AFPM opposes the Inflation Reduction Act as written. We evaluated the bill against our core principles, specifically whether the legislation would support strong U.S. refining and petrochemical industries and whether it pursued emissions reductions in a market-based and cost-effective manner. Unfortunately, the IRA falls short of these goals.
AFPM director of transportation and infrastructure, Rob Benedict, discusses the potential impacts proposed steel tariffs would have on the fuels and petrochemical industries.
SPR releases cannot be the center of this Administration’s strategy to confront inflation and high energy prices. At best, SPR releases are a short-term fix, they are not a solution. Stability and certainty is what global crude oil markets crave.
Governor Gavin Newsom continues to blame fuel refiners for California’s highest-in-the-nation fuel prices. He couldn't be more wrong. The problem and solution to much of California’s fuel price challenge can be found in Sacramento policy. Take a look to better understand the role of policy in regional price differences, why it’s inaccurate to equate “margins” or “refinery cracks” with “profits,” and why windfall profit taxes are a known policy failure.
Restricting exports would be a major unforced error for the President, tightening global fuel supplies, throttling U.S. fuel production and increasing costs for American consumers. Likewise, imposing product inventory requirements boils down to siphoning gasoline and diesel into storage, and away from consumers.
AFPM Senior Director of Fuels and Vehicle Policy, Patrick Kelly, testified during the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) public hearing on the proposed Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) “Set” Rule. EPA’s proposal will stifle advanced biofuels, promote first generation biofuels beyond the market’s ability to absorb them and shift overall RFS growth away from liquid biofuels and into the power electricity sector. This is completely contrary to how congress envisioned EPA’s handling of the program.
AFPM's Geoff Moody issued the following statement responding to the EPA's 2023-2025 proposal for RFS blending obligations: “Congress provided EPA the ability to modernize the RFS and set it on a more sustainable course for all stakeholders. Sadly, EPA’s proposal is a missed opportunity..."
AFPM President and CEO Chet Thompson issued the following statement on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposal of light- and heavy-duty vehicle GHG emission standards: "EPA's proposal to effectively ban gasoline and diesel vehicles is bad for consumers, the environment, our freedom of mobility and U.S. national security. It’s unconscionable that the Administration would propose this knowing full well that China controls 80% of global battery production capacity..."
The House of Representatives will soon vote on three pieces of legislation to rein in the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from (1) imposing and enabling de facto bans on new cars and trucks that run on liquid fuels and (2) from radically transforming the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) into a new nine-figure-government subsidy program for electric vehicles (EVs).
When Congress created the Renewable Fuel Standard, the intent was clear. The RFS was supposed to build a market for American-grown biofuels and support domestic energy security. Today, EPA wants to deviate wildly from this course. Instead of maintaining the RFS as a program for liquid transportation biofuels, EPA’s RFS proposal for 2023 to 2025 would begin transforming the RFS into yet another huge government subsidy for electric vehicles.
