Still in the philosophy that they should be able to control what kind of kitchen stove American citizens can use, The Department of Energy is maintaining a grip on gas cooktops regulation, although loosening them somewhat following loud public outcry.

Ostensibly in the name of energy-efficiency, DOE published efficiency requirements for gas stoves so stringent that they would have been impractical for most consumers. Following strong public push-back, the agency is slightly loosening the BTU limits after reviewing data submitted by a trade association and a utility company,

Much of the media denounced concerns from the public about the government banning gas stoves, calling them conspiracy theorists, but the agency did publish a notice calling for new regulations which would have limited BTU consumption to 1,204, down from a baseline of 1,775 British thermal units, or kBtu per year. The proposal is so impractical that for all purposes it outlaws the stoves.

More recently, in a notice of data availability published in the Federal Register, DOE floated less stringent efficiency requirements for gas stoves, increasing them slightly to a limit of 1,343 kBtu per year, down from a recalculated baseline of 1,900 kBtu per year.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and PG&E provided the DOE with data on cooktops with higher consumption rates, which the agency had not used in its initial efficiency testing.

According to POLITICO, “Other comments led DOE ‘to better understand’ what features consumers want in a gas stove, including multiple high input rate burners and continuous cast-iron grates.” 

Manufacturers would be required to spend more than $2.5 billion to comply with the originally proposed rules, according to the DOE’s own estimates, and consumers would save just 12.5 cents a month in energy costs.

The mandates would have been so strict as to make 96 percent of gas stoves on the market noncompliant.

In June the House passed the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, which would prevent the DOE from advancing its unworkable stove requirements.

The National Association of Manufacturers has held high-level discussions with policymakers on the importance of feasibility, affordability and consumer choice in rulemaking.

To that end, in June the NAM and members of the NAM’s Council of Manufacturing Associations and Conference of State Manufacturers Associations created the Manufacturers for Sensible Regulations, which aims to combat the recent regulatory onslaught by federal agencies.

“Manufacturers depend on regulatory clarity and certainty,” said NAM Managing Vice President of Policy Chris Netram. Throughout the year, the Department of Energy has proposed an unprecedented slew of regulations, and many were aimed at home appliances. The DOE is now taking steps toward a solution that is less likely to raise production costs significantly for manufacturers, and less likely to reduce the available features, performance and affordability for consumers.”

The Tax Foundation

The global tax deal is going mainstream. As Politico puts it, “the technical rules that were once solely the province of tax wonks in D.C. and Paris are being brought out into the public sphere.” Here’s what you need to know about it.

Developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and agreed to by more than 130 countries, the global tax deal would change where large multinational companies pay taxes (known as Pillar One) and create a global minimum tax (known as Pillar Two). It’s the latter making headlines.

Pillar Two would ensure that large multinational corporations pay an effective tax rate of at least 15 percent—an attempt to stop companies from moving their profits to tax havens (i.e., low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions).

Countries would have two options: they could change their domestic rules to comply with the global minimum tax or, if they don’t change their rules, other countries could tax their multinational companies to bring them up to 15 percent.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development wants to level the international tax playing field.

This is the latest iteration of the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, launched in 2013, to stop multinational corporations from gaming the international tax system. As a result of BEPS, dozens of countries (including the U.S.) tightened rules on multinationals. But the OECD believes these rules didn’t go far enough.

But the current approach wouldn’t level the playing field for two reasons.

First, the rules privilege some pre-existing policies over others. They treat refundable tax credits much more favorably than tax credits that are only available if a company has taxable income. Because many U.S. tax credits fall under the latter category, tailoring the U.S. system to the rules would cost over $100 billion.

Second, taking away one tool countries have to help businesses (taxes) doesn’t mean there aren’t others (subsidies). Countries that can spend more to support their businesses will have a leg up on countries that can’t.

Shifting income from one jurisdiction to another to reduce tax burdens is a real concern—one the U.S. acknowledged in 2017 by dramatically changing its tax rules for multinationals. The U.S. now has three minimum taxes all aimed at similar issues the OECD rules are attempting to address. However, none of the U.S. rules seem to qualify under the OECD standards.

The web of rules would be complex and there is much uncertainty, but it seems to be a losing situation for the U.S.

According to the best estimates, the U.S. Treasury is likely to lose revenue whether it adopts Pillar Two or not (if all other countries adopt the rules). Even if the U.S. complies, it is likely to lose $56.5 billion over 10 years. And if it doesn’t, that figure more than doubles to $122 billion.

The best way to avoid losing revenue is to ensure the U.S. continues to be a place where businesses want to invest and grow.

However, the global minimum tax would also undermine the U.S.’s attempts to encourage investment. For example, the federal government allows businesses to deduct research and development costs to spur innovation. But what happens if a multinational company uses that deduction and drops below the 15 percent threshold? Other countries could increase taxes on it, dampening Congress’s intended effect.

If the Treasury loses revenue to foreign governments, then taxes on domestic activity could rise to offset it.

Over the long term, if companies choose to avoid the U.S. when they’re deciding to invest, this could mean higher prices and less investment in innovation in the U.S., which means fewer of the cutting-edge products and services you enjoy and less money in your pocket.

Additionally, job opportunities and wages would likely decrease as businesses cut costs to make up for lost profits.

By Morgan Sweeney, The Center Square

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares is the latest to join a coalition of attorneys general “demanding answers” from global investment firm BlackRock Inc., questioning its ability to manage funds passively.

Montana’s Attorney General Austin Knudsen is one of the AG’s leading the action, even though the Montana still remains invested with BlackRock

Since August 2022, three groups of attorneys general representing 24 states have banded together in actions challenging company practices at BlackRock – the largest asset manager in the world and the first to reach $10 trillion in assets – claiming that it has allowed political persuasions to interfere with the investment of its clients’ funds.

Last August, 19 Republican attorneys general asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate BlackRock’s relationship with China and assess whether the company used its influence to persuade advisees and investees into embracing its espoused environmental, social and governance values, otherwise called “ESG.”

They also expressed concerns that the company’s behavior didn’t align with antitrust law.

In May, 17 Republican attorneys general filed a motion with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, accusing the money manager of violating the Federal Power Act and the BlackRock 2022 Order.

The motion cites that the FPA prohibits “public utility holding companies” from purchasing more than $10 million in voting securities in another “utility;” if a company wishes to do so, it must remain a “passive” and “non-controlling investor” – which, the motion claims, BlackRock is not.

This latest action, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, involves 15 attorneys general – all Republicans – with Virginia and New Hampshire being the newest states to join efforts. It’s a letter to “BlackRock-linked mutual fund directors,” which echoes the prior accusations of personal and political entanglement with professional matters.

“The overlapping web of personal and business relationships between major mutual fund directors and BlackRock raise red flags about potential conflicts of interest, and call even further into question the misguided investment strategies done in the name of ESG,” Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said.

According to a release from Miyares’ office, “six of the nine mutual fund directors [in question] have a relationship with BlackRock as either a BlackRock employee or a board member of a company where BlackRock owns more than 5%.” Such conflicts of interest violate the Investment Company Act of 1940 and “state principles of independence,” according to the latest letter.

Red states have begun divesting from BlackRock.

So far, Florida, Louisiana, Arizona, Texas, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, Utah and West Virginia have all withdrawn their assets — totaling $4.8 billion — from BlackRock, according to Americans for Tax Reform.