November 15, 2024

Few Clues to Regulatory Goals of Fed Rivals

Mr. Summers and Ms. Yellen are now the leading candidates to head the Federal Reserve, and the winner is likely to spend far more time on financial regulation than previous Fed chairmen. Congress has greatly expanded the Fed’s regulatory purview; moreover, the central bank’s basic responsibility to try to keep the economy on an even keel, experts say, will require a much greater focus on ensuring the stability of the financial system.

The two candidates share similar views on many regulatory issues, according to a review of their public statements and interviews with friends and colleagues. Both forged academic careers as members of the economics counterculture that attacked the dogma of efficient markets. Both say they believe that markets require regulation to prevent abuses, ensure fair competition and prevent disruptions of economic growth.

But those meetings 15 years ago highlight a basic difficulty in predicting what kind of regulators they would be. Ms. Yellen, during her two decades in prominent public roles, has left few footprints on the era’s debates about the government’s role in the markets. Mr. Summers, in helping to shape the regulatory policies of two administrations, has taken positions that critics say amounted to not following his own advice.

For supporters of stronger regulation, it comes down to a choice between someone they do not know and someone they do not trust.

The overhaul of financial regulation that Congress passed in 2010 — known as the Dodd-Frank law after its two principal authors, Senator Christopher J. Dodd and Representative Barney Frank (both since retired from Congress) — amounted to an instruction manual for the creation of a new system. The construction process remains substantially incomplete.

The next head of the Fed faces controversial decisions, in particular, about what safeguards to impose on the largest financial institutions to make it credible that if they falter, they will be allowed to fail.

“There’s a huge plate of unfinished business where the Fed has lead — if not sole — authority and the next chairman could derail a lot of that, or water it down,” said Sheila Bair, who was chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during the financial crisis. “That’s why it’s important for the next Fed chairman to have a good focus on regulation.”

President Obama has said that he intends to nominate a successor this fall for the current Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke. The White House has said he is also considering a third candidate, Donald L. Kohn, who was Ms. Yellen’s predecessor as Fed vice chairman. While past Fed chairmen have been selected almost exclusively for their views on monetary policy, this time the White House is focused on the fact that it is picking a financial regulator, too.

Mr. Summers and Ms. Yellen declined to comment for this article. Both, however, have spoken in recent months about the need for stronger regulation. Ms. Yellen, in a June speech, detailed areas where she believed stronger regulation was required. Mr. Summers, in an April interview, made a similar point, although he did not discuss specific proposals.

“The world is moving in the right direction,” he told Maclean’s, a Canadian newsmagazine. “Whether it is moving rapidly enough, and aggressively enough, is a judgment we will have to make in the next several years.”

Mr. Summers and Ms. Yellen were academic stars before entering public service. Menzie Chinn, an economist and professor of public affairs at the University of Wisconsin, said that both were “at the forefront” of research undermining the idea that markets were self-correcting. By contrast, the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan frequently argued that government regulation did more harm than good.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/business/economy/careers-of-2-fed-contenders-reveal-little-on-regulatory-approach.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Boeing’s Battery Problems Cast Doubt on Appraisal of New Technologies

Ten months later, the agency allowed Boeing to use the same volatile type of battery on its new 787 plane. But in Boeing’s case, the batteries weighed 63 pounds each, were to be used in critical flight systems as well as to provide backup power, and would be charged and discharged much more often. Yet the agency’s ruling used identical language — it could have been just cut and pasted — in laying out the broad safeguards for using the batteries that it had given Airbus to follow.

The use of lithium batteries in the 787 is at the center of the difficulties involving Boeing. The plane maker has staked its reputation on the success of the 787, an aircraft it nicknamed the Dreamliner. All 50 787s delivered to airlines worldwide were grounded last week until investigators in the United States and Japan find out why two lithium batteries failed in recent weeks, causing a fire on one 787 and damage to another that led to an emergency landing.

It also raises fundamental questions about how federal regulators certify new technology and how they balance advances in airplane design and engineering with ensuring safety in commercial flying. In addition to finding out what went wrong, these issues will be examined in a federal investigation and at future Senate hearings.

When it approved Boeing’s request in 2007, the F.A.A. said it had limited experience with the use of lithium-ion batteries in commercial airplanes, though it acknowledged that the batteries themselves were more prone to fire than traditional nickel-cadmium or lead-acid batteries.

Still, the agency approved the technology on the assumption that Boeing could make the batteries work and that computer controls could prevent batteries from overcharging or overheating. The agency also specified that any fire or toxic leak be contained and not damage any surrounding electrical systems.

At the same time, the agency brushed off concerns raised in 2006 and 2007 by the Air Line Pilots Association that a fire in flight would be difficult to extinguish and that flight crews should be given extra training.

“We have concluded that providing a means for controlling or extinguishing a fire — such as stopping the flow of fluids, shutting down equipment, or fireproof equipment” was an “adequate alternative to requiring the flight or cabin crew to use extinguishing agents,” the agency said in its 2006 decision about the Airbus A380.

Experts said that regardless of the cause of the 787’s problems, the charred remains of the battery that caught fire earlier this month in a plane in Boston raised the question of whether the safeguards functioned properly.

On Wednesday, the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the battery fire in Boston, said that all eight cells in the battery had sustained “varying degrees of thermal damage.” Six of them have been scanned and disassembled for further examination.

Many battery experts said they viewed Boeing’s decision to use lithium-ion batteries as a reasonable one and pointed out that lithium-ion batteries had also been used in expensive space satellites since around 2000 without serious problems. They said that track record would have added to the confidence Boeing and federal regulators had about using them in commercial airliners.

Jay F. Whitacre, an associate professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, said GS Yuasa, the Japanese company that built the 787 batteries, told the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in a 2008 presentation that it had already supplied batteries for six satellites and had contracts for 50 more. GS Yuasa also said that its satellite batteries had never had a shorting incident in more than 10 years of production.

“That’s pretty compelling,” Professor Whitacre said. “If I had all that data and saw that they were making batteries for 50 more satellites, I’d say that was a reasonable risk to take. My sense is that Boeing did a fairly decent job of picking the right company.”

But another battery expert, Donald Sadoway, a materials chemistry professor at M.I.T., disagreed. He said that sticking with an older type of battery instead of the lighter lithium battery would not have made a huge difference to the 787, adding about 40 pounds, or the equivalent of an extra suitcase per battery.

Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting from Washington.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/business/global/boeing-787-battery-was-not-overcharged-japanese-investigators-say.html?partner=rss&emc=rss