PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 21, 2011
Anti-Excessive Speculation Act of 2011 - Amends the Commodity Exchange Act to revise the registration requirements for foreign boards of trade. Directs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to consider whether foreign boards are subject to rules and restrictions prohibiting excessive speculation by governmental authorities that are comparable to the law, regulations, and orders applicable to boards of trade in the United States.
Sets forth a presumption of excessive speculation if the CFTC, using specified criteria, determines that speculative traders in a commodity market have a substantial impact on price discovery.
Establishes individual position limits on energy contracts (referencing the price of crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, heating oil, or natural gas) that are applicable to long or short positions. Defines an "excessive speculative position" as a position that affects more than 5% of: (1) the estimated deliverable supply of the same commodity in the spot month, and (2) the open interest in a contract in a single month or all months combined.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits any person from holding or controlling an excessive speculative position, long or short, in an energy contract in any single market and aggregated across all markets in the spot month, a single month, or all-months combined.
Directs the CFTC to establish aggregate speculative position limits for long energy contracts held by speculators as a class of traders in any single market and in all markets. Requires that such positions be capped at the average annual percentage of long open interest held by speculators in any single energy contract market and in all such markets during the preceding 25-year period (or the period during which the contract has been traded if held for less than the 25-year period).
Excludes bona fide energy hedging from the computation of positions held or controlled by a person. Defines "bona fide energy hedging" as a transaction or position that is proportionate and economically appropriate for the reduction of risks in the conduct and management of a trade or business that produces, processes, merchandises, manufactures, or consumes an energy commodity. Declares that the management of financial risk associated with swaps or other similar contracts, by itself, shall not constitute bona fide hedging.
People & committees
Sen. Nelson, Bill [D-FL] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1598 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1598 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1598 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1598 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.