Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload?

oilprice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload?

#71

Post by Avitas »

001sky wrote: post #51
rgbrenner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They claimed to be importing fuel into the US that was actually produced in the US.

Each time the loaded train crossed the border the cargo earned its owner a certain amount of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), which were awarded by the US EPA to “promote and track production and importation of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.” The RINs were supposed to be retired each time the shipment passed the border, but due to a glitch not all of them were. This enabled Bioversal to accumu…

This begs the question of precisely how the glitch was discovered and by whom. Did one of the involved businesses initially and accidentally enter the details from an old manifest and then realize that they still got credits? Or, perhaps one of the businesses submitted something twice and got credit for both.

When this is investigated by the EPA OIG (http://www.epa.gov/oig/), the chronology of the fault/exploit/fraud will be investigated along with the parties involved.

This may have involved bits of inside information such as company X hires former enforcement regulator Y from government agency Z who details the precise nature of how various governmental systems work. The possible permutations of how this situation evolved are many.

From my relatively uninformed perspective, the initial read of the article gives me the impression that this is an intentionally fraudulent scheme and criminal manipulation of the government program by the companies involved. However, I clearly do not have enough information to make such a determination.

You can bet the EPA OIG and their Canadian equivalent are going to try to get to the bottom of this.

Re: Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload?

#74

Post by eagsalazar2 »

gsibble wrote: post #10

Hilarious. Sounds legal and I doubt they would have done it otherwise. Good example of why most regulation is ridiculous because it's generally easy to find and exploit loopholes.

Good god libertarians make me sick.

Re: Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload?

#75

Post by rayiner »

rhizome wrote: post #70
rayiner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it deeply amusing that tech people are always so forgiving of bugs in software, but seem to go out of their way to blame the government for bugs in regulation just because it's the government. Newsflash: everything is imperfect, and the operation of this whole complex world we live in requires a certain amount of good faith on the part of everyone. I agree the regulation is asinine, but for reasons completely…

Implementation bugs are design flaws are tax loopholes are human failings that the technocrat decries as solvable even though it's people originating all of it.

Lots of human failings are solvable through regulation. Have you been killed and eaten recently? Boom a common flaw of human society solved by government.

Re: Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload?

#76

Post by icambron »

Lot of assumptions on this thread. The company involved here is claiming that hasn't committed a crime, which isn't a very interesting claim. The agency that's launched and investigation hasn't gotten a chance to, you know, conduct that investigation yet. There's also a possibility that this was all a mistake that just needs sorted out. So before we all jump on the incentives-gone-wrong and government-is-inefficient trains, maybe give the government a chance?

But if we are going to speculate--and let's face it, we are--let's at least have a gander at the relevant regulations. IANAL, etc, but from my reading Title 40 Part 80 Subpart M [1] it seems really unlikely that assigning the same volume of fuel different RINs is legal. There's a bunch there about assigning specific numbers to specific volumes of fuel, but there's also the super specific:

> (5) Importers shall not generate RINs for renewable fuel that has already been assigned RINs by a registered foreign producer.[2]

Sounds pretty clear.

[1] http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=27e92597...

[2] http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=27e92597...

Re: Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload?

#77

Post by yew »

msbarnett wrote: post #66
ams6110 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it does. The more complex the code the more ways there are to legally avoid its intent. Extreme example: if we had one tax bracket and no exemptions or deductions, there would be little anyone could do to avoid taxes other than literally earn less money.

His point was that objecting to a piece of legislation on the basis that some people will break the law is a pretty vacuous objection. Given one tax bracket or 200, people can lie to reduce their taxes. This, of course, is not an interesting or useful critique of tax policy, just as what this company did in this case (fraudulently manipulate RIN credit retirements such that the train load was simultaneously classed a…

Noting that people will break a law is a vacuous criticism of said law. Noting that a law will make it easier for people to break the law (or take advantage of it) is certainly not.

Indeed, I'd argue that any analysis of the utility of a new law that doesn't take added opportunities for fraud into account (alongside the other negative effects of adding complexity) is simply worthless.

Re: Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload?

#78

Post by jrs235 »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #74
gsibble wrote: post #10

Hilarious. Sounds legal and I doubt they would have done it otherwise. Good example of why most regulation is ridiculous because it's generally easy to find and exploit loopholes.

Good god libertarians make me sick.

I identify as a libertarian... But all these folks blaming the government in this case without truly knowing what took place but just jumping to the regulations are to blame conclusion, make me ill.

Yes the law of unintended consequences often occurs with regulations however blatantly taking advantage of someone or something is wrong, legal or illegal. This is where we need a jury of peers to determine whether we want to encourage or discourage the behavior that this company took part in. I'd find this company guilty in a heart beat.

It's like jury nullification in reverse.

All it takes for evil to triumph is good men to do nothing.

Re: Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload?

#79

Post by ucee054 »

gsibble wrote: post #10

Hilarious. Sounds legal and I doubt they would have done it otherwise. Good example of why most regulation is ridiculous because it's generally easy to find and exploit loopholes.

Yeah let's get rid of regulation, then we can live under mafia control with bad sanitation!

See Kowloon Walled City http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

Also: see Somalia 10 years ago

Re: Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload?

#80

Post by 001sky »

anigbrowl wrote: post #56
001sky wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each time the loaded train crossed the border the cargo earned its owner a certain amount of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), which were awarded by the US EPA to “promote and track production and importation of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.” The RINs were supposed to be retired each time the shipment passed the border, but due to a glitch not all of them were. This enabled Bioversal to accumu…

Just because you fail to lock your door does not authorize a burglar to come into your house and help himself to your stuff. You don't get to beg off responsibility by claiming the injured party made it too easy for you to help yourself.

Maybe a better example: Imagine your eazy-pass was mis-programmed. Going over the GG bridge, you get $$ credited to your account each trip rather than -$$ subtracted. So, depends on if the ez-pass was hacked by the user or just broken/mis-programmed by the EPA.
Post reply on HN