The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: american petroleum institute
Biden Urges Federal Trade Commission To Probe High Gas Prices

Biden Urges Federal Trade Commission To Probe High Gas Prices

Washington (AFP) - President Joe Biden called on US regulators Wednesday to look into the causes of the nationwide spike in gasoline prices, which he said is hurting workers.

The president last week made fighting inflation a top priority after data showed consumer prices hit a 30-year high in October, fueling a slump in his public approval.

In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Biden took aim at oil companies he says are raising prices at the pump even as their expenses decline and profits soar.

He instructed the agency to look into whether "illegal conduct" is behind the energy price spike.

"I do not accept hard-working Americans paying more for gas because of anti-competitive or otherwise potentially illegal conduct," Biden said in the letter.

Despite signs the US economy has bounced back strongly from the damage inflicted by the Covid-19 pandemic, Biden has paid a political cost as global supply chain snarls caused shortages and drove an uptick in prices of everything from cars to food to gasoline.

The president said the high pump prices are not justified, noting that while the cost of unfinished gasoline has dropped more than five percent over the past month, retail prices rose three percent.

At the same time, oil companies "are generating significant profits," with the two largest on track to nearly double net income compared to 2019 and planning major stock buybacks, he said in the letter.

No 'Nefarious' Actions?

Average US gas prices were at $3.41 a gallon as of Monday, 11 cents higher than a month ago, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA).

That average is 81 cents more than in 2019, before the pandemic hit and kept most Americans at home.

A White House spokesman told reporters that if the gap between refined fuel costs and pump prices were at typical pre-pandemic levels, "We'd be looking at prices at the pump that are 25 cents less a gallon."

Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, a price tracking company, said Biden is implying "nefarious" actions are to blame, but energy is a global market where prices have been volatile for weeks.

The wild swings mean there is no trend, so retailers cannot pass on any cost savings when oil prices fall, he said.

"I think the president is just trying to come out with some positive optics... to insinuate that he will take control the situation," De Haan told AFP, noting that relief could be on the way as oil production rises.

Frank Macchiarola of the American Petroleum Institute (API) called Biden's initiative "a distraction," and blamed "ill-advised government decisions that are exacerbating this challenging situation."

Biden instructed the FTC to "bring all of the commission's tools to bear if you uncover any wrongdoing."

The agency declined to comment on its investigations, but spokesman Peter Kaplan told AFP, "The FTC is concerned about this issue, and we are looking into it."

In response to a previous request over the summer from Biden to examine gas prices, FTC Chair Lina Khan pledged to investigate any collusion that might be fueling the inflation, as well as take a closer look at mergers in the industry that reduce competition.

In June, the regulator ordered 7-Eleven and Marathon Petroleum to sell off nearly 300 gas stations after saying their $21 billion merger violated antitrust rules by leaving hundreds of communities without alternatives to buy fuel.

Rep. James Comer

Republicans Protest EPA Firing Of Big Oil’s Mouthpiece On Scientific Board

Reprinted with permission from American Independent

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee expressed outrage on Wednesday at the Biden administration's decision to remove a slate of Trump-appointed individuals from Environmental Protection Agency advisory boards, including Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox, who has extensive ties to the oil industry and had been accused of using his position in the interests of industry propaganda instead of those of science.

Reps. James Comer (R-KY) and Ralph Norman (R-SC) sent a letter to EPA administrator Michael Regan expressing concern over his decision to "abruptly fire all Trump administration appointed members" of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and Science Advisory Board.

The Congressmen demanded that Regan provide them with documents and information pertaining to the removals, which they characterize as "unprecedented." They accused the Biden administration of purging officials "who do not share its political beliefs."

In a March interview with the Associated Press, Regan said the removals were part of the Biden administration's determination to "reset" the boards.

"We have to identify and root out any decisions from the past that were not properly aligned with science," Regan said.

In a March 31 press release announcing the changes, the EPA noted that the Trump administration hadn't followed standard procedures for appointing committee members, had prevented individuals who had previously received EPA grants from serving, and had eliminated key air pollution review panels.

"Resetting these two scientific advisory committees will ensure the agency receives the best possible scientific insight to support our work to protect human health and the environment," Regan said.

Cox was put in place by EPA chief Scott Pruitt in 2017 to lead the panel on air pollution. He had previously served as a consultant for the American Petroleum Institute, a lobbying group bankrolled by major oil and gas companies.

Cox produced a report for the group in 2017 that claimed asthma is associated more with income levels than with particulate matter in the atmosphere, a finding that runs contrary to those of many other studies that do link pollution and asthma. Cox later said that he allowed the Institute to "proofread" and "copy edit" his research.

On the EPA advisory board, Cox attacked existing EPA methods for calculating the public health benefits of smog regulations, describing them as "unreliable, logically unsound, and inappropriate."

When Cox was reappointed to his position in 2020, Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Cox is "uninterested in following the careful science-based process that EPA has followed for decades to set science-based and health-protective air pollution standards."

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

GOP Senate Candidate Gillespie Made $3 Million ‘Advising’ Big Oil And Gas Lobbyists

GOP Senate Candidate Gillespie Made $3 Million ‘Advising’ Big Oil And Gas Lobbyists

You won’t find Ed Gillespie, the likely Republican nominee to challenge Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) this fall, on the official list of lobbyists maintained by the Secretary of the Senate’s database. That’s because Gillespie isn’t registered. But not being registered doesn’t mean he doesn’t help big corporations and lobbying firms advance their interests in Washington.

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Virginia, Gillespie’s recently filed ethics forms show that he made $2,958,800 over the last year from his consulting firm, aptly named Ed Gillespie Strategies.

Though Gillespie was for many years a registered lobbyist, through his previous firm Quinn Gillespie, he dropped off the rolls when he departed to pursue other ventures. Indeed, veteran lobbyists have deregistered en masse in recent years. In a recent investigation for The Nation, I reported on this latest trend against transparency, with thousands of lobbyists dropping their registrations — owing to a lax enforcement regime and the growing realization in Washington that the current lobbying registration law is largely a joke.

Because of his non-registered status, however, most voters probably have little idea what Gillespie has been up to. Using bankruptcy filings, I found one recent client paying Ed Gillespie Strategies several years ago: Washington Mutual, the bank that failed in 2008.

The ethics forms filed this month provide a new window into Gillespie’s business, which represents not only some of the largest corporations in America, but also works with several of the largest lobbying entities inside the Beltway: American Petroleum Institute, America’s Natural Gas Alliance, AT&T, Bank of America, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Broadband for America, DCI Group, Facebook, Microsoft, RATE Coalition, The Brunswick Group, U.S. Telecom, Univision, and Walgreens.

Notably, the DCI Group is itself a lobbying firm, while the American Petroleum Institute and America’s Natural Gas Alliance are trade associations that lobby heavily on their respective issues (API, which represents ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other oil majors, lobbies on fossil fuel subsidies, the Keystone XL, and expanded drilling access; ANGA , which represents the largest hydraulic fracturing companies in America, lobbies on fracking regulations, natural gas exports, and other liquefied natural gas regulations). Other Gillespie clients are essentially lobbying groups. The RATE Coalition, for example, is a coalition of firms such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin seeking lower corporate tax rates.

For Gillespie, formerly a White House Communications Director for George W. Bush, the revolving door has swung many times — and with each swing, his clout and wealth have climbed. If he wins election this year, his stock among the Beltway bandits on K Street is sure to rise for any future venture in the private sector.

The new disclosure of Gillespie’s clients also provides a new focus on the candidate’s issue platform. Gillespie opposes the Affordable Care Act’s regulatory mandates, and has made the effort to repeal the law a central part of his campaign. How much of that opposition, one must wonder, may relate to his work for insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield? On energy, Gillespie has attacked efforts to address climate change. In light of this new client list, voters may be scratching their head when they try to distinguish Gillespie’s policy platform from the goals of his Big Oil benefactors at the American Petroleum Institute.

Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr.