‘We’re not against profits,’ White House presidential coordinator says after Biden’s tax threats on energy companies
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — President Joe Biden is making no secret of his frustration with high gas prices and the oil companies making record profits as a result. With the support of Democratic allies in Congress, he is threatening to levy windfall taxes on energy firms, a prospect that’s prompted backlash from the industry.
The president on Monday tweeted: “The oil industry has a choice. Either invest in America by lowering prices for consumers at the pump and increasing production and refining capacity. Or pay a higher tax on your excessive profits and face other restrictions.”
The language sets up what looks like a standoff between the U.S. oil industry and the Biden administration at a time of high energy prices, soaring inflation and worries of a global crude supply shortage after years of under-investment in the industry and several months of sanctions on Russian commodities for its war in Ukraine.
But reports of animosity between the White House and America’s energy giants are overhyped, says Amos Hochstein, Biden’s special presidential coordinator, who liaises closely with energy industry leaders domestically and around the world.
The Biden administration is not anti-profit or anti-free market, he stressed; rather, it wants to see oil companies reinvest their profits in improving crude production and the country’s energy security.
“I talk to the CEOs, other senior members of the administration talk to the CEOs on a regular basis,” Hochstein told CNBC’s Hadley Gamble Monday, when asked about the administration’s relationship with industry executives.
“People know that. I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is this: we want them to increase their capex, increase investment,” he said. “The price environment for the last year, over a year now, lends itself to investment. So take those profits that you’re making. We’re not against profits. What we do want, and the president said this last week — take those profits and invest them.”
Congressional Democrats argue that oil executives are prioritizing shareholder returns over reinvesting profits toward boosting production that could lower consumer prices. Hochstein held the position that shareholder returns are not an issue in themselves, but that increasing America’s energy supplies should be the priority.
“You want to pay some back to shareholders? Some is fine,” he continued. “But not excessively. You want to take these profits, that’s fine too. But not excessively. We’re in a war and you can do more to increase production.”
Record-breaking oil company profits
Several major oil companies have raked in record profits this year as consumers grappled with soaring gas and energy bills. ExxonMobil reported a record $19.7 billion net profit for the third quarter, and Biden this week accused the Texas-based company of using that to reward shareholders and buy back its own stock rather than investing in production improvements that could ease prices at the pump.
California-based Chevron made $11.23 billion in profits in the third quarter, just shy of the record it hit in the previous quarter. In the last two quarters, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Britain’s BP, Shell and France’s TotalEnergies reportedly made over $100 billion in profits — more than they earned in the entirety of 2021.
Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods, speaking to CNBC last week, said his company was committed to addressing both shareholder returns and improving production, regardless of who was in the White House.
“We don’t really look to satisfy one administration or the other. We look to make sure we’re doing the best we can using our shareholders’ money appropriately, finding advantaged projects that allow us to grow production and grow value. We’re also looking at reducing our emissions,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
But Hochstein says he doesn’t see sufficient investment on a broad scale.
“All I see is record profits that are not translating to sufficiently increased investment and where investments are not keeping up with average ratios of investment-to-price increase,” he said.
Many in the oil industry argue that a windfall tax is counterproductive and would harm production and investment. Still, the threat of such taxes from the Democratic leadership is likely more of a pressure tactic than a plausible policy proposal in the near-term since Congress is not in session. And it could even become impossible to carry out if Republicans, who largely oppose such a move, win one or both houses in the November midterm elections.
A changing White House tone on fossil fuels
Biden came into office campaigning hard for an end to fossil fuel use and a transition to renewables as part of his climate-focused agenda, laying out a bevy of regulations on oil and gas exploration and production. Supporters of Biden’s green energy goals say this aggressive push was needed to reverse what they describe as damage done by former President Donald Trump, who rolled back years of work on environmental protections and pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords.
But it was that policy push, those in the fossil fuel industry argue, that helped throttle investment in oil and gas production and subsequently led to the energy supply shortages and higher prices we see today. Now, faced with a tightening global oil and gas market, climbing demand, and a war in Europe, the administration is taking a different tone.
“Look, it’s no secret that the Biden administration and oil industry do not see eye-to-eye on the long term role that oil will play in the economy,” Hochstein said. “However, we have to do two things. We need more investment in oil production and refining, now.”
The longtime energy policy veteran pointed out that much of the initial regulations and restrictions have eased — and noted that under this administration, the U.S. is approaching pre-pandemic highs in oil production levels, even despite what he says is insufficient activity from oil companies.
Figures released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Monday revealed domestic crude oil production hitting 11.98 barrels per day in August, the highest since March 2020 and nearing the U.S.’s all-time record of 12.3 million barrels set in 2019.
Occidental Petroleum CEO Vicki Hollub contradicted the narrative that the Biden administration was ignoring oil companies. Speaking to CNBC in Abu Dhabi, she said she indeed communicates with U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, a vocal climate policy advocate.
“I do hear from Secretary Granholm — she is focused on tech, she’s enthusiastic about the climate transition, she listens, she [communicates with] the National Petroleum Council and has sent us requests for studies to be conducted to help her in making her decisions” concerning clean energy investments, Hollub said.
Whatever the disagreements on the longer-term role of the fossil fuel industry in the U.S., oil executives and White House officials appear to agree on one thing — they will need to communicate properly to ensure future energy security for the country at a time of severe economic and geopolitical risk.
Elon Musk isn’t happy about Trump passing the Big Beautiful Bill and killing off the $7,500 EV tax credit – but there’s a lot more bad news for Tesla baked into the BBB. We’ve got all that and more on today’s budget-busting episode of Quick Charge!
We also present ongoing coverage of the 2025 Electrek Formula Sun Grand Prix and dive into some two wheeled reports on the new electric Honda Ruckus e:Zoomer, the latest BMW electric two-wheeler, and more!
Source Links
Prefer listening to your podcasts? Audio-only versions of Quick Charge are now available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, TuneIn, and our RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players.
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.
Got news? Let us know!
Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
FERC: Solar + wind made up 96% of new US power generating capacity in first third of 2025
Solar and wind accounted for almost 96% of new US electrical generating capacity added in the first third of 2025. In April, solar provided 87% of new capacity, making it the 20th consecutive month solar has taken the lead, according to data belatedly posted on July 1 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and reviewed by the SUN DAY Campaign.
Solar’s new generating capacity in April 2025 and YTD
In its latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with data through April 30, 2025), FERC says 50 “units” of solar totaling 2,284 megawatts (MW) were placed into service in April, accounting for 86.7% of all new generating capacity added during the month.
In addition, the 9,451 MW of solar added during the first four months of 2025 was 77.7% of the new generation placed into service.
Solar has now been the largest source of new generating capacity added each month for 20 consecutive months, from September 2023 to April 2025.
Solar + wind were >95% of new capacity in 1st third of 2025
Between January and April 2025, new wind provided 2,183 MW of capacity additions, accounting for 18.0% of new additions in the first third.
In the same period, the combination of solar and wind was 95.7% of new capacity while natural gas (511 MW) provided just 4.2%; the remaining 0.1% came from oil (11 MW).
Solar + wind are >22% of US utility-scale generating capacity
The installed capacities of solar (11.0%) and wind (11.8%) are now each more than a tenth of the US total. Together, they make up almost one-fourth (22.8%) of the US’s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity.
Moreover, at least 25-30% of US solar capacity is in small-scale (e.g., rooftop) systems that are not reflected in FERC’s data. Including that additional solar capacity would bring the share provided by solar + wind to more than a quarter of the US total.
With the inclusion of hydropower (7.7%), biomass (1.1%), and geothermal (0.3%), renewables currently claim a 31.8% share of total US utility-scale generating capacity. If small-scale solar capacity is included, renewables are now about one-third of total US generating capacity.
Solar is on track to become No. 2 source of US generating capacity
FERC reports that net “high probability” additions of solar between May 2025 and April 2028 total 90,158 MW – an amount almost four times the forecast net “high probability” additions for wind (22,793 MW), the second-fastest growing resource. Notably, both three-year projections are higher than those provided just a month earlier.
FERC also foresees net growth for hydropower (596 MW) and geothermal (92 MW) but a decrease of 123 MW in biomass capacity.
Taken together, the net new “high probability” capacity additions by all renewable energy sources over the next three years – i.e., the bulk of the Trump administration’s remaining time in office – would total 113,516 MW.
FERC doesn’t include any nuclear capacity in its three-year forecast, while coal and oil are projected to contract by 24,373 MW and 1,915 MW, respectively. Natural gas capacity would expand by 5,730 MW.
Thus, adjusting for the different capacity factors of gas (59.7%), wind (34.3%), and utility-scale solar (23.4%), electricity generated by the projected new solar capacity to be added in the coming three years should be at least six times greater than that produced by the new natural gas capacity, while the electrical output by new wind capacity would be more than double that by gas.
If FERC’s current “high probability” additions materialize, by May 1, 2028, solar will account for one-sixth (16.6%) of US installed utility-scale generating capacity. Wind would provide an additional one-eighth (12.6%) of the total. That would make each greater than coal (12.2%) and substantially more than nuclear power or hydropower (7.3% and 7.2%, respectively).
In fact, assuming current growth rates continue, the installed capacity of utility-scale solar is likely to surpass that of either coal or wind within two years, placing solar in second place for installed generating capacity, behind only natural gas.
Renewables + small-scale solar may overtake natural gas within 3 years
The mix of all utility-scale (ie, >1 MW) renewables is now adding about two percentage points each year to its share of generating capacity. At that pace, by May 1, 2028, renewables would account for 37.7% of total available installed utility-scale generating capacity – rapidly approaching that of natural gas (40.1%). Solar and wind would constitute more than three-quarters of installed renewable energy capacity. If those trend lines continue, utility-scale renewable energy capacity should surpass that of natural gas in 2029 or sooner.
However, as noted, FERC’s data do not account for the capacity of small-scale solar systems. If that’s factored in, within three years, total US solar capacity could exceed 300 GW. In turn, the mix of all renewables would then be about 40% of total installed capacity while the share of natural gas would drop to about 38%.
Moreover, FERC reports that there may actually be as much as 224,426 MW of net new solar additions in the current three-year pipeline in addition to 69,530 MW of new wind, 9,072 MW of new hydropower, 202 MW of new geothermal, and 39 MW of new biomass. By contrast, net new natural gas capacity potentially in the three-year pipeline totals just 26,818 MW. Consequently, renewables’ share could be even greater by mid-spring 2028.
“The Trump Administration’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ … poses a clear threat to solar and wind in the years to come,” noted the SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director, Ken Bossong. “Nonetheless, FERC’s latest data and forecasts suggest cleaner and lower-cost renewable energy sources may still dominate and surpass nuclear power, coal, and natural gas.”
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla has been forced to reimburse a customer’s Full Self-Driving package after an arbitrator determined that the automaker failed to deliver it.
Tesla has been promising its car owners that every vehicle it has built since 2016 has all the hardware capable of unsupervised self-driving.
The automaker has been selling a “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) package that is supposed to deliver this unsupervised self-driving capability through over-the-air software updates.
Almost a decade later, Tesla has yet to deliver on its promise, and its claim that the cars’ hardware is capable of self-driving has been proven wrong. Tesla had to update all cars with HW2 and 2.5 computers to HW3 computers.
In January 2025, CEO Elon Musk finally admitted that HW3 also won’t be able to support self-driving and said that Tesla will have to upgrade the computers. 6 months later, Tesla has yet to communicate a plan for retrofits to owners.
Tesla is now attempting to deliver its promise of unsupervised self-driving on HW4 cars, which have been in production since 2023-2024, depending on the model. However, there are still significant doubts about this being possible, as the best available data indicate that Tesla only achieves about 500 miles between critical disengagements with the latest software on the hardware.
The situation is creating a significant liability for Tesla, which already needs to replace computers in millions of vehicles, and it may need to do so in millions more.
On the other hand, many customers are losing faith in Tesla’s ability to deliver on its promise and manage this computer retrofit situation. Some of them have been seeking to be reimbursed for their purchase of the Full Self-Driving package, which Tesla sold from $8,000 to $15,000.
A Tesla owner in Washington managed to get the automaker to reimburse the FSD package, but it wasn’t easy.
The 2021 Model Y was Marc Dobin and his wife’s third Tesla. Due to his wife’s declining mobility, Dobin was intrigued about the FSD package as a potential way to give her more independence. He wrote in a blog post:
But FSD was more than hype for us. The promise of a car that could drive my wife around gave us hope that she’d maintain independence as her motor skills declined. We paid an extra $10,000 for FSD.
Tesla’s FSD quickly disillusioned Dobin. First, he couldn’t even enable it due to Tesla restricting the Beta access through a “safety score” system, something he pointed out was never mentioned in the contract.
Furthermore, the feature required the supervision of a driver at all times, which was not what Tesla sold to customers.
Tesla doesn’t make it easy for customers in the US to seek a refund or to sue Tesla as it forces buyers to go through arbitration through its sales contract.
That didn’t deter Dobin, who happens to be a lawyer with years of experience in arbitration. It took almost a year, but Tesla and Dobin eventually found themselves in arbitration, and it didn’t go well for the automaker:
Almost a year after filing, the evidentiary hearing was held via Zoom. Tesla produced one witness: a Field Technical Specialist who admitted he hadn’t checked what equipment shipped with our car, hadn’t reviewed our driving logs, and didn’t know details about the FSD system installed on our car, if any. He hadn’t spoken to any sales rep we dealt with or reviewed the contract’s integration clause.
There were both a Tesla lawyer and an outside counsel representing Tesla at the hearing, but the witness was not equipped to answer questions.
Dobin wrote:
He was a service technician, not a lawyer or salesperson. But that’s who Tesla brought to the hearing. At the end, I genuinely felt bad for him because Tesla set him up to be a human punching bag—someone unprepared to answer key questions, forced to defend a system he clearly didn’t understand. While I was examining him, a Tesla in-house lawyer sat silently, while the company’s outside counsel tried to soften the blows of the witness’ testimony.
He focused on Tesla’s lack of disclosure regarding the safety score and the fact that the system does not meet the promises made to customers.
The arbitrator sided with Dobin and wrote:
The evidence is persuasive that the feature was not functional, operational, or otherwise available.”
Tesla was forced to reimburse the FSD package $10,000 plus taxes, and pay for the almost $8,000 in arbitration fees.
Since Tesla forces arbitration through its contracts, it is required to cover the cost.
Electrek’s Take
This is interesting. Tesla assigned two lawyers to this case in an attempt to avoid reimbursing $10,000, knowing it would have to cover the expensive arbitration fees – most likely losing tens of thousands of dollars in the process.
It makes no sense to me. Tesla should have a standing offer to reimburse FSD for anyone who requests it until it can actually deliver on its promise of unsupervised self-driving.
That’s the right thing to do, and the fact that Tesla would waste money trying to fight customers requesting a refund is really telling.
Tesla is simply not ready to do the right thing here, and it doesn’t bode well for the computer retrofits and all the other liabilities around Tesla FSD.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike