an outbreak. So far this year, the CDC has logged 10 outbreaksopens in a new tab or window -- and two of those occurred on Royal Caribbean's Radiance of the Seas, which was one of the 19 vessels that earned a 100. Its April outbreak involved norovirus, and its September outbreak involved Salmonella.

"It's a stark reminder that even with stringent measures, the microscopic world doesn't easily yield," the article stated.

Here are the cruise ships with the lowest scores thus far in 2024:

Hanseatic Inspiration: 62

Caribbean Princess: 86

Carnival Breeze: 86

Evrima: 86

Kydon: 86

MSC Magnifica: 86

Carnival Miracle: 88

National Geographic Sea Bird: 88

Adventure of the Seas: 89

Aurora: 89

Carnival Elation: 89

Crystal Serenity: 89

Le Boreal: 89


https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/112411