PYLE: EPA’s Biofuel Fix is Only a Band-Aid

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released today its 2014 requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The proposed rule scales back the ethanol mandate to the 2012 level of 15.2 billion gallons, down from 16.55 billion gallons in 2013. American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released the following statement in response to the announcement:

“The American Energy Alliance welcomes today’s better-late-than-never announcement that the EPA will scale back the ethanol mandate for next year. With this ruling, even the EPA now recognizes that this program is flawed and fails to take into account existing market realities. Today’s action by the EPA, however, does not take away the need for Congress to act quickly to repeal the law. With this ruling, the “blend wall” may not immediately be hit, but the real problems for consumers have not gone away.

“With this RPS ruling, the EPA is still requiring the production of millions of gallons of phantom cellulosic biofuel, an 800 percent increase from the 2013 levels that were actually produced. Further, the 2.2 billion gallon mandate for “advanced biofuel” is especially absurd considering the practical result is we are merely swapping Brazilian sugarcane ethanol with U.S corn based ethanol in the marketplace.

“If the purpose of the RFS was to to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it is certainly no longer necessary to worry about that given we are poised to become the world’s number one producer of oil. If the purpose of the RFS was to help the environment, we also know that is doing quite the opposite. In fact, the only ones benefiting from this program are lobbyists for the corn and biofuels industries who falsely claim they are fighting for rural states, farmers, and a cleaner energy source when in reality they are merely lining their pockets with Americans’ tax dollars.  The renewable fuels standard has driven up the cost of both food and fuels, and distorted energy markets to the disadvantage of American consumers.

“The EPA decision today is not a fix, but a band-aid. Congress must work immediately to fully repeal this bad law.”

For an analysis on the 2014 RFS proposal, click here.

PYLE: EPA's Biofuel Fix Is Only a Band-Aid

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released today its 2014 requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The proposed rule scales back the ethanol mandate to the 2012 level of 15.2 billion gallons, down from 16.55 billion gallons in 2013. American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released the following statement in response to the announcement:

“The American Energy Alliance welcomes today’s better-late-than-never announcement that the EPA will scale back the ethanol mandate for next year. With this ruling, even the EPA now recognizes that this program is flawed and fails to take into account existing market realities. Today’s action by the EPA, however, does not take away the need for Congress to act quickly to repeal the law. With this ruling, the “blend wall” may not immediately be hit, but the real problems for consumers have not gone away.

“With this RPS ruling, the EPA is still requiring the production of millions of gallons of phantom cellulosic biofuel, an 800 percent increase from the 2013 levels that were actually produced. Further, the 2.2 billion gallon mandate for “advanced biofuel” is especially absurd considering the practical result is we are merely swapping Brazilian sugarcane ethanol with U.S corn based ethanol in the marketplace.

“If the purpose of the RFS was to to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it is certainly no longer necessary to worry about that given we are poised to become the world’s number one producer of oil. If the purpose of the RFS was to help the environment, we also know that is doing quite the opposite. In fact, the only ones benefiting from this program are lobbyists for the corn and biofuels industries who falsely claim they are fighting for rural states, farmers, and a cleaner energy source when in reality they are merely lining their pockets with Americans’ tax dollars.  The renewable fuels standard has driven up the cost of both food and fuels, and distorted energy markets to the disadvantage of American consumers.

“The EPA decision today is not a fix, but a band-aid. Congress must work immediately to fully repeal this bad law.”

For an analysis on the 2014 RFS proposal, click here.

RFS: Windfall for Ethanol, Burden on American Families

As we have explained on these pages before, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) amounts to a massive subsidy for the ethanol industry. By forcing refiners to purchase and blend rising volumes of biofuels, regardless of whether it makes economic sense, the RFS provides ethanol producers guaranteed demand for their product.

To protect their mandate, the ethanol industry tries to blame oil companies and refiners to deflect the public away from the fact that the RFS forces the public to buy ethanol—whether the public wants it or not.  For example, Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen put forward the latest deflection:

Who stands to gain from higher gasoline prices and more gasoline volume? Oil refiners, of course. That’s what this is really all about—Big Oil wants to shut out competition and put more money in its already-stuffed pockets.

Dineen doesn’t talk about the people who really lose under the RFS—American motorists who are forced to buy Dineen’s product, whether they like it or not. Refiners would buy billions of gallons of ethanol, regardless of the RFS, because ethanol can be a cost-effective way to increase octane in gasoline.

As the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) explain in a letter to the White House, ethanol producers—not refiners—make gasoline more expensive and limit consumer choice by supporting a mandate that forces Americans to consume more biofuel than the market demands and their vehicles are equipped to handle.

Despite the ethanol industry’s claims, there are physical limitations to the amount of ethanol that can be safely added to the nation’s fuel supply. For instance, 95 percent of vehicles on the road today are certified to run on E10, gasoline that contains up to 10 percent ethanol. Ethanol producers want more cars to use E15, but as AAA points out, running cars not designed for higher ethanol blends on E15 would likely cause “consumer confusion and the potential for voided warranties and vehicle damage.” This physical constraint on increased ethanol use is known as the E10 blend wall.

If left unchanged, as the ethanol industry demands, the RFS would likely require refiners next year to blend more than 10 percent ethanol into the U.S. fuel supply. As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explained in the 2013 RFS, while biofuel volumes as set forth in federal statute rise to 18.15 billion gallons in 2014, the “maximum volume of ethanol that could be consumed as E10 in 2014 is projected to be just 13.2 bill[ion] gal[lons].” Recognizing the “infrastructure- and market-related factors” that constrain consumption of higher ethanol blends, EPA has signaled a willingness to reduce the RFS next year, noting that “in 2014 compliance is expected to become significantly more difficult.”

In addition to damaging vehicle engines, higher ethanol blends also make gasoline more expensive. A gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. This means that as the ethanol content of gasoline rises, fuel economy decreases. Indeed, the BTU-adjusted price of E85 (gasoline with up to 85 percent ethanol) on November 11 was nearly 30 cents higher than regular gasoline, according to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report.

With public support evaporating and opposition in Congress growing, the ethanol industry is resorting to increasingly desperate attacks to justify their lavish mandate. The RFS is misguided policy that enriches the ethanol industry at the expense of everyone else, while hurting American families by damaging vehicle engines and raising gasoline prices. It is time to repeal the RFS.

IER Policy Associate Alex Fitzsimmons authored this post.

Congressional Members Call for an End to the Wind PTC

WASHINGTON – Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and 51 other Members of Congress have joined today in opposition to another extension of the wasteful wind production tax credit (PTC). In a letter sent to Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) of the House Committee on Ways and Means, the Congressional signatories call for the permanent expiration of the wind PTC. AEA President Thomas Pyle released the following statement:

“The American Energy Alliance welcomes Congressman Pompeo’s renewed efforts to end this special interest giveaway to the wind lobby. It is now time for the rest Congress to follow suit and allow the wind PTC to expire at the end of the year. The expiration of this decades old government giveaway is long overdue, yet the wind industry continues to rake in federal dollars and distort energy markets at great cost to American consumers. Last year’s extension of the wind PTC expanded the program and fleeced taxpayers to the tune of $12.1 billion. Another one-year extension would add another $6 billon to the tab. The wind industry is no longer the infant that it professes to be and no longer needs the wind PTC. The Pompeo effort comes at an important moment as Congress finally begins to consider tax reform. Powerful and well-financed lobbyists are working overtime to push Chairman Camp to bury another wind giveaway in any reform proposal. Growing bipartisan opposition to the wind PTC signals that the time has come to finally allow Big Wind to stand or fall on its own.”

To read the full Pompeo letter, click here.

For more information on wind energy and the wind PTC, click here.

To help end the wind giveaway, click here.

###

Aussie PM Moves to Repeal Carbon Tax

WASHINGTON — Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott followed through today on a major campaign promise and introduced a bill to repeal Australia’s controversial carbon tax. The carbon tax was a key issue leading up to Australia’s Sept. 7 election in which Abbot defeated Labor Party candidate Kevin Rudd. AEA President Thomas Pyle released the following statement in response to Prime Minister Abbot’s move:

“The American Energy Alliance welcomes Prime Minister Abbott’s effort to end Australia’s carbon tax and begin restoring sanity to that nation’s energy policies. Weeks before Prime Minister Abbot’s election, the Institute for Energy Research released a study demonstrating the disastrous economic and environmental consequences of Australia’s carbon tax, including increased electricity prices and higher unemployment. Not only that, but this failed policy had the reverse effect of increasing carbon dioxide emissions, proving again that bureaucratic tinkering with energy markets leads to unintended consequences that undermine carbon tax advocates’ chief claims.  Australia’s experience should serve as a warning to policymakers in the United States who seek to implement similar policies here at home. Past supporters of a U.S. carbon tax — like Senator Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Senator Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Congressman Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), among others — would be wise to observe the Australian experiment very closely and publicly reject all efforts to institute a carbon tax on American consumers.”

To read IER’s study, “Australia’s Carbon Tax: An Economic Evaluation”, click here.

###

Big Brother Black Box for Your Car?

A recent story in the LA Times explains that government officials at various levels are keen on putting little black boxes in everyone’s vehicle. Civil liberties groups are concerned—and rightly so—about Big Brother being able to track everyone’s movements. Yet even the official reason is ominous: It will allow the government to tally a citizen’s mileage and then send him or her a tax bill.

Here are the chilling details:

WASHINGTON — As America’s road planners struggle to find the cash to mend a crumbling highway system, many are beginning to see a solution in a little black box that fits neatly by the dashboard of your car.

The devices, which track every mile a motorist drives and transmit that information to bureaucrats, are at the center of a controversial attempt in Washington and state planning offices to overhaul the outdated system for funding America’s major roads.

And while Congress can’t agree on whether to proceed, several states are not waiting. They are exploring how, over the next decade, they can move to a system in which drivers pay per mile of road they roll over. Thousands of motorists have already taken the black boxes, some of which have GPS monitoring, for a test drive.

The push comes as the country’s Highway Trust Fund, financed with taxes Americans pay at the gas pump, is broke. Americans don’t buy as much gas as they used to. Cars get many more miles to the gallon…

“The gas tax is just not sustainable,” said Lee Munnich, a transportation policy expert at the University of Minnesota. His state recently put tracking devices on 500 cars to test out a pay-by-mile system. “This works out as the most logical alternative over the long term,” he said.

It is no surprise that political liberals support the plan, since it allows government to raise revenue (always a plus for those in favor of Big Government) and it is yet another mechanism to punish the use of fossil fuels.

However, what may surprise some readers is to learn that some libertarians are applauding the innovation as well. Their reasoning is that it’s more efficient to charge for road use in terms of actual miles driven, rather than (say) how many gallons of gasoline are sold at the pump.

It is amazing how often free-market economists analyze government policy from the perspective of the best possible outcome. Yes, in theory a textbook tax system based on miles driven, rather than gallons of gasoline purchased, arguably would be a more sensible way to finance road construction and maintenance.

Yet the government in the real world doesn’t operate according to the textbook plans of economists. Giving the government yet another source of tax revenue will simply mean that…the government gets more tax revenue. The mileage tax will be based on political expediency, rather than a desire to set the “optimal” fee for road usage.

When government manages a resource like a road, they have less incentive to manage it efficiently. Because it derives its revenue from involuntary taxes, the government has little incentive to keep its customers happy. And because it is a monopoly supplier, there is little innovation.

On top of the economic waste, there is the added danger of giving government officials the ability to track every motorist’s movements. One doesn’t have to work for the ACLU to see why that is a bad idea.

IER Senior Economist Robert P. Murphy authored this post.

AP Exposes 'Secret, Dirty Cost' of Federal Ethanol Mandate

All energy sources involve tradeoffs. Ethanol production, for example, requires vast amounts of farmland and additional use of fertilizer can contaminate water supplies. As a new Associated Press investigation uncovered, the environmental tradeoffs associated with ethanol production have intensified as the federal ethanol mandate has expanded. The AP explains:

With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. When President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country “stronger, cleaner and more secure.”

But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and contaminated water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Passed by Congress in 2005 and expanded in 2007, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires oil refiners to blend increasing amounts of biofuels into the U.S. fuel supply. Over the last five years, volume requirements under the RFS have risen from 6 billion gallons in 2008 to 16.55 billion gallons in 2013, the vast majority of which comes from corn-based ethanol.

The dramatic increase in mandated ethanol volumes has coincided with growing concerns about the environmental impacts of ethanol production. According to the AP, “Between 2005 and 2010, corn farmers increased their use of nitrogen fertilizer by more than a billion pounds.” Moreover, since 2009, “Five million acres of land set aside for conservation—more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined—have been converted on Obama’s watch.”

The Obama administration defends corn-based ethanol as a bridge fuel to greener biofuels. The RFS requires refiners to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, with a cap of 15 billion gallons on corn-based ethanol. So-called “next-generation” biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, are supposed to make up the difference. These next-generation biofuels are also supposed to be better for the environment than corn-based ethanol. But as the AP points out, cellulosic biofuel production has fallen woefully short of expectations.

In the case of ethanol, the administration believes it must encourage the development of next-generation biofuels that will someday be cleaner and greener than today’s.

“That is what you give up if you don’t recognize that renewable fuels have some place here,” EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said. “All renewable fuels are not corn ethanol.”

But next-generation biofuels haven’t been living up to expectations. And the government’s predictions on ethanol have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases.

Cellulosic ethanol plants existed in the U.S. 100 years ago, but because they were inefficient, they went out of business.[i] It wasn’t until last year that cellulosic biofuel was produced commercially again.  As the following chart shows, EPA mandated 5 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel in 2010, yet not a drop was produced for commercial purposes. In 2011, EPA actually increased its mandate, but still no cellulosic was biofuel was produced. EPA raised the mandate to 8.65 million gallons the following year, though cellulosic producers eked out just 20,269 gallons. So far this year, a little more than 217,000 gallons have been produced, despite a mandate for refiners to blend 6 million gallons. Given this track record, the administration’s hope that cellulosic biofuels could play a significant part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions remains a pipedream.

After forcing refiners to blend millions of gallons of biofuel that were never produced, EPA then fined refiners millions of dollars for failing to blend fuels that did not exist. As a result, the American Petroleum Institute successfully challenged the 2012 mandate, with the D.C. Circuit Court declaring that EPA “let its aspirations for a self-fulfilling prophecy divert it from a neutral methodology.”

EPA is poised to once again mandate unrealistic cellulosic biofuel volumes. Despite consistently overestimating cellulosic biofuel production, a leaked draft proposal shows that EPA is considering raising the cellulosic mandate to 23 million gallons in 2014, a nearly fourfold increase.

Under federal law, EPA must adjust required cellulosic volumes “based on“ the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) annual estimate of cellulosic biofuel production for the next year. EIA, however, has not released their projected cellulosic volumes for 2014. That means EPA’s leaked draft proposes almost quadrupling the cellulosic mandate next year apparently without considering EIA’s 2014 volume projection that the EPA’s cellulosic projection is supposed to be “based on.”

Given that the biofuel industry has failed for four years in a row to meet the EPA’s mandates, it seems unlikely that 23 million gallons is a realistic goal for next year. It is unreasonable to expect refiners to blend fuels that do not exist, and especially egregious to fine them for failing to comply with an unattainable mandate.

The history of U.S. ethanol policy exposes the unintended consequences of government intervention in energy markets. Since the RFS became law, millions of acres of land set aside for conservation have been converted to ethanol production. Meanwhile, refiners are forced to pay fines for failing to blend essentially non-existent “next-generation” biofuels that “haven’t been living up to expectations.” This does not even account for the fact that the RFS raises gasoline prices and damages vehicle engines. Though it may have been designed with good intentions, the RFS is an intrinsically flawed policy that has failed to make America “stronger, cleaner and more secure.”

IER Policy Associate Alex Fitzsimmons authored this post.


[i] See Barry D. Solomon, et. al., Grain and cellulosic ethanol: History, economics, and energy policy, 31 Biomass and BioEnergy 416 (June 2007).

Cellulosic Production (Still) Falls Woefully Short of Mandate

The EPA recently released updated Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) data showing Renewable Identification Number (RIN) generation for the month of September. A RIN is a 38-digit number assigned to a gallon of ethanol that refiners use to demonstrate compliance with the RFS. The updated data show, once again, that the EPA’s mandate for the use of cellulosic biofuel is woefully out of touch with actual production levels.

The 2013 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires that refiners blend 6 million ethanol equivalent gallons of cellulosic biofuels into the fuel supply. However, the EPA’s report shows that the RINs generated from cellulosic biofuels will fall short of the requirement, potentially leaving refiners on the hook to pay significant fines because of the cellulosic industry’s shortcomings.

According to the EPA’s numbers, the biofuel industry generated 211,569 RINs for cellulosic biofuel from January through September of this year. This is well below the 6 million gallon requirement. With the end of the year approaching, the possibility of meeting the mandate is falling increasingly out of reach.

The EPA’s gross overestimate of cellulosic biofuel production is no surprise though, as the agency has consistently missed the mark on its production estimates. For example, the EPA’s 2012 RFS called for 8.65 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel, but only 20,069 gallons were actually produced.

The EPA’s phantom fuel mandate has not gone unopposed, however. Just recently, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) filed lawsuits with the D.C. Circuit Court challenging the 2013 cellulosic biofuel mandate. API successfully challenged the 2012 mandate and the D.C. Circuit court found that the EPA “let its aspirations for a self-fulfilling prophecy divert it from a neutral methodology.”

It seems that the EPA has learned nothing from the court’s ruling, as they continue to let their ideological aspirations get in the way of reality. Despite the fact that the EPA’s past requirements for cellulosic biofuels have been unattainable, a recently leaked proposal shows that the agency is considering increasing the cellulosic biofuel requirement to 23 million gallons for 2014. If the biofuel industry cannot meet the 2013 requirement of 6 million gallons, and has failed for four years in a row to meet EPA’s cellulosic mandate, it is hard to imagine that 23 million gallons is an attainable requirement.

The cellulosic biofuel mandate is a perfect example of the EPA trying to create a “self-fulfilling prophecy” instead of neutral policymaking. It is unreasonable to require refiners to blend a fuel at levels that are non-existent, yet the EPA continues down this path. It is time EPA stops trying to create a cellulosic biofuel industry through mandates and instead allow the market to sort it out.

IER Press Secretary Chris Warren authored this post.

Nationwide Coalition Calls for End to Wind PTC

WASHINGTON — The American Energy Alliance joined today with over 100 organizations from across the nation in opposition to the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). The organizations released a letter urging Congress to allow the wind PTC to expire. The letter states:

“The principal federal support for the wind energy industry is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. The undersigned organizations and the millions of Americans we represent stand opposed to extending the production tax credit (PTC).

“The wind industry has very little to show after 20 years of preferential tax treatment; it remains woefully dependent on this federal support. Yet despite this consistent under-performance, Congress has repeatedly voted to extend the PTC, usually in 1- or 2-year increments. This past year, Congress dramatically expanded the credit in addition to extending it.

“This year, Congress should break from the past and allow the wind PTC to expire as scheduled, once and for all. Americans deserve energy solutions that can make it on their own in the marketplace—not ones that need to be propped up by government indefinitely.”

To read the full letter, click here.

###

Markets, Not Government, Should Determine Energy Prices

The following is IER’s response to the National Journal Energy Insiders question, “Is the (Energy) Price Right?

Especially since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Western intellectuals and government officials have acknowledged the flaws in top-down central planning, and have paid lip service to the wonders of a decentralized market process in determining prices and the allocation of resources. Yet as our recent policy debates illustrate, the central planner mentality is alive and well in the corridors of power, especially in the energy sector. Hardly a day goes by without some new proposal to tax, regulate, mandate, and otherwise coerce American producers and consumers to alter their energy choices. Yet the urge to tinker is as harmful here as in other areas of the economy: The proper energy prices should be set through competition in a free market, not by government edict.

The specific rationale for overriding the market outcome in energy markets has changed over time. Back in the 1970s, the claim was that the United States was on the verge of depleting its domestic petroleum resources, and hence the urgent need to ration usage and develop alternatives. Now that the United States is poised to lead the world in natural gas and oil production, that particular rationale is impotent. But don’t worry, proponents of government intervention are very creative; they will always come up with another good reason.

Lately, the rationale has been anthropogenic global warming. In terms of textbook economic theory, markets work great unless there is a “negative externality”—in this case, greenhouse gas emissions that impose harms on future generations. Intuitively, the claim is that energy derived from CO2-intensive sources has a price that is too low, because it doesn’t reflect all of these harms. Levying a carbon tax or other measures is supposed to lead people in the market to “internalize the externality,” so that markets can get on with their great work in efficiently allocating resources.

That’s the theory, but there are several fundamental problems with this type of argument. First, even on purely theoretical grounds, the calculation of the “social cost of carbon” (SCC)—which is needed to calibrate a carbon tax or other restrictive measures—is a very dubious enterprise. For example, the SCC is highly sensitive to assumptions about the proper discount rate. The recent Working Group report estimated a 2010 SCC at $11/ton using a 5% discount rate, but $52/ton using a 2.5% rate. That is an enormous range, almost a fivefold increase, just from adjusting the dial on the discount rate we use in the calculation.

But the problems are worse than just extreme sensitivity to mild adjustments in parameters. A recent peer-reviewed article from an expert MIT economist was absolutely scathing in its assessment of the “Integrated Assessment Models” used to calculated the social cost of carbon. The author, Robert Pindyck, has the following to say about the climate change “damage functions” in the three computer models used by the Obama Administration’s Working Group to generate the latest round of SCC estimates:

[The] loss function [in the DICE model] is [not] based on any economic (or other) theory. Nor are the loss functions that appear in other IAMs [Integrated Assessment Models]. They are just arbitrary functions, made up to describe how GDP goes down when T [temperature] goes up.

The loss functions in PAGE and FUND, the other two models used by the Interagency Working Group, are more complex but equally arbitrary…[T]here is no pretense that the equations are based on any theory. [Robert Pindyck, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?,” p. 11.]

So we see that there are very serious problems with the calculations of the “negative externality” from greenhouse gas emissions. But now we hit a second problem: Even if we accept the claim that markets underprice energy, that doesn’t mean the government would be justified in imposing even more restrictions.

U.S. energy markets are already flooded with gasoline taxes, CAFE standards, power plant regulations, and various other measures designed to penalize CO2-intensive fuels. At the same time, so-called “green” energy sources have received lavish subsidies and mandates to encourage their use. As a result, the government is already heavily tilting the field away from CO2-intensive fuels. When you count the implicit cost to the consumers from these various measures, the final price of energy is already far higher than it would be in a truly free market. I have yet to see a study quantifying the implicit “carbon price” embedded in these other regulations, to see how much lower a new carbon tax ought to be.

Instead, the argument is always to throw on yet more regulations, as if we’re starting from a laissez-faire blank slate.

As both economic theory and history attest, government officials and scientific “experts” do not possess the wisdom or the incentives to plan an economy. The price of energy—just like the price of food and clothing—should be determined in a competitive marketplace, free from political interference.

IER President Thomas Pyle authored this post.