WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) applauds the House Energy & Commerce Committee for passing H.R. 4775, the “Ozone Implementation Act of 2016” and urges the House of Representatives to take further action on this critical piece of legislation.
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.
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.
Last week, California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones launched the latest salvo in his relentless crusade to coerce the nation’s leading insurance companies to divest from oil and natural gas company holdings.
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).
Oil markets are famously sensitive to uncertainty. Global conflict can send prices higher on concerns that crude oil supplies could be disrupted. This is playing out in response to Russia’s unprovoked acts of war against Ukraine. Russia is a major supplier of crude oil and other energy products globally, though less so in the United States. In recent days, many market participants have committed to stop purchasing Russian oil. Shipping companies are concerned about loading cargoes from Russia and some shippers are finding the cost associated with such cargoes too high. These moves are tightening an already tight market.
Although President Obama’s controversial Clean Power Plan (CPP) has been debated at length for several months, its legal failings finally came under the microscope during oral argument in W Virginia et al. v EPA et al. in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on September 27.
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.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII) regulation. ACCII requires 35% of light-duty vehicle sales to qualify as “zero emission” by 2026 and 100% by 2035. Essentially, this amounts to a ban on new sales of traditional gasoline and diesel-powered cars and trucks. To implement the policy, California will need a Clean Air Act waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If EPA grants the waiver, millions of Americans—including many outside of California—could lose the option to buy the car or truck THEY want.
Publicly owned companies, like many U.S. refineries, have a fiduciary responsibility (which is a legal obligation) to act in the best interest of their shareholders, and that extends to how companies spend their earnings. Often, earnings are spent on a combination of the following: direct dividends, stock buy back programs, paying down debt and capital investment projects.