inside sources print logo
Get up to date Delaware Valley news in your inbox

STEIDLER: Keep the EU Out of America’s Business

The European Union, which has dismally failed to foster a business climate where tech companies can thrive, is now aiming to cripple America’s tech leaders, potentially landing a body blow to the broader U.S. economy. More distressing is that the EU is being aided and abetted in its regulatory attacks by the Federal Trade Commission.

The EU and the United States have often squared off on economic issues.

For 17 years, under four presidents, two Democrats and two Republicans, the EU and the United States were involved in a high-profile fight over aircraft manufacturing. The EU has strenuously objected to provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Biden championed. Other areas of disagreement have included agricultural products, steel, aluminum and even hard liquor.

But the mother of all EU attacks on U.S. businesses has been launched as the European Commission begins enforcing the Digital Markets Act and other measures against large U.S. tech companies. Except for one Chinese company, all the EU targets are from the United States: Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook and Instagram), and Microsoft.

Among those raising protests toward the EU is a bipartisan group from the House of Representatives, 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans.

The group wrote to Biden on December 15, expressing “grave concern” as “the recent decisions by EU authorities pose serious potential damages to America’s competitiveness and security interests.” They also call out Europe’s parochial interests, saying, “The EU’s ‘digital sovereignty’ agenda has repeatedly applied one set of rules to American companies and a different, more favorable set of rules to European and foreign firms, including Russian and Chinese firms.”

Former president Barack Obama also warned against the EU’s abuse of power.

In 2015, Obama took the EU to task for having a dismal tech sector and trying to compensate for that by taking down America’s tech leaders. President Obama said, “We have owned the internet. Our companies have created it, expanded it, perfected it in ways that they can’t compete. And oftentimes what is portrayed as high-minded positions on issues sometimes is just designed to carve out some of their commercial interests.”

Unfortunately, the FTC, led by its stridently progressive chair, Lina Khan, has been working quietly with EU regulators instead of standing up for U.S. companies. Khan has made several trips to Europe to meet with regulators and address the International Competition Network, an international regulatory group.

The EU has the administration right where it wants it for taking on U.S. tech companies.

For example, on March 30, 2023, there was a meeting between Khan, the U.S. Justice Department’s Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, and Margrethe Vestager, the executive vice president of the European Commission, which enforces EU rules.

Vestager said, “Today’s meeting has proven once again how fruitful it is to keep engaging in close cooperation between the European Commission and the US competition authorities.”

To keep the United States on the sidelines as the EU goes after U.S. companies is a win for Vestager and the EU. To get U.S. support is a hefty bonus.

The stakes are high. Companies that fail to comply with the EU’s Digital Markets Act can face fines of up to 10 percent of their global revenues, or more than $150 billion from the five companies. This could hobble those companies in the United States, leading to retrenchments and even layoffs with cascading tech sector effects. It could also lead to stock market drops that harm tech-oriented portfolios and the broader equity markets.

Pandering to the EU to go after U.S. companies makes no sense. It needlessly cedes national sovereignty with no tangible benefits for the United States.

It is time for the FTC to disclose its largely secretive discussions with EU regulators, as many in Congress have already demanded. Furthermore, the FTC should cease and desist all interaction with the EU until further notice.

WISSMAN: Here’s Why Pennsylvania Needs More Natural Gas, Pipeline Infrastructure

As Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, and most recent action to cut off gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria, continues to impact already volatile energy markets, the European Union (EU) is looking to the U.S., the world’s largest producer of natural gas, for help.

In an effort to diminish Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas, President Biden and the EU announced an agreement establishing a joint task force to expand U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. Additionally, the Department of Energy recently approved four new LNG permits for projects in Texas and Louisiana.

Welcome news, certainly.

Yet, while the White House strikes a deal to send more LNG to Europe, the administration unveils astoundingly contradictory policies that undermine America’s energy leadership and ability to deliver cleaner, reliable U.S. LNG across the Atlantic, including:

  • The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s proposed policy statement on the certification of new interstate natural gas facilities, which will generate significant uncertainty and impede the development of the pipeline capacity needed to serve new export terminals, and
  • The administration’s revised National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Phase 1 regulations that dramatically slow the permitting process for critical energy infrastructure and create new obstacles for natural gas development.

More mixed signals like these from Washington do not help encourage much-needed industry investment – and at a critical time when the world needs more energy, not less.

As the second-largest producer of natural gas in the nation, Pennsylvania has the potential to help alleviate natural gas shortages and aid our allies. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, while natural gas production growth in the Appalachia region over the past decade has been aided by improved productivity from wells drilled, pipeline buildouts and increased takeaway capacity, regional transportation capacity limits have been reached.

Without adequate pipeline and energy infrastructure, Pennsylvania is missing a massive opportunity to boost our economy while bolstering energy security here and abroad. Poor policy decisions at the federal level and numerous legal challenges have led to pipeline constraints in Pennsylvania and neighboring states, affecting access to abundant, reliable natural gas in New England and beyond.

Given the vast supply of shale gas in Pennsylvania, policymakers should support policies that encourage new investment and the build-out of energy infrastructure. Advancing natural gas and pipeline infrastructure in southeast Pennsylvania could make the region a leading LNG exporter in a matter of years, meeting the increased demand overseas while helping reduce carbon dioxide emissions with cleaner natural gas.

The U.S. could do even more to support long-term energy security in America and abroad with effective policies such as expediting LNG permits and the review process for interstate natural gas pipelines. This one-step-forward, two-steps-back approach to energy policy is not encouraging investment and impeding access to abundant, reliable, American-made energy that can help provide stability and security in the U.S. and abroad.

As Europe turns away from Russia as a source of natural gas, the ability of the U.S. to further ramp up its export capabilities will likely be critically important to global energy market stability as well as climate goals. Pennsylvania-produced natural gas – in the form of LNG – can help meet the dual challenge of powering the world while lowering greenhouse gas emissions if we allow it.

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or