Fuel supply restrictions resulting from hurricanes and other natural disasters, often lead to price increases as the market reacts to rebalance supply and demand. To protect consumers, many states have enacted price gouging laws that limit a merchant’s ability to raise prices during an emergency.
As Hurricane Florence approached the East Coast this week, nearly two million residents throughout the Carolinas, Maryland and Virginia were placed under evacuation watch.
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.
Alongside the publication of AFPM’s new study, “The Fuel & Petrochemical Supply Chains: Moving the Fuels & Products That Power Progress,” Flash Point interviewed leaders working on U.S. midstream infrastructure issues, including Peter Lidiak, vice president of the International Liquid Terminals Association.
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.
Nine U.S. senators today called on the administration to uphold the law and ensure that qualified small refineries continue to have protection from disproportionate economic hardship brought on by the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Richard Moskowitz, General Counsel of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, made the following statement on North Dakota and Montana’s petition for a preemption determination regarding Washington state’s new law on allowable vapor pressure limits for crude-by-rail transport.
Earnings in commodities-based industries tend to be cyclical. Because of the up-and-down reality of refining, it would be a mistake to regulate or legislate based on the high points. A few quarters of earnings don’t provide an accurate representation. That context is important for answering the question of what happens with refinery profits and whether using earnings to “buy back” stock from shareholders is an appropriate use of those funds.
Visit AFPM’s Hurricane and Weather Event Resource Center for more information on steps being taken to ensure the safety of our members’ facilities, their employees and the communities that surround them.
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.