This week on The Unregulated Podcast Thomas Pyle and Mike McKenna are joined by Travis Fisher, the director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, for a wide ranging discussion energy issues in the news.
Links:
Thanks for joining the AEA efforts to help combat rising energy prices. We don’t want to bug you that often, so let us know what energy issues interest you, and we’ll keep your inbox happy.
This week on The Unregulated Podcast Thomas Pyle and Mike McKenna are joined by Travis Fisher, the director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, for a wide ranging discussion energy issues in the news.
Links:
With slower than expected sales in electric vehicles, automakers are questioning their multibillion-dollar investments in new factories and raising doubts about the effectiveness of Biden’s federal incentives. General Motors delayed plans to expand its electric pickup truck production at a plant in suburban Detroit, and canceled a program with Honda to sell electric vehicles for around $30,000. Ford paused its $3.5 billion EV plant in Marshall, Michigan and $12 billion of its planned $15 billion EV investment, citing market conditions. Despite $1.7 billion of promised taxpayer incentives for the plant and site readiness, Ford is not confident it can run the Michigan plant competitively. Further, as electric vehicles are sitting unsold on dealer lots, automakers and dealers are slashing prices and piling on discounts to clear out the unsold inventory. High inflation and high interest rates are making vehicle purchases difficult for everyday people. Auto executives are worried that many consumers have hit their limit.
EV Prices Reduced through Rebates and Lease Deals
EV sales promotions have taken different forms. Some automakers, such as Hyundai Motor and Ford Motor, are offering cash rebates as high as $7,500 on top of the federal tax credit on some models. Others are offering aggressive lease deals that offer cheaper monthly payments or shorter contract lengths to attract buyers. Many car companies are offering low-interest rate promotions to make pricey electric vehicles more affordable. On average, customers received about a $2,000 discount on an electric vehicle in September, compared with a year prior when they paid a $1,500 premium. Industrywide, shoppers paid around $930 less than the sticker price in September. As wealthier EV adopters have already purchased an electric vehicle, the industry is now confronted by a more reticent group of consumers, who are being squeezed by high interest rates and rising costs.
Electric vehicles are now some of the slowest sellers on dealership lots. In September, it took retailers over two months to sell an electric vehicle, compared with around a month for gas-powered vehicles and only three weeks for a gas-electric hybrid. That trend is expensive for dealers who take out loans to finance their fleet. The longer a vehicle sits on the lot, the more it eats into potential profit. At the end of September, automakers had 88 days’ worth of EV inventory, compared to 56 days for conventional models.
The discounting activity is helping to bring down the cost of battery-powered cars, which on average sold for about $50,683 in September, down from more than $65,000 last year. By comparison, prices overall for new vehicles remained at about $48,000. According to car executives and dealers, the discounts will likely continue for now, especially in the form of lease offers.
The discounts are threatening to exacerbate problems at startups, which are swiftly burning through their remaining cash. Luxury electric-vehicle maker Lucid in August marked down the price of its vehicles by up to $13,000, due to weakening demand. EV startup Fisker said that it was lowering the price of its Ocean Extreme SUV, a brand-new model that went on sale this year, by $7,500 in response to “competitive realities.” Fisker’s vehicles do not qualify for a federal tax credit because they are built outside the United States.
Climate Law Pushed Manufacturers into EVs
President Biden’s climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), stimulated a surge of investment in electric vehicle production across the country, including tens of billions of dollars on battery plants across the South and new assembly lines near the Great Lakes. Under the law, companies get lucrative tax credits for investing in electric vehicle production and component parts like advanced batteries. But, the climate law has not drastically affected trends in electric vehicle sales. Expectations are that Americans will buy one million electric cars and trucks this year, continuing a steady trend of increased market share for electric vehicles, but not close to what is being manufactured. Even Tesla is considering abandoning its $1 billion investment in a plant in Mexico despite seeing a grow rate of 51 percent in revenue last year.
The reality is that electric vehicles are too expensive for the American public. A Ford F-150 Lightning starts at about $50,000, before federal tax credits of $7,500. A base model gasoline-powered F-150 starts at less than $37,000. GM’s Chevrolet Blazer starts at around $37,000, but the electric version costs a minimum of $56,000 before tax credits. Even with those price differences, Ford says it is losing over $60,000 for every electric vehicle it makes for a total of $4.5 billion this year. Without an American supply chain, however, electric vehicles cannot qualify for the full $7,500 consumer tax credit. Without the full credit, a typical electric vehicle remains much less affordable than a conventional automobile. President Biden’s climate advisor Ali Zaidi has admitted that the administration’s programs include reducing Americans’ reliance on cars, i.e. speeding the process of getting Americans out of their personal transportation choices.
Those IRA requirements, however, do not apply to the leasing market, which explains a shift in consumer preferences. Many car shoppers lease electric vehicles instead of buying them because a Treasury Department regulation enables auto dealers to avoid the law’s made-in-America requirements for cars that they buy and lease to customers. The regulation allows shoppers to obtain the full federal tax credit for models that otherwise would not qualify. The auto dealers association calculates that more than half of electric vehicle transactions in the United States — excluding Teslas, which are not sold through traditional dealership models — are leased, a large increase from a year ago, when it was around 30 percent.
China in the Driver’s Seat
The vehicle transition is effectively subsidizing China, which leads the world in electric-car manufacturing and battery technology and is home to vast stockpiles of critical minerals needed for batteries and other components. The United States has been slow to invest in raw materials and parts needed for batteries, including mines producing minerals like cobalt, and factories making chemicals that go into batteries, partly because of Biden’s anti-mining actions. U.S. companies have even sold their interests in cobalt companies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Chinese companies. China is decades ahead of the United States in these endeavors, meaning it may be impossible to catch up because China’s control means it can flood markets and drop prices for minerals whenever a prospective mine is announced elsewhere, undermining the mine’s economic viability.
Chinese electric-vehicle-battery firms are becoming major export players. Contemporary Amperex Technology (CATL) and carmaker BYD are the top two producers of EV batteries in the world. Chinese battery manufacturers, however, lag behind South Korean rivals outside China, but that could change due to CATL’s growth numbers. Chinese firms are eyeing big new factory expansions in Europe and in U.S. free trade partners as a way to sidestep current and future U.S. import restrictions—much like Japanese carmakers did in the United States in the 1980s. Chinese firms have announced overseas investments of more than 200 billion yuan, $27 billion, in batteries and materials with more than 80 percent of that in Europe. China has also become the world’s top exporter of electric vehicles.
Despite China’s monstrous lead, the Biden administration is expected to issue more rules about when parts can be sourced from China and other countries, hoping for a renaissance in EV battery and vehicle manufacturing in the United States. He already has proposed regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration that encourage automakers’ investment in electric vehicle production by requiring that two-thirds of all new passenger cars sold in the United States be all-electric within a decade. If the regulations are implemented and auto manufacturers do not meet the standard, they will need to pay fines, causing vehicle prices to increase.
Conclusion
While the battery-powered vehicle market is still expanding, the pace of growth has slowed considerably. As a result, legacy automakers that had been spending heavily to build their electric car businesses due to incentives from Biden’s climate law, are now taking a more cautious approach to investments. And, they are offering discounts on electric vehicles as dealer lots are overflowing. Ford and GM are losing tens of thousands of dollars for every electric vehicle produced and sold and they have just given big raises to the United Auto Workers union. Biden’s climate law and proposed regulations pushing electric vehicles just might result in automakers needing another multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailout.
John Mozena, president of the Center for Economic Accountability, said this is a “great example” of central planning. “This is a great example of what happens when government central economic planning runs face-first into the real world of consumers having inconvenient opinions and making actual decisions. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how many EVs automakers build. Rather, it matters how many EVs consumers want to buy and drive.”
On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna recap the latest happenings on Capitol Hill and are joined by The Honorable Jason Isaac, of the Texas Public Policy Institute, for a wide ranging discussion on all things energy.
Links:
Biden’s Department of Energy (DOE) has increased the time it takes to review a permit for exporting LNG from 7 weeks to a minimum of 11 months. The slowing of permit approval could mean that nearly-completed LNG projects are not able to supply European buyers in need of gas because they do not have the permit. The drastic slowing of LNG export permits represents the most significant limit thus far on an industry planning to add 50 percent more to U.S. export capacity by 2026. The average time for issuing an export license for supplying the super-chilled gas to non-Free Trade Agreement (non-FTA) countries, climbed under the Biden administration to over 330 days from 155 days under the Obama administration and 48 days under the Trump administration. Non-FTA countries are the biggest buyers of U.S. LNG, but the Biden administration’s DOE has slowed decisions for economic, political and environmental reasons as Biden’s allies in the climate activist business have rallied to oppose new LNG facilities. Without these permits, projects that supply non-FTA countries cannot move forward. By law, exports to FTA nations must be approved quickly and affirmatively.
Commonwealth LNG has been waiting for almost a year after receiving its environmental approval for a permit to export LNG to non-FTA countries. Its Cameron, Louisiana, project has plans to start construction in the third quarter of next year with preliminary deals for the sale of 5 million metric tons per annum, mainly to non-FTA countries. New Fortress Energy filed 11 months ago for a non-FTA authorization for its Altamira FLNG facility, which is near to starting production. But the 1.4 million metric ton project will be unable to sell its gas to non-FTA countries including the Netherlands, UK, France, Spain and Germany. This is despite Biden’s promises to make LNG exports to Europe easier.
According to a DOE spokesperson, the agency considers more than environmental approvals in its non-FTA decisions. Many factors affect the amount of time DOE needs to review an application, including issues raised by “interveners” in any specific proceeding. DOE claims it approved non-FTA authorizations for projects representing almost 45 percent of the about 103 billion cubic feet per day production of domestic dry gas.
Background
In August 2014, DOE revised the process it uses to determine approval for a non-FTA permit application. Under the rule, DOE may act on a non-FTA request within 30 days after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a final environmental impact statement for the project. In practice, however, DOE has waited until after FERC has issued a final order, which usually adds a few months to the timeline.
According to an article in Real Clear Energy, Obama’s Energy Department made nine major non-FTA decisions for eight projects, taking an average of 155 days to reach a decision after the FERC order was issued. During the Trump administration, the number of major LNG decisions made by DOE increased to 13 while the average time to make a decision dropped to 48 days. President Biden promised to “end fossil fuels,” while President Trump promoted American energy dominance.
The Real Clear Energy article also noted that there are two major U.S. LNG projects that have been approved by FERC since Biden was inaugurated in 2021. One of those projects was recently authorized unanimously (Port Arthur Phase II), but the other (Commonwealth LNG) was given approval by FERC on November 18, 2022. It has been awaiting a DOE non-FTA decision for over 325 days, which is more than twice as long as the average during the Obama years and almost seven times longer than in the Trump administration.
The article also noted that while DOE has yet to act on a major U.S. LNG export application request, it approved five smaller requests for U.S. LNG export project capacity increases, primarily from operating facilities. Even the minor decisions have taken a very long time. The average time from FERC to DOE action was 330 days, and the longest application was pending for 678 days. President Biden’s rhetoric about helping European allies seems to conflict with his inactions and delays.
Conclusion
The House of Representatives twice passed legislation to simplify the U.S. LNG regulatory process by granting full authority to FERC to make U.S. LNG export decisions. U.S. LNG exports are making substantial contributions to U.S. trade balances and domestic employment and bolstering the energy security of our allies. The disruption of pipeline gas shipments to Europe following the Russian invasion of Ukraine hurt European economic growth and security. Without U.S. LNG, Europe’s energy situation after the Russian invasion of Ukraine would be much more problematic. Ditte Juul Jørgensen, the European Commission’s Director-General for Energy, noted that the EU will need U.S. gas for decades. DOE’s slow permit approvals could result in delays for new U.S. LNG supplies and cost increases.
On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss carbon tax news in the states and north of the border, the latest lunacy from America’s left wing, and give some insight into the evolving situation involving Iran.
Links:
Today, Senators Cassidy and Graham introduced a carbon tax on imports from high-greenhouse gas emitting countries. We have some questions for the Senators:
The first major legislation House Republicans passed under Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership would cut billions of dollars in green subsidies for energy efficiency upgrades included in President Biden’s climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act. The $58 billion measure, which funds the Energy Department and other agencies, rescinds more than $5.5 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, including a $4.5 billion program for homeowners to switch to more energy efficient appliances and a $1 billion grant program to help states develop more stringent building energy codes, presumably so the states can do the Administration’s dirty work telling people what kind of appliances they can buy. The bill, approved on a 210-199 vote, also slashes the Energy Department’s energy efficiency and renewable energy office funding by 42 percent below last year’s levels and revokes $15 billion in loan authority from the department’s loan guarantee program. The House measure is not expected to pass the Senate or receive Biden’s signature without changes. It represents the House Republicans’ starting point as they negotiate spending ahead of a mid-November government shutdown deadline, and it is a good start.
Jonson’s Aggressive Schedule
Johnson has pledged the House will vote on the remaining spending bills in the coming weeks. In an October 23 memorandum to colleagues, Johnson indicated that the House would work through the eight remaining appropriations bills between now and November 17, when the government would shut down absent congressional action. The Energy-Water bill would be followed by the bill to fund the Department of the Interior and EPA. Both the Energy-Water and Interior-EPA bills have deep cuts from Biden’s wish list of “green” spending. Such spending in various bills has exploded under Biden, with Vice President Kamala Harris admitting that they plan to spend $1 trillion on their climate plans. In addition, the Speaker pledged that in December, the House will pass a reauthorization of the farm bill in time to avoid an expiration of the three-month extension Congress approved in September. Johnson also planned to launch negotiations with the Senate on the National Defense Authorization Act by next month for passage by December. That bill usually carries significant energy and environment provisions. Johnson also wants to begin negotiations on the FAA reauthorization “as soon as the Senate passes it,” presumably sometime in the next four weeks.
For next year, the Speaker expects that between May and July, the House should complete consideration of all fiscal year 2025 spending bills as well as funding for the Water Resources Development Act and the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. Johnson believes the chamber should not break for its annual summer district work period unless all 12 of next year’s appropriations bills have passed the House. If they do, he plans to wrap up negotiations with the White House and Senate before the next fiscal year ends on September 30.
Johnson committed to pursuing single-issue spending bills rather than opting for a larger spending package like a continuing resolution or an omnibus. In the past, such omnibus bills have been used to throw all spending in together, so members of Congress must vote for or against everything. Few Congresspeople who might want to reduce funding for crony “green capitalism” want to be accused of voting against Veterans benefits when they are lumped together. Johnson, however, cautioned in his October 23 memorandum that if another stopgap measure is needed to extend government funding beyond the November 17 deadline, he would propose a measure that expires on January 15 or April 15 (based on what can obtain Conference consensus), to ensure the Senate cannot jam the House with a Christmas omnibus.
Johnson will also be confronted with a $50 billion supplemental spending request for domestic programs, including disaster relief and wildfire prevention that really should be part of the appropriation bills, and a request of more than $100 billion for Ukraine, Israel and other things Biden wants. Johnson has proposed cutting $14.3 billion from the $80 billion of new funding provided for the IRS to pay for the Israel aid.
Conclusion
Johnson sees each of these actions as a “return to legislating” and an opportunity to get back to “effectively messaging on our top issues and priorities.” He believes his objectives can be accomplished in a manner that delivers on principled commitments to rein in wasteful spending, and put the country back on a path to fiscal responsibility. The House will no doubt have fights with the Biden White House that considers climate a more existential threat than wars in the Middle East and Russia. House Republicans projected unity and confidence that they would be able to fulfill Johnson’s objectives. However, time will tell if he can accomplish the huge task.
#152: Speaker for a Day (10/13/23)
Donate to AEA: secure.anedot.com/6d8d68c3-3f3c-4f…ffed88b6e14ca092
Links:
Harvard student groups: www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushar…iticizing-israel/
Special K Moves Out of His Lane:
x.com/ClimateEnvoy/status/1712195662899495233?s=20
Jennifer Rubin:
x.com/JRubinBlogger/status/1…10735911418315152?s=20
Economy: consumers buckle Walmart CEO warns: www.cnbc.com/2023/10/09/consume…almart-us-ceo.html
Biden: You Get More Legs
x.com/atrupar/status/1710333560953979242?s=20
Energy: Renewables aren’t profitable in Europe: www.reuters.com/business/energy/e…mc_eid=cba1fa94e8
EVs: Treasury Guidance
home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1783
Climate: Survivor Might Not Survive Because Climate Change
www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/arts/t…amazing-race.html