Blog

Previously, we shared perspectives from experts, analysts, reporters and even some current (and former) administration officials on why an export ban on U.S. crude oil or American-made diesel, gasoline and refined products would be a grave mistake. Instead of cutting prices for consumers, it would result in less U.S. fuel production, tighter supplies, greater energy security risks and higher prices. Here are even more perspectives on why an export ban is the wrong move for U.S. energy security.

Out in West Texas at one of the largest crude oil terminals in the country, AFPM’s oft-repeated line, “we make modern life possible,” rings truer than ever. Plains All American Pipeline’s Midland terminal moves roughly a million barrels of crude oil every day from the Permian Basin to refining, storage and distribution hubs, helping deliver the energy, fuels and products people rely on across the United States and around the world.

It may seem logical that if the United States stops exporting diesel, more fuel will stay here and prices will fall. But more diesel in the United States does not necessarily mean lower prices at the pump, especially when the United States is not facing a shortage of diesel. If refiners cannot export or economically store surplus diesel, some could reduce production, which tightens supplies, puts upward pressure on fuel prices and weakens U.S. energy security.

We've heard some talk lately about export bans and whether cutting off U.S. crude oil or American-made diesel, gasoline and refined products from the global market could be used as a tool to cut prices for consumers. Administration officials like Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum see export bans as a clear unforced error, and they’re not alone. Other experts, commentators and analysts share the view that an export ban would be a costly and counterproductive mistake. It would mean less U.S. fuel production, tighter supplies, greater energy security risks and higher prices.

When EPA sets Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates, most attention focuses on the required volumes of renewable fuel. But behind the scenes, compliance depends on something called Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs. Understanding how RINs work, and why the industry's "RIN bank" is shrinking, helps explain why increasingly aggressive mandates are driving up RFS compliance costs.

EPA's reallocation announcement may sound like an obscure regulatory decision, but it goes to the heart of a growing problem within the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). This latest action shifts additional compliance obligations onto non-exempt refiners, increasing costs throughout the system. The result is an already historically expensive RFS becoming even more expensive, with negative implications for fuel affordability, domestic refining and American energy security. Learn more about EPA's announcement, how reallocation works and why it matters.

Last year, Congress stopped California from banning sales of new gas cars and imposing electric heavy-truck mandates. It took bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate voting together to rescind the EPA rules authorizing those California mandates. 

Geopolitical conflicts, refinery outages, export restrictions and supply chain disruptions have reduced the world's ability to convert crude oil into usable fuels, even as global consumer demand remains strong. The following perspectives from analysts and reporters help explain why fuel prices today aren’t moving in lockstep with crude oil prices, and why refining capacity has become one of the most important factors shaping what consumers pay at the pump.

People are increasingly turning to tools like ChatGPT and Copilot to get quick answers, draft content or spark new ideas. But artificial intelligence (AI) is doing much more than offering guidance — it is reshaping some of the world’s most complex and safety critical industries.