OPEC+ just made the Fed’s job more complicated. Here’s why they did it — and what could be next
The logo of the OPEC is pictured at the OPEC headquarters on October 4, 2022. In October last year, the oil cartel announced its decision to cut output by two million barrels per day.
Joe Klamar | Afp | Getty Images
Several OPEC+ members are set to tighten global production by an additional 1.16 million barrels per day until the end of the year, further burdening central bank efforts to curtail global inflation — but critically protecting the alliance’s broader output strategy from political pressures.
Washington has stepped in to criticize Sunday’s announcement where eight OPEC+ producers — including group leader Saudi Arabia and key allies Kuwait and the UAE — said they would remove more than a combined 1 million barrels per day from global oil markets, as part of an independent initiative unlinked to the broader OPEC+ policy.
This adds to Russia’s existing intentions to trim 500,000 barrels per day of its own production from February output levels, now until the end of the year — bringing the combined voluntary cuts of OPEC+ members in excess of 1.6 million barrels per day.
“We don’t think cuts are advisable at this moment, given market uncertainty — and we’ve made that clear,” a spokesperson for the National Security Council said, according to Reuters.
U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has repeatedly lambasted the OPEC+ group for its production cuts, citing the inflationary toll on households and flinging accusations of camaraderie with sanctions-struck Russia. Curbs in production lead to smaller supply, causing higher prices at the pump in importing countries which then provides a boost for headline inflation figures.
Relations devolved into a war of words with OPEC+ chair Saudi Arabia at the end of last year, when the oil group agreed a 2 million barrels per day cut until the end of 2023 — a decision upheld at ministerial and technical committees since.
One such technical council, the OPEC+ Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee concluded on Monday with a statement that acknowledged the voluntary cuts, making no mention of a broader change in formal production policy.
Referring to the voluntary cuts, the OPEC Secretariat said they represent “a precautionary measure aimed at supporting the stability of the oil market.”
The JMMC will next convene on June 4, with a full ministerial meeting to follow.
Formal group action is arguably no longer required, with front-month June Brent futures prices up by $4.44 per barrel from the Friday settlement to $84.33 per barrel at nearly 10 a.m. London time. Some analysts now warn of prices soaring to $100 per barrel, while Goldman Sachs could drive up Brent forecasts by $5 per barrel to $95 per barrel for December 2023.
“The anticipated increase in oil prices for the rest of the year as a result of these voluntary cuts could fuel global inflation, prompting a more hawkish stance on interest rate hikes from central banks across the world. That would, however, lower economic growth and reduce oil demand expansion,” said Victor Ponsford of Rystad Energy in a research note.
Tamas Varga, of oil broker PVM, flagged the broader political risks of the organized voluntary cuts, telling CNBC that headline inflation should rise faster than anticipated.
“But central banks might not deviate from the course of slowing down the hike in borrowing as their views are chiefly shaped by core inflation figures, which will not be as much affected by stronger oil prices as headline data,” he said.
“The voices of the proponents of the NOPEC bill in the US Congress will also get louder and they will accuse OPEC+ to use oil as a weapon. The step is unreservedly bullish, for now macro worries are overtaken by supply concerns. The move will also lead to further souring of the Saudi-US relationship.”
The NOPEC — No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels— bill refers to proposed U.S. legislation that would open OPEC+ countries to potential antitrust legal action.
The U.S. can attempt to combat price hikes by releasing further volumes from its Strategic Petroleum Reserves — with one anonymous OPEC+ delegate saying that Washington has encumbered its fight against inflation by blocking global access to Venezuela and Iranian volumes, while EU nations likewise refrain from Russian purchases out of solidarity with the invaded Ukraine.
OPEC+ delegates have previously also found fault with western nations’ windfall taxes on energy companies — which they claim received no consistent support when WTI futures traded in negative territory in April 2020 — and with the accelerated shift toward renewables that has reduced hydrocarbon investments without producing sufficient alternative green fuel to fully meet consumer demands.
Spare capacity has been at the heart of recent OPEC+ pronouncements, with the group stepping in to protect the appeal of stable return for long-term investments in oil projects. Nearly all of the countries participating in the recently-announced independent cuts possess additional capacity.
One anonymous OPEC+ source said discussions to coordinate further independent cuts gained traction toward the end of last week, when volatility in the banking sector following the failures of several U.S. and Swiss lenders eroded investor confidence in more historically volatile assets, such as oil. OPEC+ delegates have previously expressed that the oil impact of the banking turbulence would be short-lived, with longer-term questions lingering over the looming demand of a reopening China, the world’s largest consumer.
“What happened to the oil prices over the last three weeks was nothing to do with oil factors, it was everything to do with the banking crisis, and the fears that brings with it. We also had a huge, huge increase in [the] short market, and that is something that OPEC are very keen to stomp out,” Amrita Sen, co-founder and director of research at Energy Aspects, told CNBC’s Dan Murphy.
Investors generally assume short positions when they expect market or price declines.
“I do believe, if the market overtightens, or exogenous issues or shocks fade, they will reverse this cut along the line. So this isn’t set in stone for the rest of the year, but very clearly defending a floor.”
Voluntary production moves are easier to agree and unwind without staining domestic or external OPEC+ politics. Such cuts have previously been accepted by the group, provided they aligned with the spirit of existing OPEC+ policies — but they have typically expressed the initiative of a single country, barring temporary Saudi-Kuwaiti-UAE reductions organized during the Covid-19 pandemic.
A coordinated gesture of Sunday’s scale effectively creates a second, unofficial agreement on top of the existing formal OPEC+ strategy — one that does not command formal commitments and can be more readily defended when individual oil ministries face pressures from their own governments or state oil companies to increase output and short-term revenues. Independent cuts also bypass the need for unanimous OPEC+ member approval and tentatively avoid external accusations of organized anti-consumer behavior.
But the gesture will not bridge the growing political rift between OPEC+ kingpin Saudi Arabia and the Biden administration, whose influence has been increasingly supplanted by China in the Middle East. In the past month, Beijing brokered a resumption of relations between arch-rivals Tehran and Riyadh, with Saudi Arabia also taking steps to join the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a dialogue partner.
“[The organized voluntary cuts] certainly would play into the narrative that the U.S. is losing its influence in the region to either influence the actions of core OPEC producers like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have traditionally been client states of the U.S.,” Andy Critchlow, EMEA head of news at S&P Global Platts, told CNBC.
“You can’t really look at this in isolation from the wider geopolitical situation in the Middle East, which is seeing these core oil producers shift closer to China, shift much closer to Russia. You know, they like operating in this multipolar world, instead of being completely tied to U.S. dependency.”
After years of teasing that other automakers would license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, Elon Musk has now admitted that no other automakers want to license it.
“They don’t want it!” He says.
For years, the bull case for Tesla (TSLA) has relied heavily on the idea that the company isn’t just an automaker, but an “AI and robotics company”, with its first robot product being an autonomous car.
CEO Elon Musk pushed the theory further, arguing that Tesla’s lead in autonomy was so great that legacy automakers would eventually have no choice but to license Full Self-Driving (FSD) to survive.
Back in early 2021, during the Q4 2020 earnings call, Musk first claimed that Tesla had “preliminary discussions” with other automakers about licensing the software. He reiterated this “openness” frequently, famously tweeting in June 2023 that Tesla was “happy to license Autopilot/FSD or other Tesla technology” to competitors.
The speculation peaked in April 2024, when Musk explicitly stated that Tesla was “in talks with one major automaker” and that there was a “good chance” a deal would be signed that year.
We now know that deal never happened. And thanks to comments from Ford CEO Jim Farley earlier this year, we have a good idea why. Farley, who was likely the other party in those “major automaker” talks, publicly shut down the idea of using FSD, stating clearly that “Waymo is better”.
Now, Musk appears to have given up on the idea of licensing Tesla FSD. In a post on X late last night, Musk acknowledged that discussions with other automakers have stalled, claiming that they asked for “unworkable requirements” for Tesla.
The CEO wrote:
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
Suppose you translate “unworkable requirements” from Musk-speak to automotive industry standard. In that case, it becomes clear what happened: automakers demanded a system that does what it says: drive autonomously, which means something different for Tesla.
Legacy automakers generally follow a “V-model” of validation. They define requirements, test rigorously, and validate safety before release. When Mercedes-Benz released its Drive Pilot system, a true Level 3 system, they accepted full legal liability for the car when the system is engaged.
In contrast, Tesla’s “aggressive deployment” strategy relies on releasing “beta” (now “Supervised”) software to customers and using them to validate the system. This approach has led to a litany of federal investigations and lawsuits.
Just this month, Tesla settled the James Tran vs. Tesla lawsuit just days before trial. The case involved a Model Y on Autopilot crashing into a stationary police vehicle, a known issue with Tesla’s system for years. By settling, Tesla avoided a jury verdict, but the message to the industry was clear: even Tesla knows it risks losing these cases in court.
Meanwhile, major automakers, such as Toyota, have partnered with Waymo to integrate its autonomous driving techonology into its consumer vehicles.
Electrek’s Take
The “unworkable requirements for Tesla” is an instant Musk classic. What were those requirements that were unachievable for Tesla? That it wouldn’t crash into stationary objects on the highway, such as emergency vehicles?
How dare they request something that crazy?
No Ford or GM executive is going to license a software stack that brings that kind of liability into their house. If they license FSD, they want Tesla to indemnify them against crashes. Tesla, knowing the current limitations of its vision-only system, likely refused.
To Musk, asking him to pay for FSD’s mistakes is an “unworkable requirement.” It’s always a driver error, and the fact that he always uses hyperbole to describe the level of safety being higher than that of humans has no impact on user abuse of the poorly named driver assistance systems in his view.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
CPSC warns Rad Power Bikes owners to stop using select batteries immediately due to fire risk
In an unprecedented move, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a public safety warning urging owners of certain Rad Power Bikes e-bike batteries to immediately stop using them, citing a risk of fire, explosion, and potentially serious injury or death.
The warning, published today, targets Rad’s lithium-ion battery models RP-1304 and HL-RP-S1304, which were sold with some of the company’s most popular e-bikes, including the RadWagon 4, RadRunner 1 and 2, RadRunner Plus, RadExpand 5, RadRover 5 series, and RadCity 3 and 4 models. Replacement batteries sold separately are also included.
According to the CPSC, the batteries “can unexpectedly ignite and explode,” particularly when exposed to water or debris. The agency says it has documented 31 fires linked to the batteries so far, including 12 incidents of property damage totaling over $734,000. Alarmingly, several fires occurred when the battery wasn’t charging or when the bike wasn’t even in use.
Complicating the situation further, Rad Power Bikes – already facing significant financial turmoil – has “refused to agree to an acceptable recall,” according to the CPSC. The company reportedly told regulators it cannot afford to replace or refund the large number of affected batteries. Rad previously informed employees that it could be forced to shut down permanently in January if it cannot secure new funding, barely two weeks before this safety notice was issued by the CPSC.
For its part, Rad pushed back strongly on the CPSC’s characterization. A Rad Power Bikes Spokesperson explained in a statement to Electrek that the company “stands behind our batteries and our reputation as leaders in the ebike industry, and strongly disagrees with the CPSC’s characterization of certain Rad batteries as defective or unsafe.”
The company explained that its products meet or exceed stringent international safety standards, including UL-2271 and UL-2849, which are standards that the CPSC has proposed as a requirement but not yet implemented. Rad says its batteries have been repeatedly tested by reputable third-party labs, including during the CPSC investigation, and that those tests confirmed full compliance. Rad also claims the CPSC did not independently test the batteries using industry-accepted standards, and stresses that the incident rate cited by the agency represents a tiny fraction of a percent. While acknowledging that any fire report is serious, Rad maintains that lithium-ion batteries across all industries can be hazardous if damaged, improperly used, or exposed to significant water intrusion, and that these universal risks do not indicate a defect specific to Rad’s products.
The company says it entered the process hoping to collaborate with federal regulators to improve safety guidance and rider education, and that it offered multiple compromise solutions – including discounted upgrades to its newer Safe Shield batteries that were a legitimate leap forward in safety in the industry – but the CPSC rejected them. Rad argues that the agency instead demanded a full replacement program that would immediately bankrupt the company, leaving customers without support. It also warns that equating new technology with older products being “unsafe” undermines innovation, noting that the introduction of safer systems, such as anti-lock brakes, doesn’t retroactively deem previous generations faulty. Ultimately, Rad says clear, consistent national standards are needed so manufacturers can operate with confidence while continuing to advance battery safety.
Lithium-ion battery fires have become a growing concern across the US and internationally, with poorly made packs implicated in a rising number of deadly incidents.
While Rad Power Bikes states that no injuries or fatalities have been tied to these specific models, the federal warning marks one of the most serious e-bike battery advisories issued to date – and arrives at a moment when the once-dominant US e-bike brand is already fighting for survival.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Rivian’s e-bike brand launches $250 smart helmet with breakthrough safety tech and lights
ALSO, the new micromobility brand spun out of Rivian, just announced official pricing for its long-awaited Alpha Wave helmet. The smart helmet, which introduces a brand-new safety tech called the Release Layer System (RLS), is now listed at $250, with “notify for pre-order” now open on ALSO’s site. Deliveries are expected to begin in spring 2026.
The $250 price point might sound steep, but ALSO is positioning the Alpha Wave as a top-tier lid that undercuts other premium smart helmets with similar tech – some of which push into the $400–500 range. That’s because the Alpha Wave is promising more than just upgraded comfort and design. The company claims the helmet will also deliver a significant leap in rotational impact protection.
The RLS system is made up of four internal panels that are engineered to release on impact, helping dissipate rotational energy – a major factor in many concussions. It’s being marketed as a next-gen alternative to MIPS and similar technologies, and could signal a broader shift in helmet safety standards if adopted widely.
Beyond protection, the Alpha Wave also packs a surprising amount of tech. Four wind-shielded speakers and two noise-canceling microphones are built in for taking calls, playing music, or following navigation prompts. And when paired with ALSO’s own TM-B electric bike, the helmet integrates with the bike’s onboard lighting system for synchronized rear lights and 200-lumen forward visibility.
The helmet is IPX6-rated for water resistance and charges via USB-C, making it easy to keep powered up alongside other modern gear.
Electrek’s Take
This helmet pushes the smart gear envelope. $250 isn’t nothing, but for integrated lighting, audio, and what might be a true leap forward in crash protection, it’s priced to shake things up in the high-end helmet space.
One area I’m not a huge fan of is the paired front and rear lights. Cruiser motorcycles have this same issue, with paired tail lights mounted close together sometimes being mistaken for a conventional four-wheeled vehicle farther away. I worry that the paired “headlights” and “taillights” of this helmet could be mistaken for a car farther down the road instead of the reality of a much closer cyclist. But hey, we’ll have to see.
The tech is pretty cool though, and if the RLS system holds up to its promise, we might be looking at the new bar for premium e-bike head protection.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024