AEA Calls for FTC Investigation of Anti-Consumer Behavior by President Biden and His Administration


Hard-working Americans should not have to pay more for gasoline
when we’re the world’s largest oil producer.


WASHINGTON DC (November 22, 2021) – The American Energy Alliance, the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, is calling on the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate intentional and strategic steps made by the Biden administration to artificially and unnecessarily raise the price of energy on American consumers.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement along with this letter to the FTC:

“By asking the FTC to investigate oil companies for price gouging, President Biden has joined a long and unremarkable list of politicians who promote policies that increase the cost of energy and then seek to cast blame elsewhere. The American people aren’t buying it.

“Joe Biden has been wrong about oil and gas for decades. He was one of only five Senators who voted against the Trans-Alaska pipeline in 1973. As President, nearly fifty years later, he killed the Keystone pipeline with the stroke of a pen. From day one of his presidency, Biden has waged war against American energy producers, pursuing policies that curtail the production of oil and natural gas and punish them through higher taxes and crippling regulations.

“With his poll numbers tanking, and Americans paying punishing prices at the pump, Biden suddenly pretends to care about gasoline prices.

“The FTC has issued nearly fifty reports on oil and gasoline pricing. In no instance did the FTC find the type of wrongdoing President Biden is alleging. The FTC should investigate President Biden instead. They will no doubt determine that his anti-consumer behavior is contributing to the high price of gasoline.”


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #58: Comrade Komarovsky Secretary Giggles

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Biden’s attempt to nominate an outright Marxist to regulate America’s banking sector and the administration’s tone-deaf response to rising gas prices.

Links:

Key Vote NO on amendment H.R. 5376

The American Energy Alliance reminds all members of our previously issued key vote alert opposing H.R. 5376, the reconciliation spending package.

The reconciliation package is packed with subsidies for special interests and distortions to energy markets. Energy sources we are assured are already cheap are generously subsidized. Reliable energy sources, like those that heat American homes, are taxed. Domestic sources of energy are restricted or banned. The combined effect of the energy provisions in this legislation leads to only one result: higher energy bills for all Americans. At a time of rocketing inflation, including in energy prices, the last thing hardworking Americans need is the government making these crucial inputs of the economy more expensive through misguided central planning, mandates and subsidies.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on H.R. 5376. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Hey, Joe, Look in the Mirror!

The White House continues to try its best to distract Americans from the impact of their harmful energy policies. The White House understands that the public is unhappy with the price of gasoline and they are trying everything they can think of to blame somebody, anybody, but themselves. 

We have chronicled Secretary Granholm’s desire to blame OPEC for high oil prices. Then a few days ago, she noted that the real problem is Wall Street. The White House has also been blaming oil companies for some kind of anti-competitive behavior with the President himself asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate. This is cynical, dishonest, and wrong. It is “passing the buck.” 

As the administration knows, allegations of anti-competitive behavior and market manipulation is nothing new in oil and gas markets. In fact, over the past 20 years, the FTC has issued nearly 50 reports on the subject. If there were problems, the FTC would have found it a long time ago.

But let’s consider the specific issue President Biden is concerned about. He writes: 

“However, prices at the pump have continued to rise, even as refined fuel costs go down and industry profits go up. Usually, prices at the pump correspond to movements in the price of unfinished gasoline, which is the main ingredient in the gas people buy at the gas station. But in the last month, the price of unfinished gasoline is down more than 5 percent while gas prices at the pump are up 3 percent in the same period.” 

This is exceedingly strange to be concerned over small price movements over the course of one month and claiming it is evidence of anti-consumer behavior by oil and gas companies. No one is complaining about an 8 percent price swing. People are complaining because the price of gasoline is up 43 percent since Inauguration Day ($3.41 a gallon today versus $2.39 a gallon on Inauguration Day). 

The President should note that while the price at the pump is up 43 percent, the price of crude oil—the stuff that get refined into unfinished gasoline—is up 48 percent since Inauguration Day (West Texas Intermediate was $53.98 on Inauguration Day and is now $79.87). If the price of crude oil and the price at the pump are not in lockstep at all times, the prices of crude, unfinished gasoline, and the price at the pump will not always be in lockstep.  

The reality is that prices of crude, unfinished gasoline, and the price at the pump are coupled, but not perfectly. For example, ethanol and other blending components are added to unfinished gasoline, along with transportation and additional labor costs to get to the price at the pump. These prices bounce around from week to week and month to month. There is no scandal that the price of oil has outpaced the price at the pump since January. Otherwise, President Biden would have to ask for an FTC investigation for why gasoline marketers aren’t charging people more at the pump. 

The Biden administration wants higher prices at the pump. They keep taking actions that will reduce domestic oil production or increase the cost of oil imports from Canada and then they complain about the price at the pump. It’s either dishonest or they are really ignorant of basic economic principles.

On the same day that President Biden sent his letter to the FTC, E&E News ran an article on the Department of Interior’s mission to make it harder to produce oil and gas on government lands. E&E News explains:  

“The Interior Department’s second in command this week pledged the Biden administration is orchestrating a paradigm shift for the federal oil program, explaining in unusually candid detail possible components of the strategy to restrain fossil fuel development on public lands.

‘We are here to fundamentally reform the Interior Department’s oil and gas program,’ Deputy Secretary Tommy Beaudreau said during an interview with the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.

‘Beaudreau noted several specific policy changes that are being considered and spoke favorably of raising royalty rates, as well as launching new rules around valuation of fossil fuels to limit how royalties are whittled down through exclusions and write-offs.’

‘…I believe that going through that process is the best way to, at the end of the day, make sure the changes last and get us on a path to decarbonizing public lands.’”

These remarks demonstrate that the Biden administration is taking actions that will make it more expensive to produce oil and gas on public lands. Furthermore, they obviously do not want to follow the law. 

There is no statute that tells the Department of Interior to work towards “decarbonizing public lands.” In fact, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management’s organic act does not contain the word “carbon.” Instead, it defines the Bureau of Land Management’s mission as mission as one of “multiple use and sustained yield.” 

“Multiple use” explicitly contemplates oil and gas development. There are a number of place the law explicitly discusses oil and gas development. In other words, the Biden administration is trying to ignore oil and gas development, things they have explicitly been instructed by Congress to do, in favor of decarbonization, which they have no statutory authority to do.  If President Biden is really looking for “anti-consumer behavior” that is driving up the cost of gasoline as his letter to the FTC asserts, he does not need to look far. That anti-consumer behavior is coming from the White House and its federal agencies and their fight against domestic production of oil and gas. Many people understand that that’s why Biden “I Did That!” stickers are popular on gasoline pumps. 

Biden Renews Obama’s War On Coal

The draft agreement from COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland calls on parties to accelerate phasing out “unabated” coal consumption and John Kerry, COP26 participant and U.S. climate envoy, claims the United States won’t have coal by 2030. In an interview, Kerry stated, “We will not have coal plants.”  Yet, coal generation in the United States is expected to increase its share of electric generation to 23 percent this year—up from 19 percent last year—and regaining its 2019 share. This will be the first increase in coal generation since 2014. Coal is regaining market share from higher-priced natural gas, whose share is expected to drop to 36 percent in 2021, down from 39 percent last year.

The Biden administration’s war on the oil and gas industry has escalated natural gas prices to over $6 per thousand cubic feet at the city gate and paved the way for coal’s entrance back into the utility market. In fact, coal’s increased generation through July of this year compared to the same period last year is 4 times larger than the combined increase in wind and solar generation for the same period. Unlike in Europe that is seeing soaring energy prices, U.S. electricity generators have turned to coal because they have the coal power plant capacity and because it is cheaper for electricity rate payers due to the abundance of coal resources in the United States.

John Kerry’s prediction that the United States will have no coal plants in 2030 is almost laughable when the United States has the largest coal reserves in the world—23 percent compared to Russia’s 15 percent and Australia’s 14 percent. China with 13 percent of the world’s coal reserves generates over 60 percent of its electricity from coal and India with 10 percent of the world’s coal reserves generates over 75 percent of its electricity from coal. Even Japan gets over 30 percent of its electricity generation from coal and has no plans to phase it out.

Globally, coal is still the main source of electricity generation at 37 percent of the world’s total generation. China added 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power capacity in 2020, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world, bringing its total coal-fired capacity to well over 1,000 gigawatts—about the total generating capacity in the United States from all sources. In the first half of 2021, Chinese provincial governments approved 24 domestic coal plants and Chinese localities have around 104 gigawatts in top-priority coal-power capacity planned—more than what’s currently installed in Japan and Russia combined.

Coal is not just used for electricity generation, it is also the backbone of steel production. China produces 57 percent of the world’s steel while the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union produce 13 percent. China relies on energy-intensive industries like steel, cement, and chemicals to power its growth and coal powers around 56 percent of China’s industry-heavy economy. And, for the countries transitioning to a “green” economy, coal-produced electricity and steel make it integral to the construction of windmills and solar panels. It is just that the carbon dioxide emissions that result from the production of those solar panels and windmills are emitted in China, not in the countries spouting the need for a non-carbon future. What hypocrisy!

China’s Dominance of Solar Panel Manufacturing

Chinese factories supply more than three-quarters of the world’s polysilicon, an essential component in most solar panels. Polysilicon factories refine silicon metal using a process that consumes large amounts of electricity, making access to cheap power a cost advantage. Chinese authorities built an array of coal-burning power plants in sparsely populated areas such as Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia to support polysilicon manufacturers and other energy-hungry industries where the cost of generation is half that of the rest of the nation. These factories also use Muslim Uyghurs for ‘slave’ labor.

China is also home to most of the companies that slice polysilicon into wafers, package the wafers into cells and assemble the cells into panels. U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar panels and cells have pushed Chinese companies to set up factories for these parts in other countries but Chinese controlled companies dominate the world’s solar panel manufacturing.

The solar industry’s reliance on Chinese coal will create a huge increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the future as manufacturers rapidly scale up production of solar panels to meet demand for a carbon free future being forced upon consumers in Western nations. That would make the solar industry one of the world’s most prolific polluters, undermining some of the emissions reductions achieved from widespread solar adoption. Because of the use of cheap coal, producing a solar panel in China creates around twice as much carbon dioxide as making it in Europe where other forms of energy are available, but at a higher cost. For example, in Germany the number of jobs in solar PV panel production and installation fell from a record 133,000 in 2011 to under 28,000 seven years later as many companies were forced out of business thanks to cheaper competitors from China scooping up most of the market.

Conclusion

Coal is still king for electricity generation world-wide and for steel production. While the United States under the Biden administration is trying to phase coal out, the Administration’s policies on oil and gas is bringing coal back for generation in order to keep electric prices from skyrocketing for U.S. consumers. The United States has the most coal reserves of any country in the world and can power the country with low-cost, reliable and abundant coal if it were allowed to as it is in China and India, producing well over 60 percent of their power. While China’s economy grows, the U.S. economy stagnates. The United States should follow China’s lead, rather than Biden’s hypocrisy.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

AEA Congratulates the other Joe on Infrastructure “Win”


The trillion-dollar boondoggle will do nothing to fix the actual problems facing America today and those which voters are most concerned about:  the supply chain crisis and rocketing inflation.


WASHINGTON DC (November 16, 2021) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, opposed the $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which President Biden signed into law yesterday. AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement in response to its passage:

“Congratulations to Joe on the passage of the trillion-dollar spending bill. Not President Joe Biden, but the other Joe from West Virginia. The bill, like Senator Manchin himself, is an old-timey brand of Democratic party legislating:  spend a lot of money across preferred special interests and constituencies. Meanwhile, American families will get very little in return. 

“Senator Manchin doesn’t deserve all the credit, however. I would be remiss to ignore the contribution of Senator Krysten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who worked hard to attract GOP Senate support for the bloated bill. And finally, the baker’s dozen House Republicans who provided Speaker Pelosi the necessary votes to get the bill over the finish line.

“Spending with no return is the theme of this bill. Tens of billions for rail, which few Americans choose, let alone use. It seems Congress insists on repeating and expanding the fantastically expensive bullet train boondoggle in California. Expanding mass transit in our largest cities, which forces people together, in an era of pandemic and physical distancing is mindboggling. Even the spending on actual highways, a mere 10% or so of the total bill, is likely to net only a limited gain.” 

“This infrastructure bill does nothing to fix the actual problems facing America today and those which voters are most concerned about: the supply chain crisis and rocketing inflation. That this wasteful and unnecessary legislation has consumed the attention of Congress for half the year is an indictment of the institution. We can only hope that wasted time and wasted money are the only consequences of this legislation.”


Additional resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #57: Political Malpractice

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss what happened with Biden’s “infrastructure” bill and the fallout from COP26.

Links:

No, Senators, the United States Is Not Currently a Net Oil Exporting Country

On Monday, a group of 11 U.S. Senators wrote a letter to President Biden complaining about the high price of gasoline. Like the Secretary of Energy, these Senators get some basic facts wrong about the oil market in the United States and around the world. In this case, the Senators are wrong because the United States has been a net oil importer this year.   

The Senators correctly note that high prices burden families. They write: 

“According to AAA, the national average price for a gallon of gasoline is the highest it has been since 2014, with an increase of more than $1 per gallon since this time last year. In our home states, high gasoline prices have placed an undue burden on families and small businesses trying to make ends meet, and have proven especially burdensome as our constituents continue to recover from the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic.”  

This is correct. But what they get completely wrong is blaming U.S. oil exports as a problem. They blame “domestic leaseholders and producers [who] continue to export U.S. petroleum, threaten[ing] to send already record prices even higher. Continued U.S. exports and overseas supply collusion could be devastating to many in our states, contributing to higher bills for American families and businesses.”

First, a quick note on terms. Generally, when people talk about “oil” and U.S. oil imports and exports, they are almost always referring to petroleum and petroleum products, such as what is included in the Energy Information Administration’s Petroleum Overview. But “oil” can also refer to “crude oil.” This matters in this context, because according to EIA’s data here, the United States has never been a net exporter of crude oil. As shown below, the United States has been a net exporter of petroleum.   

In fact, just last year, the United States was a net petroleum exporter, however, so far this year it has been a net petroleum importer, not an exporter. Here’s the latest petroleum data from the Energy Information Administration in thousand barrels per day.   

Every month, the United States imports and exports some oil as well as refined petroleum products. The United States was a net exporter of petroleum in January, February and April, but otherwise this year it has been a net importer of petroleum. To suggest that oil prices are high because of petroleum exports is to ignore the data. 

If these Senators and President Biden are concerned about the price of gasoline, then it’s time to push for more domestic production instead of attacking domestic oil and gas producers. That means more safe and dependable pipelines and a stable and predictable leasing system on federal lands. OPEC+ has stated their intention of not ramping up their oil exports to combat globally high prices. OPEC+ countries, after all, are happy making billions of dollars with oil above $80 a barrel. Russia is happy to have become the #2 importer of oil into the United States this year. But the United States is the world’s largest oil producer. And as we have previously shown, over the past decade, as oil prices have moderated, the biggest supplier of new oil on the international market was the United States. It’s time to stop attacking domestic oil producers and start reducing the hurdles to higher domestic oil production. That would truly help American businesses and consumers. 

When Will Secretary Granholm Stop Lying About OPEC?

Last week, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm erroneously claimed that “OPEC controls more than 50 percent of petroleum supply.” This week she was back on TV with new inaccurate claims. For example, on State of the Union on CNN, she erroneously claimed, “OPEC is a cartel, and it controls over 50 percent of the supply of gasoline.” She also stated that “OPEC is controlling the agenda with respect to oil prices.” While the United States it the world’s largest oil producer and contributed the vast majority of new oil on the market over the past decade, she does not mention anything about U.S. oil production.

Maybe She is Talking about Refining?

We thought that maybe Secretary Granholm changed her claim slightly from last week because she realized it was wrong. But is claiming that OPEC controls over 50 percent of the gasoline supply any more correct? Nope.

Gasoline is a refined product. Data from the International Energy Agency shows that of the top ten countries by refining capacity, only Saudi Arabia and Iran are members of OPEC and they account for a mere 5.1 percent of global refining capacity—a far cry from “over 50 percent.”

Maybe She is Referring to other Definitions of Oil Supply?

Last week we showed that data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which Secretary Granholm oversees, shows that in Q2 of 2021, OPEC only produced 32.5 percent of the world’s total supply of petroleum and other liquids (30779.18 Mb/d out of 94764.01 Mb/d).

There are different ways to define oil production. In the example last week example, we used EIA’s “total supply of petroleum and other liquids.” Maybe Secretary Granholm is referring to a different definition of oil supply—maybe a more European definition. Let’s see what the BP uses in their well-regarded Statistical Review of World Energy 2021. On page 18 of the BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2021, it shows OPEC production is a mere 34.7 percent of world oil production.

Again, 34.7 percent if significantly less than “over 50 percent.” It is unacceptable for the person who oversees the world’s premier energy statistical agency to continually get these basic statistics wrong.

If Secretary Granholm continues to make this basic mistake, we will be forced to conclude that she is not making the mistake out of ignorance, as we assumed last week, but that she is being intentionally dishonest with the American people.

She Fails to Mention Anything about U.S. Oil Production

In her interview on CNN, Secretary Granholm also states that “OPEC is controlling the agenda with respect to oil prices.” This a bizarre statement for the U.S. Secretary of Energy to make when the United States is the world’s largest oil producer. According to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2021, the United States produced 18.6 percent of the world’s oil in 2020, compared to OPEC producing 34.7 percent of the world’s oil.

Not only that, over the past 10 years, the United States, not OPEC, has “controlled the agenda” with respect to oil prices with the United States being the biggest player in supplying the market with more oil.

The chart below uses data from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2021. Over the past 10 years, global oil production has increased by 11,668,000 barrels a day. The U.S. produced an additional 9,513,000 barrels a day which is 82 percent of 11,668,000 barrels a day.

OPEC, on the other hand, only contributed 1,149,000 barrels a day to the global increase in oil production. That is a mere 12 percent of the U.S.’s increase over the last decade.

Oil is a Global Market—but the U.S. has been the Most Important Player

Secretary Granholm is certainly correct that the oil market is a global market and OPEC plays a large role. However, OPEC contributes about a third of the global production and not a half. Not only that, the United States has played the most important role of supplying new oil to the market over the last decade.

But instead of further trying to increase domestic oil production, President Biden is working to increase the cost of oil by canceling leases, stalling new lease sales, and proposing sky-high new taxes on oil and gas production. No wonder global oil prices have increased.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

An Infrastructure “Win” That No One Needed

Congratulations are in order on the passage of the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill. Not to President Joe Biden, whose own priorities barely feature in the legislation, but to another Joe, the one from West Virginia (though we would be remiss if we didn’t also congratulate Senator Krysten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who worked hard to attract GOP support for the bloated bill). The legislation, which finally passed the House months after passing the Senate, was really Senator Joe Manchin’s vision of what infrastructure spending should be The Manchin infrastructure bill, like Senator Manchin himself, is an old-timey brand of Democratic party legislating:  spending a lot of money, but getting very little in return. 

What do we get for all this spending?

Spending with no return is the feature of all the biggest components of the bill.  

  • Tens of billions of dollars for passenger rail, which is used by few Americans, makes little sense in a country the size of the US, and is fantastically expensive, as the California high speed rail boondoggle has shown over the last ten years.
  • Tens of billions of dollars for mass transit, ridership of which collapsed due to the pandemic and may never recover, is concentrated in only a small number of cities, is of questionable economic benefit, and again is hugely expensive for what often mediocre service it provides.
  • Tens of billions of dollars for electricity transmission which is mostly unneeded. As AEA noted in its score opposing this legislation, the grid works just fine for reliable baseload electricity generation. What causes struggles, from Texas to California is the proliferation of unreliable wind and solar generation, whose wild swings in output require expensive backups and redundancies. So this spending is not about “improving the grid,” it is an indirect subsidy to intermittent generation sources, trying to paper over their inadequacies with federal cash. Again, all this spending does nothing to improve our electricity system: it neither saves ratepayers money nor improves reliability. It just is a quixotic attempt to replace the electricity generation we already have with more expensive and less reliable generation.
  • Even the spending on actual highways (a mere 10% or so of the total spending) is likely to net only a limited gain. The bill eats away at the value of this spending with union mandates that raise the cost of any projects funded. Combined with the Biden administration’s announced efforts to roll back some Trump administration reforms of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and inject vague new infrastructure roadblocks in the guise of “environmental justice,” most of the increase in highway spending will be eaten up by higher costs, bureaucracy, litigation and delays.

The “infrastructure” bill includes numerous other subsidies and slush funds for favored interests: little-used electric vehicle charging stations, subsidies for existing nuclear plants to protect them from the subsidies handed out to wind and solar, slush funds for vaguely defined “climate resilience” and research programs at the Department of Energy. All certainly send money out the door and put cash in the pockets of government clients, their actual economic value is seemingly irrelevant. At a time of rocketing inflation, this trillion-dollar spending spree seems especially poorly timed.

What about the politics?

The three-month delay between Senate and House passage was due to infighting among the Democratic party over linkage of the infrastructure bill with an even larger, and much more destructive, spending spree contained in a reconciliation bill that the Democrats will try to ram through without any attempt at bipartisanship. While we certainly opposed it outright, The linkage of these two pieces of legislation was among the reasons AEA fought this legislation so hard. With passage of the infrastructure bill last week and no timeline for the reconciliation bill to be completed, the immediate linkage is now seemingly broken. The only question now is whether the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate can unite the warring factions amongst their ranks and pass the budget busting monstrosity. 

Some in the administration cling to the hope that passage of the infrastructure bill somehow resuscitates the Biden agenda. But this infrastructure bill does nothing to fix the actual problems facing America today the voters are most concerned about:  the supply chain crisis and rocketing inflation. The legislation completely ignores supply disruption issues, instead choosing to simply spread government pork to everyone with a good lobbyist. As to inflation, its $550 billion boost to federal spending can only put more pressure on inflation, with that new federal money chasing workers and goods that are already in short supply. Ignoring the concerns of voters to focus on running up spending for the sake of spending does not make for a catchy campaign message.

Conclusion

The infrastructure bill spends a lot of money, can be expected to accomplish little of benefit, and is of questionable value politically. What it does not do is contribute in any way to addressing the ongoing supply chain crisis choking America’s ports and disrupting delivery of goods, nor will it do anything but add to inflationary pressure throughout the economy. That this wasteful and unnecessary legislation has consumed the attention of Congress for half the year is an indictment of the institution. We can only hope that that wasted time and wasted money are the only consequences of this legislation.