wspa western 2

disambig 2?

NO MERRI

see injection well wastewater fracking

looks like bak (nope)

html  property-damage

-----

===

gmail

New evidence shows that the oil industry was warned about the climate dangers of fossil fuels in 1954 — but chose to prioritize “industry interests.”

November 13, 2024

Big Oil companies were warned about the climate dangers of fossil fuels as early as 1954, according to new evidence that could boost efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable in court. The unearthed documents, first reported on by DeSmog, are one of the earliest examples of the oil and gas industry’s knowledge that the pollution from their products could result in a climate crisis.

Following public concern about smog blanketing Los Angeles in the 1940s and 50s, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) — then known as the Western Oil and Gas Association — created and funded a research front group called the Air Pollution Foundation, which in turn funded a Caltech study about the sources of Los Angeles’s air pollution. The $1.3 million in funding — equivalent to about $14 million in 2024 dollars — came from WSPA’s members including Shell and gas companies later bought by or merged with ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Sunoco, and ConocoPhillips.

The 1954 Caltech study determined that “a changing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate” may “ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization,” citing coal, oil, and gas as CO2 sources. WSPA and its members were formally alerted to the study findings in March 1955, archival documents show.

At first, the Air Pollution Foundation’s leadership seemed to heed the study’s warning, with the foundation’s president advocating for pollution controls on oil refineries and testifying in favor of state-funded pollution research in the California Senate. However, in meeting minutes from April 1955, WSPA members admonished the foundation’s president, telling him he was drawing too much “attention” to fossil fuel’s role in climate pollution, that the foundation’s research should be more “protective” of the oil industry, and that WSPA “did not want the Foundation concerning itself with refinery stack gases.”

Going forward, the Air Pollution Foundation and WSPA — along with its members — publicly downplayed the harms of fossil fuels as part of the industry’s decades-long climate disinformation campaign. In future reports, the foundation described CO2 emissions as “innocuous” and, in 1958, an executive from WSPA-member Shell described CO2 as “harmless” at a national air pollution conference.

While this new evidence establishes an earlier start date for Big Oil’s deception campaign, it uncovers behavior that we’ve seen time and time again. The fossil fuel industry has spent millions to learn about the role of their products in the climate crisis and spent millions more to hide that information and lie to the public to protect the industry and its enormous profits.

“The fossil fuel industry is often seen as having followed in the footsteps of the tobacco industry’s playbook for denying science and blocking regulation,” climate disinformation expert Geoffrey Supran told The Guardian. “But these documents suggest that big oil has been running public affairs campaigns to downplay the dangers of its products just as long as big tobacco, starting with air pollution in the early-to-mid-1950s.”

Communities throughout the U.S. are demanding accountability in the courts over Big Oil’s deception. Multnomah County, Oregon, has named WSPA as a defendant in its ongoing lawsuit against Big Oil companies for fueling the deadly 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome. This new evidence raises the possibility of whether WSPA could be named in additional lawsuits, such as those filed in California, where WSPA is headquartered.

===

===

ref 1?

A heat dome killed their residents. Now they’re suing Big Oil.

Multnomah County, Oregon, aims to put fossil fuel companies on trial for fueling climate disasters like the deadly 2021 heat dome.

ExxonKnews

Jun 23, 2023

Emily Sanders is the Center for Climate Integrity’s editorial lead. CCI staff writer Isabella Garcia, a Multnomah County resident, contributed to this reporting.*

As we approach the second anniversary of a deadly heat dome that devastated communities throughout the Pacific Northwest, an Oregon county is now suing Big Oil companies and their enablers to hold them accountable for the damage. Multnomah County is the first community to file a climate accountability lawsuit over the heat dome — which officials say killed 69 local residents, scientists say was “virtually impossible” without climate change, and county leaders say was fueled by the fossil fuel industry’s fraud.

Multnomah is charging some of the largest oil, gas, and coal companies — including Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, Koch Industries, Peabody, and others — with lying to “the County, the public, and the scientific community about the catastrophic harm” they knew fossil fuels would cause. The industry’s campaigns of disinformation, they say, delayed climate action for years and left residents to pay the ultimate price while the companies rake in record-breaking profits.

Like numerous other lawsuits filed in the United States to hold fossil fuel, tobacco, opioid, and other industries liable for damages they knowingly caused, Multnomah’s case charges the industry with violating fraud and tort laws, like negligence and public nuisance. The lawsuit says Big Oil should face a jury trial and pay more than $51.5 billion to help the county adapt and cover the costs of past and future climate disasters, including more frequent and extreme heatwaves and wildfires.

After voting yesterday afternoon to take legal action against Big Oil, county officials led hundreds of local residents and climate activists on a march to the Multnomah County Courthouse, where they held a press conference announcing the suit.

“The climate crisis is costing us money today, and will cost us more money in the future as we try to adapt,” Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson said during the press conference Thursday. “We’re not looking for a payout, we’re looking to be paid back.”

Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson is joined by fellow county commissioners in front of the Multnomah County Courthouse to file a climate accountability lawsuit against Big Oil, June 22, 2023. Credit: Isabella Garcia

Here are the highlights:

Multnomah experienced one of the deadliest climate disasters in U.S. history — and they say Big Oil should help pay for the damage.

In June 2021, the Pacific Northwest found itself trapped under an unrelenting heat dome, a phenomenon during which hot air remains in the atmosphere for several consecutive days and nights. In Multnomah County, temperatures rose to 108°, 112°, and 116°Fahrenheit — heat extreme enough to shut down bodily functions. Sixty nine people in the county lost their lives as a result — more heat deaths than have occurred in the entire state of Oregon over the past two decades.

“These were some of the most vulnerable people in Multnomah County, and in 2021 they paid the price that Big Oil ought to be covering for in our communities with their lives,” said Vega Pederson during the county commission’s board meeting introducing the lawsuit.

That harm wasn’t equally distributed, Vega Pederson explained: the elderly, those living alone, those experiencing homelessness, and people living in lower-income neighborhoods without air conditioning made up the majority of the county’s deaths.

Major oil and gas companies and their trade associations, the lawsuit argues, carried out a “scheme to rapaciously sell fossil fuel products and deceptively promote them as harmless to the environment, while they knew that carbon pollution emitted by their products into the atmosphere would likely cause deadly extreme heat events like that which devastated Multnomah County in late June and early July 2021.” Now the county, which experienced three times the typical annual amount of emergency visits from heat-related illness in one week and scrambled to open cooling centers and offer other life-saving provisions during the heat dome, says Big Oil should pay to protect its residents from future extreme heat events.

It’s the first time the oil industry has faced legal action for its role in causing an individual heat wave, which was made at least 150 times more likely by climate change, according to a peer reviewed study. The new charges are reflective of a growing field of attribution science, which can link disasters to climate change and even individual polluters.

Outside legal counsel Roger Worthington holding up a printed copy of the lawsuit in front of the Multnomah County Courthouse, June 22, 2023. Credit: Isabella Garcia

The case charges new defendants with climate deception.

Multnomah County is suing at least two new defendants that haven’t yet appeared in other climate accountability cases: the Western States Petroleum Trade Association, and the notorious consulting firm McKinsey and Company, which the suit says aided the fossil fuel companies in their efforts to “sow ‘scientific’ and public doubt in furtherance of their ceaseless, ravenous quest for more wealth.”

McKinsey is a global consulting firm that has worked with at least 43 of the world’s largest polluters and made tens of millions in profits from two of the biggest offenders — top clients Chevron and Saudi Aramco, according to the complaint. “McKinsey’s claims of commitment to environmental protectionism stand in stark contrast to the millions of dollars it has earned assisting its fossil fuel and mining company clients in promoting themes to deny the existence and/or gravity of [anthropogenic climate change]”, the lawsuit reads.

Climate activists marched with county leaders to file the climate accountability lawsuit in Oregon state court, June 22, 2023. Credit: Isabella Garcia

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) is the oldest petroleum trade association in the U.S., which represents fossil fuel companies operating in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. WSPA members include Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and BP, and the group “has engaged in a climate deception/misinformation campaign in Oregon to continue to further the business objectives of its carbon polluting members,” according to the complaint.

Multnomah County is the first local government to sue Big Oil since the Supreme Court cleared a path for similar climate accountability suits to move toward trial.

When the U.S. Supreme Court this spring refused to hear fossil fuel industry petitions to prevent similar cases from moving toward trial in state court, many predicted that it was just a matter of time until more communities filed suit. Multnomah County’s lawsuit is strong evidence that we can expect many more local governments to turn to the courts to make Big Oil pay.

===

complaint astro

multnomah

western United States (including Oregon) and the oldest petroleum trade association in the country. The WPSA “activates” and funds front groups that are designed to change public opinion on climate change.308 438. The WPSA front groups, with names like the “Oregonians For Sound Fuel Policy” and “Fed Up At The Pump,” appeared to be grassroots groups representing consumer interests, but were really part of WSPA’s multimillion dollar public relations campaign to further the oil industry’s propaganda machine.309 439. The slide below identifies groups that were “activated” by the WSPA. Many of the names are clearly “greenwashed” to hide the group’s and WPSA’s real purpose of working against climate policy. The actions of some of these groups were conducted in, or directed to, Multnomah County

ymail 4 24

In 2021, Congressional Democrats subpoenaed Big Oil for internal documents detailing the industry’s role in worsening the climate crisis.

Some of the documents have already been released. But today, we got some more.

The internal materials are from Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Chamber of Commerce. They’re being released today as part of the Senate Budget Committee’s upcoming hearing on Wednesday morning, titled “Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change.”

Source: X

Both the hearing and the documents mark the revival of the House Oversight Committee’s two-year investigation into the fossil fuel industry, and its role in misleading Americans about climate change. That investigation was put on ice when Republicans won back control of the chamber in late 2022.

Democrats say their new findings provide “a rare glimpse into the extensive efforts undertaken by fossil fuel companies to deceive the public and investors about their knowledge of the effects of their products on climate change and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”

HEATED got a chance to review the new documents prior to their publication today. And while we don’t think the revelations are necessarily all that “rare,” here are five things we found notable.

1. BP really, really loves Princeton

To influence academia, fossil fuel companies have spent at least $700 million on partnerships with U.S. universities. The longest-running of these partnerships is between BP and Princeton.

The new documents provide some insight into why: because Princeton gives BP unprecedented access to discussions about research. In 2016 emails, BP officials discussed cutting funding to Harvard and Tufts and boosting it for Princeton, because research discussions at Harvard and Tufts “are directed by the universities and much less relevant to BP.” They said “personality and structural issues” at Harvard and Tufts made it “difficult to achieve the same BP focus.”

Achieving a “BP focus” meant two things: pushing research about the benefits of carbon capture and methane gas. And that’s what Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative did.

In 2018, an internal BP presentation marked “confidential” recommended Princeton CMI director Stephen Pacala as a preferred expert in defending methane gas as a climate solution. And in a 2020 email, BP officials discussed an upcoming call with Pacala, in which BP would recommend developing a net zero plan “with emphasis on CCUS [carbon capture utilization and storage] — building ‘backbone’ of pipelines to transport carbon from emitters to the Permian and Gulf Coast sites.”

CMI did eventually develop a net zero study with an emphasis on carbon capture. BP officials celebrated, writing, “Princeton’s net zero study is expected to be a guide for the Biden Administration.”

Today, sure enough, the Biden Administration is making massive investments in carbon capture—just as BP’s vice president of U.S. policy and regulatory affairs predicted. In a 2020 email, he said BP’s relationship with Princeton was “becoming increasingly synergistic.” If Biden won, the VP said, “I would not be surprised to see some of our friends in senior government policymaking roles, as well!”

2. Oil companies know they can’t meet their public climate goals

While they publicly tout their efforts to fight climate change, oil companies privately say they don’t believe the world could ever reach a safe, livable climate.

For example: Exxon first publicly supported the Paris Agreement in 2015, but internally the company revealed that it did not believe the climate treaty’s goals were realistic. “We don’t yet see the world even approaching a 2°C pathway … let alone a 1.5°C pathway,” Exxon’s former manager of environmental policy and planning Peter Trelenberg wrote in a 2018 email. “Both 2°C and 1.5°C would require unprecedented changes to the global energy system and economy, at a rate and scale never before demonstrated, and with technologies not yet available and affordable.”...

ref

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This joint staff report on Big Oil’s decades-long deception campaign is the culmination of a nearly three year-long investigation by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (House Oversight), which has worked with Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee staff during the 118th Congress.

The investigation, focused on ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon), Chevron Corporation (Chevron), Shell USA Inc. (Shell), BP America Inc. (BP), the American Petroleum Institute (AI), and the Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber), provides a rare glimpse into the extensive efforts undertaken by fossil fuel companies to deceive the public and investors about their knowledge of the effects of their products on climate change and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

This final joint staff report builds on the House Oversight Committee’s earlier hearings, public memoranda, and document releases, and it presents new findings from the investigation.

The key findings include: Documents demonstrate for the first time that fossil fuel companies internally do not dispute that they have understood since at least the 1960s that burning fossil fuels causes climate change and then worked for decades to undermine public understanding of this fact and to deny the underlying science.

In fall 2015, blockbuster reporting by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Big Oil companies such as Exxon knew that burning fossil fuels was a major contributor to climate change. Companies publicly rejected the reporting at the time, but new documents corroborate the reporting and show that fossil fuel companies internally did not dispute the findings but tried to dismiss them as “hyperbolic” and “journalistic malpractice.” Big Oil’s deception campaign evolved from explicit denial of the basic science underlying climate change to deception, disinformation, and doublespeak.

The fossil fuel industry evolved from denying climate science to spreading disinformation and perpetuating doublespeak about the safety of natural gas and its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

New documents demonstrate that Big Oil companies: seek to position natural gas as a “bridge fuel” between coal and cleaner, renewable energy, while enmeshing natural gas in the U.S. energy economy for the long-term; seek to portray natural gas as a green, climate-friendly fuel, while internally acknowledging that there is significant scientific evidence that the lifecycle emissions from gas are as bad as coal and are incompatible with scientific emissions reduction targets;

make public pledges to support the Paris Agreement and to achieve net zero emissions while internally recognizing that they could not achieve those goals or referring to them as outside of their business plans;

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

privately lobby—either directly or through their trade associations— against pro-climate legislation and regulations that they publicly claimed to support;

publicly celebrate carbon capture technologies to help reduce harmful emissions while privately acknowledging that the technology is expensive and claiming that it cannot be scaled without federal government investment;

and publicly promoted algae-based biofuels as an innovative low-carbon technology while investing little in its research and development and then cancelling the programs entirely.

The fossil fuel industry relies on trade associations to spread confusing and misleading narratives and to lobby against climate action. Fossil fuel companies use trade associations, think tanks, and other nonprofits to influence public policy proposals and messaging, including API and the Chamber, as well as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, Natural Gas Supply Association, and Western States Petroleum Association.

New emails between fossil fuel executives and these groups demonstrate how the companies influenced and leveraged the associations and other organizations to control their messaging and use them to lobby for unpopular proposals that they do not want to be associated with.

The fossil fuel industry strategically partners with universities to lend an aura of credibility to its deception campaigns while also silencing opposition voices. Fossil fuel companies establish funded partnerships with academic institutions to enhance their credibility, shape academic research programs to provide studies supportive of a prolonged life for oil and gas, leverage the resulting research to their advantage, and bolster access to policymakers.

New documents reveal previously unknown funding levels and show how companies condition their funding on academics’ cooperation and alignment with companies’ business needs.

Additional documents demonstrate that companies actively tracked individuals and organizations critical of the industry and monitored their social media. All six entities—Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, API, and the Chamber—obstructed and delayed the Committees’ investigation.

Despite valid subpoenas, the entities refused to fully comply with the investigation, making baseless legal arguments and flouting longstanding congressional practices and norms for investigations.

The companies further obstructed the investigation by significantly redacting or entirely withholding more than 4,000 documents without any valid basis...

:{:{II. THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION}:

On October 23, 2019, in view of the risks posed by climate change and public reporting about the role the fossil fuel industry has played in suppressing scientific evidence, the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the House Oversight Committee held the first congressional hearing about climate denialism, “Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth About Climate Change.” At this hearing, former Exxon scientists confirmed that Exxon knew the reality of climate change as early as the 1970s but concealed that reality from the public. Dr. Martin Hoffert, a former Exxon consultant, testified that Exxon’s actions were “immoral” and “greatly set back efforts to address climate change.”10 }:

Two years later, on September 16, 2021, the House Oversight Committee launched an investigation into the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long deception campaign.11 The House Oversight Committee sent investigative letters to ExxonMobil (Exxon), BP America Inc. (BP), Shell Oil Company (Shell), Chevron Corporation (Chevron), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber). None of the entities met the deadline for responding to the Committee’s requests for information and documents, and each eventually ...

:{:{made only a limited production primarily containing non-substantive, trivial and publicly available materials such as press clippings, regulatory filings, and pages from the entities’ own websites. On October 21, 2021, the House Oversight Committee sent additional letters to all six entities, extending the production due date to October 25, 2021. Still, none of the entities made substantial productions of the key documents the House Oversight Committee requested.12 As a result of their initial obstruction, on November 2, 2021, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed all six entities. 13 The subpoenas required the six entities to produce all documents dating from November 30, 2015, that (1) were sent, received, or created by board members and executives and related to climate change and clean energy, including documents addressing industry marketing and advertising on those topics; (2) were sufficient to demonstrate the amount and itemization of all direct or indirect funding to employees and external contractors related to climate change and clean energy; and (3) related to the entities’ plans to reduce greenhouse gases.14}:

:{:{ Even after receiving these subpoenas, the entities failed to comply fully— or, in some cases, at all—as discussed in Chapter 6 of this staff report. As part of its investigation, the House Oversight Committee also held hearings demonstrating the ways that Big Oil was fueling the climate crisis. At the first hearing, titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Exposing Big Oil’s Disinformation Campaign to Prevent Climate Action,” CEOs from Exxon, BP, Chevron, Shell, API, and the Chamber testified. House Oversight Committee Members questioned the CEOs about their organizations’ roles in the fossil fuel industry’s “long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.”15}:

At the second hearing, titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Examining Big Oil’s Climate Pledges,” climate and environmental experts testified about “the urgent need for fossil fuel companies to fundamentally alter their operations and reduce emissions, and assess[ed] whether the companies’ climate pledges will meet that goal, or are instead just the latest example of climate disinformation.”16 At the final hearing, titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Examining Big Oil’s Prices, Profits, and Pledges,” individuals directly affected by the climate crisis offered firsthand accounts about surviving climate change-induced severe weather events. In a second panel,}:}:

...

:{:{experts on economic, environmental, and energy policy examined Exxon’s, Chevron’s, BP’s, and Shell’s record-breaking profits and the inadequacy of their climate pledges.17 In September 2022, in connection with that third hearing, and again in December 2022, the House Oversight Committee released memoranda and documents obtained by the Committee. These memoranda and documents showed that fossil fuel companies had misled the public and investors about their supposed commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and had continued to obstruct the House Oversight Committee’s investigation despite being subpoenaed. 18}:

Alongside this joint staff report, the House Oversight Committee’s Democratic staff, at the direction of Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, is releasing additional documents obtained through the investigation commenced during the 117th Congress. These documents further demonstrate that fossil fuel companies—directly and through their trade associations—worked in concert to deceive the public and investors and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions}:

---

doublespk ch

:{:{...B. Emissions Reductions Policies}:

Beyond methane, companies contradicted their public positions supporting emissions reduction by directly lobbying against climate legislation and regulations or by funding candidates who opposed them. One series of documents highlights BP’s strategy to oppose climate policies. A document from 2016 states that its Communications and External Affairs (C&EA) “team exists entirely to protect BP’s license to operate in the U.S., help BP businesses achieve their objectives in the United States and protect the company’s reputation.”

The document instructs that those goals can be achieved by “develop[ing] and wag[ing] strategic campaigns that favorably influence legislative, regulatory and public opinion outcomes,” mitigating “the potentially harmful impact of ... detrimental policy and political developments,” and expanding “the company’s capacity to influence regulators on key climate-related initiatives.”137 A similar 2016 document emphasizes that BP’s primary goal was to remain “a trusted voice for those who can influence BP’s ability to operate in the U.S.,” including by “preventing harmful legislation or regulation (examples include climate, ozone, RFS, Dodd Frank, exports, and taxes.)”138 }:

In Alaska, BP’s C&EA team aimed to “support passage of LNG [liquid natural gas—or methane gas] project enabling legislation in 2016 and voter approval of a constitutional amendment on the November 2016 ballot.”139

A 2020 draft email shows BP mobilized its employees and retirees to elect preferred candidates in Texas who would oppose climate regulations. BP encouraged employees to contribute to BP’s employee PAC (BPEPAC). The email states that “BPEPAC is used to advance the interests of BP in America by making political contributions to candidates or organizations who share our philosophy on energy advancement and climate.

Contributions are approved by the BPEPAC Board to candidates based on recommendations from several stakeholders, including our government and public affairs team.”140 The draft email argues that “Texas [was] shifting politically,” meaning that:...

---

CHAPTER 4: FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY COLLABORATION

Fossil fuel companies rely on trade associations, think tanks, and other nonprofits to spread misleading narratives to the public, without having to put their names directly on advertisements, lobbying, or PR campaigns.186 They work together to ensure that their messaging and financial contributions to these third-party groups are consistent. Several documents uncovered in the course of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation showcase the collaboration between fossil fuel companies and their trade associations and other industry groups.

I. FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS An armada of trade associations, organizations, and coalitions works with and for fossil fuel companies to perpetuate deceptive and misleading industry narratives; API and the Chamber

:{:{were direct subjects of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation. Documents also shed light on other organizations the fossil fuel companies coordinate with—or take advantage of—to obstruct climate progress. A. American Petroleum Institute API is the nation’s leading oil and gas trade organization. Its membership includes 600 oil and gas companies, including major corporations in upstream, midstream, and downstream operations such as BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell.187 Through initiatives like API Energy Excellence and the Climate Committee, API portrays itself as engaging in environmental and safety progress by encouraging the development of new technologies and transparent reporting.188}:

However, API’s Climate Action Framework, purportedly aimed at accelerating low-carbon technologies and innovation, mitigating emissions, and advocating for government carbon pricing policies, has been criticized for a “lack of specifics.”189 Its focus on carbon pricing was belied by an Exxon lobbyist “caught on camera ... saying that a carbon tax will never happen and that support for the measure was a public relations ploy intended to stall more serious measures.”190

API serves as a hub for industry coordination against climate progress. In 2018, Exxon CEO Darren Woods assumed the role of chairman of API’s board of directors. He emailed other board members, including representatives from Shell, BP, Chevron, Enbridge, Anadarko, Noble, Marathon, Phillips66, and Conoco, and noted that API’s upcoming Executive Committee meeting would include a “strategic alignment” segment to focus on “WHAT gaps we have vs. WHY we have them (i.e. no finger pointing/blame games).”

He described that the meeting’s objective was to “put together an assessment of API’s strengths, opportunities and ideas for potential improvements,” including “above and beyond advocacy priorities,” based on “an ExxonMobil view.” 191 This email illustrates that fossil fuel companies directly determine API’s strategy to undermine and oppose climate legislation and regulations.}:

...

B. United States Chamber of Commerce

The Chamber has long played an organizing and convening role for the fossil fuel industry, opposing climate action and preserving business as usual. In 2007, for example, the Chamber ran television advertisements against climate legislation claiming that it would prevent people from heating their homes and driving to work. The Chamber publicly opposed significant climate legislation including the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that died in the Senate in 2010.192 In 2014, the Chamber convened “about 30 corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists and Republican political strategists” to devise “a legal strategy for dismantling the climate change regulations” they expected to be promulgated by the Obama Administration.193

The Chamber has repeatedly been labeled one of the most powerful political opponents to climate progress in the United States.194 Last year, independent researchers at InfluenceMap released renewed evidence of the Chamber’s persistent lobbying against climate policies. According to InfluenceMap, the Chamber has “continued opposition to meaningful legislation and regulation introduced by the federal government” while simultaneously issuing “positive PR […] to create the impression of reform for climate-conscious investors and corporate members.”195 As Politico explained, the InfluenceMap analysis demonstrated that the Chamber’s “positions on climate policies mostly reflect the views of its fossil fuel members.”196 Notably, the Chamber has refused to disclose, even to its members, the extent of its funding from fossil fuel interests.

:{:{The Chamber has opposed various legislative climate efforts.197 In 2022, the Chamber sought to block the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate bill Congress has ever passed. It funded ads specifically aimed at pressuring the U.S. senators from Arizona to vote against the bill.198 On the regulatory side, the Chamber opposes the EPA’s recent “Power Plant Rule,” a proposed rule that would protect public health and reduce harmful pollutants while delivering up to $85 billion in climate and health benefits over the next two decades.199}:

The Chamber opposes EPA’s recent proposed rules for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.200 The Chamber opposed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposed climate disclosure rules, writing that they “exceed the SEC’s lawful authority and are vast and unprecedented in their scope, complexity, rigidity and prescriptive particularity.”201 In courtrooms, as a litigant and as an amicus curiae, the Chamber has a long history of opposing climate rules and laws, and supporting deregulatory theories propounded by polluting industries to fetter people’s ability to protect themselves from pollution and climate harms.202}:

C. Oil and Gas Climate Initiative

:{:{OGCI is a CEO-led effort that claims to assist the oil and gas industry in curtailing its greenhouse gas emissions, primarily by advocating for CCUS and methane emissions reduction initiatives. Comprised of 12 of the world’s largest energy companies, OGCI members collectively account for approximately one-third of the global oil and gas supply.203}:

While OGCI attempts to}:

:{:{“promote a climate-friendly image,” its stated goal to reach net zero emissions omits Scope 3 emissions,—i.e., the emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels for energy—which “make up the vast majority of an oil company’s total carbon footprint.”204 Members include BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell. Exxon and Chevron were initially hesitant about joining OGCI at its outset but ultimately became members in 2018.205 Documents demonstrate that Exxon hesitated because of concerns that the group was “very disorganized, its overarching propose [sic] / objective was generally unclear and that the governance was basically undefined.”206}:

Exxon revisited the matter in 2015 after Shell and BP had joined but still believed that the initiative was “more about ‘window dressing’ in preparation for COP21 [the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference] than trying to achieve lasting results.”207 Once Exxon did join the group, it provided “critical edits” for OGCI announcements, statements, and its annual report, with which Chevron was “generally aligned.” Some of these edits included removing references to the Paris Agreement and language that “potentially commits members to enhanced climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and performance metrics and targets.”208 These memoranda demonstrate the collaboration among [no gfx]}:

:{:{fossil fuel companies to control messaging of organizations of which they are members to avoid additional commitments regarding climate.}:

D. Natural Gas Supply Association

The Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) is the sole domestic trade association focusing on producer-marketer issues within the natural gas industry.209 NGSA’s membership includes nine of the largest natural gas suppliers in the country, including BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell.210 The association is a partner organization of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, which advocates for the interests of the LNG industry.211 Publicly, NGSA expresses support for achieving economy-wide net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, in alignment with the Paris Agreement goals. 212 }:

But NGSA opposes certain “inappropriate” regulations that hinder its members’ ability to provide “affordable and reliable” natural gas—an objective that often conflicts with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.213 In June 2021, NGSA emailed its “Business Leadership Committee” asking for feedback from its members in crafting a response to Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who was quoted as saying that natural gas should only be considered clean in a Clean Energy Standard if combined with CCS. BP internally expressed concern that the “Administration [was] moving towards squeezing out gas” and asked, “what we need to be doing with Administration (besides pushing f

[no gfx]

...

E. Western States Petroleum Association

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) is one of the oldest oil and gas trade associations in the United States. BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell are members, among others. InfluenceMap describes the organization as “actively engaged on climate policy with strongly negative positions, particularly on state-level policy in California, Washington, and Oregon.”215 WSPA has lobbied against bills designed to reduce emissions, including by working to establish a network of “citizen activist” groups in western states.216

Two key documents obtained by the House Oversight Committee reveal BP’s comprehensive campaign in Washington, in collaboration with WSPA, to oppose state and local policies that would have cut climate-warming emissions. After a Washington county proposed an ordinance that would require one of BP’s refineries to reduce its carbon emissions and make it more difficult to obtain permits to expand or upgrade refineries, BP launched a statewide campaign to oppose it. In an internal memorandum, BP outlined a planned “$300,000 advocacy campaign to build opposition to the proposal in its current form and persuade local officials to amend, postpone or give up on the plan.”217

The document noted that WSPA would “also run a coordinated $200,000 grassroots voter activation campaign on behalf of its membership.”218 In the memorandum, BP explained that, “given the opposition to our industry in this area of the United States[,] ... we are also developing a comprehensive Washington State strategy” for “managing business and reputational risk from our West Coast operations” in the long-term.219 A document from a few months after the memorandum shows how BP’s statewide strategy evolved. 220

In the document, BP identified a handful of key actions and investments to exert its influence in the region. BP planned to enhance “external education, community engagement, political influence and advocacy [that] can change the narrative, stem the flow of bad policy and create opportunities for business growth.”221 The team asked for a “significant increase in C&EA funding” as well as $2.5 million to construct a salmon hatchery that, officials believed, “would change the dynamic of how the public and elected officials view the refinery.” The team requested between $2.5 and $4.5 million for “hard persuasion” tactics, such as television advertising, and $300,000 for “soft persuasion” to be invested in the community and grow support that “will be helpful with elected officials.”222 BP believed that its Washington strategy was necessary because they feared that their reputation would “only get worse unless we change the public's perception of us and the elected official’s lack of respect for our business.”223

II. ABUSE OF THE NATIONAL PETROLEUM COUNCIL

The National Petroleum Council (NPC) serves as a domestic advisory committee representing oil and gas industry views to the Secretary of Energy. Housed within the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, NPC consists of approximately 200 individuals appointed by the Secretary. According to the agency, these members serve without compensation as representatives of industry or associated interests collectively, not as delegates of specific companies or affiliations.224

NPC members currently include David Lawler, Chairman and President of BP America Inc.; Michael Wirth, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Chevron Corporation; Darren Woods, Chairman, President, and CEO of ExxonMobil Corporation; and Gretchen Watkins, President of Shell USA Inc.225

Despite the agency’s assertion that members act independently, it is clear that the direct involvement of top fossil fuel executives has allowed them to influence NPC’s work in a way that benefits their companies’ interests.

For example, Exxon produced NPC’s Topic Paper #1, Role of Natural Gas in a Low Carbon Economy. In one of the later versions of this document, edits sent around by Southwestern Energy, a fossil fuel company, removed all references to natural gas’s “potential greater use to displace higher carbon intensive fossil fuels,” such as coal and oil, despite industry claims that natural gas is a bridge fuel between these more carbon intensive fossil fuels and a clean energy future.226 }:

:{:{NPC’s most recent report, released in 2019, focused on the expansion of carbon capture deployment domestically.227 Meeting minutes show that the report was led by BP America and included ExxonMobil, Total, and Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation among others, as part of the Coordinating Subcommittee (CSC) for the study. The meeting minutes show that McKinsey & Company would provide support to the study, including interviews with companies on the NPC study.228}:

:{:{CSC “agreed to work language to reduce reputation risk” for the fossil fuel companies involved.229 NPC’s report sought to describe a “roadmap” to scaling up carbon capture deployment in the energy and industrial sectors as a fossil fuel-friendly climate “solution.” The report did not mention that industry investment was inadequate to employ carbon capture technology at a scale necessary to meet ambitious climate targets. However, the cost should not have been any surprise to the companies. As far back as 2007, then-CEO of ExxonMobil and Chairman of NPC Lee Raymond acknowledged that carbon capture is “a huge, huge undertaking ... and the cost is going to be very, very significant.”230}:

Companies did not invest sufficiently in the technology, leading the IEA to characterize the fossil fuel industry’s reliance on carbon capture to reduce emissions as “an illusion.”231 Fossil fuel companies not only fail to invest in carbon capture technologies at scale but also then use the mere existence of the technologies to justify new oil and gas projects.}:}:

CHAPTER 5: TARGETING UNIVERSITIES, THE PRESS, AND CRITICS

I. CULTIVATING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

The oil and gas industry cultivates partnerships with academic institutions as a way to influence climate research toward an energy transition that favors maintaining fossil fuels for as long as possible; bolster its ability to claim expertise on climate science; and gain access to thought leaders.232 In the words of one BP official, the academics’ research was to be “informed by the business challenges we need solved.”233

Although the existence of relationships between industry and academia has long been known, documents released by the House Oversight Committee (1) reveal for the first time previously unknown funding amounts and (2) shed light on how companies condition grants on cooperation from academics and their perception of the relationship’s business value.

...

no gfx]

:{:{University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs; $140,000 to Stanford University; and $50,000 to the University of Massachusetts Amherst.248}:

Similarly, Chevron has partnered with major universities for workforce development and facility upgrades, including the Colorado School of Mines; Louisiana State University; MIT; Stanford University; Texas A&M University; UC Berkeley; UC Davis; the University of Texas, Austin; Tuskegee University; North Carolina A&T State University; Prairie View A&M University; and Florida International University.249}:

:{:{It does not appear that Chevron produced relevant documents on this subject, even though the scope of the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena covered these documents. B. Conditioning Grants on Cooperation from Researchers Fossil fuel companies conditioned their funding to academic institutions on the extent of their cooperation and sensitivity to industry business needs.}:

A 2016 internal document marked “confidential” reveals that BP officials recommended cutting the budget for Harvard and Tufts research partnerships because it was finding it difficult to “obtain more value” as compared to the perceived success of BP’s partnership with Princeton, explaining that the “CMI discussions are directly relevant to BP whereas the Harvard/Tufts discussions” were not. Accordingly, the official recommended cutting funding to Harvard in favor of “a tighter focus limited to climate policy and geopolitics,” which “should enable a more integrated approach between the policy work at Harvard/Tufts and the scientific work at CMI.”}:

The official recommended marginalizing researchers with whom BP worked less well and propping up those who were more favorable to BP. His final recommendation was to renew the Harvard grant at a “[m]aximum of $400k,” preferring “zero for geopolitics but understand[ing] it may need to be $50–$100k if necessary to manage the relationship

...

BP reduced funding for the Harvard and Tufts programs by around 40%. Harvard’s grant decreased from $700,000 annually to $400,000, and Tufts grant decreased from $215,000 to $200,000.251

C. Studying the Disruption of Climate Change to Core Business

:{:{Other documents show that, through their academic partnerships, the companies had clear knowledge of the effect of climate change on their business. A slide presentation prepared by a Princeton researcher funded through BP’s CMI titled “The Challenge of Climate Change” reveals BP’s understanding of the threats to BP’s core business posed by a shift from fossil fuel consumption to lower carbon alternatives: “the climate problem has the potential to disrupt BP’s core business” because “effective climate policies can emerge that discourage fossil fuel consumption ... and that subsidize or otherwise promote efficiency and low carbon energy.”}:

The presentation identifies incremental changes for BP to address climate change, such as reining in flaring and methane leaks, and supplanting coal usage in Asia with natural gas. 252 In a separate email, a BP official applauded the Princeton researcher’s perspective that shifting toward natural gas, in part through increased LNG exports, would cut overall global emissions. 253 }:

The email described the CMI-funded researcher as a “big advocate of this as part of our case for gas.”254 D. Using Academic Programs to Bolster Access to Policymakers Fossil fuel companies sought to gain access to policymakers and influential thought leaders by funding academic research programs. One internal BP email describes the Tufts program as “the policy complement to our longstanding Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) climate science program with Princeton,” noting that it benefits BP because “many of their faculty are former senior government officials with deep insight, credibility and influence with US and global policymakers.”255

Similarly, a “confidential” document from around 2018 describes the benefit of the BP partnership with Harvard and Tufts as “access to unparalleled expertise at the forefront of research in the areas of climate change science, technology and policy,” which helps BP “provide a business perspective to help shape international policy.”256 In a 2020 email, BP coordinated with Princeton officials on the Net Zero America study, which maps different pathways by which the United States could decarbonize its economy

...

:{:{BP provided “just under $2 m[illion]” to fund the Net Zero America study, which the company viewed as important because the study had some alignment with the Biden-Harris Administration’s climate policy agenda. Specifically, the BP official noted that the study “clearly plays to Biden’s green agenda” and that principal researchers were “already advising Biden’s transition team.”}:

As a result, BP could “leverage the study with the USG [United States government].”258 As the 2020 presidential elections approached and it appeared that President Biden would win, BP’s Vice President of U.S. Policy and Regulatory Affairs pointed out that BP’s relationship with Princeton was “becoming increasingly synergistic.” BP admitted that, “[i]f the Presidential elections go the way it looks now, I would not be surprised to see some of our friends in senior government policymaking roles, as well!”259}:

II. TRACKING CRITICS AND PRESSURING NEWS OUTLETS

Documents obtained by the House Oversight Committee reveal that the fossil fuel industry actively tracks individuals, organizations, and news outlets critical of the industry. One particularly disturbing email demonstrates that Exxon’s chief security officer was tasked with tracking a specific activist, noting that he “has been very active in his communications of late. We are monitoring his location (now living in Vermont) and his social media.”260

The activist in question, a retired petroleum and industrial engineer who used to work for Exxon, provided testimony to the Vermont state legislature on fossil fuel infrastructure and had written op-eds concerning presidential climate plans, among other advocacy activities. }:

:{:{A Shell email similarly demonstrated that climate activist activity is shared internally. The email, from May 2020, acknowledges that the coronavirus pandemic limited the ability of activist groups to protest, but that there was, in turn, a “sharp spike—43% more than average in social media ad spending.”}:

This caused concern that the activists “are not sitting on their hands—they are adapting and we expect that they will raise more than $1 billion this year to build their army of boots-on-the-ground supporters with the goal of killing off the fossil fuel industry.”261 Other documents show that fossil fuel companies tracked outside advocacy efforts related to emissions reductions and environmental accountability. A BP official expressed concern about an “uptick in citizen suits” due to the “wide availability of high-tech monitoring devices” that citizens can use to measure pollution from hazardous chemicals in their local environments.}:

....

He worried that “NGOs will have more info” than what industry is required to report to the EPA.262 Documents produced by BP include numerous “Weekly Activist Report[s]” that track global critics and protest activity focused on the fossil fuel industry’s role in climate change. One Weekly Activist Report identified specific activism, such as “Protests in Washington as part of ‘Green New Deal’” and “Sunrise Movement occupies office of US Representative in Washington, DC.”263

API also tracked activities of climate activist groups via an email from an outside consulting group, which promised to contact API “if there is any concerning or threatening content related to API.”264 The fossil fuel industry tracks critical social media content.

One email from API to its internal Communications email list, titled “API Media Monitoring,” appears to be part of a regular mass email blast that tracks critics of the industry. A 2017 email describes social media conversations on climate change following damaging snowstorms and wildfires throughout the country.265 Another shows Exxon tracking social media content, including public posts on Facebook and Twitter discussing ExxonMobil and climate change, including “a review of tweets that use the hashtags #ExxonKnew and #EnergyLiesHere.”266}:

Internal documents show companies pressuring news outlets pursuing stories that the companies believed were instigated by activists. In a 2016 email, an Exxon Media Relations Manager reacted angrily to questions from a Reuters journalist on Exxon’s relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit organization that has frequently undertaken political advocacy activities that appear to violate Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules governing its tax-exempt status.267

:{:{Providing a statement that could be used “if Reuters is taking this crap seriously,” the official responded “how tone deaf are these guys for asking the IRS to investigate ALEC – an organization made up of more than 2000 conservative state lawmakers – after the IRS scandal last year? Of course anything passes for news when you slap the ‘climate denier’ label on it.” When the journalist responded, “I hear you,” the Exxon media relations manager replied, “Don’t hear me. Kill the story.”268}:

CHAPTER 6: OBSTRUCTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION

:{:{As documented in the House Oversight Committee’s memorandum dated December 9, 2022, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, API, and the Chamber refused to fully cooperate with the House Oversight Committee’s investigation, even after then-Chairwoman Maloney issued subpoenas to each company. Their obstruction is evident in many of the documents reviewed by the House Oversight Committee and released today.}:

I. ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND NORMS

A. Power and Scope of Congressional Investigative Authority There is a clear legal framework supporting Congress’s broad latitude to conduct investigations and requiring private sector entities to comply fully with congressional subpoenas. The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress’s power conduct investigations, a power inherent in the legislative process, holding as early as 1927 that “[t]he power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function .... A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information.”269

The Supreme Court has also made clear that such power is broad: “[The] power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.”270 Indeed, the “scope of the power of inquiry ... is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.”271 Courts defer to Congress’s “broad power” to seek information “when the purpose asserted is supported by references to specific problems which in the past have been or which in the future could be the subjects of appropriate legislation.}:}:}:

...

Congress also has a long history of investigating the activities of companies and corporations.273 The fact that such entities are not governmental is irrelevant, as “[i]t is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigations.”274 The companies here have failed to respect these well-established judicial interpretations and resulting practices. B.

Baseless First Amendment and Privilege Arguments

Some companies claimed that the First Amendment or undefined “privilege” protected them from the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena. Exxon argued that the subpoena appeared “designed to intrude on ExxonMobil’s First Amendment activities, including its constitutionally protected right to petition the government.275 Neither the First Amendment nor the petitioning clause permits the categorical withholding of documents from Congress.276 Indeed, recent case law has affirmed Congress’s right to conduct investigations into activities and subpoena documents that have been claimed to be protected by the First Amendment.277

In effect, the fossil fuel industry proposes a novel theory of “privilege” in which the people’s power of investigation through their Congress evaporates whenever the subject is a matter of public debate or legislative lobbying, and without even the customary requirements in courts of a privilege log identifying the documents withheld and the specific privilege asserted.

C. Disregard for Longstanding Congressional Practice and Norms

The companies’ positions would upend longstanding House Oversight Committee and congressional practice. In 2006, the then-House Committee on Government Reform sought records and communications relating to Jack Abramoff’s lobbying of White House officials via his lobbying firm Greenberg Traurig LLP. After issuing a subpoena to the firm, the House Oversight Committee obtained more than 14,000 pages of responsive documents.278

More recently, as part of a long-running investigation into the pharmaceutical industry, the House Oversight Committee requested—and received through voluntary compliance—internal communications and documents from several pharmaceutical companies related to lobbying activities, including through their trade association.279

II. SIGNIFICANTLY REDACTING OR WITHHOLDING DOCUMENTS

Despite the clear legal framework upholding Congress’s broad latitude to conduct investigations and requiring private sector entities to comply with congressional subpoenas, companies heavily redacted or entirely withheld documents despite repeated objections by House Oversight Committee staff. Of the six recipients of subpoenas, the Chamber obstructed the investigation most significantly. The Chamber produced only 5,503 documents in total—less than 9% of the average number of documents provided by the other companies under investigation. Of those 5,503 documents, only 24 were within scope.

:{:{The Chamber was also the only entity that failed to produce any internal communications. Given the significant public information available about the Chamber’s lobbying efforts on climate policies, the Chamber’s failure to produce documents is not because the documents do not exist, but because the Chamber willfully failed to comply with the subpoena. More broadly, the investigation identified 4,180 documents that were significantly redacted.280}:

These documents include board minutes, communication plans, and emails and contracts about advertising. BP’s production made up the vast majority of the redacted documents, with at least 3,733 documents with significant redactions—90% of the total number of significantly redacted documents and nearly 8% of the total documents produced by BP. In one example, BP redacted all content from an email except “Sent from my iPhone” and the sender’s email signature from an email thread between senior officials in BP’s C&EA team with the subject “Conference: Climate Change Implementation.”...}:

[many redected doc egs]

CONCLUSION

The investigation and this report have set out new evidence about the extent of the fossil fuel industry’s evolving efforts to avoid accountability for climate change. As previously understood, fossil fuel companies first approached climate change by branding it a “hoax” and denying outright that the burning of fossil fuels contributed to a warming planet. But as the science about climate change became too overwhelming to continue to deny its existence, Big Oil needed to pivot.

Accordingly, as new documents set out in this report demonstrate, the fossil fuel industry engaged in an elaborate campaign of deception and doublespeak—supported by its armada of trade associations—marked by public claims to support climate action and significant private steps to avoid it as well as disinformation about the climate safety of natural gas and its role as a bridge fuel to a fossil-free future. For more than half a century, Big Oil has misled the American public about its role in the climate crisis, doing everything in its power to keep the United States and the world dependent on its polluting products. It is long past time to hold Big Oil accountable for its deception campaign and to take action to undo the harms it has perpetrated.

===

---

GMAIL 2 24

fossil-fuel-companies-paid-for-proof-of-their-climate-destruction-in-1954

New documents confirm the oil industry was not only warned of the dangers their products posed to the climate in 1954 — they paid for the proof.

The fossil fuel industry notoriously cast doubt on climate science for decades. Newly uncovered documents, however, confirm that the fossil fuel industry was not only informed that climate change was real and measurable in 1954 — they were the ones who funded the research to prove it.

In 1954, the automobile and petroleum industries paid climate scientist Charles Keeling via a private foundation to research carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and that research continues to underpin our modern-day understanding of climate change. Documents, discovered by researcher Rebecca John and published in DeSmog, show that representatives from the American Petroleum Institute, Western States Petroleum Association, and BP all held influential roles at the private foundation funding Keeling’s work.

The uncovered documents show that the potential climate impacts of burning fossil fuels were communicated to the private foundation in November 1954. A research proposal sent to the fossil fuel-funded foundation warned that the “possible consequences of a changing concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate … may ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization.”

The oil industry has historically produced and advanced climate change research. Exxon’s scientific researchers predicted climate change with shocking accuracy in the 1970s, for example. However, the discovery of Keeling’s 1954 fossil fuel funders is the earliest example of the industry’s instrumental role in establishing evidence on the devastating impacts of oil and gas emissions on the climate — which they proceeded to publicly deny for decades.

“These findings are a startling confirmation that big oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years – for twice my lifetime – and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day,” climate accountability researcher and professor Geoffrey Supran told The Guardian. “They make a mockery of the oil industry’s denial of basic climate science decades later.”

This additional evidence of Big Oil’s climate deception further bolsters the evidence against fossil fuel companies in a growing number of climate accountability lawsuits that are steadily marching toward trial.

---

It was front and center for voters in 2010 when out-of-state oil companies spent millions to derail AB 32, the state’s pioneering climate policy. Fortunately, voters saw through the rhetoric and defeated Proposition 23, and the law has remained on track.

The Sacramento-based WSPA counts among its members BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Occidental, and other major fossil fuel companies.The group serves as a key organizer of opposition to California’s groundbreaking climate policies, including the state’s low-carbon fuel standard and its so-called AB32 plan that requires a sharp reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Between January 2009 and September 2014, oil companies spent more than $26.9 million through WSPA directly lobbying in California (Bacher 2014).

Chevron alone reported spending nearly $14 million

https://www.desmog.com/2023/04/11/industry-sponsors-dinner-society-environmental-journalists-veolia-wspa/

apr 2023

trade association representing petroleum companies and a controversy-ridden waste management firm are sponsoring dinners at this year’s Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) conference, DeSmog can reveal.

The agenda for the conference, which is being hosted in Boise, Idaho, shows that the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and the waste management company Veolia North America are sponsoring two of the “beat dinners” hosted on Friday, April 21 — the third day of the event. 

The SEJ is a 1,500-strong membership organization dedicated to “more and better coverage of environment-related issues.” Attendees have a choice of nearly a dozen beat dinners on April 21, each of which acts as a chance to discuss a particular environmental or journalistic issue.

The WSPA’s description of its dinner says that “nothing is off the table” — adding that “we want to hear from you and answer any questions you may have about the oil and gas industry’s role in the energy transition.”

The WSPA describes itself as the oldest petroleum trade association in the United States, founded in 1907 and representing petroleum companies in the five western states of Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. WSPA’s membership has included some of the largest oil, pipeline, and energy companies in the United States, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, Shell, and Valero. It is also active in political lobbying, spending a total of $17.5 million lobbying California legislators and officials over the past three years.

Of the states WSPA represents, California produces the most crude oil by far. Records show that the company has lobbied during the past three years on California’s climate strategy, toxicity provisions, low carbon fuel standards, as well as its oil and gas production policies.

In response to questions from DeSmog, Kevin Slagle, the vice president of strategic communications for WSPA, explained that the association regularly works with some of SEJ’s journalist members and saw the informal and intimate atmosphere of a Beat Dinner “as a good opportunity to continue to build relationships, with a full understanding that perhaps our points of view might be different on things,” including the fact that the fossil fuel industry is “viewed as a problem when it comes to a lot of issues that are written about.”

But WSPA and Veolia’s involvement in the SEJ conference has attracted concern from journalists and campaigners. “There’s no excuse for these sorts of conflicts of interest,” said Jamie Henn of the campaign and communications group Fossil Free Media. “By letting the fossil fuel industry sponsor events, groups like SEJ lend credibility to bad actors” that are attempting to “influence coverage and maintain their social license by pretending to be well-meaning supporters of the free press.”

“I can understand there’s strong feelings about our industry, but I think it’s too bad that we can’t just sit down and talk,” Slagle said in response, adding that “a dinner is not going to influence a professional reporter one way or the other. This is about an opportunity to talk.”

The Veolia dinner is similarly advertised as an chance to “talk with our experts about the innovative ways we’re tackling the biggest environmental problems.” The pitch for the dinner adds that, “Americans are worried about climate change, but also believe there’s still time to reverse impacts. To get there, industries need to lead the way with innovative technologies and solutions.”

Mary Grant of the Public Water for All, a clean water campaign group, said that, “Veolia, the world’s largest water privatization corporation, has a terrible track record running water and wastewater systems. The company should not be given a stage to greenwash and bluewash its bad record.”

Veolia is a French company that operates in 58 countries worldwide, primarily in the water, waste, and energy sectors. The firm says that it “aims to be the benchmark company for ecological transformation” by managing complex environmental waste issues. However, the company works with many polluting industries, including the oil and gas industry, dealing with the waste produced by this sector and “optimizing asset performance.” The firm’s spokesperson said that Veolia helps polluting companies to improve their environmental performance. Veolia generated revenues of $47 billion in 2022, an increase of 50 percent from the year before, which was partly explained by the takeover of its rival Suez.

Veolia spokesperson Adam Lisberg told DeSmog that the firm is not widely known in the United States and that it seeks to communicate directly with the media to build its reputation — and that it welcomes journalists challenging the firm at its SEJ dinner. Lisberg stressed that Veolia is a fundamentally different type of organization to the WSPA.

“Veolia tackles complex environmental issues all over the world, and we are proud of our record in protecting the world’s resources by remediating hazardous situations, reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and improving water quality,” he said. “We hope that by sponsoring one of the Beat Dinners at the Society of Environmental Journalists’ annual conference, we can introduce ourselves to journalists covering these issues, explain our experience in accomplishing environmental goals across the country and serve as a resource for their reporting.”

The sponsors of the other beat dinners are predominantly non-profit organizations. For example, the Wilderness Society, a land conservation NGO, is sponsoring a dinner on the process of investigative reporting.

“Do I like the idea of oil and gas groups and Big Water funding dinner events around town that are listed in the conference agenda? No,” said the energy and environment reporter and SEJ member Peter Fairley. He added, however, that he did like the fact that “the sponsorship is transparent.”

Water Crises

Veolia was embroiled in the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, where the city’s drinking water was contaminated with lead. Nearly 100,000 people, including 12,000 children, were exposed to water with high levels of lead in 2014 and 2015, placing them at risk of adverse health impacts, including an increased risk of dementia. A Cornell University report last year concluded that “there was a substantial uptick in negative health outcomes among Flint children following the water crisis.”

Veolia was hired by the city in February 2015 to help address local water issues. Email exchanges between Veolia executives and city contractors exposed guk  by The Guardianshow that senior employees at the firm were aware that lead could be leaching into drinking water, yet the firm produced a report and a public presentation stating that the water was safe to be consumed.

The firm maintains that it was not provided with adequate data from city officials to conclude that lead was a problem. A further investigation by Detroit News found that Veolia launched an “ad blitz” — tripling the number of keyword searches it bought on Google — in late 2021 and early 2022, when the company was facing a civil lawsuit trial for its role in the crisis.

“The people of Flint were victimized by government officials who made all the decisions leading to their water crisis. The first bellwether trial involving Veolia North America ended with a mistrial in August 2022,” Lisberg said. “We have made very clear that we were wrongly blamed for what happened in Flint, and the First Amendment right to free speech allows us to do so publicly.”

Veolia has been involved in a number of other environmental controversies in recent years in the United States and abroad. The company was fined $3 million in October 2019 for violations related to a water treatment center in the city of Heavener, Oklahoma — at the time the largest drinking water fine ever levied by the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Veolia said that it had inherited “numerous operational challenges, especially a damaged computer monitoring system” when it assumed control of the treatment center from the city council.

Veolia was also embroiled in a lead contamination scandal in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where tests in 2016 found that lead levels in the city’s drinking water had exceeded federal standards for the first time on record. The firm once again denied responsibility, refuting accusations that cost cutting resulted in weaker measures to prevent the corrosion of pipes (corroding pipes can leach lead into the water supply).

The company said that it was “shocked” by the fine issued by Okalahoma’s DEQ, and that it “stands behind its work in Pittsburgh.”

Further afield, the company has been accused in the UK of diverting recycling material for incineration, with a trade union in Sheffield and refuse worker in Brighton claiming that the firm diverted substantial amounts of recyclable waste for incineration. The firm insists that the claims are false and that only contaminated material is incinerated. 

Veolia is also one of the listed sponsors of this year’s SEJ Conference Diversity Travel Fellowships, which support the travel, registration, and accommodation costs of individuals from disadvantaged and marginalized backgrounds. Slagle of WSPA said the association is also sponsoring one of the fellowships. The standard cost of registering for the conference is $375 for members and $800 for non-members who are affiliated with an organization with an annual budget of less than $2 million.

In response to questions regarding Veolia’s sponsorship of the beat dinner, Luke Runyon, president of the Society of Environmental Journalists’ board of directors, told DeSmog that, “No donor, sponsor, funder, or exhibitor has any role in determining SEJ editorial content or decisions, including programs, publications, and organizational priorities. We ensure that all funding sources are fully disclosed and all sponsorships are clearly identified for any conference attendee or member to see.”

https://stopfoolingca.org/front-groups/

ab 32 implementation gp, californians for energy indep; care, alliance for ca biz, tank the tax, ca drivers alliance; ca mfg and tehnol assoc; californians against higher taxes; fed up at the pump; califirnians against higher oil taxes; fueling ca

WHAT THEY SAID VS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

WHAT THEY SAID VS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

WHAT THEY SAID WHAT HAPPENED

TRANSPORTATION FUELS UNDER CAP AND TRADE

"Starting Jan. 1, 2015, Californians will pay 16 to 76 cents more per gallon."

JUNE 2014 | SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE →

The increase was so small and happened so fast that almost no one noticed.

JANUARY 2015 | SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE →

TRANSPORTATION FUELS UNDER CAP AND TRADE

"This new mandate will increase fuel costs by 4% to 19%, or 16 to 76 cents per gallon at the pump.”

JUNE 2014 | UC DAVIS ECONOMIST JAMES BUSHNELL →

There was no price spike, not like in 2012, when the Chevron Richmond refinery fire caused prices to jump 30c per gallon almost overnight. "California did see a little bump … but it’s being washed out by the larger trends in the oil market."

JANUARY 2015 | UC DAVIS ECONOMIST JAMES BUSHNELL →

TRANSPORTATION FUELS UNDER CAP AND TRADE

“California will lose more than 18,000 jobs and $2.9 billion of economic output next year alone…”

OCTOBER 2014 | LOS ANGELES TIMES, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES →

"California had a job growth rate of 3.1% in 2014 – adding jobs faster than the overall national rate of 2.3% in the same period – and our unemployment rate has fallen throughout 2015."

AUGUST 2015 | LOS ANGELES TIMES, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES →

TRANSPORTATION FUELS UNDER CAP AND TRADE

“This new cost at the pump could push California over the fiscal cliff again and … back into recession.”

MAY 2014 | BLOOMBERG →

California’s economy is the world’s seventh largest and continues to grow – expanding in 2014 by almost every measure.

JANUARY 2015 | BLOOMBERG →

CLEAN CARS PROGRAM

The regulation would serve to ban SUVs, reduce vehicle safety and performance and limit choice

AUGUST 2008 | MARKET WATCH →

"The national 54.5-mpg fuel economy standard was based on California’s Clean Cars Program.

In 2014, California surpassed 100,000 plug-in car sales, setting a new world record."

SEPTEMBER 2014 | MARKET WATCH →

CLEAN CARS PROGRAM

Californians are not going to get any health benefits, emissions benefits, etc., from these regulations.

AUGUST 2008 | CLEAN CARS CAMPAIGN →

Analysis has found that California drivers will save 1.6 billion gallons of gasoline and $4 billion at the pump by 2016, while reducing 14 million tons of pollution.

4/1/2010 | CLEAN CARS CAMPAIGN →

CAP AND TRADE

“… [Cap-and-trade] would raise energy costs, harm the economy and impact California’s competitiveness.”

FEBRUARY 2013 | 2014 GREEN INNOVATION INDEX, NEXT 10. →

California’s economy is thriving and per capita carbon emissions have dropped 17% since1990.

MAY 2014 | 2014 GREEN INNOVATION INDEX, NEXT 10. →

CAP AND TRADE

“These policies will create a large but hidden tax on families and will add new burdens to the fragile state economy.”

JULY 2012 | BLOOMBERG →

Per capita annual income in California was estimated to have increased by $1,700 in 2014, to $50,338.

JANUARY 2015 | BLOOMBERG →

CAP AND TRADE

“This poses great risks to manufacturers and other firms.”

JULY 2012 | 2014 STATE MANUFACTURING DATA TABLE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS. →

California manufacturing leads the nation, with the highest total manufacturing output of any state. The manufacturing sector has grown in the past year and is projected to continue to do so in 2015–2016. Prior to 2010, before AB32 began having positive economic impacts, the sector was in a state of decline for a decade.

2014 | 2014 STATE MANUFACTURING DATA TABLE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS. →

CAP AND TRADE

“Small business will get hit from all sides. Consumers will have less money…”

JULY 2012 | BLOOMBERG →

The California economy expanded in 2014 by almost every measure and is set to overtake Brazil as the world’s seventh-largest economy, with even stronger growth anticipated from 2015–2017.

JANUARY 2015 | BLOOMBERG →

SFC’S IMPACTS

READ MORE

COAL, OIL, AND GAS SPENT $3 MILLION ON WASHINGTON POLITICS IN 2014

Sightline Daily | March 10, 2015

READ MORE

CALIFORNIA’S FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD CITIZENS GROUPS ARE REALLY JUST BIG OIL IN DISGUISE

Mic | November 26, 2015

READ MORE

THE OIL INDUSTRY AND ITS FRONT GROUPS

Capitol Weekly | December 2, 2015

Last week, Bloomberg Businessweek revealed a slide deck created by Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the oil industry’s lobbyist, outlining a comprehensive strategy to kill clean air and energy standards in California, Oregon and Washington. It tells of a variety of tactics including a vast network of front groups purporting to be consumer or business organizations, while in reality doing the oil industry’s bidding.

The fact that the oil industry is using front groups to battle against clean energy progress is no surprise to anyone who has been working in California or around the west to protect clean air laws. This kind of tactic has been used for decades. It was front and center for voters in 2010 when out-of-state oil companies spent millions to derail AB 32, the state’s pioneering climate policy. Fortunately, voters saw through the rhetoric and defeated Proposition 23, and the law has remained on track.

Contrary to the WSPA claim, the oil industry faces no greater burden than other business – ask utilities and automakers if they agree with that statement.

WSPA’s president took to these pages recently claiming that the leaked presentation would have been shared with anyone who had requested it and that “gullible news reporters” must have been convinced otherwise. To believe that Bloomberg was hoodwinked into writing a story – which was followed by several additional articles and blogs – is about as likely as WSPA reversing position and supporting full and timely implementation of AB 32.

How ironic that the oil industry’s lobbyist suggested that the chorus of diverse voices that support AB 32 “skulk about in the shadows.” If WSPA is about honest and transparent dialogue, then all of the various front groups it has created and funded over the years – California Drivers Alliance, Fed Up at the Pump, Californians for Affordable and Reliable Energy – would have acknowledged the oil industry’s funding and influence over them when they were launched. It took a very public news story for this truth to come out.

Contrary to the WSPA claim, the oil industry faces no greater burden than other business – ask utilities and automakers if they agree with that statement. Further, no one has been left out of the discussion or the debate. In addition to Prop. 23 where voters weighed in on AB 32, there has been eight years of discussion in the Legislature including frequent oversight and informational hearings; there has been eight years of an extensive, ongoing, public regulatory process at the California Air Resources Board including dozens of public hearings, workshops and meetings; and there have been multiple legal challenges, all leaving AB 32 intact.

Business groups like mine, along with consumer organizations, public health groups, veterans, public officials, faith groups, and environmental and equity organizations recently joined together to form California Delivers – to bring a diverse and powerful voice to keep AB 32 on track, and to extend the benefits of the law beyond 2020. This public coalition – representing companies, communities, individuals and families – agrees with WSPA that climate change policies will impact everyone, just as climate change is impacting everyone. The big difference is that California Delivers believes the answer is moving forward to implement existing law instead of spending millions to derail it.

WSPA’s strategy for reversing clean energy progress is no longer hidden in the shadows. Perhaps we now can have an open and honest debate, so that Californians can get what they keep asking for and deserve – a cleaner, healthier and more prosperous future for everyone.

Ed’s Note: Susan Frank is Director of the California Business Alliance for a Clean Economy – a coalition of small and mainstream businesses, associations and chambers of commerce across the state that support California’s clean energy policies.

OIL INDUSTRY DOCUMENT REVEALS PLANS TO FIGHT CLEAN-ENERGY INITIATIVES

San Jose Mercury News | December 2, 2015

William Barrett, Center’s Stage

October 2, 2013

Through June of this year, Big Oil has spent over $5 million on lobbying California policy-makers (and no, that doesn’t include donations to political campaigns). The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA is the lobbying organization for California oil interests) spent over $20 million since 2009, and is again leading all spending to influence California politics, and Chevron isn’t far behind (see news coverage, here and here). Given the major oil lobbying push in the Capitol at the end of the legislative session in early September, it will not be a surprise if this trend holds.

https://powersearch.sos.ca.gov/advanced.php

WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA PAC (AKA WSPA CA PAC)

1414539 = recip comm# no CID

:{

}:

oddly no cand 1899$

$2,596.86 no cand but RID:  1414539

:{

}:

1414539  $3,104.23   12/21

:{

}:

:{

}:

:{

}:

----

:{

}:

California Fuels & Convenience Alliance PAC

:{

}:

Nechodom, Mark

:{

}:

diff spell: California Independent Petroleum Association PAC, contrib ID 822237

:{

}:

----

Coalition to Restore California's Middle Class, Including Energy Companies who Produce Gas, Oil, Jobs and Pay Taxes

:{

}:

1365275 marathon  500k$

----

Berry petrol --> California Chamber of Commerce PAC AKA ChamberPAC

:{

}:

----

wtf? mostly state thus no fed disclosure?

The organization itself did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate family members. Organizations themselves cannot contribute to candidates and party committees. Totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/western-states-petroleum-assn/summary?id=D000058567

OS news:

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/**2021/02**/biden-climate-change-actions-anger-big-oil/

President Joe Biden signed executive actions last week prioritizing solutions to the “existential threat” of climate change, drawing the ire of many key players in the politically powerful oil and gas industry.

Biden’s actions pressed pause on the leasing of federal lands and waters for oil drilling, set a goal of keeping 30 percent of federal lands for conservation purposes and announced the electrification of the federal government’s fleet of vehicles. The move comes a week after Biden revoked the permits for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline just hours after his inauguration, following through on a campaign-trail promise.

Leading up to the 2020 election, the oil and gas industry contributed around $1.6 million more to former President Donald Trump than to Biden. Trump painted himself as an ally to the industry on the stump and throughout his presidency — though industry insiders told Politico in 2020 that the Trump administration was “a mixed bag” and “more like ‘meh’” than the windfall they had hoped for in 2016.  

The oil industry spent millions in 2020 to try to keep a GOP majority in the Senate. Valero, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, among the few corporations that give to super PACs, gave at least $1 million each this election cycle to the Senate Leadership Fund, a conservative super PAC that spent $271 million to campaign against Democrats vying for the Senate.

Pausing land and water leases ‘to the extent possible’

Biden’s decision to halt future leases of federal land, pending a comprehensive review of the climate impact, caused an uproar among oil and gas companies and trade associations. Just hours after Biden formalized the order, theWestern Energy Alliance announced it would sue the Biden administration, alleging the move violates existing law.

Most drilling occurs on private land, rather than federal property. In 2017, approximately 24 percent of oil and 13 percent of natural gas extracted in the United States came from federal lands. According to analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey, around a quarter of U.S. emissions come from the combustion and extraction of resources from federal lands. 

Oil and gas companies rushed to stockpile drilling permits during Trump’s lameduck period — doubling the number of permit requests over the same period in 2019, according to an AP report.Under Biden’s order, oil and gas companies can continue to obtain new permits to drill on land that has already been leased. 

Experts say the executive action likely won’t immediately impact rates of oil extraction in the U.S. As of 2019, there were 38,294 leases active across the country, concentrated mostly in the American West. Once a lease has been issued, companies have 10 years to begin production on the land before the lease terminates.

The oil and gas industry’s leading trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, came out against the order. API President Mike Sommers criticized Biden’s suspension of federal agencies’ authority to issue leases of federal land to drilling companies in a Jan. 21 statement. 

“Restricting development on federal lands and waters is nothing more than an ‘import more oil’ policy. Energy demand will continue to rise—especially as the economy recovers—and we can choose to produce that energy here in the United States or rely on foreign countries hostile to American interests,” Sommers said.

In 2020, API’s PAC spent $88,200 to support Republican candidates, giving $5,000 to the Great America PAC, a Trump-aligned Carey committee.  API also dropped $5.3 million to employ 40 lobbyists, reporting lobbying 66 individual bills. The institute’s lobbying spending fell during Trump’s administration after trending upward throughout former President Barack Obama’s two terms in office.  

Another leading oil and gas industry association, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, has also come out in opposition to the action.

“We think it was really misguided,” Senior Vice President for Government Relations Dan Naatz told an Arkansas TV news team. “It impacts jobs and economies through the inner-Mountain West, all the way through the country.”

In 2020, the organization’s PAC spent $215,300 in campaign contributions, giving $10,000 each to Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and former Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Martha McSally (R-Ariz.).

Biden framed the executive action as a jobs package,remarking, “today is climate day in the White House which means today is jobs day at the White House,” just before he signed the executive actions. Labor leaders say they are waiting to hear how exactly Biden will replace jobs lost in energy sectors. 

“It’s too glib and easy to say someone working in the mines can get a solar job. That is too simplistic,” Jason Walsh, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, told the Washington Examiner. “There is a mismatch between where energy jobs are getting lost and where they are created. We have to close that gap, but we also have to be real and help economies diversify their economies in ways based on their own assets.”

Oil corporations emphasize that gap. The Global Energy Institute, a subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, came out against some of Biden’s climate actions, claiming it would lead to widespread unemployment.

“Without the prospect of future leases, investment and planning will begin to dry up immediately, thwarting job creation and the economic growth at the worst possible time,” the Institute’s President Marty Durbin said in a statement.

The Chamber of Commerce perennially favors Republicans and dropped $5.7 million in outside spending in 2020.

Keystone canceled, frustrating some oil companies

The Chamber of Commerce also condemned Biden’s action to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline, a project widely opposed by environmental advocates, indigenous communities and scientists.

“This is a politically motivated decision that is not grounded in science. It will harm consumers and put thousands of Americans in the building trades out of work,” Durbin said.

The Keystone XL pipeline was proposed in 2008, vetoed by Obama in 2015 and promptly re-initiated by Trump in 2016 along with another controversial project, the Dakota Access Pipeline. Environmental and indigenous rights advocates are now calling on Biden to cancel the latter pipeline, which abuts the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

That pipeline is owned by Energy Transfer Partners, an oil and gas conglomerate that gave more in campaign contributions than any other company in the industry. Ninety-nine percent of its donations went to Republican candidates and committees. In 2020, the company’s co-founder and board chair, Kelcy Warren, donated a whopping $10 million to America First Action, a Trump-affiliated super PAC.

Biden’s climate actions are also drawing criticism from Republican lawmakers from oil-rich states who have benefited from industry contributions. Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) announced Jan. 22 that they would introduce legislation to overturn Biden’s executive action and re-issue permits to the Keystone XL Pipeline, which was slated to pass through Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska before connecting to an existing pipeline in Kansas.

“We came so far during the last administration – from prioritizing American energy development to ending the far-left’s war on fossil fuels,” said Inhofe in a statement announcing the legislation.

Throughout his career, Inhofe has received in excess of $2.2 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies. Daines and Barrasso have each received $1.2 million from the industry.

The group’s bill is a symbolic gesture to the industry and its supporters without any real hope of passing the Senate, where Democrats wield a majority, albeit narrowly. The oil and gas industry spent heavily to prevent the upper chamber from swinging blue, giving around $600,000 each to Republican Senate candidates in Georgia Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who both lost narrowly to Democratic challengers in January runoffs. The American Petroleum Institute donated $5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund in late November, after every Senate campaign had concluded save the two ultra-expensive Georgia races. 

Faced with pressure from Washington, other corporations look to adapt

Some energy companies are taking a different tact, announcing plans to adapt their business model to thrive in a Biden administration that prioritizes conservation and climate action.

Industry giant Exxon Mobil announced Feb. 1, just days after Biden’s executive order, that it would initiate massive investments in carbon capture technology aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The company, whose employees favored Biden over Trump in 2020 campaign contributions, will spend $3 billion over the next five years to build up a new subsidiary business: ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions. 

General Motors has committed to only manufacturing zero-emissions vehicles by the year 2035, inline with Biden’s commitment to electrifying the government’s fleet. Ford’s new CEO has also pledged to restructure production plans, prioritizing the addition of electric vehicles to its portfolio, which currently features only one fully-electric model.

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, an oil-refining trade association that spent $3.2 to lobby the government in 2019, responded to that provision by reaching out to an unlikely ally: biofuel manufacturers. AFPM reportedly hopes to create an alliance with the competitor industry to lobby Biden to revise his fleet electrification plans in order to include cars powered by low-emission gasoline made from a mix of gasoline and ethanol.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/10/gw-Accountability-scorecard18-ConocoPhillips.pdf

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) [table 2016 and 2018 scores] Poor Poor ]

ConocoPhillips is a member of WSPA as of 2018, and the company has not taken any steps to distance itself from climate disinformation spread by the group (WSPA 2018)

https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2011/04/21/how-salvage-obama%E2%80%99s-high-speed-rail-%E2%80%98disaster%E2%80%99

high speed rail:

...Resistance from the Right

Ambitious rail plans have been subjected to a fierce campaign of disparagement in recent months. The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Reason Foundation have worked particularly hard to defeat the Obama rail plan, Todorovich told the gathering of about 30 journalists from around the country.

For companies that profit from the highway system and automobile-reliant means of transportation, the libertarian or conservative foundations have proven to be useful torch-bearers. SourceWatch, part of the Center for Media and Democracy, reports that Ford Motor, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell Oil, and the Western States Petroleum Association have been among the donors to theReason Foundation. David H. Koch of Koch Industries,  once described by the Center for Public Integrity as "the biggest oil company you have never heard of," is a Reason trustee.

SourceWatch says Chevron, ExxonMobil, and the auto-maker Honda have been among Heritage’s contributors, though corporate donations to Heritage are small when compared than those made by individuals and foundations. Over the years, Heritages backers in the foundation world have included the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and three Scaife foundations.

Cato, founded by Edward H. Crane and Charles Koch, has over the years received donations from corporate supporters including the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, General Motors, Honda North America, Toyota, Volkswagen of America, and Wal-Mart Stores, according to SourceWatch.

Nonetheless, Todorovich thinks rail projects can gain considerable support from the populace and some of it from Republicans who hold elective office.  After the new governor of Florida, Rick Scott, rejected $2.4 billion in federal funds for the Orlando-Tampa rail route, 24 states, including 11 with Republican governors, applied for portions of the money that Florida gave up.

Debunking high-speed rail myths...

BP DEFECTS 2/20

12 pp

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/sustainability/our-participation-in-trade-associations-climate.pdf

Summary findings table – for further details see page 7

Not aligned Associations deemed not aligned are those which we found to have

stated opposition to BP positions with limited balancing support in

other areas.

Associations in this category are:

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

AFPM collaborated with its members over the past year to support

changes to its climate policy. While we are encouraged by this

progress, BP and AFPM’s views on carbon pricing are at odds and

currently we have no areas of full alignment. As a result, we have

decided to resign our membership.

Western Energy Alliance (WEA)

We have decided not to renew our membership with WEA due to

material differences around the federal regulation of methane and

due to BP’s divestment of assets in the states in which the

organization is active.

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)

BP has decided to resign its membership in WSPA as a result of...

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/bp-pulls-out-of-regional-oil-trade-organization-over-differences-on-carbon-pricing-fuel-standard/

NO LNX

Evan Bush  and Hal Bernton

Seattle Times staff reporters

Fossil fuel giant BP announced it was leaving the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), a powerful oil and gas lobbying group in statehouses, over the association’s position on carbon pricing and its opposition to a low-carbon fuel standard being considered now in Olympia.

The oil company said in a news release that its policies no longer aligned with WSPA and that the differences could not be reconciled.

Environmentalists hope BP’s departure will weaken the influence of WSPA in Washington state, where it has opposed the clean fuel standard and other climate policies. In 2018, BP spent nearly $13 million and was the top contributor to WSPA’s “No On 1631,” a campaign in opposition to a statewide carbon-pricing initiative. After record spending, the measure failed at the ballot box.

BP’s decision to leave the organization also pushes it further down a path toward advocating more aggressive climate change policies, rather than serving as a legislative roadblock as it has in the past.

“It certainly welcomes them at the table, and the devil, though, is in the details,” said Clifford Traisman, a lobbyist in Olympia for Washington Conservation Voters and the Washington Environmental Council, two major environmental lobbying groups. “We have to see their position on the various bills as they move through. But, it’s welcome news.“

WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said the organizations’ members will continue to work with BP and other stakeholders “in a civil public discourse around creating a sustainable energy future.” WSPA represents the oil and gas industry in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Added Reheis-Boyd: “Our members know the way the world produces, distributes and consumes energy is evolving, and our industry will remain leaders in investing in and developing the diverse energy sources and technologies we need for the future. Working together as an industry, we will rise to the challenge of a changing climate.”

BP reviewed its association with 30 trade groups, publishing its assessment in detailed report. The company plans to leave two other groups, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the Western Energy Alliance.

BP’s decision to leave WSPA stems from two policy disagreements in Washington state, according to the report.

:{

}:

WSPA has not supported Senate Bill 5981, which would place an overall cap on state carbon emissions that lowers over time. Pollution allowances in the bill would raise funds to invest in energy efficiency, low-income assistance and other projects.

:{

}:

BP last month launched a two-week print, radio and social media campaign in support of the bill, which remains unlikely to pass this Legislative session.

In its report, BP said it also disagreed with WSPA’s focus on preventing a statewide low carbon fuel standard, a legislative measure that is a top priority of Gov. Jay Inslee. BP has taken a neutral stance on the bill, which would require suppliers to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuels over time.

The low carbon fuel standard bill, House Bill 1110, passed in the House last month and now resides in the Senate Transportation Committee, where its fate could be decided.

The chair of that committee, Sen. Steve Hobbs, a Lake Stevens Democrat, has been critical of the policy in the past, saying he’s concerned it could stress the state’s transportation budget and that he views carbon pricing as a more effective policy to reduce greenhouse gases.

BP on Tuesday gave its support to another Inslee legislative priority. Chairman and President of BP America Susan Dio, sent a letter to the governor in support of a bill that would expand the state ecology department’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

The bill would refashion Inslee’s 2016 Clean Air Rule, which was partially invalidated by the Washington Supreme Court. The bill would require the state Ecology Department to adopt a rule to reduce greenhouse gases, including those from indirect emitters, beginning no earlier than summer 2021.

“We hope BP’s support of this legislation is helpful, and we commit to working with all parties in Olympia to bring a well-designed carbon pricing policy over the finish line,” Dio wrote.

To Traisman, the environmental lobbyist, BP’s recent actions represented a recognizable shift.

“The fact that they not only pulled out of WSPA, but endorsed one of the governor’s highest priority bills is certainly significant,” Traisman said.

Correction: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized WSPA’s position on Senate Bill 5981.

Evan Bush: 206-464-2253 or ebush@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @EvanBush.

Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or hbernton@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @hbernton.

SOME LNX

Fossil fuel giant BP announced it was leaving the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), a powerful oil and gas lobbying group in statehouses, over the association’s position on carbon pricing and its opposition to a low-carbon fuel standard being considered now in Olympia.

The oil company said in a news release that its policies no longer aligned with WSPA and that the differences could not be reconciled.

Environmentalists hope BP’s departure will weaken the influence of WSPA in Washington state, where it has opposed the clean fuel standard and other climate policies. In 2018, BP spent nearly $13 million and was the top contributor to WSPA’s “No On 1631,” a campaign in opposition to a statewide carbon-pricing initiative. After record spending, the measure failed at the ballot box.

BP’s decision to leave the organization also pushes it further down a path toward advocating more aggressive climate change policies, rather than serving as a legislative roadblock as it has in the past.

“It certainly welcomes them at the table, and the devil, though, is in the details,” said Clifford Traisman, a lobbyist in Olympia for Washington Conservation Voters and the Washington Environmental Council, two major environmental lobbying groups. “We have to see their position on the various bills as they move through. But, it’s welcome news.“

WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said the organizations’ members will continue to work with BP and other stakeholders “in a civil public discourse around creating a sustainable energy future.” WSPA represents the oil and gas industry in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington....

The low carbon fuel standard bill, House Bill 1110, passed in the House last month and now resides in the Senate Transportation Committee, where its fate could be decided.

The chair of that committee, Sen. Steve Hobbs, a Lake Stevens Democrat, has been critical of the policy in the past, saying he’s concerned it could stress the state’s transportation budget and that he views carbon pricing as a more effective policy to reduce greenhouse gases.

BP on Tuesday gave its support to another Inslee legislative priority. Chairman and President of BP America Susan Dio, sent a letter to the governor in support of a bill that would expand the state ecology department’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

...

Added Reheis-Boyd: “Our members know the way the world produces, distributes and consumes energy is evolving, and our industry will remain leaders in investing in and developing the diverse energy sources and technologies we need for the future. Working together as an industry, we will rise to the challenge of a changing climate.”

BP reviewed its association with 30 trade groups,publishing its assessment in detailed report. The company plans to leave two other groups, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the Western Energy Alliance.

BP’s decision to leave WSPA stems from two policy disagreements in Washington state, according to the report.

WSPA has not supported Senate Bill 5981, which would place an overall cap on state carbon emissions that lowers over time. Pollution allowances in the bill would raise funds to invest in energy efficiency, low-income assistance and other projects.

BP last month launched a two-week print, radio and social media campaign in support of the bill, which remains unlikely to pass this Legislative session.

In its report, BP said it also disagreed with WSPA’s focus on preventing a statewide low carbon fuel standard, a legislative measure that is a top priority of Gov. Jay Inslee. BP has taken a neutral stance on the bill, which would require suppliers to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuels over timE

,,,

off bs

wSPA Response to California Governor’s 2022 State of the State

MARCH 8, 2022

“There is no more important issue than our energy future and how that affects climate policy, costs and how Californians live their lives each day. And, unfortunately, rather than looking to what we can do together to create an energy future that balances our environmental, energy and equity needs, Governor Newsom once again chose to divide and double down on his efforts todemonize, exclude and ban the innovative and hardworking people of our industry from being a part of the solution.

“That is not the ‘California Way.’

“While the Governor acknowledges the big burden of California’s taxes and regulatory fees on California’s families by proposing a gas tax rebate, he ignores the fact that the energy our industry provides is not only needed now, as those who can least afford it are facing higher energy costs, but for decades to come.

“Ignoring the facts and denying the data that shows we need an ‘all of the above approach’  to energy, is also not the ‘California Way.’

“Our role as energy providers is to bringinnovation,resources and hard work to ensuring access to a stable supply of energy, both here and abroad. Californian and American energy leadership and independence, achieved by our people producing and refining fuels under the toughest environmental standards in the world, can serve as a stabilizing force that strengthens domestic energy security.

“If the Newsom Administration would approve the more than 1,000 permits for new production that have been waiting for months, and in some cases years, California could immediately increase supplies of affordable, reliable energy for ourselves and the West. These permits will allow the industry to quickly begin producing oil domestically andreduce the need to increase imports from foreign sources, like Russia.

“Rather than bans and mandates or withholding permits for production, California should be focused on an ‘all of the above’approach to ensure we have a reliable and affordable supply of energy – for now and the future.  An “all of the above approach,” inspires innovation in energy development and technologies like carbon capture, encourages immediate work to achieve emissions reductions and keeps our most important resources – our people – engaged in their careers, involved in their communities and doing the hard work to meet the energy needs of our state.   As we bring on more renewable and sustainable energy sources, we can acknowledge the fact that the affordable energy our industry provides will be needed for decades to come.

“The real ‘California Way’ is inclusive of problem solvers like the people of industry and rejects simplistic slogans and bans masquerading as solutions.  Let’s choose real solutions, real work, and end the mandates, issue permits and allow our people produce and refine the affordable energy California’s families need now.”

lobby MOC "grassroots?"

...WSPA Associates are committed to meeting the energy needs of the region in an environmentally responsible manner. By bringing together companies and individuals that have a stake in the petroleum industry, WSPA Associates represent a persuasive force advocating for economic and environmental balance.

All WSPA Associates are listed for industry connections in an easy to use searchable database of Associate members

https://truthout.org/articles/fracking-in-california-raises-new-and-old-concerns/

may 2012

May 15, 2012, Food & Water Watch joined with “Gasland’s” Josh Fox, Environment California, Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community and residents of surrounding neighborhoods to call for a ban on hydraulic fracturing in California, presenting the signatures of 50,000 Californians who have signed petitions supporting a ban. The protest was held at the Inglewood oil field in Los Angeles County, the largest urban oilfield in the nation.

Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is the high-pressure injection of fluids, silica and chemicals into an oil or gas reservoir to fracture the rock, keep open the cracks and allow oil or natural gas to flow back to the well. It is believed fracturing is mainly used in California on depleting oil wells; oil and gas companies operating in the state will soon be releasing more information related to their activities on the industry web site FracFocus.

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the members of which account for 80 percent of the oil and natural gas drilled in California, estimate that WSPA companies fracked 628 oil wells in 2011 – about a quarter of all oil and gas wells drilled across the state that year. Most are listed in Kern County.

growing awareness of the use of hydraulic fracturing in California has raised concerns around its associated risks as observed in other states, including tremors and water and air pollution. The issue is stirring debate over whether and how fracking should be regulated in California – or outright prohibited.

PXP Fracking Study

The Inglewood oil field covers 1,000 acres in Los Angeles County, California. Oil and gas was found there in 1924, with production peaking a year later, when 176 new wells were drilled. By the 1990s, an average of fewer than four new wells were drilled per year. As oil drilling appeared to be phasing out, people began to settle in the area and now more than one million people live within five miles of the oil field.

In 2006, noxious fumes – methane gas and hydrogen sulfide – leaked out from deep drilling sites in two separate incidents, forcing home evacuations. That was when many residents discovered that oil and gas company Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP), using 3-D imaging to discover where crude oil remained in the state, had ramped up drilling on the field – and near homes – in 2004. After going through various documents, residents found that, in addition to drilling as deep as 10,000 feet, the company was also employing fracking to access the oil.

Resident concerns over the drilling led to lawsuits and a 2011 settlement that improved some regulations in the area and required PXP to provide a study on the “feasibility and potential impacts (including impacts to groundwater and subsidence) of the types of fracturing operations PXP may conduct in the Oil Field,” due this summer.

The PXP study is seen as potentially addressing the lack of information collected and provided by Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) on the use of fracturing in the state.

Defining Hydraulic Fracturing

There appears to be an evolving debate over how to define hydraulic fracturing in the state, which would affect proposed rules and regulations.

Facing increasing questions, DOGGR circulated an official fact sheet in December 2010 stating that fracking in California is “not common,” “limited” and only “occasionally used for a brief period.” A revised fact sheet, posted from May 2011 stated, “the division does not believe that fracking is widely used in California.”

In February 2012, Environmental Working Group (EWG) researchers released documentation showing that hydraulic fracturing had taken place in at least six California counties: Kern,Los Angeles, Monterey, Sacramento, Santa Barbara and Ventura, going back to 1953.

The California Department of Conservation (DOC) now states on their web site that hydraulic fracturing is occurring in California, but is different from much of the US: “To date, the Division is aware of very little, if any, fracturing of horizontal shale gas wells in California of the type performed in other parts of the United States. Most of California’s oil and gas production to date has been from vertical wells into traditional oil and natural gas reservoirs.”

According to a DOC Fact Sheet, “DOGGR has regulations in place for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) utilizing steam flood and water flood injection. Any alternative methods for EOR – such as hydraulic fracturing – would require additional regulations and/or statutes.”

EOR is regulated in the state as a form of underground injection. The state received primacy for its underground injection control (UIC) program as long as it meets minimal federal UIC regulations designed to prevent potential sources of ground water contamination. Yet, the state’s UIC program has been under recent scrutiny.

Underground Injection Versus Well Stimulation

In June 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency evaluated how the California DOGGR “oversees and manages the permitting, drilling, operation, maintenance and plugging/abandonment of Class II [underground injection wells].” The federal regulators found that the California agency’s program did not meet a number of federal requirements, and in July 2011, sent a letter to the division highlighting a variety of “program deficiencies that require more immediate attention and resolution.”

In November 2011, Governor Brown fired Derek Chernow, then head of the Department of Conservation, as well as Chernow’s deputy, Elena Miller, after they refused to relax UIC regulations and, instead, generated a memo critical of underground injection and said relaxing regulations would violate federal laws. The memo raised broader health and safety concerns about the state’s oversight over methods for increasing oil flow from depleting wells.

Shortly thereafter, Brown installed Mark Nechodom, [WSPA]who sided with Brown and relaxed the oversight over underground injection.

The California Independent Petroleum Association has maintained that fracking is not a form of underground injection and, thus, not subject to its regulations and permits. Instead, the Association argues that fracking is a well stimulation technique that is covered by the state’s regulation of well casings on producing wells.

This appears to be the position that the state DOC is taking.DOC was asked if hydraulic fracturing is a form of enhanced oil recovery and a form of underground injection and how such a distinction might affect regulations? Don Drysdale of DOC’s Public Affairs responded, “Hydraulic fracturing is considered a well stimulation technique and is conducted on production wells, not injection wells. Regulations would differ in a number of respects [from underground injection], some of which we are still exploring.”

If hydraulic fracturing were considered a form of underground injection, it would bring in a host of review and testing requirements along with federal oversight, according to a California DOC fact Sheet. Another DOC fact sheet states that “injection project permits often include conditions, such as approved injection zones, allowable injection pressures and testing requirements. State regulations were designed to ensure that injected fluids are confined to the project area and zone and that formation pressures are not exceeded to the extent that damage occurs.”

Concerns

Many in the state would like rules and guidelines specific to hydraulic fracturing due to its high use of water and novel mix of chemicals, many of which are listed as hazardous by the federal government.

The high volume of water used in fracturing and the returning wastewater has led to an increase in disposal injection wells in the country. Injection into some drilling wells has been linked to tremors in Ohio, Arkansas and Oklahoma, according to various studies.

Drysdale said that California is different because – compared to areas like the Marcellus Shale – less water is used in the fracturing process and less produced water returns, meaning fewer disposal wells would be needed.

The hydraulic fracturing process itself has been linked to small earthquakes in England; hydraulic fracturing is believed to result in smaller tremors than wastewater disposal, because it occurs over a shorter period of time with less water.

Another concern is wastewater treatment and the potential for spills. In 2009, a jury in Kern County found that 96 million barrels of wastewater from drilling had leached from holding ponds onto a farmer’s property, resulting in contamination of the aquifer beneath his land. It is unknown if any of the wastewater came from hydraulic fracturing.

California Director of Governmental Affairs Bill Allayaud of EWG worries about wastewater kept in percolation ponds – which include both lined and unlined waste pits, raising risks over air pollution from volatile organic compounds and groundwater leaching.

Another concern – and a large area of contention – is that the chemical-laced water from the fracturing process will eventually migrate to aquifers and contaminate them, either from well casing failures or cracking, or from the upward movement of fluidsthrough faults and fractures.

The Legislature is starting to address some of the concerns around the lack of information, debating bills on advance notice of fracking activities to neighbors and disclosure of some of the chemicals used. DOGGR has been holding a series of public workshops to gather input on proposed fracking regulations.

Restrictions

Some counties have already taken action.

After a Monterey County administrator approved a permit for oil and gas company Venoco to drill nine exploratory wells using hydraulic fracturing, a local land trust appealed. The issue was set to be heard at an October 26, 2011, planning commission meeting, but Venoco pulled its permit application after the commission released a meeting agenda noting that it recommended supporting the appeal and denying the project.

In June 2011, Los Alamos rancher and vineyard owner Steve Lyons contacted Santa Barbara County officials after discovering that Venoco had fracked a well on his property. After a series of public hearings and forums, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors decided unanimously in December 2011 that companies planning to use the process would have to apply for a special permit from the County Planning Commission.

In 2012, it was reported that PXP was again using fracking in the Inglewood oil field. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the community that surrounds the oil field did not know about the 2012 test fracking until March 9, after the fracking was complete. According to FracFocus, the two vertical wells were fracked in September 2011 and January 2012. PXP used up to 168,000 gallons of water laced with chemicals in one well to a depth of about one and a half miles.

PXP has said the jobs were necessary for its fracking study as part of the 2011 settlement over its drilling, but environmental groups say the industry could have relied upon other data.

Residents like Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community are concerned that fracturing will eventually become more common beneath their homes and neighborhoods, leading the group to join the May 15 call for a statewide ban.

==

https://redgreenandblue.org/2022/02/04/cant-nice-things-western-states-petroleum-association-spent-17-5-million-lobbying-ca-officials-past-3-years/

Why we can’t have nice things: Western States Petroleum Association spent $17.5 million lobbying CA officials over past 3 years

Published on February 4th, 2022

TAGGED: BIG OIL, CALIFORNIA, DRILL BABY DRILL, LOBBYING, WPA

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the largest and most powerful corporate lobbying group in Sacramento, has spent over $17.5 million lobbying the California Legislature and other state officials over the past three years.

In 2021, WSPA spent $4,397,004 lobbying legislators and state officials to serve Big Oil’s agenda, according to data filed with California Secretary of State’s Office.

The association spent $957,137 on lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2021. The money went to an array of in-house lobbyists and outside lobbying firms, topped by Ramball Environ in Philadelphia that received $116,981 in the fourth quarter and $366,864 in 2021.

In 2021, WSPA lobbied on the following legislation and ongoing processes, giving you an idea of the vast array of processes that WSPA was involved in influencing:

SB 342; LEGISLATURE – CARBON NEUTRALITY, CALIFORNIA CLIMATE GOALS, GENERAL EDUCATION ONOFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION, EDUCATION ON UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM ISSUES, CARBON CAPTURE, UTILISATION AND STORAGE, OFFSHORE PRODUCTION; DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION – CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY, OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION POLICY, – PUBLIC HEALTH RULEMAKING, HEALTH AND SAFETY INITIATIVE, CARBON CAPTURE, UTILISATION AND STORAGE, SETBACKS, UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL; GOVERNOR’S OFFICE – CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY, OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION POLICY, – CARBON CAPTURE, UTILISATION AND STORAGE, SETBACKS, OFFSHORE PRODUCTION; STATE WATER RESOURCE CONTROL BOARD – PERAND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES; CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD – AB 32 IMPLEMENTATION,CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY,OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION POLICY, SCOPING PLAN, LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD, CARBON NEUTRALITY; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL – HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORTING FRAMEWORK; CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ANDHEALTH – PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS;CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION – R. 18-12-005,R. 20-01-007,R. 20-05-002,R. 21-06-017; OFFICE OF STATE FIRE MARSHAL – PIPELINE FEE INCREASE

WSPA spent a total of $8.8 million in 2019 and $4,267,181 in 2020 on lobbying California legislators and officials as thousands of oil and gas drilling permits were approved by CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency: www.citywatchla.com/…

In 2020, even a weak bill recommending health and safety setbacks around oil and gas failed to get through the oil industry-friendly California Legislature.

Then in 2021, another stronger bill, SB 467, failed to pass throughout the legislature because of heavy oil industry lobbying of legislators, including those who had received big campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. The bill would have banned fracking by 2023 eliminating fracking and instituting mandatory health and safety zones between oil and gas extraction and places where Californians live, work, and study.

However, the inordinate influence by Big Oil on California politicians and regulators is most dramatically evidenced by the approval of thousands of new and reworked oil and gas well permits by CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency, since Newsom took office in January 2019.

On the same day the LA City Council voted to ban oil and gas wells in city limits, Consumer Watchdog and FracTracker Alliance reported that Governor Newsom has approved 10,212 oil drilling permits since he assumed office in 2019. The total is nearly identical to the number of permits Governor Jerry Brown approved in his first three years.

The good news is that permits issued fell from the number issued in 2020,according to the latest analysis by FracTracker Alliance of permits approved through December 31, 2021, and posted by Consumer Watchdog at www.Newsomwellwatch.org.

“Nevertheless, Newsom’s number is nipping on the heels of Brown’s 10,268 permits dispensed in his first three years in office.  Brown ultimately approved 31,545 wells during his eight years in office,” the groups revealed.

“We are pleased to see that Governor Newsom’s oil regulators are approving fewer permits,” said Consumer Watchdog’s Energy Project Director Liza Tucker. “But the Administration should not have crossed that 10,000-permit threshold and needs to ban any permits for any drilling if we are to protect the public and the planet—starting with environmental justice communities.”

Tucker said overall permit approvals for drilling new oil and gas wells fell 73% over last year. But permit application submissions from oil and gas operators for new drilling permits also dropped 44% in 2021, according to FracTracker Alliance analysis of state data.

“The decrease in the number of new drilling permits issued in 2021 versus 2020 is a consequence of the downturn in the market and has nothing to do with policy decisions,” said Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator for FracTracker Alliance. “This is why we need Governor Newsom to take a leadership role, so that our health in California is not determined by the pressures of an extractive capitalist market.”

Governor Newsom has issued a ban on fracking as of 2024, while his regulators have begun denying fracking permits, said Tucker.

Fracking permits fell 90% over last year. However, fracking produces only 2 percent of the state’s oil and gas, according to CalGEM.

Nevertheless, Tucker noted that permit approvals for cyclic steaming, steam, water flooding and other enhanced techniques more commonly used to coax oil out of the ground also fell.

“As of December 31, 2021, oil regulators had issued a total of 542 permits for drilling new oil and gas wells, down 73% over 2020.  Regulators issued 1,519 permits to rework existing wells, down 13% from the year before. Overall, California dispensed a total of 2,061 permits, down 45% over last year,” the groups disclosed.

The intense lobbying by WSPA and other oil companies over the years has resulted in widespread widespread air, ground and water pollution with huge health impacts on mostly Black and Brown communities living near oil and gas wells.

Between 2008 and 2018 alone, oil and gas companies created a statewide total of over 1.3 trillion gallons of oil and gas wastewater in California, enough liquid to fill over 17.6 million household bathtubs, according to a reportreleased by Earthworks, along with allies VISION California and Center for Biological Diversity.

The report reveals that California, often portrayed by the state’s politicians and national media as the nation’s “green” and “progressive” leader, is actually one of the worst states in the U.S. when it comes to regulating the oil and gas industry’s waste.

The regulatory failures range from allowing crops to be irrigated with potentially toxic and radioactive wastewater to storing waste in unlined pits or injecting it into protected groundwater aquifers, according to Earthworks.

Since the first oil well was drilled in California in 1861, oil production has steadily grown in the state. In 2017, California was fourth in the nation in crude oil production, the report noted.

However, by February 2019, the state dropped to seventh largest producer as measured in barrels per month. California still produced over 160 million barrels in 2019, despite its dropping share of national crude oil production, the report stated.

Lobbying is just one of the seven methods that Big Oil uses in California to exercise inordinate influence over California regulators. WSPA and Big Oil wield their power in 7 major ways:

• (1) lobbying
• (2) campaign spending
• (3) serving on and putting shills on regulatory panels
• (4) creating Astroturf groups
• (5) working in collaboration with media
• (6) creating alliances with labor unions
• (7) contributing to non profit organizations

In one glaring example of oil and gas industry officials serving on regulatory panels, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA)Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create “marine protected areas” in Southern California from 2009 to 2012, as well as serving on the task forces to create “marine protected areas” on the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast from 2004 to 20

On February 17, Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) introduced a bill in the California Legislature that would mandate that California’s public pension funds stop investing in fossil fuel companies. SB1173, the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, would require these state pension funds to make no new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest existing fossil fuel investments […]

Dan Bacher February 21st

California State Senator Lena Gonzalez introduces fossil fuel divestment bill

On February 17, Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) introduced a bill in the California Legislature that would mandate that California’s public pension funds stop investing in fossil fuel companies. SB1173, the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, would require these state pension funds to make no new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest existing fossil fuel investments […]

The California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest non-federal pension funds in the country, have over $9 billion invested in fossil fuel companies and related energy sector industries. CalSTRS has about $469 billion in assets, while CalPERS has $327 billion in assets.

A recent  report estimates that out of these funds CalPERS invests $5.5 billion in fossil fuel companies and CalSTRS invests $3.4 billion.

For decades, predominately black and brown, low income communities have suffered from the harmful health effects of living in communities surrounded by oil and gas wells in California, a state that styles itself as a “green” and “progressive” leader but still does not have setbacks from oil and gas wells like other states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, North Dakota and even Texas do.

For Nalleli Cobo of Los Angeles, the need for divestment from fossil fuel companies is very personal. When the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) met publicly with advocates of fossil fuel divestment at a virtual Sustainability Symposium onFebruary 9, Cobo shared her experience growing up near an oil well.

“My health declined,” she testified. “I started getting body spasms so severe I couldn’t move. My mom would have to carry me from one place to another. At the age of 19, I was diagnosed with stage 2 cancer.”

“It’s important that teachers’ money doesn’t go to killing kids, it doesn’t go to damaging their organs or their health; it goes to protecting them and guaranteeing a beautiful life for them,” Cobo said.

Likewise, Lizbeth Ibarra, a 17 year old climate activist who grew up near the Chevron refinery in Richmond, asked CalSTRS, “How much more does my community have to suffer, how much does my future have to be in question for you to decide that your moral responsibility is to pull support from those causing the suffering?”

“Do teachers know that you’re investing their money in supporting destructive projects, from Line 3 to the East Africa crude oil pipeline?” she stated.

Accompanying the introduction of the bill, Gonzalez held a press conference Thursday that featured Miriam Eide, Coordinating Director, Fossil Free California; Carlos Davidson, Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University and California Faculty Association member; Raven Fonseca Jensen, Member,Youth vs Apocalypse;

Senator Gonzalez, who as a mother of three and a resident of a district where residents suffer from exposure to toxics, knows first hand about the impacts of fossil fuel corporations on frontline communities.

“Investing billions in the fossil fuel companies that are polluting our environment while at the same time trying to meet ambitious emissions reduction goals is contradictory and incongruous,” she said. “SB 1173 will ensure we remain true to our values and honor our commitment as a State to protecting the environment and the health and future of all Californians, including historically disadvantaged communities of color that are disproportionately impacted by the hazardous pollutants released into our communities by these companies.”

In response to my question about how divestment bill proponents will overcome the grip that the oil industry lobby has on the Legislature, she said the Legislature passed a similar bill in 2015 requiring CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest from coal companies.

She also noted that an estimated 1,500 institutions with over $39 trillion in  assets have already committed to divestment, including  the University of California, the California State  University, the State and City of New York, the State of  Maine, the Vatican, and the province of Quebec.

“I think the political appetite is out there now for this bill,” she said.

Miriam Eide, Coordinating Director atFossil Free California, said after eight years of CalSTRS and CalPERS ignoring the calls of students, teachers, and state workers to divest their pensions, her group is “grateful to Senator Gonzalez for leading the way in today’s legislative push for pension divestment.”

“Divestment is the right thing to do for climate change and is a smart financial move for our pensions,” echoed Carlos Davidson, CFA Peace & Justice Committee member and retired San Francisco State professor. “We have to stop pretending that fossil fuel companies are good corporate citizens. Their own scientists knew their product was causing climate change, but the companies kept it secret.”

”CFA wields a powerful credential in California, and we can best serve our principles of social and racial justice by taking a lead in climate justice for future generations of students, families and communities,” said Davidson, who helped organize the campaign for CFA to vote for CALPERS divestment last year.

Another CFA member, Anne Luna-Gordinier, a sociology professor at Sacramento State who is of Cherokee and Choctaw ancestry, emphasized SB 1173 is urgently needed now, since “we are facing an existential crisis.”

She cited a recent scientific journal article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01290-z) revealing that the drought in the Western states that started in 2000 represents the driest two decades in 1200 years, in addition to citing a NOAA report stating that coastal areas in the U.S. will see frequent flooding due to climate change.

Finally, Anaya Sayal, a member of Youth Vs Apocalypse, also urged support for SB 1173.

“Divestment is essential to the wellbeing of the large community of people of color being affected by fossil fuel investments, along with the entirety of the planet, which is being greatly harmed,” stated Sayal. “Fossil fuels are heavily contributing to the climate crisis, placing future generations in a horrible situation, even though the current generation could make great strides towards solving this issue so the burden does not completely fall on them.”

Background: Big Oil’s Grip on Sacramento  

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the largest and most powerful corporate lobbying group in Sacramento, has spent over $17.5 million alone lobbying the California Legislature and other state officials over the past three years.

In 2021, WSPA spent $4,397,004 lobbying legislators and state officials to serve Big Oil’s agenda, according to data filed with California Secretary of State’s Office.

The association spent $957,137 on lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2021. The money went to an array of in-house lobbyists and outside lobbying firms, topped by Ramball Environ in Philadelphiathat received $116,981 in the fourth quarter and $366,864 in 2021.

WSPA spent a total of $8.8 million in 2019 and $4,267,181 in 2020 on lobbying California legislators and officials as thousands of oil and gas drilling permits were approved by CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency: www.citywatchla.com/…

In 2020, even a weak bill recommending health and safety setbacks around oil and gas failed to get through the oil industry-friendly California Legislature.

Then in 2021, another stronger bill, SB 467, failed to pass throughout the legislature because of heavy oil industry lobbying of legislators, including those who had received big campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. The bill would have banned fracking by 2023 eliminating fracking and instituting mandatory health and safety zones between oil and gas extraction and places where Californians live, work, and study.

The inordinate influence by Big Oil on California politicians and regulators is most dramatically evidenced by the approval of thousands of new and reworked onshore oil and gas well permits by CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency, since Newsom took office in January 2019.

On the same day the LA City Council voted to ban oil and gas wells in city limits, Consumer Watchdog and FracTracker Alliance reported at www.NewsomWellWatch.org that Governor Newsom has approved 10,212 oil drilling permits since he assumed office in 2019. The total is nearly identical to the number of permits Governor Jerry Brown approved in his first three years.

Lobbying is just one of the seven methods that Big Oil uses in California to exercise inordinate influence over California regulators. WSPA and Big Oil wield their power in 7 major ways: through (1) lobbying; (2) campaign spending; (3) serving on and putting shills on regulatory panels; (4) creating Astroturf groups; (5) working in collaboration with media; (6) creating alliances with labor unions; and (7) contributing to non profit organizations.

In one glaring example of oil and gas industry officials serving on regulatory panels, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired  the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create “marine protected areas” in Southern California from 2009 to 2012, as well as serving on the task forces to create “marine protected areas” on the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast from 2004 to 2012.

DRILL BABY DRILL

New analysis reveals fossil fuel industry’s job claims are ‘wildly inaccurate’ in California, US

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the most powerful corporate lobbying group in Sacramento, claims that there are 368,000 jobs in the oil industry in California. “The oil and gas industry is a vital part of California’s energy mix,” WSPA stated on their website. “As a leading economic force and major employer, we proudly contribute to […]

https://redgreenandblue.org/2022/01/31/new-analysis-reveals-fossil-fuel-industrys-job-claims-wildly-inaccurate-california-us/

no lnx

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the most powerful corporate lobbying group in Sacramento, claims that there are 368,000 jobs in the oil industry in California. “The oil and gas industry is a vital part of California’s energy mix,” WSPA stated on their website. “As a leading economic force and major employer, we proudly contribute to communities across the state, providing more than 368,000 jobs in CA.” www.wspa.org/… But a just-released Food & Water Watch analysis counts just 22,000 jobs in the industry in California, based on Department of Labor statistics — and says this total has dropped 40 percent over the past decade.

By Dan Bacher

“Overall, oIl and gas production account for barely one-tenth of 1 percent of all employment in California,” the analysis revealed.

WSPA spent a total of $4,267,181 on lobbying California legislators and officials in 2020 and $8.8 million in 2019 as thousands of oil and gas drilling permits were approved by CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency: www.citywatchla.com/…

The  research from the environmental organization Food & Water Watch debunks fossil fuel industry claims about job creation throughout the U.S. showing that “overall employment has suffered even as production has increased.”

“When Gov. Gavin Newsom announced modest plans to phase out permitting for new oil production in California, industry advocates freaked out,” according to the analysis. “The Western States Petroleum Association claimed that the oil industry supports close to 368,000 jobs in the state. That is surprising since, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 22,000 Californians were involved in oil production in 2020, down 40 percent from the industry’s peak in 2012. In the Golden State, oil and gas production accounts for barely one-tenth of 1 percent of all employment.”

The analysis notes that one of the most misleading aspects of industry jobs analysis is the conflation of direct jobs with indirect and induced jobs.

“Direct jobs are positions directly within a given industry. Indirect jobs are those within the supply chain that supports that industry, while induced jobs are positions supported by wages from both direct and indirect jobs. Indirect and induced jobs account for nearly 75 percent of the top-line numbers that some oil and gas companies are referencing. Misattributing these jobs to the oil and gas industry itself distorts the size and scope of the industry’s payroll,” the analysis noted.

As the state continues to suffer from devastating fires and drought and salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species continue on the path to extinction, both the state and federal governments continue to approve oil and gas well permits in California.

Today Consumer Watchdog and FracTracker Alliance reported that Governor Newsom has approved 10,212 oil drilling permits since he assumed office in 2019. The total is nearly identical to the number of permits Governor Jerry Brown approved in his first three years.

According to the latest analysis by FracTracker Alliance of permits approved through December 31, 2021, and posted by Consumer Watchdog at www.Newsomwellwatch.org, the number of permit approvals fell from 2020.

“Nevertheless, Newsom’s number is nipping on the heels of Brown’s 10,268 permits dispensed in his first three years in office.  Brown ultimately approved 31,545 wells during his eight years in office,” the groups reported.

More recently, federal data analyzed by the Center for Biological Diversity shows the Biden administration approved 3,557 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first year, far outpacing the Trump administration’s first-year total of 2,658.

In California, the Biden administration approved 187 permits — more than twice the 71 drilling permits Trump approved in that state in his first year.

Fossil fuel jobs decrease as oil and gas production increases

The inflated estimates by WSPA are part of a nation wide campaign by the oil and gas industry to overestimate the number of jobs created by the industry.

For many years, the oil and gas trade association American Petroleum Institute (API) has released “wildly inflated estimates of direct and indirect jobs created by the fracking industry,” ranging from 2.5 million to 11 million, according to the Food and Water Watch analysis.

“But the new analysis – which is based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics – shows that the industry employs far fewer workers than it claims: About 541,000 nationwide, or less than 0.4 percent of all jobs,” the group stated.

The group said fossil fuel jobs losses were “particularly striking” in 2020, when oil and gas employment fell by 22 percent.

“Oil and gas production, however, fell by just 3 percent,” the analysis continued. “While the jobs decline is attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, this is part of a larger trend: Total oil and gas employment has fallen 33 percent since 2014. Over the same period, production has risen 32 percent.”

Food & Water Watch Senior Researcher Oakley Shelton-Thomas said, “The oil and gas industry uses promises of employment to gain political leverage, which has impeded the necessary transition to clean, renewable energy. This research shows that the industry’s jobs claims are not only wildly inaccurate, but that they are able to bring more oil and gas out of the ground with fewer workers. When the jobs disappear – especially in bust years like 2020 – workers and frontline communities bear the pain.”

The group also said the gap between industry jobs misinformation and reality was “particularly wide” in two other oil and gas producing states, Pennsylvania and New Mexico.

• In Pennsylvania, API claimed that a fracking ban would cost over 500,000 jobs. In reality, just under 25,000 workers are employed in the oil and gas industries. Last year, employment in those fields shrank by 20 percent, even though record amounts of gas were produced.

• The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association claimed that stopping fracking on public lands would cost 60,000 jobs. But total oil and gas employment in the state is only about 20,000 (about 2.6 percent of the workforce), and jobs in the industry declined by about 25 percent in 2020.

Oil production forecasted to reach record high in 2023

The analysis came at a time when oil and gas production is expected to increase across the nation. The federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that U.S. oil production will average 12.4 million barrels per day during 2023, surpassing the record high for domestic crude oil production set in 2019 under the Trump administration.

In its January Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), EIA forecasts U.S. crude oil production will increase for nine consecutive quarters, from the fourth quarter of 2021 through 2023. EIA also expects OPEC to increase its crude oil production to 28.9 million barrels per day in 2023, up from an average of 26.3 million barrels per day in 2021.

“We expect global demand for petroleum products to return to and surpass pre-pandemic levels this year, but crude oil production grows at a faster rate in our forecasts,” said EIA Acting Administrator Steve Nalley. “We expect that as crude oil production increases, inventories will begin to replenish and help push prices lower for gasoline, jet fuel, and other products in the short term.”

The agency also forecasts that U.S. commercial crude oil inventories will reach 465 million barrels at the end of 2023, about 11% more than inventories at the end of 2021.

The entire Short-Term Energy Outlook is available  on the EIA website.

==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

...The film deals with the history of the electric car, its modern development, and commercialization. The film focuses primarily on the General Motors EV1, which was made available for lease mainly in Southern California, after the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate in 1990 which required the seven major automobile suppliers in the United States to offer electric vehicles in order to continue sales of their gasoline powered vehicles in California. Nearly 5000 electric cars were designed and manufactured by Chrysler, the Ford Motor Company, General Motors (GM), Honda, Nissan, and Toyota; and then later destroyed or donated to museums and educational institutions. Also discussed are the implications of the events depicted for air pollution, oil dependency, Middle East politics, and global warming.

The film details the California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after relentless pressure and suits from automobile manufacturers, continual pressure from the oil industry, orchestrated hype over a future hydrogen car, and finally the George W. Bush administration.

A portion of the film details GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no consumer demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and destroy them. A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed. GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value; $1.9 million was offered for the remaining 78 cars in Burbank, California before they were crushed. Several activists, including actresses Alexandra Paul and Colette Divine, were arrested in the protest that attempted to block the GM car carriers taking the remaining EV1s off to be crushed.

The film explores some of the motives that may have pushed the auto and oil industries to kill off the electric car. Wally Rippel offers, for example, that the oil companies were afraid of losing their monopoly on transportation fuel over the coming decades; while the auto companies feared short-term costs for EV development and long-term revenue loss because EVs require little maintenance and no tuneups. Others explained the killing differently. GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss argued it was lack of consumer interest due to the maximum range of 80–100 miles per charge, and the relatively high price.

The film also showed the failed attempts by electric car enthusiasts trying to combat auto industry moves, and save the surviving vehicles. Towards the end of the film, a deactivated EV1 car #99 is found in the garage of Petersen Automotive Museum, with former EV sales representative, Chelsea Sexton, invited for a visit.

The film also explores the future of automobile technologies including a deeply critical look at hydrogen vehicles, an upbeat discussion of plug-in hybrids, and examples of other developing EV technologies such as the Tesla Roadster (2008), released on the market two years after the film.

...

The suspects

Hollywood Forever Cemetery as a protest to General Motors' decision to terminate all EV1 leases and crush the electric cars.

The later portion of the film is organized around the following hypothesized culprits in the downfall of the electric car:

American consumers

While few American consumers never heard of the electric cars in California, those who did were not necessarily critical mass for this new technology. Thanks to lower gas prices and infatuation with sport utility vehicles (SUVs), few people sought out this new technology. While some were fans (as chronicled in the film), many more needed time to consider the advantages and disadvantages of these new cars; whether freedom from oil or with the perceived limitations of a city car with a 100-mile range. Although allegations are made about consumers by industry representatives in the film, perhaps explaining the film's "guilty" verdict, the actual consumers interviewed in the film were either unaware that an electric car was ever available to try, or dismayed that they could no longer obtain one.

Batteries

In a bit of an unexpected turn, the film's sole "not-guilty" suspect is batteries, one of the chief culprits if one were to ask the oil or auto industries. At the time GM's EV1 came to market, it came with a lead acid battery with a range of 60 miles. The film suggests that since the average driving distance of Americans in a day is 30 miles or less, for 90% of Americans, electric cars would work as a daily commute car or second car.

The second generation EV1 (and those released by Honda, Toyota, and others) from 1998 to the end of the program, featured nickel-metal-hydride or even lithium-ion (Nissan) batteries with a range of 100 or more miles. The film documents that the company which had supplied batteries for EV1, Ovonics, had been suppressed from announcing improved batteries, with double the range, lest CARB be convinced that batteries were improving. Later, General Motors sold the supplier's majority control share to the Chevron Corporation and Cobasys.

As part of the not-guilty verdict, the famed engineer Alan Cocconi explains that with laptop computer lithium ion batteries, the EV1 could have been upgraded to a range of 300 miles per charge. He makes this point in front of his T-Zero prototype, the car that inspired the Tesla Roadster (2008).

Oil companies

The oil industry, through its major lobby group the Western States Petroleum Association, is brought to task for financing campaigns to kill utility efforts to build public car charging stations. Through astroturfing groups like "Californians Against Utility Abuse" they posed as consumers instead of the industry interests they actually represented.

Mobil and other oil companies are also shown to be advertising directly against electric cars in national publications, even when electric cars seem to have little to do with their core business. At the end of the film, Chevron bought patents and controlling interest in Ovonics, the advanced battery company featured in the film, ostensibly to prevent modern NiMH batteries from being used in non-hybrid electric cars.

The documentary also refers to manipulation of oil prices by overseas suppliers in the 1980s as an example of the industry working to kill competition and keep customers from moving toward alternatives to oil ... EV1s in a junk yard are shown in the film

With GM as its primary example, the film documents that car makers engaged in both positive and negative marketing of the electric car as its intentions toward the car and California legislation changed. In earlier days, GM ran Super Bowl commercials produced by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) for the EV1. In later days it ran "award winning" doomsday-style advertising featuring the EV1 and ran customer surveys which emphasized drawbacks to electronic vehicle technology which were not actually present in the EV1.^[4] (As a side note, CARB officials were quoted claiming that they removed their zero emission vehicle quotas in part because they gave weight to such surveys purportedly showing no demand existing for the EV1s.) Other charges raised on GM included sabotaging their own product program, failing to produce cars to meet existing demand, and refusing to sell cars directly (it only leased them).

The film also describes the history of automaker efforts to destroy competing technologies, such as their destruction through front companies of public transit systems in the United States in the early 20th century. In addition to EV1, the film also depicted how Toyota RAV4 EV, and Honda EV Plus were being cancelled by their respective car companies. The crushing of Honda EV Plus only gained attention after appearing quite by accident on an episode of PBS's California's Gold with Huell Howser.

In an interview with retired GM board member Tom Everhart, the film points out that GM killed the EV1 to focus on more immediately profitable enterprises such as its Hummer and truck brands, instead of preparing for future challenges. Ralph Nader, in a brief appearance, points out that auto makers usually only respond to government regulation when it comes to important advances whether seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, mileage requirements or, by implication, hybrid/electric cars. The film suggests Toyota supported the production of Toyota Prius hybrid in part as a response to Bill Clinton's Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles and other U.S. Government pressure that was later dropped.

Though GM cited cost as a deterrent to continuing with the EV1, the film interviewed critics contending that the cost of batteries and electric vehicles would have been reduced significantly if mass production began, due to economies of scale. There is also discussion about electric cars threatening dealer profits since they have so few service requirements—no tuneups, no oil changes, and less frequent brake jobs because of regenerative braking.

U.S. government

While not overtly political, the film documents that the federal government of the United States under the Presidency of George W. Bush joined the auto-industry suit against California in 2002. This pushed California to abandon its ZEV mandate regulation. The film notes that Bush's chief of staff Andrew Card had recently been head of the American Automobile Manufacturers Alliance in California and then joined the White House with Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and other federal officials who were former executives or board members of oil and auto companies. By failing to increase mileage standards in a meaningful way since the 1970s and now interfering in California, the federal government had again served short-term industry interests at the expense of long-range leadership on issues of oil dependency and cleaner cars.

California Air Resources Board

In 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), headed by Democrat Alan Lloyd, finally caved to industry pressure and drastically scaled back the ZEV mandate. CARB had previously defended the regulation for more than 12 years.

While championing CARB's efforts on behalf of California's with its 1990 mandate (and other regulations over the years), the film suggests Lloyd may have had a conflict of interest, as the director of the California Fuel Cell Partnership. The ZEV change allowed a marginal amount of hydrogen fuel cell cars to be produced in the future, versus the immediate continued growth of its electric car requirement. Footage shot in the meetings showed Lloyd shutting down battery electric car proponents while giving the car makers all the time they wanted to make their points.

Hydrogen fuel cell

The hydrogen fuel cell was presented by the film as an alternative that distracts attention from the real and immediate potential of electric vehicles to an unlikely future possibility embraced by auto makers, oil companies and a pro-business administration in order to buy time and profits for the status quo. The film corroborates the claim that hydrogen vehicles are a mere distraction by stating that "A fuel cell car powered by hydrogen made with electricity uses three to four times more energy than a car powered by batteries" and by interviewing Joseph J. Romm, the author of The Hype about Hydrogen, who lists five problems he sees with hydrogen vehicles: High cost, limits on driving range due to current materials, high costs of hydrogen fuel, the need for entirely new fueling compounds, and competition from other technologies in the marketplace, such as hybrids.

The price of hydrogen has since come down to $4–6/kg (without carbon sequestering) due to reduction in the price of natural gas as a feedstock for steam reforming owing to the proliferation of hydraulic fracturing of shales.^[5] A kilo of hydrogen has the same energy yield as a gallon of gasoline although production currently creates 12.5 kg CO2, 39% more than the 8.91 kg CO2 from a gasoline gallon.^[5]

Response from General Motors

General Motors (GM) responded in a 2006 blog post titled "Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?"^[6] written by Dave Barthmuss of GM's communications department. In his June 15, 2006 post—published 13 days before the film was released in the U.S.—Barthmuss claims not to have seen the film, but believes "there may be some information that the movie did not tell its viewers." He repeats GM's claims that, "despite the substantial investment of money and the enthusiastic fervor of a relatively small number of EV1 drivers — including the filmmaker — the EV1 proved far from a viable commercial success."

He submits it is "good news for electric car enthusiasts" that electric vehicle technology since the EV1 was still being used. It was used in two-mode hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicle programs.

Barthmuss also cites "GM's leadership" in flex-fuel vehicles development, hydrogen fuel cell technology, and their new "active fuel management" system which improve fuel economy, as reasons they feel they are "doing more than any other automaker to address the issues of oil dependence, fuel economy and emissions from vehicles."

Responding to the film's harsh criticisms for discontinuing the EV1, Barthmuss outlines GM's reasons for doing so, implying that GM did so due to inadequate support from parts suppliers, as well as poor consumer demand despite "significant sums (spent) on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it." Barthmuss claimed he personally regretted the way the decision not to sell the EV1s was handled, but stated it was because GM would no longer be able to repair it or "guarantee it could be operated safely over the long term," with lack of available parts making "future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible." He also claimed that "no other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways."

In March 2009, however, outgoing CEO of GM Rick Wagoner said the biggest mistake he ever made as chief executive was killing the EV1 car and failing to direct more resources to electrics and hybrids after such an early lead in this technology.^[7] GM has since championed its electric-car expertise as a key factor in development of its 2010 Chevrolet Volt, Chevy Spark EV, and the Chevrolet Bolt.

Reception...

==

==

https://www.thenation.com/article**/big-oils-grip-on-california/**

...

The US EPA encouraged the crackdown. Its audit of California’s underground-injection program, the first comprehensive review in three decades, came out just after Taylor’s death and found state regulators failing by nearly every measure: They weren’t properly calculating the impacts of drilling on drinking water, ensuring sound well construction, or penalizing companies that broke the law; a state report later found that DOGGR had failed to collect millions of dollars in unpaid fines. Federal officials ordered the state to step up scrutiny of oil projects. Already unhappy with how Miller’s oversight had slowed drilling, the Western States Petroleum Association proposed a shortcut: Regulators would grant permits without the usual environmental reviews, and oil companies would provide the assessments later.

The idea was rejected, but WSPA was undeterred. Behind the scenes, oil-industry representatives lobbied lawmakers and deployed state power brokers, including former governor Gray Davis, legal counsel for Occidental, the country’s fourth-largest oil company. WSPA orchestrated a letter-writing campaign; before long Brown’s office was flooded with missives from oil executives and workers alike, all claiming the industry was on the verge of a shutdown. Brown had a choice: He could back his regulators and risk antagonizing industry—or he could spur energy production and make a powerful ally in the process.

:{In the1970s, Jerry Brown cemented his place in the national imagination as “Governor Moonbeam,” a liberal dreamer who embodied California cool—or California kook, depending on where one stood. He drove a Plymouth Satellite, spurned the governor’s mansion for a mattress on an apartment floor, and dated singer Linda Ronstadt. :{But beneath that caricature lay a policy wonk who embraced the environmental movement like no politician had before. Confronted with California’s booming population and stifling pollution—smog alerts regularly forced schools to cancel recess—he enacted the nation’s first energy-efficiency standards, signed strict clean-air laws, and blocked offshore oil drilling.}:

...

Within weeks of de León’s introducing a bill to enshrine Brown’s goals in law, oil companies and their trade groups began dispensing money to moderate legislators and the black and Latino caucuses. In the last three months of the 2015 legislative session, they spent $11.5 million on lobbying, more than any other industry. WSPA accounted for more than half of that amount. By contrast, NextGen Climate Action, its most moneyed environmental rival, spent $1.2 million.

After nearly a decade of service in Sacramento, de León had never seen anything like it. Although he had accepted oil-company contributions in his career, the lawmaker had come to see climate change as a defining issue. Carbon emissions had had a devastating impact on his Los Angeles district, a diverse swath of poor and working-class neighborhoods, hemmed in by six major freeways and winds carrying harmful ozone pollution from the coast.

Appearing before the Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee, he urged his colleagues to reject the oil industry’s onslaught. “You will hear a carefully calculated blend of factual inaccuracies, logical fallacies, errors of omission, and scare tactics.… Folks would like you to believe that this is a scene out of a movie of ‘Mad Max,’” he said. In the post-apocalyptic action films, oil is a rare commodity.

Seated at a table in a hearing room, WSPA lobbyist Eloy Garcia told lawmakers the bill set aggressive goals without specifics on how to achieve them. As a result, he said, those decisions would be made by the California Air Resources Board, the “vast [and] unrestrained” executive agency charged with implementing the state’s climate programs. “The people of California expect you to make those decisions,” Garcia told the committee. “Power flows from the constitution to the Legislature, down to the regulators, not the other way.” De León’s bill, seeking a 50-percent cut in oil use, was, he said, unrealistic and arbitrary.

“When we set round numbers like 50, 50, 50, why 50? No one’s asking the question,” Garcia said. “Why not 62? Why not 70? Why not 58?”

...

De León fired back. “I agree with Mr. Eloy Garcia. If we want to go 68, 50, 70.… That’s promoted by WSPA,” he said, flashing a smile.

“Why not do 100 percent and justify that to your constituents, that you’re going to take all their fuel away?” Garcia responded.

That summer, WSPA’s “California Drivers Alliance” launched an ad campaign. In one spot, a woman in a black blazer stands at a gas station and says: “If you can afford a Tesla, then this message really won’t matter to you.” She warns that “the California Gas Restriction Act of 2015”—its actual name was the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act—will result in gas rationing and higher fuel costs. “But really, it’s about making it harder for regular people to drive to work and drive home each day.” Environmental groups pushed back with their own ads, and President Obama championed the legislation in an energy speech. But by late August, moderate Democrats were seeking concessions and WSPA offered three pages of amendments to lawmakers and the governor’s office.

Days before the legislative session ended, de León and Brown stripped the oil-reduction component from the bill.“This is one skirmish,” the governor said, “but I’ll tell you, it’s increasing the intensity of my commitment to do everything I can to make sure we reduce oil consumption in California and continue on the path of leading the world in a sustainable future.” The watered-down bill, which maintained Brown’s renewable-energy and efficiency targets, easily passed the Assembly and the governor signed it into law.

In the weeks that followed, WSPA hosted three lawmakers at the Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay, California, where the group was holding its annual conference (one legislator racked up nearly $1,500 in expenses; all three had expressed reservations about the oil-reduction target). Reheis-Boyd said WSPA’s lobbying activities, in practice, were no different than those of other industries seeking to influence policymakers. “There are opportunities to present your views to people who are interested in them,” she said, “and I think anyone would take that opportunity.”

year later, dozens of environmental lobbyists gathered over chicken kabobs and cocktails at Hock Farm, a dimly lit, farm-to-table restaurant three blocks from the Capitol. It was August, four weeks before the end of the legislative session, and the mood was bittersweet. After 14 years in Sacramento, Senator Fran Pavley, the Legislature’s most prominent environmental champion, was retiring,but her top priority—a bill to toughen California’s already-aggressive climate goals—was languishing in the Assembly. After WSPA’s last campaign, few thought it would pass. Even Brown, for all his bombast the previous year, had been meeting with oil representatives in a bid to win support for his climate agenda.

...

Reflecting on their loss, environmentalists had hit on a key vulnerability: the movement’s failure to build relationships in California’s communities of color. As a result, oil companies had successfully cast climate change as a luxury issue for elites, disconnected from the economic realities of low-income and middle-class people. As Rob Stutzman, a Republican operative who has advised WSPA, put it: “The enviros created a battlefield for industry to win on.”

De León and others were determined to change the narrative. Pavley, who represents an affluent, coastal area in Los Angeles, found an unlikely partner in Eduardo Garcia, a first-term Latino assemblyman from the Inland Empire. Concerned about poor air quality in his desert district, he was pushing his own climate legislation, which would prioritize emission cuts at refineries while giving the Legislature more oversight of the Air Resources Board, something moderate Democrats wanted.

The symbolism of that pairing sent a strong message. In Garcia’s district, one of every four residents lives below the poverty line and unemployment approaches 11 percent, more than twice the statewide average. In Imperial County, east of San Diego, emergency room visits by children due to asthma are double California’s rate. “The discussion about preservation and conservation and climate-changing patterns and polar bears dying is extremely important to people,” Garcia said. “But my perspective is how about we put people at the core of the conversation, public health of people, the economic vibrancy of these communities of color that tend to be in the higher proportions of polluted communities.”

The oil industry opposed the measures, but environmentalists stepped up their lobbying. Reversing the previous year’s dynamic, NextGen Climate Action spent $7.3 million on advocacy in the final three months of the legislative session—more than any other special interest and nearly three times WSPA’s outlay. An ad featuring a little girl in front of a refinery blasted oil companies for “trying to weaken our clean air laws.” A coalition of mainstream environmental groups, environmental-justice advocates and clean-energy companies targeted moderate Democrats to correct the perception that “environmentalism is a white issue,” said Quentin Foster, of the California Environmental Justice Alliance. This time, instead of slamming critics as industry lackeys, they catered their approaches to individual lawmakers, emphasizing pollution-reduction efforts to some while playing up the economic opportunities of renewable energy to others. It worked.

Catching oil lobbyists by surprise, supporters rushed the legislation to a vote in the Assembly heading into the final week of the session. The final tally was 42-29—passage, with one vote to spare. The state Senate had already approved the legislation, and Brown lauded the Assembly for “rejecting the brazen deception of the oil lobby and their Trump-inspired allies who deny science and fight every reasonable effort to curb global warming.” Two weeks later, with de León, Pavley, and Garcia by his side, the governor signed the bill into law. The setting: Vista Hermosa Natural Park in downtown Los Angeles, which was built atop an old oil field.

Since the defeat, some in Sacramento see oil’s power slipping. The California Democratic Party, which has received $2.5 million from the oil-and-gas industry in the last decade, announced in November that it would no longer accept political donations from oil companies.

The announcement came after news that the state’s campaign finance watchdog had opened an investigation into allegations that the party had improperly funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the oil-and-gas industry to Brown’s reelection campaign in 2014. Party officials did not respond to a request for comment, but have said they are cooperating with the probe. At the ballot box, the industry lost a marquee legislative race and failed to beat back a ballot measure to ban fracking and new wells in Monterey County, the state’s fourth-largest oil-producing county, despite outspending backers roughly 30 to 1.

On the other hand, November’s elections swelled the ranks of moderate Democrats in the Legislature, giving the industry potential new allies. And oil companies are almost certain to benefit from the Trump administration, which has vowed to relax environmental regulations and overhaul agencies like the EPA, which has played a critical role in reforming DOGGR. “Oil will use every trick in the book,” said Dan Jacobson, head of the advocacy group Environment California. “They’re going to do whatever it takes to keep oil as the main form of energy that moves us from point A to point B.”

Looking beyond Sacramento, WSPA and other oil-trade groups spent nearly $12 million on lawyers, consultants, and fees to persuade Kern County officials to streamline the local permitting process, clearing the way for tens of thousands of new oil wells. Reheis-Boyd said WSPA wanted “regulatory certainty” and called the new system, which charges companies higher fees to help fund clean-air programs, a model for other oil-producing areas. Environmentalists, however, are challenging the measure in court, saying it circumvents the state’s landmark-conservation law and doesn’t go far enough to protect residents who already breathe some of the dirtiest air in the nation.

...

The biggest test of oil’s power could come this year, as Brown seeks legislation to save the state’s embattled cap-and-trade program, the linchpin of California’s climate-change efforts. The program, which requires companies to purchase permits in order to emit greenhouse gases, provides a key source of revenue for the state’s anti-pollution efforts, but the California Chamber of Commerce has challenged it in court, alleging that cap-and-trade is an unconstitutional tax, passed without the required two-thirds majority of the Legislature. 

To eliminate any uncertainty, the governor wants lawmakers to effectively bulletproof the program with a super-majority vote—a feat that will require support from the moderate Democrats who have bucked past climate bills. To win their votes, Brown will likely have to make concessions—and WSPA has long sought leverage to water down or eliminate a rule that requires oil companies to reduce the amount of carbon in their fuels. Brown and his aides insist they have the upper hand—more onerous pollution controls are on the table, they say—and have floated the prospect of a ballot measure to extend cap-and-trade if they fail in the Legislature. But such a fight with the oil industry would be expensive and risky, and if Brown loses, the defeat could have international implications for the fight against climate change; other countries, including China, see California’s system as a model.

For its part, DOGGR, the troubled oil-and-gas regulator, is in the midst of a multi-year “renewal plan,” dedicated to strengthening oversight of the industry and “changing the culture of enforcement” among state regulators, spokeswoman Teresa Schilling said. The agency has sponsored legislation that gives it more power to punish errant oil companies and by this week expects to have forced closure of more than 600 wells that were injecting production fluids and wastewater into protected aquifers, a key requirement under its federal agreement. (WSPA, CIPA, and another trade group are challenging some of those closures in court.)

Still, more than five and a half years after Robert David Taylor’s death, DOGGR has yet to achieve a key objective: updating rules to regulate cyclic steaming. In a statement, Chevron called the accident “a tragic and isolated incident,” adding that it has “a long track record of safely conducting cyclic steaming in the Midway-Sunset Field.” Barred by state law from suing Chevron,Taylor’s family filed a lawsuit against a contractor who worked on the site and another oil company with nearby steam operations; the parties settled last summer. The sole regulatory action in the case remains the one taken by state workplace inspectors. They fined Chevron $350 for failing to inform employees in writing of “necessary safeguards” for working near Well 20, where Taylor was swallowed by a sinkhole. The incident, they said, was an “act of God.”

*Editor’s Note (3/29/17): In January 2017, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Hopkins and others (Committee to Protect Our Water v. Occidental Oil and Gas Co.), ruling that plaintiffs failed to support racketeering and civil rights claims,and that the oil and gas industry’s alleged communications with Governor Brown and DOGGR wereprotected free speech. A separate property-damage lawsuit filed by Hopkins against a different group of companies is pending in state court.

==

https://www**.desmog**.com/western-states-petroleum-association/

background

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), founded in 1907, describes itself as the oldest petroleum trade association in the United States. WSPA maintains headquarters in Sacramento, California with additional offices across the western states.

Membership of WSPA includes large petroleum and energy companies such as Chevron, BP,ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Shell, and numerous others. [1]

WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boydis former chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force designed to create “marine protected areas in Southern California.” *Counterpunch*wrote these areas, created under her leadership, “fail to protect the ocean from fracking, offshore oil drilling, oil spills, pollution, military testing, energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than sustainable fishing and gathering.” [2]

While WSPA‘s official climate policy statement supports “market mechanisms” such as a cap-and-trade program, the organization has fought against bills designed to reduce GHG emissions through a cap and trade system. For example, leaked documents revealedthe WSPA‘s plan to create a network of “citizen activist” groups combatting California’s:{AB:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: 32 Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) in California, Oregon and Washington State. [4]

WSPA projects have included the California Drivers Alliance, a group claiming to represent the “voice of consumers, farmers, small businesses and fuel suppliers in California” while focusing onopposing Senate Bill 350, which would reduce petroleum use in California by 50%while increasing renewables. The group’s website, Californiadriversalliance.org, appears to have ceased operatingin the summer of 2017. [5], [6],[7], [8]

The independent UK-based non-profit InfluenceMap gives the WSPA a poor, or “F” score on climate policy, noting it has specifically lobbyied against policy in U.S state legislatures in California, Oregon, and Washington. [3]

Stance on Climate Change

2017

According to its website, WSPA supports cap-and-trade programs while opposing any direct regulations of greenhouse gas emissions: [9]

“WSPA supports market mechanisms such as a well-designed cap-and-trade program as a cost-effective approach to reducing emissions and achieving stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals […]

WSPA opposes direct command-and-control regulations which have a tendency to drive up compliance costs while having less environmental benefit.”

Notably, while WSPA has publicly presented this position, leaked documents reported byBloomberg show they have also rallied tofight against California’s :{AB:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: 32 cap and trade system. [4]

Funding

WSPA‘s membership has included some of the largest oil, pipeline, and energy companies in the United States such as BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, Shell, Valero and numerous others. View all member companies below.

990 Forms]

lobbying

WSPA has been described as the most powerful corporate lobbying group in Sacramento, spending over $14 million between January 2015 and August 2016. [2]

The WSPA was at thetop of the list of California lobbying groups in 2017, spending almost $1.4 million in the first quarter. [10]

:{**The Sacramento Bee**:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: noted that a majority of the WSPA‘s lobbying expenditures were “under a catch-all ‘other’ category that requires no detailed disclosure showing who benefited or how the money was spent.”[11]

Below is a summary of Lobbying data, based on disclosures at the California Secretary of State’s website: [12]

graf]

According to a sample 2018 lobbing report filed at California Secretary of State, WSPA‘s lobbying focus from January to April 2018 included bills :{AB378:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: and implementation of :{AB398:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, the former regarding the social cost of carbon emissions due to greenhouse gases and the latter which added statements to the Health and Safety Code including that “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” Among numerous other bills, WSPA also lobbied on the low carbon fuel standard rulemaking and cap and trade regulations.[30]

key ppl table

Key People

Name 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Description

Kevin Buchan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Manager, Bay Area Region

Suzanne Noble Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director, Production Operations

Jodie Muller Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Vice President of Government & External Affairs

Steve Slakey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Chief Financial Officer

Catherine Reheis-Boyd Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y President

William Ferrari Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director, Information Technology

Patty Senecal Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director, Southern California Operations

Kris Hollinger Y Y Y Y Y Manager, Finance and Accounting

Jessica Spiegel Y Y Y Y Manager, Northwest Climate Change & Legislative Policy

Tiffany Roberts Y Y Y Y Director, Regulatory & Legislative Policy

Tom Umenhofer Y Y Y Y Vice President, Operations

Bob Brown Y Y Y Director, Bay Area Operations

Bob Poole Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director, Production State & Coastal Issues

Bridget McCann Y Y Manager, Southern California Region

Julie Berge Y Y Manager, Public Relations

Kara Siepmann Y Y Manager, Media Relations

Kevin Slagle Y Y Vice President, Strategic Communications

Oyango Snell Y Y General Counsel

Argelia León Y Manager, Strategic Partnerships

Luis Sanchez Y Manager, California Policy Advocate

Margo Parks Y Manager, California Policy Advocate

Sophie Ellinghouse Y Associate Counsel

Frank Holmes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director, Northwest Operations

Jenifer Pitcher Y Y Y Y Senior Coordinator, San Joaquin Valley Region

Brenna Butler Garcia Y Y Manager, Association Marketing & Constituencies Development

Henry T. Perea Y Senior Vice President, Policy and Strategic

Barbara Chichester Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Senior Analyst, Finance and Accounting

Elaine Delgadillo Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Administrative Assistant, South Coast Region and Associates

Gina Grey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Vice President, Strategic Policy, Fuels, Southwest and Hawaii Regions

Joey Martinelli Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Executive Assistant, Headquarters

Lisa Venegas Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Executive Assistant, Government Affairs and Leadership

Michael D. Wang Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Manager, Cross Regional Issues and Legal Affairs

Sherlee Bailey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Administrative Assistant and SJV External Affairs Assistant

Tupper Hull Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Vice President, Strategic Communications

Marti Tennant Y Y Y Y Y Y Administrative Assistant, Northwest Region

Guy Bjerke Y Y Y Y Manager, Bay Area Region and State Safety Issues

Lisa Hom Y Y Y Administrative Assistant, Headquarters

Nick Ortiz Y Y Y Manager, Production Regions and Property Tax Issues

Sandra Burkhart Y Y Y Senior Coordinator, Coastal Region, State Marine and Waste Issues

Joe Sparano Y Y Y Y Y Executive Advisor to the Chairman of the Board

Michaeleen Mason Y Y Y Director, Climate Change Policy

Steve Schuyler Y Y Senior Coordinator, South Coast Region Environmental Marketing

Dennis Bolt Y Y Y Y Manager, Bay Area Region

John Quirk Y Y Y Coordinator, Finance and Accounting

State Waste Issues Y

Ronald Wilkniss Y Y Senior Coordinator, South Coast Issues

Springer Chandler Y Y Administrative Assistant

Steven Arita Y Y Director of Operations and Cross Regional Issues

Jeffrey B. Wilson Y Manager, External Affairs and South Coast Advocacy

Board of Directors

The following is based on publicly available 990 forms:

Name 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Description

Catherine Reheis-Boyd Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director

Suzanne Noble Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y VP Chief of Staff

Todd Stevens Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director

Jodie Muller Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y VP Gov Affairs

Max Ocansey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director

Steve Slakey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Officer

Frank Holmes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Manager

Brant Fish Y Y Y Director

Dan Yoder Y Y Y Director

Jay Churchill Y Y Y Y Director

Bob Allendorfer Y Y Director

Christina Sistrunk Y Y Chairman

David Sanders Y Y Vice Chair

John McGinnis Y Y Director

Keith Casey Y Y Director

Bob Poole Y

Jeff Dill Y Director

Tom Rizzo Y Director

Tom Umenhofer Y Manager

Michael Barr Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director

Gina Grey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y VP Strategic Pol

Michael Wang Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Manager-Cross Reg

R Tupper Hill Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Officer

Aamir Farid Y Y Y Y Y Y Director

Barry McMahan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director

Gaurdie Banister Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director

Jeff Pitzer Y Y Director

Lane Riggs Y Y Director

Brian Coffman Y Director

Mike Kenney Y Director

Gary Yesavage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Director

Alan J. Cabodi Y Y Y Y Y Y Director

Chris Chandler Y Director

Dan Romasko Y Director

Crystal Ashby Y Y Y Y Y Director

Bill Bodnar Y Y Director

Jean Bernier Y Y Director

Rand Swenson Y Y Director

Joe Sparano Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Will Ferrari Y Y Manager NW

Steve Rathweg Y Y Y Y

Lynn Westall Y Y Y Vice Chair

Doug Comeau Y Y

Thomas Moeller Y Y Director

Larry Ziemba Y Y Y Director

Sal Viscontini Y Director

Tupper Hull Y Director of Communications

Thomas A. Markin Y Y Y

Rich Marcogliese Y Y Y

J.W. “Bill” Haywood Y Y Y

Thomas C. Temple Y Y Y

Bill Albrecht Y

Paul Richmond Y

Eugene J. Voiland Y Y

Ian Scoble Y Y

Ken Dillon Y

Carmine Falcone Y

John Allen Y

Phillip Gobe Y

William Hauschildt Y

Actions

September 26, 2020

Catharine Reheis Boyd, the president of the WSPA, wrote an article for the Sacramento Bee responding to an executive order signed by the Governor of California that would ban the sale ofgas-only cars within 15 years to combat climate change. [38]

The article stated, “when you completely surrender to panic, and dismiss the science and data that have long governed our approach to environmental and energy policy, it only does one thing: it sets California back, increases income inequality and damages an already fragile economy. The economy and our climate-centric environmental policies can work in harmony, but not with one-off executive orders that fail to meet the current reality.”

July 2017

WSPA president Catherine Reheis-Boyd discussed some of her group’s positions in an interview with Oregon Business. Some excerpts below: [13]

On therenewable fuel standard (RFS)

“I hate the low carbon fuel standard. A low carbon fuel standard requires you to blend in gasoline a fuel that has a lower carbon intensity. Right now it’s ethanol. But as the standard ramps up, the low carbon fuel will be harder and harder to find. Because we haven’t cracked the nut. We can’t figure out what’s less carbon intensive than what we have. The minute you can’t get to the next increment — you’re going to pay more. The low carbon fuel standard is a regulation, and it’s not a regulation you can comply with.” [13]

On cap and trade:

“We would support discussing a cap and trade. You can have a well-designed cap and trade and a poorly designed cap and trade. It could be designed worse than the low carbon fuel standard. If Oregon goes down the cap and trade route we hope they will take look at low carbon fuels standard. Because otherwise it is duplicative.” [13]

On a carbon tax:

“We have members in both camps: cap and trade and carbon tax. We won’t support both.” [13]

January 10, 2017

WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd released a statement on Governor Brown’s proposal of continued authorization of a cap-and-trade program in California beyond 2020. According to Reheis-Boyd, achieving GHG reductions targets set in 2016 for California “will be difficult and costly” while “achieving the reductions through a well-designed cap-and-trade program will minimize those costs.” [14]

“Where today’s proposal falls short is that it simply layers the cap-and-trade program on top of costly and counter-productive command-and-control measures, disregarding the increasingly important role of cost containment,” she said. [14]

September 16, 2016

WSPA released a statement suggesting methane emissions regulations proposed by California Air Resources Board (CARB) be extended by at least one year. WSPA also recommended annual as opposed to quarterly inspections of oil and gas production facilities. [15]

August 2015

WSPA released mailers and radio spots to fight against California bill SB 350 (De León-Leno), or the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015.According to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) Adrienne Alvord, who described the WSPA‘s campaign as “one of the most extreme examples of fossil fuel-interest misinformation I’ve ever seen,” the bill was designed to increase California’s share of renewable energy sources to 50%, increase building energy efficiency 50%, and cut California’s usage of oil in half. The mailer was attributed to “California Drivers Alliance,” one of the WSPA‘s “many well-documented astroturf groups.” [16]

WSPA also co-signed a letter to members of the California State Senate to oppose the bill, calling it a “job killer” and claiming it would make Californian business less competitive. [17]

East Bay Express reported the California Drivers Alliance campaign included “conspiracy theories of mostly false and misleading claims about SB 350, […] designed to scare voters and get them to contact the moderate Dems so that they’ll vote ‘no’ on the climate bill.” [18]

California Senate leader Kevin de Leon accused the campaign of “fear-mongering,” The Los Angeles Times reported: [19]

“There is a major campaign of fear-mongering that is very visceral. That’s driven at an emotional level,” he said. [19]

The Sacramento Bee reported that WSPA‘s lobbying expenditures topped $6.7 million, more than double what it spent in the past two quarters, during the final section of the Legislature’s calendar. It was around this time that WSPA was actively fighting against SB 350 and running its ad campaign. [20]

April 17, 2015

WSPA signed on to a letter with other California business groups opposing the California Global Solutions act of 2016 (SB 32, Pavley). The letter claimed the bill, which would mandate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, took “no consideration of the economic side effects.” [21]

2014

The California Drivers Alliance launched a campaign titled “Stop the Hidden Gas Tax,” which warned motorists that gas prices could rise by as much as 76 cents per gallon when provisions under California’s climate law came into effect. UCS noted that, despite these claims, gas prices actually went down on January 1 due, in part, to other factors. [16]

November 11, 2014

A leaked PowerPoint presentation crafted by the WSPA, a copy which was obtained by Bloomberg Businessweek, revealed the group’s plans to throttle AB 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) as well as efforts to fight low carbon fuel standards (LCFS) in California, Oregon, and Washington State. [22], [4]

The presentation deck, by WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd, lays out an astroturf campaign with the creation of orchestrated “grassroots” groups such as the Oregon Climate Change Campaign, Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy, and AB 32 Implementation Group. [22]

“The environmental community is used to sky-is-falling analysis from fossil fuel interests in response to clean energy initiatives, so that part isn’t surprising,” commented Tim O’Connor, a senior attorney at theEnvironmental Defense Fund to whom Bloomberg sent a copy of the presentation. “But it’s eye-opening to see the lengths [the WSPA] has gone to push back rather than move forward. I don’t think anybody knew how cross-jurisdictional, cross-border, and extensive their investment is in creating a false consumer backlash against [climate legislation].” [22]

January 20, 2012

WSPA, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Petroleum Refiners Association (now American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers or AFPM) filed a petition with the EPA, asking to retroactively waive the 2011 biofuel requirement made under the renewable fuel standard (RFS). [23]

In June 2012, WSPA and AFPM went on to file a lawsuit against the EPA‘s RFS, challenging their mandate to blend domestic fuel with ethanol. [24]

Related Organizations

California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce (CAHCC)

WSPA and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce (CAHCC) have participated in a number of events together and have also shared an overlap of staff members.

A press release announcing former San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (SJCHCC) CEO Brenna Butler would be promoted to a position at Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) also lists WSPA as a “Chamber Champion.” [31]

Events

In August 2018, Argelia Leon—Manager of Strategic Partnerships for WSPA—participated in a panel hosted by the Latino Leadership & Policy Forum at the 2018 CAHCC Convention. [32]

In March 2017, WSPA co-hosted a “legislative day” in Sacramento with the San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. [33]

Staff Overlap

Brenna Butler Garcia — Formerly the chief executive officer of CAHCC, Garcia was also formerly WSPA‘s manager for marketing and external engagement from Jan. 2016 to Sept. 2017. [34]

Nicholas Ortiz — Ortiz formerly worked as a production regions manager for WSPA from June 2011 to April 2015. During that time, he was also a board member of the Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. In 2015, he left WSPA to work for the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce. [35], [36], [37]

Other Organizations

California Drivers Alliance — Program of the Western States Petroleum Association. [7]

Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy — Member. [25]

Oregonians for Sound Fuel Policy — Member. [26]

Californians for Energy Independence aka “Californians for a Safe, Secure Energy Future” — Member. [27]

Californians Against Higher Taxes — Member. [28]

WSPA Member Companies

Company 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2017 2018

AERA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Alaska Tanker Company Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Andeavor Y Y

ARCO Y Y

Arguello, Inc. Y Y Y Y

Ashland Oil Company Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Berry Petroleum Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Big West of California, LLC Y Y

BP Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BP/Olympic Pipeline Company Y Y Y

CALNEV Pipe Line Company Y Y Y

CENCO Refining Company Y Y Y

Chevron Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Chevron Pipelines Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Chevron Products Company Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Chevron Shipping Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Conoco Inc./Yellowstone Pipe Line Company Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

ConocoPhillips Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Equilon Enterprises LLC Y Y Y

Exxon Y Y

ExxonMobil Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

ExxonMobil Pipelines Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

GATX Terminals Corporation Y Y

Giant Industries Inc. Y Y Y

HollyFrontier Y

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners Y Y

Kinder Morgan LP/Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Co Y Y Y

Lloyd Properties Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

MarathonOil Company Y Y Y

Mobil Oil Corporation Y Y

Navajo Refining Company Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Noble Energy, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Nuevo Energy Company Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation Y Y Y Y Y Y

Olympic Pipeline Company Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Pacific Operators Offshore Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

PBF Energy Y Y

Pennzoil Company Y Y

Phillips 66 Y Y Y

Plains Exploration and Production Company Y Y Y Y Y Y

Polar Tanker, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Poseidon Petroleum, LLC Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Samedan Oil Corporation Y Y Y Y

Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Company/Kinder Morgan Y

Santa Maria Energy Y Y

Santa Maria Pacific Y

Sante Fe Pacific Pipeline Company Y Y

SeaRiver Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Seneca Resources Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Shell Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Shell Pipeline Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc. Y Y Y

Torch Operating Company Y Y

Tosco Corporation Y Y Y

U.S. Oil & Refining Company Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation Y Y Y

US Oil & Refining Y Y Y

Valero Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Venoco, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Western Refining Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Yellowstone Pipe Line Company Y

Tesoro Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

California Resources Corporation Y Y

Plains All American Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Contact & Address

Western States Petroleum Association [29]

1415 L Street, Suite 600

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 498-7750

Media Contacts

Kara Siepmann

Manager, Media Relations

(916) 325-3110

ksiepmann@wspa.org

@karasiepmann

Kevin Slagle

Director, Strategic Communications

(916) 498-9203

kslagle@wspa.org

@kslagle

Social Media

@OfficialWSPA on Twitter.

Western States Petroleum Association on LinkedIn.

@WSPA on Facebook.

@CA_Drivers (CA Drivers Alliance) on Twitter.

Resources

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/12/18765457.php

my hero Dan Bacher

western States Petroleum Association's Astroturf Campaign Exposed!

by Dan Bacher

Leaked documents provided to Northwest Public Radio, Business Week and other media outlets have exposed a campaign by the Western States Petroleum Association to fund and coordinate a network of “Astroturf” groups to oppose environmental laws and local campaigns against fracking in California, Washington and Oregon.

This network was revealed in a PowerPoint presentation from a Nov. 11 presentation to the Washington Research Council, given by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and former Chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called “marine protected areas” in Southern California.

“The Powerpoint deck details a plan to throttle AB 32 (also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and steps to thwart low carbon fuel standards (known as LCFS) in California, Oregon, and Washington State,” revealed Stop Fooling California, an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies’ efforts to mislead and confuse Californians. “Northwest Public Radio appears to have been the first to confirm the authenticity of the deck, which Bloomberg Businessweek did as well, with WSPA spokesman Tupper Hull.” (http://www.stopfoolingca.org/2014/12/leaked-the-oil-lobbys-conspiracy-to-kill-off-californias-climate-law/)

Specifically, the PowerPoint deck from a presentation by WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd lays out the construction of what environmentalists contend is an elaborate ‘Astroturf' campaign by WSPA, the the oldest petroleum trade association in the United States and the most powerful corporate lobbying organization in Sacramento.

"Astroturfing" is the practice, used often by powerful corporate interests, of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s).

“Groups with names such as Oregon Climate Change Campaign, Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy, and AB 32 Implementation Group are made to look and sound like grassroots citizen-activists while promoting oil industry priorities and actually working against the implementation of AB 32,” Stop Fooling California explained.

A review of the documents (https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/12/12/washington_research_council_-_cathy_reheis-boyd.pdf) confirms the claims by Stop Fooling California. The most controversial slide (9) shows a large circle with a smaller circle labeled "WSPA" in the center, surrounded by circles representing the organization's “coalitions and campaigns." 

These include the Californians for Energy Independence, Californians Against Higher Oil Taxes, Concerned Mineral Owners of California, Kern Citizens for Energy, and “Local Hydraulic Fracturing Campaigns,” all described as “upstream" groups.

The slide also features what the organization describes as “downstream” groups, including the California Drivers Alliance, Fed Up at The Pump, Californians Against Higher Taxes, Save Our Jobs, Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy, AB 32 Implementation Group, Tank the Tax, Oregonians for Sound Fuel Policy, Californians for Affordable & Reliable Energy, Fueling California and California Fuel Facts.

That’s a total of 16 "Astroturf" groups and campaigns orchestrated and funded by WSPA and its allies!

In the same slide, Reheis-Boyd discloses:

“In 2014, WSPA has activated a significant numbers of campaigns and coalitions that have contributed to WSPA’s advocacy goals and continue to respond to aggressive anti-oil initiatives in the West.

Each campaign was structured to address specific state and local issues and provide an excellent opportunity for the petroleum industry to educate consumers and voters in all of WSPA’s five Western States.

WSPA has also invested in several coalitions that are best suited to drive consumer and grassroots messages for regulators and policy makers.”

The PowerPoint presentation also features a series of slides (3-8), entitled “the Worst of Times,” showing photos of activists at a variety of locations protesting against the Keystone Pipeline, against oil trains, for a fracking ban, and demanding climate justice. Photos of Bill McKibben of 350.org and Tom Steyer, billionaire philanthropist, are also included.

The rest of the slides (10 through 31) focus on the “Climate Change Campaigns” by WSPA in California, Oregon and Washington.

Reheis-Boyd responded to media exposure of the WSPA Astroturf campaign by claiming that the PowerPoint presentation wasn't really a "leaked" document - and then touted the organization's "transparency," just like she and her fellow "marine guardians" touted the alleged "transparency" of the MLPA Initiative process that she oversaw.

"I find it fascinating that a handful of gullible news reporters have been convinced this was a 'leaked' document that reveals WSPA’s secret formula for world domination," she claimed.

"The truth is, the presentation in question was given to a public gathering and provided to individuals who requested it– a regular transparent practice we employ at WSPA. The fact we are engaged in partnerships with a large array of business and consumer coalitions isn’t a secret to anyone familiar with our active engagement on behalf of our members in all of the states for which are responsible," the oil industry lobbyist contended.

Unfortunately, not one of the “reporters” who has covered the WSPA “Astroturf” scandal mentioned the even bigger scandal of how the same oil industry lobbyist who delivered the PowerPoint presentation oversaw the creation of fake “marine protected areas” in Southern California, in collaboration with state officials and corporate “environmental” NGOs. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347674/-The-Biggest-Most-Censored-Environmental-Story-Big-Oil-s-Domination-of-California-Politics)

In one of the most overt conflicts of interest in California history, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, not only chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create fake “marine protected areas” on the South Coast, but “served” on the task forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast from 2004 to 2012. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mpa/brtf_bios_sc.asp)

Not only did she sit on the state task forces, but she also "serves" on a federal marine protected area panel.

In her role as “marine guardian,” Reheis Boyd and other members of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force created a “network” of so-called “marine protected areas” that fail to protect the ocean from fracking, offshore oil drilling, pollution, corporate aquaculture, military testing and all human impacts other than fishing and gathering.

After hearing from dozens of speakers at task force meeting on November 11, 2009, Reheis-Boyd and the other panel members selected a controversial plan that would close fishing and gathering in many areas, including waters off Laguna Beach and Point Dume, but do nothing to stop pollution, fracking, oil drilling, military testing or other insults to the ocean in Southern California waters.

"We're not going to make everyone happy, but this has to be done," panel Chairwoman Catherine Reheis-Boyd told the LA Times in an interview before the vote. "It's agony to weigh the environmental goals against people's livelihoods, especially here in Southern California, where the urban/ocean interface is greater than anywhere else in the nation." http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/11/local/me-fishing-ban11

“It's not perfect, but it's something we hope we can live with,” said Reheis-Boyd, according to Sign on San Diego the same day. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/11/panel-expands-sanctuaries-off-county-coast/)

Now not only are we forced to “live with” these fake “marine protected areas,” but we are forced to "live with" the increasingly prominent role that Reheis-Boyd and the oil industry plays in California politics. Reheis-Boyd's rise to power was helped tremendously by the greenwashing of her position on the task forces by Brown and Schwarzenegger administration officials and representatives of corporate "environmental" NGOs, who continually gushed that the corrupt process was "open, transparent and inclusive."

The creation of Astroturf groups and the hijacking by the oil industry of what passes for “marine protection” in California take place in the context of the increasing money and influence the Western States Petroleum Association and the oil industry wields over state, federal and local government officials.

The oil industry has spent over $70 million on lobbyists in California since January 2009,including record amounts of money spent during the third quarter of 2014, according to a recent report written by Will Barrett, the Senior Policy Analyst for the American Lung Association in California. (http://www.lung.org/associations/states/california/advocacy/climate-change/oil-industy-lobbying-report.pdf)

WSPA, the most powerful corporate lobbying organization in Sacramento, topped the oil industry spending with a total of $31,179,039 spent on lobbying since January 1, 2009. Chevron was second in lobbying expenses with a total of $15,542,565 spent during the same period.

From July 1 to September 30 alone, the oil industry spent an unprecedented $7.1 million lobbying elected officials in California “with a major focus on getting oil companies out of a major clean air regulation,” said Barrett.

And this doesn’t include spending on ballot measures or the recent election, including Chevron spending $3 million (unsuccessfully!) to elect “their” candidates to the Richmond City Council. Big Oil also dumped $7.6 million into defeating a measure calling for a fracking ban in Santa Barbara County and nearly $2 million into an unsuccessful campaign to defeat a measure banning fracking and other extreme oil extraction techniques in San Benito County.

People need to understand that the millions Chevron and other oil companies have spent on lobbying, campaign contributions and setting up “Astroturf” groups promoting the oil industry agenda are small change to Big Oil. The five big oil companies – BP, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, Exxon Mobil and Shell – made a combined total of $93 billion in profits last year. Big Oil’s estimated profits in 2014 to date are over $88 billion.

duck 3 22

Catherine Reheis-Boyd - Western States Petroleum Association

:{https://www.wspa.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › staff › catherine-reheis-boyd:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Catherine Reheis-Boyd has served as the President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) since January 1, 2010. She oversees the trade organization's operations and advocacy in five Western states - California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon. Over her 31-year career at WSPA, Ms. Reheis-Boyd

CatherineReheisBoyd

By Catherine Reheis-Boyd, WSPA President and CEO Each year, Earth Day...

Catherine Reheis-Boyd | Climate One

:{https://www.climateone.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › people › catherine-reheis-boyd:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

As the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, Catherine Reheis-Boyd oversees the trade organization's operations and advocacy in five Western states. The Western States Petroleum Association represents major integrated petroleum companies, independent refiners and oil producers. Reheis-Boyd has been affiliated with WSPA since 1990.

Perspectives: A Conversation with Catherine-Reheis-Boyd ...

:{https://www.wspa.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › resource › perspectives-volume-one:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Perspectives: A Conversation with Catherine-Reheis-Boyd, President, WSPA and Kristin Connelly, President and CEO, East Bay Leadership Council June 30, 2021 Engaging and collaborating with leaders from business, labor, environmental justice and the industry at large throughout the Western United States is an integral part of the work the Western ...

Catherine Reheis-Boyd - NACW conference

:{https://www.nacwconference.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › speaker › catherine-reheis-boyd:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Catherine Reheis-Boyd President and CEO, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) Catherine Reheis-Boyd has served as the President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) since January 1, 2010. She oversees the trade organization's operations and advocacy in five Western states - California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon.

Cathy Reheis-Boyd - President - Western States Petroleum ...

:{https://www.linkedin.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › in › cathy-reheis-boyd-71964411:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Cathy Reheis-Boyd President - Western States Petroleum Association Sacramento, California, United States500+ connections Join to Connect Western States Petroleum Association California Polytechnic...

WSPA President's Statement on Gov. Newsom Executive Order ...

:{https://www.wspa.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › resource › wspa-presidents-statement-on-gov-newsom-executive-orders:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd response to Governor Gavin Newsom Executive Order: "We have to understand how this could work. It's interesting that the governor was standing in front of nearly $200,000 worth of electric vehicles as he told Californians that their reliable and affordable cars and trucks would soon be unwelcome in our state.

WSPA Statement on AB 1745 - Western States Petroleum ...

:{https://www.wspa.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › resource › catherine-reheis-boyd-wspa-president-releases-statement-regarding-ab-1745:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

January 4, 2018 Statement from WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd on AB 1745 "WSPA and its member companies oppose AB 1745, a crude and overly simplistic proposal that will hurt the majority of California families and is also likely to undermine California's current track of success in climate leadership.

Meet Nik, Manager of Renewable Energy - wspa.org

:{https://www.wspa.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › resource › meet-nik-manager-of-renewable-energy:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

WSPA President and CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd has issued the following statement regarding the importance of energy production in the West […] Read more. Video Meet Nik, Manager of Renewable Energy . California's oil and gas industry is bringing the people and technology required to drive innovation in the transportation fuels we […]

WSPA's Reheis-Boyd: Oil, gas remain vital to future energy ...

:{https://www.bicmagazine.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › magazine › wspas-reheis-boyd-oil-gas-remain-vital-to-future-energy-mix:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President, Western States Petroleum Association Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), is working to dispel the outdated notion that petroleum producers and environmental advocates are adversaries -- in order to guarantee the future of both.

Blue Ribbon Task Force: Member Biographies

:{https://www.dfg.ca.gov:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › marine › mpa › brtf_bios_sc.asp:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, Chair Catherine (Cathy) Reheis-Boyd is the chief operating officer and chief of staff for the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA).

2

Catherine Reheis-Boyd | Benson Lab

:{https://bensonlab.stanford.edu:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › person › catherine-reheis-boyd:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) Catherine Reheis-Boyd Catherine Reheis-Boyd has served as the President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) since January 1, 2010. She oversees the trade organization's operations and advocacy in five Western states - California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon.

WSPA Statement on Importance of Domestic Energy Production ...

:{https://www.wspa.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › resource › wspa-statement-on-importance-of-domestic-energy-production:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

March 1, 2022 WSPA President and CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd has issued the following statement regarding the importance of energy production in the West and across the nation. "We share the deep sadness and shock so many people around the world feel about Russia's war on Ukraine.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd - NACW conference - North American ...

:{https://2021.nacwconference.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › speaker › catherine-reheis-boyd:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

President and CEO, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) Catherine Reheis-Boyd has served as the President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) since January 1, 2010. She oversees the trade organization's operations and advocacy in five Western states - California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon.

Western States Petroleum Association - DeSmog

:{https://www.desmog.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › western-states-petroleum-association:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Catharine Reheis Boyd, the president of the WSPA, wrote an article for the Sacramento Bee responding to an executive order signed by the Governor of California that would ban the sale of gas-only cars within 15 years to combat climate change. [38]

The Great Equalizer: How Science Can Foster a ... - wspa.org

:{https://www.wspa.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › resource › the-great-equalizer-how-science-can-foster-a-fair-and-equitable-political-environment:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

WSPA President and CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd has issued the following statement regarding the importance of energy production in the West […] Read more. Video Meet Nik, Manager of Renewable Energy . California's oil and gas industry is bringing the people and technology required to drive innovation in the transportation fuels we […]

Western States Petroleum Association Appoints New Vice ...

:{https://www.prnewswire.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › news-releases › western-states-petroleum-association-appoints-new-vice-president-regulatory-affairs-promotes-new-director-301097329.html:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

SACRAMENTO, Calif., July 21, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) President Catherine Reheis-Boyd announced three personnel moves today, the appointment of Tiffany ...

Catherine Reheis-Boyd - NACW conference

:{https://2015.nacwconference.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › speaker › reheis-boyd › index.html:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Catherine Reheis-Boyd has been President of the Western States Petroleum Association since January 1, 2010. She oversees the trade organization's operations and advocacy in five Western states - California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd - Western States Petroleum ...

:{https://www.zoominfo.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › p › Catherine-Reheis-Boyd › 1806433:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

View Catherine Reheis-Boyd's business profile as President at Western States Petroleum Association. Find contact's direct phone number, email address, work history, and more.

:{PDF:(style="margin:-0.2em 0px 0px;padding:1px 0.35em 0px;border:0px;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:600;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:middle;border-radius:var(--default-border-radius);display:inline-block;position:relative;user-select:none;top:-1px;background-color:#d0d0d0;"):}: Catherine Reheis-Boyd

:{https://www.arb.ca.gov:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › lists › com-attach › 27-ogvatberth2019-VSJdKAd2VmQHXgBh.pdf:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Western States Petroleum Association 1415 L Street, #900, Sacramento, CA 95814 916.498.7752 cathy@wspa.org wspa.org California Air Resources Board December 3, 2019

Home - Take Action

:{https://action.wspa.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

•  Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President & CEO of Western States Petroleum Association. READ FULL STATEMENT. What an Equitable Energy Future Means to Us: We believe the dedicated and conscientious women and men of our industry have an important role to play in California's pursuit of a carbon neutral economy.

Western States Petroleum Association Appoints New Vice ...

:{https://fuelsmarketnews.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › western-states-petroleum-association-appoints-new-vice-president-regulatory-affairs-promotes-new-director:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) President Catherine Reheis-Boyd announced three personnel moves, the appointment of Tiffany Roberts as Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, the promotion of Margo Parks to Director, California and Southwest Policy and the hiring of Zach Leary as Manager, California Policy.

Western States Petroleum Association's Astroturf Campaign ...

:{https://www.indybay.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › newsitems › 2014 › 12 › 12 › 18765457.php:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Specifically, the PowerPoint deck from a presentation by WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd lays out the construction of what environmentalists contend is an elaborate 'Astroturf' campaign by WSPA, the the oldest petroleum trade association in the United States and the most powerful corporate lobbying organization in Sacramento.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd | VerdeXchange

:{https://www.verdexchange.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › profile › catherine-reheis-boyd:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Catherine Reheis-Boyd has served as the President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) since January 1, 2010. She oversees the trade organization's operations and advocacy in five Western states - California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon. Over her 27 year career at WSPA, Ms. Reheis-Boyd has held a variety of ...

The Revolving Door: WSPA President/Former MLPA Chair Hires ...

:{https://fishsniffer.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › index.php › 2017 › 04 › 05 › the-revolving-door-wspa-presidentformer-mlpa-chair-hires-former-assemblyman-henry-perea-as-senior-v-p:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

In Perea's new role, he will advise WSPA on public policy and legislative matters in California, according to a statement from Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association and former Chair of the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create so-called "marine protected areas" in ...

Catherine Reheis-Boyd - Fish Sniffer

:{https://fishsniffer.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › index.php › tag › catherine-reheis-boyd:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

As oil companies were fracking off the Southern California Coast, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to created so-called "marine protected areas" in …

Western States Petroleum Association President's statement ...

:{https://markets.businessinsider.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › news › stocks › western-states-petroleum-association-president-s-statement-on-california-power-outages-1029510637?op=1:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Aug. 17, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd comments on California's current energy shortfalls and resulting power outages: "Today, WSPA members have ...

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, Officer at Western States Petroleum ...

:{https://relationshipscience.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › person › catherine-reheis-boyd-55878825:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Catherine Reheis-Boyd is Officer at Western States Petroleum Association. View Catherine Reheis-Boyd's professional profile on Relationship Science, the database of decision makers. ... President, Chief Executive Officer & Director at California Resources Corp.

WSPA tops lobbyist spending with $16.6 million this ...

:{https://www.indybay.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › newsitems › 2016 › 11 › 04 › 18793086.php:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

In a shocking example of deep regulatory capture that state officials and some environmental NGOs don't want to discuss, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the WSPA President, chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create questionable "marine protected areas" in Southern California from 2009 to 2012 as the oil industry was fracking coastal waters.

Western States Petroleum Association: the biggest lobby ...

:{https://www.indybay.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › newsitems › 2016 › 12 › 02 › 18794315.php:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

For example, WSPA President Catherine Reheis- Boyd chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create "marine protected areas" in Southern California from 2009 to 2012. She also served on the task forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast or North Coast from 2004 to 2012.

Western States Petroleum Association - DeSmog

:{https://www.desmog.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › western-states-petroleum-association:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Western States Petroleum Association - DeSmog Western States Petroleum Association ( WSPA) Background The Western States Petroleum Association ( WSPA), founded in 1907, describes itself as the oldest petroleum trade association in the United States.

Western States Petroleum Association Spent $8.9M ... - DeSmog

:{https://www.desmog.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › 2015 › 02 › 05 › western-states-petroleum-association-spent-8-9m-lobbying-against-climate-and-fracking-efforts-california-last-year:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) topped the oil industry spending with a total of $31,179,039 spent on lobbying since January 1, 2009 at the time of Barrett's report. Chevron was second in lobbying expenses with a total of $15,542,565 spent during the same period.

Californians for Affordable & Reliable Energy (CARE) - DeSmog

:{https://www.desmog.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › californians-affordable-reliable-energy-care:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

CARE has worked with the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), a trade association supporting large oil companies including Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Shell, and numerous others. [2] CARE reportedly launched in August 2013 , with its members including Western States Petroleum Association, the California Manufacturers ...

American Petroleum Institute - DeSmog

:{https://www.desmog.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › american-petroleum-institute:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

American Petroleum Institute (API)Background. Based in Washington DC, the American Petroleum Institute (API) is the largest trade association for the oil and gas industry, representing over 600 corporate members "from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry."The API says its mission is to "influence public policy in support of ...

Western Energy Alliance - DeSmog

:{https://www.desmog.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › western-energy-alliance:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Western Energy Alliance (WEA)Background. The Western Energy Alliance (WEA) represents over 300 member companies "engaged in all aspects of environmentally responsible exploration and production (E&P) of oil and natural gas in the West," according to its website.It is located in Denver, Colorado. WEA was founded in 1974 as the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS).

The Oil and Gas Industry is Using the War in ... - desmog.com

:{https://www.desmog.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › 2022 › 03 › 23 › oil-gas-propaganda-war-ukraine-profiteering-climate-change:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

The Oil and Gas Industry is Using the War in Ukraine to Profit and Push Its Interests. Activists warn that calls for more drilling are just "peace washing" the fossil fuels that enabled this conflict. Ukrainian and Italian protesters gather in Piazza del Campidoglio in Rome, Italy, to protest the war in Ukraine.

Total Quits Fossil Fuel Lobby Group the American ... - DeSmog

:{https://www.desmog.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › 2021 › 01 › 15 › total-quits-lobby-group-american-petroleum-institute-climate-change:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Total Quits Fossil Fuel Lobby Group the American Petroleum Institute Over Climate Change. By Nick Cunningham. on Jan 15, 2021 @ 16:55 PST. French oil giant Total announced on Friday that it would not renew its membership to the American Petroleum Institute (API), a stunning blow to the oil industry's most powerful business lobby.

DeSmog News — Greenwashing with 'renewable natural gas'

:{https://www.frackcheckwv.net:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › 2021 › 05 › 08 › desmog-news-—-greenwashing-with-‘renewable-natural-gas’:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

DeSmog News — Greenwashing with 'Renewable Natural Gas'. From the Letter of Brendan DeMelle, Executive Director, DeSmog Blog, May 8, 2021. More than 40 cities have enacted bans on new gas infrastructure, but in the Pacific Northwest one company is trying a new tactic to head off climate policy.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) - DeSmog

:{https://www.desmog.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › canadian-association-petroleum-producers-capp:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)Background. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) describes itself as "the voice of Canada's upstream oil and natural gas industry." 1 "Canada's Upstream Oil & Natural Gas Industry," CAPP.Archived June 16, 2020. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/sPyLu CAPP members are responsible for about 80% of natural gas and crude ...

Living closer to oil and gas drilling linked to higher ...

:{https://www.nationofchange.org:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › 2022 › 01 › 12 › living-closer-to-oil-and-gas-drilling-linked-to-higher-risk-of-pregnancy-complications-new-study-finds:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

The Western States Petroleum Association, whose members include Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and Shell, decried the proposed California rules for purportedly increasing costs on drillers.

X