Consumer Energy Alliance CEA
SEE HBW RESOURCES
big 6?! CoC
Bill Kovacs is actively fighting against environmental impact studies of proposed coal export terminals on the Pacific Coast. In June of 2012, Kovacs wrote a letter:{ asking the Army Corps to ignore calls for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which he considers ““excessive environmental review.” He has compared community opposition to coal export terminals to major battles in the civil war.}:
Kovacks has demanded the EPA conduct a "Scopes Monkey Trial" on the science of climate change.
Bill Kovacs is also the head of the Consumer Energy Alliance, a corporate front-group for anti-environmentalism.
---
==
9 22
2. Third-Party Mobilization
The general public is less likely to be convinced by a narrative that appears only to serve a special
interest, especially one with significant reputational liabilities, such as the oil and gas industry. PR
firms consequently work to make the industry’s positions seem widely supported by a range of
ostensibly unrelated groups, manufacturing the appearance of representing the broader public
interest.32 This tactic can take the form of third-party spokespersons, “generating favorable media
coverage, attributing advertisements to [a] third-party group instead of to the organization, creating
supportive social media, and mobilizing “astroturf” groupsof public supporters.”33 Oil and gas
companies have also created and funded nonprofit entities, which they used to organize opposition
to climate policies.
34 Through these front groups, the industry has funneled tens of millions of
dollars to public relations firms to manage media campaigns.35
A prominent example of such an approach is the successful defeat of a 2016 effort to put on the
Colorado ballot two initiatives that would have altered Colorado’s constitution to (1) give local
municipalities the ability to ban fracking, and (2) prevent oil and gas development within a 2,500-
foot buffer zone from occupied buildings and parks, waterways, playgrounds, and other “areas of
special concern.”36 Seeing an existential threat to its “license to operate,” Noble Energy, a major
natural gas company operating in Colorado (later bought by Chevron), hired PR firm Story
Partners to help it prevent these safeguards from becoming law.
The Committee has obtained documents that reveal, in the PR firm’s own words, howStory
Partners successfully designed and executed its multipronged plan to defeat the initiatives at the
signature-gathering stage (Appendix 5). Story Partners achieved this through tactics including
astroturfing and careful analysis of which kind of message was most likely to persuade people that
the ballot measure would economically harm not only Noble Energy and “the industry at large,”
but the general public as well.37 This campaign and its techniques are discussed in greater detail in
the final section of this memorandum.
Third-party mobilization can also directly reach policymakers and their staff. Following the
Russian invasion of Ukraine, House Natural Resources Committee staff received a series of seven
...p 11
Staff from “HBW Resources” sent the emails and identified themselves as representatives of CEA,
describing it as “a nationwide grassroots organization that supports energy policies ensuring
abundant, affordable, reliable, and sustainable domestic energy supplies.”CEA claims to have
more than 550,000 individual members and to represent “a broad list of organizations that include
farmers, academia, conservation groups, truck drivers, laborers, trades-people, energy producers,
manufacturers, business owners to so much more.”51
Watchdog organization Energy and Policy Institute calls CEA an industry front group, and its
positions align closely with fossil fuel interests. CEA has been accused of engaging in astroturfing
on behalf of the major extractive energy industries.52 The organization received a score of “E-”
from LobbyMap (on an “A+” to “F” scale) on their climate policy’s alignment with the goals of
the Paris Agreement, reflecting CEA’s work to obstruct climate policy and energy transition at the
state and national level.53
HBW Resources, a self-described “government affairs, advocacy, public relations, and
communications firm,”54 appears to run CEA. The organization is run out of HBW’s Houston-based office.
55 IRS forms indicate that CEA has no paid staff and its chief officers include HBW
employees, such as CEA President and Director—David Holt—and Vice President—Michael
Whatley.
56 Since 2010, HBW Resources has been CEA’s highest paid contract by far. Over this
time, 53% of all of CEA’s expenses were paid to HBW, totaling nearly $17 million.57 Large sums
were also paid to two PR firms currently under investigation by this Committee, FTI Consulting
and Story Partners.58
P 14
...reaffirmedNoble Energy as a strong partner in the community.”74 Meanwhile, print and digital
advertisements “creatively told the story of the unintended consequences of the proposed ballot
measures,” and “informed voters of the products and services dependent on oil and natural gas,
both from a funding point of view and from a resources perspective.”75 These narratives position
Noble as a socially responsible member of the community, while eliding the full environmental
and public health burden the fossil fuel industry creates in Colorado.
These advertisements against proposed fracking restrictions ran “under the brand of the South
Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce (SMDC),” and “concurrently under the banner of the
Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA),” creating the illusion of third-party mobilization.
76 Notably,
“guerilla marketing teams attended dozens of Colorado events and engaged hundreds of thousands
of citizens.”77Story Partners’ budget for this campaign is not public information, but CEA’s tax
filings show that the organization paid the PR firm $535,442 in 2016 for “communications,”
presumably for this effort.
78
Story Partners called the campaign a “huge success,” and “an enormous, measurable achievement
for Noble Energy.”79 The PR firm noted that a survey, “after just two months of campaign activity,
indicated that support for the specific ballot measures dropped to its lowest point in our research,
and opposition to the measures had increased. For the first time, support for the measures was
under 51 percent, and it was clear the campaign messages were working and recalled.”80 The PR
campaign had successfully stopped climate legislation.
Two years later, there was an effort to revive the buffer zone ballot measure. Proposition 112(aka
initiative 97) was a 2018 Colorado ballot initiative designed to mandate that new oil and gas
development, including fracking, be sited a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied
buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable. The measure
was brought by grassroots environmental group Colorado Rising.81
Industry pushback was coordinated, sophisticated, and heavily funded. Oil and gas firms funneled
millions of dollars into coordinated PR campaigns to defeat Proposition 112.82 Oil and gas industry
[CRED protect colo]
P18
attempted to end their contract while demanding additional payments.96,97 When Colorado Rising
contracted with another signature-gathering firm, the firm broke the contract several days later. In
a recorded conversation shared with the Committee, a subcontractor admitted to taking a bribe of
“a lot” of money to stop working with Colorado Rising. He also stated the people who paid him
off had asked him to give them the signatures he had gathered for Proposition 112, but he did not
confirm or deny that the request came from Protect Colorado, the Pac/West front group. (Appendix
7(a))
98
Volunteers for Colorado Rising also experienced harassment in their volunteer and personal
capacities. Members of the opposition attempted to infiltrate their campaign trainings, showed up
repeatedly at their press conferences and outside their campaign office to monitor them, and
monitored the campaign’s delivery of signatures to the Secretary of State’s office. In her personal
life, the witness was followed around town by unidentified men – who also showed up to record
Colorado Rising press conferences – and received unsolicited texts from one of the people who
attempted to infiltrate their campaign (Appendix 7(b)).
99 Another lead volunteer received
harassing mail at her home address (Appendix 7(c)).[gun in waitband?]
100
CONCLUSION
For decades, the oil and gas industry denied or downplayed climate change and its role in causing
it. Now that fossil fuel companies and trade groups can no longer get away with outright denial,
they pay millions to PR firms to wage sophisticated and varied campaigns that go far beyond mere
marketing. These efforts include falsely depicting industry as joining the fight against climate
change, engineering astroturf “citizen” groups to advocate for industry interests and defeat
legislative proposals, and using unscrupulous tactics to sabotage genuine policy solutions and
attack community advocates. These modern techniques are arguably far more insidious than the
denialism of the past, thanks to the pivotal involvement of PR firms.[long appendix rich st'd CEA, threat ltr]
---
---
[[why only one of big 4 out front?
BACK IN LATE 2021, as Russian President Vladimir Putin began mobilizing troops at the Ukraine border, the fossil fuel industry got its foot soldiers ready too. With the threat of Russian aggression and subsequent sanctions looming, gas prices were on the rise, and the fossil fuel industry wanted the public to know that there was only one culprit: climate policy.
“There are a lot of factors at play as to why energy prices are surging,” Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, or API, told CNBC at the time. “But certainly one of the key factors is that the Biden administration has made an effort to reduce production in the United States. One of their first acts, for example, was cutting off the Keystone XL pipeline. One of their second acts was cutting up leasing and permitting on federal lands, and then they cut off access to ANWR,” referring to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
He gave roughly the same interview every week for months. On March 7, two weeks after the invasion of Ukraine, he repeated it again, telling a CBS reporter, “You know, first they cut off the Keystone XL pipeline. Then they put a moratorium on leasing and permitting on federal lands and on offshore waters. And then they cut off supply from the Alaska natural national wildlife refuge.”
[no lnx]
that’s some consistent messaging! For the record, about 25 percent of fossil fuel drilling happens on public lands; the rest is entirely controlled by private companies. The fossil fuel industry is sitting on at least a decade’s worth of unused leases, so it’s unlikely that a lack of new leases has impacted current production or supply.
The Keystone XL pipeline was intended to transport tar sands oil from Canada to export terminals in the Gulf of Mexico, where two-thirds of it was earmarked for non-U.S. customers. It was nowhere near functional when it was canceled: About 8 percent of the pipeline had been built, and TC Energy, the company behind the project, still needed to find $6.9 billion of the $8 billion construction cost to finish it.
As for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the holy grail for U.S. oil companies, it has been off-limits to oil drilling since 1977. For a brief moment in 2017, the Trump administration reversed that, but no major oil companies — no API members — even bid on leases.These are the only pieces of climate policy Sommers continuously referred to because they’re the only ones the Biden administration has actually managed to pass, but none of them have had any impact on the current supply of domestic oil and gas in the United States or the price at the pump.
But the facts don’t matter if you’re the first one to frame a story and you repeat it often enough.A new report out this week shows that consistent messaging, coordinated messengers, and a massive advertising blitz combined to deliver major policy wins to the fossil fuel industry as early as two weeks from the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“On February 24, within hours of Putin’s invasion, I was just watching these serious patterns emerge,” said Christina Arena, a public relations and climate disinformation expert. Arena worked for the PR firm Edelman when it handled the API account, so she knows a campaign when she sees one. “API and other trade associations were echoing similar talking points immediately, anti-Biden talking points, anti-renewable energy talking points.” That kind of consistency and media training takes months, not days, to prep, she said.
That prompted Arena to reach out to InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks the influence of corporate lobbying on climate policy. InfluenceMap teamed up with Media Matters for America and Triplecheck to look into what various fossil fuel interests were saying about Russia-Ukraine and how those messages were being amplified. The organizations’ resulting report pinpoints the top messages and messengers, and how they map to big policy wins.
Some of the findings are to be expected. API went big, as did Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The usual suspects amplified the industry’s messaging: Breitbart News, Fox News, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, and Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn.All told, API placed 651 Facebook ads from the end of January to April 1, reaching more than 19 million people.On February 24, the day of the invasion, API and its network got busy. “There’s a huge peak where we get to 100 fossil fuel misinformation posts that yielded over5 million likes, comments, and shares,” Arena noted.
[“I think you could call it a disinformation-driven heist of public policy.”
But there are some less expected findings too. After battling gas bans for two years, the gas side of the industry seems to have fully embraced the fact that the climate movement doesn’t see it as its friend anymore. Gas entities that joined the party include the American Gas Association (a trade group for gas utilities), Hess Corp., and Sempra Infrastructure.
The types of messages were also a surprise. After a decade or so of greenwashing, the fossil fuel industry is going full culture war. The report finds three key messages across hundreds of social media posts and media appearances: American fossil fuel production ensures freedom and national security; high gas prices are caused by climate policy, and the solution is more drilling; and climate change is something only liberal “woke” elites care about.
There’s also a push to convince people that some kind of Green New Deal-adjacent policy is in place and that is what’s driving up gas prices. “I think you could call it a disinformation-driven heist of public policy,” Arena said.
And there’s the timeline, and the dividends this campaign has paid to the industry. By mid-March, the Energy Department was starting to grant permits to increase the volume at some liquid natural gas export terminals. “So that’s two weeks maybe from the start of the crisis,” said Faye Holder, the lead author of the InfluenceMap report. “We’ve seen a heavy, heavy use of social media, both in advertising and organic content. And then they’re feeding off of media too. A lot of the things that are retweeted by API, for instance, are Mike Sommers on Fox News.”
By March 25, Biden was announcing a U.S.-European Union liquefied natural gas deal that the Trump administration had tried and failed to get done: 15 billion cubic meters in 2022, with a standing order for 50 billion cubic meters a year until 2030. “That’s just a little over four weeks. That’s a very short interval,” Arena said. “And I feel that interval should alarm lawmakers. It should alarm people in the climate community. That’s disaster capitalism.”
---
some lnx
...but there are some less expected findings too. After battling gas bans for two years, the gas side of the industry seems to have fully embraced the fact that the climate movement doesn’t see it as its friend anymore. Gas entities that joined the party include the American Gas Association (a trade group for gas utilities), Hess Corp., and Sempra Infrastructure.
The types of messages were also a surprise. After a decade or so of greenwashing, the fossil fuel industry is going full culture war. The report finds three key messages across hundreds of social media posts and media appearances: American fossil fuel production ensures freedom and national security; high gas prices are caused by climate policy, and the solution is more drilling; and climate change is something only liberal “woke” elites care about.
There’s also a push to convince people that some kind of Green New Deal-adjacent policy is in place and that is what’s driving up gas prices. “I think you could call it a disinformation-driven heist of public policy,” Arena said.
And there’s the timeline, and the dividends this campaign has paid to the industry. By mid-March, the Energy Department was starting to grant permits to increase the volume at some liquid natural gas export terminals. “So that’s two weeks maybe from the start of the crisis,” said Faye Holder, the lead author of the InfluenceMap report. “We’ve seen a heavy, heavy use of social media, both in advertising and organic content. And then they’re feeding off of media too. A lot of the things that are retweeted by API, for instance, are Mike Sommers on Fox News.”
By March 25, Biden was announcing a U.S.-European Union liquefied natural gas deal that the Trump administration had tried and failed to get done: 15 billion cubic meters in 2022, with a standing order for 50 billion cubic meters a year until 2030. “That’s just a little over four weeks. That’s a very short interval,” Arena said. “And I feel that interval should alarm lawmakers. It should alarm people in the climate community. That’s disaster capitalism.”
---
ref
https://influencemap.org/report/US-Oil-and-Gas-and-the-War-in-Ukraine-19009
How the US oil/gas sector is using the war in Ukraine to undermine Paris-aligned climate policy
See coverage in Agence France-Presse, Forbes Middle East, DeSmog, and The Intercept
This research details an active effort from the US oil and gas industry use the war in Ukraine to advocate for long-standing policy asks relating to the continued expansion of oil and gas. The research looks at the month following the invasion of Ukraine on the 24th February 2022. This has happened across social media, traditional media, public presentations, investor calls, and direct interactions with America’s policymakers. This lobbying behavior mirrors that seen from the oil and gas industry following the COVID-19 crisis.
The industry appears to be using a number of key narratives to push its pro-fossil fuel agenda, many of which appear to include misleading claims or misinformation. These narratives include blaming the Biden Administration's climate policies for the increase in gas prices, calling for the development of more US oil and gas to lower gas prices and increase energy security, promoting LNG as a clean solution to the US's 'allies'.
These narratives are being used to push for a long-term role for oil and fossil gas in the energy mix and appear to be targeted towards specific policy demands. These include advocating for policies which encourage new and/or increased oil and gas production, and rolling back previous climate policy decisions that limited the production of oil and gas or required climate considerations in new projects.
While calling for policies to increase the production of oil and gas, the oil and gas industry continues to actively oppose a number of state level policies designed to reduce the need for fossil fuels. These include opposing fossil gas bans in new buildings and electric vehicle mandates.
---
report
executive Summary :
This research details an active effort from the US oil and gas industry to use the war in Ukraine to advocate for long-standing policy asks relating to the continued expansion of oil and gas. This has happened across social media, traditional media, public presentations, investor calls, and direct interactions with America’s policymakers. This research focuses on the month following the invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022.
The main actors identified in this briefing are the American Petroleum Institute, American Gas Association, National Association of Manufacturers, US Chamber of Commerce, and Consumer Energy Alliance. The lobbying evidence collected covers letters to policymakers, large social media advertising campaigns, and public statements by CEOs. The latter of which also includes speeches and media comments from company CEOs and presidents such as Mike Wirth from Chevron and Ryan Lance from ConocoPhillips.
The research identifies several key narratives used by the industry to push a pro-fossil fuel agenda during this period. Some of these narratives, particularly those about the causes of the current crises appear to include misleading claims or elements of misinformation. These narratives include: o That the Biden Administration's climate policies have caused a decrease in the supply of oil and gas, leading to high gas prices. A similar narrative used is that the Biden Administration's policies have undermined US energy independence, making America reliant on foreign oil. Both narratives have been found to be misleading by AFP fact-checker.
o That the way to fix gas prices and increase energy security/independence is to increase the supply of US oil and gas, which can be achieved through favorable government policies.
o That LNG is a clean, low-carbon source of energy that can help transition the energy mix and achieve emissions reduction goals. This claim has previously been regulated against by advertising authorities in the UK for containing misleading claims. Moreover, increasing the production of oil and gas is at odds with the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its latest report "Mitigation of Climate Change".
InfluenceMap has seen these narratives used by CEOs of major oil and gas companies in the US, particularly during CERAWeek, a major energy conference. For example, Ryan Lance, CEO...
conocoPhillips, stated that “poor energy policy, poor regulatory policy […] rapid push to renewable
energy and a maligning of the of fossil fuel industry" has led to the increase in gas prices.
These narratives have also been heavily pushed on social media. For example, between February
4th and March 31st, 2022, theAmerican Petroleum Institute created and ran an ad campaign
through its astroturf group, Energy Citizens, which consisted of 233 individual ads that were seen
roughly19.6 million times, equivalent to around 10% of all US users of Facebook (Q1 2022). All of
these ads promoted 'American-made energy' or 'energy independence'.
These narratives are being used to push for a long-term role for oil and fossil gas in the energy mix.
The companies and industry associations identified in the research appear to have targeted the
following policy issues:
o Introducing measures that encourage new and/or increased oil and gas production.
o Rolling back previous policy decisions that limit the production of oil and gas or introduce
considerations for climate change in approval processes for oil and gas production.
o Opposing current state-level policies that would reduce the need for oil and gas and
alleviate pressures stemming from demand for oil and gas.
Recent wins for the US oil and gas industry resulting from this lobbying include the rollback of the
FERC's proposal to consider climate change when permitting new gas projects on March 24th
2022, and the approval of two new LNG export terminals on March 16th 2022.]]
---
---
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bp-shell-climate_n_5f6e3120c5b64deddeed6762
---
some lnx
...both companies claim to strongly support carbon pricing, including in Oregon. Yet several employees of both BP and Shell at the time are listed as recipients of these emails. Shell confirmed that it is a member. BP declined to comment.
Though the companies failed to disclose it in their reviews, BP and Shell are also listed as top members of theConsumer Energy Alliance. The group bills itself as the “voice of the energy consumer,” but is actually run by the Republican-linked consultancy HBW Resources.
After running campaigns to oppose President Barack Obama’s rules to limit emissions of methane from oil and gas operations and pollution from coal power stations, the Consumer Energy Alliance turned its attention to state-level fights. The group was party to a lawsuit seeking to overturn Oregon’s clean fuel program, which aims to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuels. The case concluded unsuccessfully in March 2019.
In a statement, the Consumer Energy Alliance said it fought Oregon’s clean fuel program because it would have raised prices without achieving significant environmental outcomes. The group said it opposed the Obama administration’s methane rule because it “would have interfered with the successful performance of state rules that were already reducing methane emissions.”
Methane Haze
When President Donald Trump moved to roll back the methane rule shortly after taking office, BP and Shell publicly opposed the move.
“We don’t usually tell governments how to do their job but we’re ready to break with that and say, ‘Actually, we want to tell you how to do your job,’” Shell’s U.S. Country Chair Gretchen Watkins told Reuters at a March 2019 conference, urging the Trump administration “to put in a regulatory framework that will both regulate existing methane emissions by also future methane emissions.”
When the Environmental Protection Agency finalized plans to gut the methane rule in August, David Lawler, the head of BP America, issued a statement saying the company “respectfully disagrees with today’s decision by the administration.”...
meanwhile, the Petroleum Association of Wyoming ― on whose board a BP executive sits ― joined a lawsuit last year to allow the leasing of public lands for oil and gas drilling without assessing the climate impacts.
Among the other major groups BP and Shell left off their reviews was the National Ocean Industries Association, which successfully lobbied the Trump administrationto open up the United State’s entire continental shelf to drilling.
The move would open up areas containing up to 45 billion barrels of oil ― 21 billion barrels of which are estimated to be economically recoverable ― and jeopardize chances of meeting the Paris climate goals. A report released by the campaign group Global Witness last year found that any investment in new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial norms, an average temperature roughly half a degree warmer than today.
NOIA has also lobbied the Trump administration to exclude the wider climate impacts of oil and gas projects from being assessed as part of the process of approving major infrastructure. Earlier this year Unearthed reported that BP has lobbied in support of these changes.
“We think it’s important that we continue to responsibly explore for and develop U.S. offshore resources to counter the natural decline of existing fields,” a Shell spokeswoman said. “It’s equally important that regulators ensure sound science can be gathered from prospective new areas to inform potential leasing and future exploration decisions.”
Australia’s Climate Loophole
...
---
https://www.**desmog**.com/consumer-energy-alliance-cea/ 4 22
Background
The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is an energy industry PR and government affairs organization founded by Republican lobbyist Michael Whatley of HBW Resources, a leading proponent of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Canadian tar sands industry. [1], [2], [3]
CEA‘s member groupsinclude petroleum giants BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Chevron, among many others. It has received “operational support” from the American Natural Gas Association, and additional funding from the American Petroleum Institute. The CEA engages in targeted media messaging and government lobbying to advance pro-industry agenda items such as offshore drilling, deregulation, and refineries expansion. [4]
The Center for Public Integrity (CIP) reported the group was founded in 2006, with a formative board consisting of executives from Shell and Hess Corporation, as well as a number of other industries.Jim Martin, Chairman of the 60 Plus Association, was also a board member.[5]
According their website, CEA “is the leading consumer advocate in support of affordable, reliable energy for working families, seniors, and small businesses across the country.” [6]
In 2011, FOIA requests and investigative reporting by**Salon.com confirmed the CEA is an industry front group established to influence public perception and government regulation in favor of extractive energy industries. [1], [7]
CEA has faced multiple accusations (2014, 2016, and most recently in 2018) of submitting fake comments in support of legislation that would benefit utility companies, often at the cost of higher energy prices for consumers.
Pro-Industry Stance
In documents filed with the IRS, the CEA describes their primary exempt purpose as a non-profit organization as “Education of the General Public,” and have listedtheir stated missionis “to expand the dialogue between the energy and consuming sectors.”[8]
As part of its purpose and mission, the CEA has engaged in media campaigns critical of proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standards.In 2011 tax filings the CEA listed as an accomplishment under its exempt purposes “specific outreach/education efforts to improve public understanding and negative economic impacts associated with currently proposed LCFS programs.” [8]
Energy4Us
Energy4US.org describes itself as a “coalition of consumers, businesses and workers united in the belief that energy empowers us, allows us choices and improves our quality of life.” The group includes members suchAmerican Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and has focused on fighting against the renewable fuel standard among other regulations on the fossil fuel industry. [9]
According to the Internet Archive, as of 2015 the Consumer Energy Alliance’s former website SecureOurFuels.orgredirected to Energy4US.org (Secureourfuels.org is now owned by an industrial supply company).
[WAYBK GRFX]
thefirst and second blog posts at the Energy4US website reaffirm that Energy4US.org grew from CEA‘s SecureOurFuels campaign.[10],[11]
Before SecureOurFuels (SOF) began redirecting to the Energy4US website in 2015, contact information at the SOF website listed names of CEA staff members Casey O’Shea, Michael Whatley and David Holt. Michael Whatley and David Holt are two of the three founders and partners listed at HBW Resources. [12]
The Energy4Us.org website features CEA vice president Michael Whatley’s work on low carbon fuel standards repeatedly. Referring to Whatley as a “leading low-carbon fuel expert,” the website also features Whatley’s talking points on its “Gettin’ the facts out” page. [13], [14]
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Ties
The Center for Media and Democracy’s **PR Watch**reported that CEA‘s Michael Whatley regularly attended ALEC meetings. In August 2013, he attended their International Relations Task Force meeting with a briefing on the KXL pipeline. CEA has repeatedly attended ALEC events, often to present on issues related to the Keystone pipeline.[15]
CEA was also a sponsor of an “:{ALEC Academy” in Alberta focused on the tar sands, according to documents obtained by CMD. [16]}:
CEA, HBW Resources, and Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition
In 2015, Facing South** published the results of an 18-month investigation, and outlined the “unusual relationship” between the the Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition, a group founded in 2011 to expand offshore drilling following the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, HBW Resources and its “sister group,” the Consumer Energy Alliance. [17]
Staff for CEA and HBW Resources has largely overlapped, with a few exceptions. Littlesis has outlined some of the connections between the two groups. [5], [18]
[SOCIO GRF]
NO WIDGET NO LNX
...BW Resources has been listed as an Independent Contractor according to CEA‘s expenses in 2016, as shown in IRS filings. The Energy and Policy Institute reported CEA funnelled $9.1 million, or 43%, of revenue to HBW Resources. From 2010 to 2016, HBW received a total of $7,717,053 from CEA according to tax forms. [19]
Stance on Climate Change
July 3, 2013
Michael Whatley described President Obama’s climate change plan as “troubling”:[20]
“What’s so troubling about these potential EPA regulations? For electricity consumers, the rules will undoubtedly lead to an uncertain future for coal, but clear ramifications for consumers: less fuel diversity and higher electricity costs. EPA’s actions have the potential to shutter hundreds of coal-fired power plants across the nation, forcing utilities to switch generation fuel and invest billions in upgrades and new facilities. All this means higher costs for ratepayers.
“With coal producing over 40% of our nation’s electricity, limiting its potential will present a significant set of challenges that need to be carefully analyzed before we move forward with anything as ambitious as the President has outlined.”
[…]
“The President has laid out an aggressive plan – a plan that includes measures which will significantly and adversely affect electricity consumers across the United States for decades to come. Every homeowner, business, manufacturer and electricity consumer will undoubtedly feel the painful effects of higher energy costs under the President’s proposed plan. Congress must take an active oversight role in order to prevent these negative ramifications for our nation’s electricity consumers.”
On Solar
The Energy and Policy Institute (EPI) reports that while CEA claims to take a pro-solar stance, their website solarenergyfuture.org “offers no pro-solar advocacy, and thinly-veiled utility attacks on rooftop solar companies.” [19]
“The strategy of appearing to promote solar while attacking it is straight from the utility industry’s playbook, both in terms of its revamped “pro-clean energy” messaging designed to confuse, and its political tactics,” EPI notes. [19]
CEA has supported Amendment 1 in Florida, while CEA member company Florida Light and Power was a major funder of the ballot initiative that EPI described as “a controversial ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to pave the way for more restrictions and fees for solar customers.” [21], [22]
Funding
CEA as Recipient
The following is based on data collected by the Conservative Transparency (CT) project and 990 tax forms. According to CT, the Consumer Energy Alliance received regular funding from the American Petroleum Institute and the American Natural Gas Alliance between 2008 and 2012. [23]
American Natural Gas Alliance (Subtotal $194,500)
2010 $15,000
2011 $158,000
2013 $6,500
2014 $15,000
American Petroleum Institute (Subtotal $332,500)
2008 $30,000
2009 $67,500
2010 $35,000
2011 $50,000
2012 $100,000
2013 $50,000
Grand Total $527,000
Independent Contractors
In addition to the above grants, CEA was also hired to carry out “consulting” services for at least $2 million according to American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers 990 forms.
Year Hiring Group Description of Services Compensation
2013 American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Consulting $522,500
2012 American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Consulting $790,000
2011 American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Consulting $1,045,000
– – Grand Total $2,357,500
Since 2011, according to publicly available 990 forms, the CEA has paid HBW Resources (which also lists CEA president David Holt as Managing Partner) over $1 million per year for “management and professional” services.
Below is a summary of 3rd party contractors hired by CEA, according to their annual 990s:
Business Name 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Grand Total
HBW Resources $392,130 $1,347,500 $1,240,000 $1,327,500 $1,051,394 $1,206,529 $1,152,000 $7,717,053
FTI Consulting $596,030 $620,000 $440,000 $1,656,030
Advocacy Group $373,221 $236,800 $232,800 $842,821
SmartMark Communications $140,376 $228,329 $196,402 $149,854 $714,961
Story Partners $535,442 $535,442
Staging Solutions $168,270 $166,250 $111,600 $446,120
Revolution Agency $191,976 $191,976
Amanda Orr $26,000 $26,000
David Batt $22,255 $22,255
Roetzel and Andress $11,346 $11,346
Cloberland $11,346 $11,346
Grand Total $463,077 $2,676,997 $2,096,800 $2,306,926 $1,391,323 $1,402,931 $1,837,296 $12,175,350
[990 Forms]
...
NO LNX
Key People
Board of Directors
Name 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Title Company
David Holt Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ex-Officio Consumer Energy Alliance
Mark Pulliam Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SwayPay, Inc.
John Heimlich Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Vice Chair Airlines for America
Wayne Zemke Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Caterpillar, Inc.
Brett Vassey Y Y Y Y Y Y Chairman Virginia Manufacturers Association
Brian Welch Y Y Y Y Y Treasurer Marsh Wortham
John Eichberger Y Y Y Y National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS)
Randy Velarde Y Y Y The Plaza Group
Chad Eaton Y Nucor Corporation
Jennifer Diggins Y Y Y Y Y Nucor Corporation
Troy Bredenkamp Y Y Y Y Nebraska Rural Electric Association
David Harbour Y Y Y Y Y APR CEA
RichMoskowitz Y Y Y Y American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
David Blackmon Y Y Y Y El Paso Corporation
Melissa Taldykin Y Y Y Y Consumer Energy Education Foundation
Jack Belcher Y
Staff
Name 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Title
David Holt Y Y Y Y Y Ex-Officio
Andrew Browning Y Y Y Y Y Chief Operating Officer
Michael Whatley Y Y Y Y Y Executive Vice President
Brydon Ross Y Y Y Y Y Vice President, State Affairs
Emily Haggstrom Y Y Y Senior Director, Communications
Lauren Westcott Y Director, Communications
Kaitlin Hammons Y Director, Campaign Activities
Kathleen Koehler van Keppel Y Y Director, Events and Special Programs
Michael Zehr Y Y Y Y Y Federal Policy Advisor
Anne Seneca Y Y Y CEA-Alaska
Kevin Doyle Y Y Y Y Y CEA-Florida
Mike Butler Y Y Y CEA-Mid Atlantic
Link Browder Y CEA-Mid Continent
Chris Ventura Y Y Y CEA-Midwest
Tim Page Y CEA-Southeast
Tommy Foltz Y Y Y Executive Vice President
James Voyles Y Y Director, Policy Counsel
Kathleen Koehler Y Y Y Director, Events and Special Programs
Marty Allday Y CEA-Texas
Shawn Martini Y Y Communications Director
Ryan Scott Y Y Executive Director, CEA-Midwest
R.C. Hammond Y Communication Advisor
Natalie Joubert Y Policy Director
Board of Advisors (2009 through 2011)
Bill Kovacs
Carl Michael Smith
Charlie Drevna
David Blackmon
David Harbour
David L. Batt
Don Juckett
Elizabeth VanDersarl
Frank W. Wagner
Glenn Kramer
Greg Cohen
Heather McTavish Doucet
Jan-Oddvar Sornes
Jennifer Diggins
Jim Martin
John Heimlich
Kathryn Robison
Libby Cheney
Marshall Cohen
Mary Davis
Michelle Michot Foss
Rich Moskowitz
Rosemary O’Brien
Thomas L. Moskitis
Todd McCracken
Todd Thorner
Actions
November 23, 2020
The Los Angeles Times reported HBW Resources “runsWestern States and Tribal Nations,” (WSTN) a group that claimed it “is organized and led by state, county and sovereign tribal governments to help aid rural economic development” with membership including “the companies whose investments will make that happen.” [52]
Western States and Tribal Nations arranged a letter praising the Energía Costa Azul project that was signed by governors of Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico as well as the chair of the Ute Indian Tribe. It described the project as “One of the most promising LNG export facilities on the Pacific Coast.” [52]
Internal documents shared with The Times revealed the group’s main backers were county governments and fossil fuel companies. The group had only one tribal member, the Ute Indian Tribe. [52]
The documents, obtained by public records requests by the Energy and Policy Institute, listed the following members of the Western States and Tribal Nations: [52]
States Counties Companies Other
Baja California (Mexico) Converse (Wyoming) Caerus Energy Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (Utah)
New Mexico Duchesne (Utah) Dominion Energy Ute Indian Tribe
Utah Garfield (Colorado) Laramie Energy Wyoming Coalition of Local Governments
Wyoming Moffat (Colorado) Sempra LNG
Mesa (Colorado) Terra Energy
Rio Blanco (Colorado) TYR Group
Uintah (Utah)
The Times noted that “Western States and Tribal Nations isn’t the only effort by fossil fuel proponents to cast themselves as allies of communities of color and defenders of their financial well-being.”
“There’s definitely a marketing campaign to gaslight everybody, literally gaslight them, by saying, ‘If we do the [clean energy] transition, it’s going to harm frontline Black, Hispanic and Indigenous communities,’” Leah Stokes, a UC Santa Barbara political scientist, commented. [52]
The WSTN website claims, “Tribal Self Determination Many tribal nations located in the Western United States seek economic prosperity and tribal self-determination through natural gas development” and notes that “The Ute Indian Tribe primarily funds its government through its oil and gas revenue.” [53]
December 9, 2019
CEA announced on its Facebook page that the American Petroleum Institute (API) had become an official member. One month after posting the news, the announcement had received one ‘like.’ [51]
November 4, 2019
CEA purchased op-ed space to criticize New Jersey’s draft Energy Master Plan (EMP), which proposed to transition the state to 100% renewable energy generation by 2050. The plan was supported by approximately 75% of New Jersey’s residents. [48], [49]
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a Colorado non-profit with a focus on sustainability, New Jersey’s plan would achieve significant emissions reductions with a relatively small cost increase. [50]
CEA’s op-ed called the RMI study into question by suggesting that it was motivated by “ideologically-driven billionaires.” [49]
June 29, 2019
CEA provided form letters and talking points to state legislators in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in an effort to win support from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a proposed natural gas export terminal in coastal Oregon. The terminal is seen as a vital point of departure to foreign markets for western fossil fuels. [46]
View the archived email interchange below, as well as the original Word document outlining edits here (.docx).
Google Vault Op Ed (Text)
According to CEA COO Andrew Browning, dozens of elected officials had signed onto the CEA-generated letters, and op-eds were provided to organized labor organizations and western tribal groups to build additional support for the Oregon project. [46]
One such column, attributed to a Colorado state senator and Mesa County Commissioner, was submitted to CEA leadership for feedback prior to publication. Browning and a CEA spokesperson responded with numerous edits and a pledge to help distribute the op-ed to media outlets. [46], [47]
The CEA-revised piece included the following language:
“Whether your motivation is stabilizing rural economies in energy-producing counties or our allies abroad, lifting people out of poverty or contributing to a cleaner global environment, supporting the export of natural gas resources is the responsibility of all Americans.” [47]
Upon receiving the suggested revisions from CEA, the state senator replied:
“When you guys edit you really edit…….lol.” [46]
June 2018
CEA released its “2018 Solar Energy Report” that examined U.S. solar incentives. While CEA claims that it “strongly supports the expanded use of solar power nationally and in Arizona,” the report criticized existing incentives and solar installations. [24]
“[M]any states are re-examining the scope and methods surrounding their incentive programs and are now considering programs that rely more on a competitive marketplace to provide the economically optimal levels of rooftop solar adoption,” the report’s press release suggests. CEA had commissioned Scott Madden Inc. for the work. [25]
February 19, 2018
CEA came under investigation for a set of identically-formatted emails supposedly from South Carolina citizens supporting Dominion Energy’s proposed $14.6 billion takeover of SCANA Corporation, The Post and Courier reported. [45]
“If you’ve got a utility or a group that is misappropriating people’s identities, I think that is a real problem,” said Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield. [45]
David Holt, CEA‘s president, confirmed the group had engaged in“grassroots” lobbying when it confirmed that Dominion wanted it to get involved. Dominion spokesman Chet Wade said the company had been apprised of the work before the fake emails became known. [45]
“The more we hear about this issue, the more we learn, the more it feels like there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by someone other than us or CEA,” Wade said. “We are puzzled by it. We are disturbed by it.” [45]
September 2016
Released a report, prepared by Borlick Associates, LLC, criticizing solar tax credits and solar net metering. [27]
“The report admittedly ignores the robust studies that quantify the values of solar power, which are substantial,” and “also confuses rebates offered by utilities with government policies and criticizes third-party solar ownership models,” the Energy and Policy Institute reports. [19]
2016
CEA faced allegations that it engaged in potentially criminal activity while promoting the Nexus Gas Transmission Pipeline in the Midwest. [26]
CEA was accused of submitting fake letters to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) shortly before the public comment period closed. An attorney representing groups opposing the pipeline had tracked the letters, and noted one came from a man who had died in 1998 while another was submitted by a woman with dementia. He also found similar language in 200 of the letters, leading them to suspect there could be a higher number of fraudulent letters. [26]
The Coalition to Reroute Nexus (CORN), a group of property owners opposing the Nexus Gas Transmission pipeline, filed a complaint at the FERC calling for a criminal review of CEA‘s actions in submitting comments in 347 letters to the FERC, The Plain Dealer reported. [42]
The complaint included affidavits from 14 Ohio residents who deny writing letters approving the pipeline and who said they never gave permission for CEA to write on their behalf. [42]
“This is an extremely serious matter,” attorney David Mucklow said in the filing. “Submission of hundreds of bogus comment letters during the comment period is calculated to convey the false impression that there is widespread public support for construction and operation of the pipeline.” [42]
CEA‘s President David Holt said that the Alliance has robocalled 25,000 homes asking for support for the project, and “then generated letters from questions asked by computers during the calls, attributing them the letters to owners of the telephone numbers dialed. Those letters were mailed to FERC with the residents’ names but did not indicate CEA‘s involvement in the process.” [42]
CORN co-founder Jonathan Strong said the CEA‘s actions were “criminal”: [42]
“FERC does not seem to care about accountability,” Strong said. “The whole evaluation process has been co-opted by oil and gas. This is a new day. We must stand up against this kind of activity or it will not change.”
Strong said that every one of the 41 people CORN contacted whose letters appeared on the FERC website denied sending a letter. [42]
2016
According to its public 990 forms, CEA paid the public affairs group Story Partners a total of $535,442 for “communication” services in 2016. Story Partners lists work for both the American Petroleum Institute and for Noble Energy, a Colorado oil and gas production company.
Story Partners’ case study for Noble Energy describes an effort to fight against a proposed ballot measure in northern Colorado: [43]
“By reframing the controversy from a fight between industry, government and citizens to an opportunity to promote energy independence and innovation, we successfully built public understanding and trust,” the Story Partners boasts on its website.
The advertising materials for the campaign bear the logo of the Consumer Energy Alliance and link to a landing page on the CEA‘s website. [44]
2015
A Facing South investigation found that HBW Resources and CEA were instrumental in running the Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition, a group led by Pat McCrory (R) of North Carolina that promotes oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic Coast. [17]
October 2014
CEA was accused of submitting fake comments as part of a submission supporting changes to the Wisconsin electricity grid. During the open comment period for the rule (5-UR-107) that had the potential to raise electricity rates for Wisconsin utility customers, CEA submitted “2,500 comments from Wisconsin electricity users who believe every energy consumer should pay a fair share for maintaining the electrical grid,” according to its CEA‘s petition letter. [39], [40]
When The Capital Times contacted signers of the petition, a number of those listed said that they strongly opposed the plan that CEA had contended they supported, citing increased utility bills. In one example, listed supporter Mary Frawley said she had been contacted by CEA on the phone and agreed to let them use her name under the assumption they were against the proposal. [41]
The Consumer Energy Alliance filed the same list of 2,500 names to the PSC in the We Energies rate case Another listed supporter, Elizabeth Westlund, said she had received a call months ago but that she had never signed a petition and was opposed to “anything that will raise my bill.” [41]
Peter Taglia, who runs the energy consulting business Clean Wisconsin, noted that CEA specialized in creating campaigns that appear to be grassroots support—referred to some as “astroturfing” or “greenwashing.” [41]
“If this is true, it undercuts the legitimacy of the PSC process,” Taglia said. “It’s clear these out-of-state coal companies know they benefit from higher fixed fees on seniors, renters and low energy users.” [41]
CEA‘s Michael Whatley denied that anyone contacted by the Alliance was misled into using their name in the PSC comments. [41]
July 16, 201
Marty Allday, executive director of Consumer Energy Alliance-Texas, wrote a column for the San Antonio Express-News suggesting Texans should “should not be misled by anti-development activists threatening to thwart their state’s energy boom and its resulting economic benefits.” [28]
“Texas can expect to see more of this in the coming months and years. As the fight over the Keystone XL pipeline (eventually) comes to a close, groups who made their opposition to that project their signature issue are looking for another fight. And hydraulic fracturing is in their crosshairs. A tsunami of activist cash will be rerouted to pick apart the boom in U.S. energy by attacking its game-changing technology,” Allday wrote. “Don’t fall for their scare tactics! Be proud of Texas’ production. Let’s all take stock in Texas energy and Texas pride!” [29]
December 2011
As first reported on at Salon.com and The Tyee by Geoff Dembicki, new documents obtained via FOIA request revealed how CEA worked at national and state levels to fight against low carbon fuel standards (LCFS). As DeSmog noted, the new documents revealed how “lend insight into how CEA interacts with the Alberta government, and in turn, how the Alberta government, working alongside CEA, influences the American government at both the state and federal level.” [1], [7], [30]
July 20, 2010
CEA launched a $1 million ad campaign in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Minnesota fighting against the most recent low carbon fuel standard proposal in Congress drafted by Michigan senator Debbie Stabenow. As The Tyee reported, mails released later under a freedom of information request revealed CEA‘s communication on the topic: [31], [1]
“Not sure if you are aware of this potential threat,” read an email sent to Whatley from an unnamed source. ”[The National Petrochemical and Refiner’s Association] is implementing an aggressive media, grassroots and lobbying effort against this potential amendment.”
CEA‘s campaign began approximately a week after the email. [1]
June 14, 2010
Alberta’s then-environment minister Rob Renner, while visiting the United States on a “Clean Energy Mission,” joined CEA for a Boston forum on the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). [32], [33]
“During this time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, instituting a region-wide policy designed to drive up gas and diesel prices and make essential energy commodities such as home heating oil a whole lot more scarce doesn’t make a whole lot of sense,” said Michael Whatley, vice president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) who moderated the forum. “Maybe the more unfortunate reality of the LCFS, though, is that it won’t do a thing to reduce global concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But that’s the LCFS: All pain, no gain.”
August 2009
CEA started running radio ads warning that policies supporting a low carbon fuel standard would “threaten thousands of American jobs” and “would be disastrous for American consumers.” Each ad urged viewers to contact their state’s representatives in Congress. In the ad campaign, initially running in Tennessee, Montana, and the Dakotas, CEA claimed gasoline prices, “would increase by at least 60 cents a gallon.” [34]
Related Organizations
HBW Resources — Founding organization and lobbying contractor
Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition — See memorandum, with CEA designated as “volunteer staff for the Coalition” [35]
American Shale & Manufacturing Partnership — Member (See AFPM 2014 Annual Report) [36]
N.C. Energy Coalition (NCEC) — Member [37]
CEA Members
View the attached spreadsheet for a summary of the belowConsumer Energy Alliance members by year (.xlsx), based on data taken from the CEA website via Internet Archive:
Energy Providers and Suppliers
Member Name 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018[4] 2019 2020
Alaska Energy Authority Y Y Y
Alaska Miners Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Alaska Oil and Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Alaska Support Industry Alliance Y Y Y Y
Alliant Energy Y
Alpha Natural Resources Y
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Y Y Y Y Y
Ameren Missouri Y Y Y Y Y Y
America’s Natural Gas Alliance Y
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Y Y Y Y Y
American Exploration & Production Council Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Petroleum Institute (API) Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Public Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Public Power Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Anadarko Y Y Y
Anchorage Municipal Light & Power Y Y Y
Apache Corporation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Arctic Power Y Y Y Y
Arizona Public Service Electric Company Y
Arkansas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Y Y Y Y Y Y
Association of Electric Companies of Texas, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Association of Oil Pipe Lines Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Barney’s Pumps, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y
BHP Billiton Petroleum Y
Big Rivers Electric Corporation Y Y Y Y
Black Pearl Exploration Y
BP Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Bug Ware, Inc. Y
Burnett Oil Co., Inc. Y Y Y
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Y Y Y Y Y Y
CCC Group, Inc. Y Y Y Y
CenterPoint Energy Y Y Y Y Y Y
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation Y
Centrus Y Y Y Y Y Y
Cheniere Energy Y Y Y Y Y Y
Chevron Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Choice! Energy Y Y Y Y Y
Clean Line Energy Partners Y Y Y Y
Colorado Mining Association Y Y Y Y Y Y
Colorado Oil and Gas Association Y Y Y Y
Comanco Y Y Y Y
ConocoPhillips Y Y Y Y Y Y
CONSOL Energy Y Y
DcR Engineering Services, Inc. Y
Delaware Valley Marcellus Association Y Y Y
Delta American Fuels Y Y Y Y Y
Delta Natural Gas Company Y
Denbury Resources, Inc. Y Y
Devon Energy Corporation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Direct Energy Y Y Y
Dominion Energy Y
Dominion Resources Inc. Y Y Y Y Y
Drake Well Service Y Y Y Y Y
DTE Y
East Coast Power & Gas Y
East Kentucky Power Cooperative Y Y Y
Edison Electric Institute Y Y Y Y
El Paso Energy Corporation Y Y Y Y
Enable Midstream Y
Enbridge Energy Company Y
Encino Energy Y Y
Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance Y Y Y Y Y Y
Energy Institute of Alabama Y
Energy Transfer Partners Y Y Y Y
Entergy Y Y Y Y
Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil Shale Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Program Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
EOG Resources Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
EP Energy Y
Equinor Y Y
Equitrans Midstream Y
Exelon Corporation Y Y Y Y
ExxonMobil Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Fairweather LLC Y
Florida Electric Cooperative Association Y Y
Florida Handling Systems, Inc. Y Y Y Y
Florida Petroleum Council Y Y Y Y Y
Florida Power & Light Co. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Foresight Wind Y Y Y Y
Freedom Solar Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Gas Technology Institute Y Y Y Y
GATE Petroleum Company Y Y Y Y
GenOn Energy Y Y
Georgia Electric Membership Corporation Y Y Y Y Y
Georgia Power Y
Georgia Transmission Corporation Y Y Y
Golden Pass Products Y Y Y Y Y Y
Great Plains- The Camelina Company Y Y
Green Earth Fuels Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Greenline Industries Y Y Y Y
Gulf Coast Clean Energy Application Center Y Y Y
Gulf Economic Survival Team Y Y Y Y Y
Halliburton Y Y
HD Supply Y Y Y Y Y
Hess Corporation Y Y Y Y Y Y
Houston BioDiesel Y Y Y
Houston Clean Energy Park Y Y
Houston Geological Society Y Y
Houston Renewable Energy Network Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
HT/DcR Engineering, Inc. Y Y Y Y
Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia Y Y Y Y Y
Independent Petroleum Association of America Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States Y
Indiana Energy Association Y Y Y Y
International Association of Drilling Contractors Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
ION Geophysical Corporation Y Y
Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP. Y
JEA Y Y Y Y Y Y
Kentucky Association of Electric Cooperatives Y Y Y Y
Kentucky Oil & Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Lakeridge Energy Corporation Y Y Y
Lime Instruments Y Y Y Y
Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company Y Y Y
Magellan Midstream Y
Marathon Corporation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Marathon Energy Y
Marathon Petroleum Corporation Y
Marcellus Shale Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y
Material Transfer Industries, LLC Y Y Y Y
Metal Treating Institute Y Y Y Y
Minova Global Y Y
Mississippi Energy Institute Y
Missourians for a Balanced Energy Future Y Y Y Y Y Y
Moretrench Y Y Y Y
MS Industrial Corporation Y Y Y Y
Nalco Y Y Y
National Algae Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
National Fuel Gas Company Y
National Ocean Industries Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
National Ocean Policy Coalition Y Y Y Y Y Y
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association Y Y Y
National Propane Gas Association Y Y Y Y
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Y Y Y
National Solar Power Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Natural Gas Supply Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
New England Fuel Institute Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
New Mexico Oil & Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
NJ Resources Y
Noble Energy, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y
North Carolina Association of Electric Cooperatives Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Nuclear Energy For Texans Y Y Y Y Y
Nuclear Energy Institute Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Ocean Energy Institute Y Y
Offshore Energy Center Y Y
Oglethorpe Power Corporation Y Y Y
Ohio Oil & Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y Y
One Energy Y Y
Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
PDC Energy Y Y Y Y
Peabody Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Pebble Limited Partnership Y
Pembina Y
PennEast Pipeline LLC Y Y
PennHills Resources Y Y Y
Pennsylvania Coal Alliance Y Y Y
Petrohawk Energy Corporation Y Y Y
Phillips 66 Y Y Y Y
Piedmont Natural Gas Y Y Y Y Y
Pioneer Natural Resources Y Y Y Y
Public Service Company of New Mexico Y Y
Range Resources Y Y Y Y
Reliable Renewables, LLC Y Y Y Y
Rigzone Y
RMI Y
Sasol Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
SCANA Corp. Y Y Y Y
Seneca Resources Y Y Y Y
Shell Oil Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Shell WindEnergy Y Y
SM Energy Y Y Y
Smith Brothers Oil Y Y Y Y
Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
South Jersey Industries Y
Southeastern Coastal Wind Coalition Y
Southeastern Wind Coalition Y Y Y Y Y Y
Spectra Energy Y Y Y Y Y
Spectrum ASA Y Y
Spitzer Industries, Inc. Y Y Y
Statoil Y Y Y Y Y
StatoilHydro Y Y
Stuart Petroleum Testers Y Y Y
Talisman Energy Inc. Y
Tampa Tanks, Inc. Y Y Y Y
Tellurian Y
Tennessee Mining Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Tennessee Oil & Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Texas Alliance of Energy Producers Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Texas Oil & Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
The Alaska Support Industry Alliance Y Y Y Y
The Center for North American Energy Security Y Y Y
The Williams Companies, Inc. Y Y Y Y
Trans Pacific Oil Corporation Y Y Y
U. S. Oil & Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y
U.S. DOE Gulf Coast Clean Energy Application Center Y Y Y
U.S. Oil & Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
UGI Energy Services Y
United States Enrichment Corporation Y Y
Usibelli Coal Mine Y Y Y Y
Vaan Gaskets Y Y
Virginia Oil & Gas Association Y
West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association Y Y Y Y Y Y
Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Wolverine Pipeline Y Y Y
WPX Energy Y
Xcel Energy Y Y Y
Consumers/Business/Agriculture/Industry/End-Users
Member 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
60 Plus Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Action Supply Products Inc. Y
Agriculture-Energy Alliance Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Air Conditioning Contractors of America Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Air Transport Association Y Y Y
Airlines for America Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Alaska Communications Systems Y
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Alaska Trucking Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Alternative Energy Builders Y Y Y Y
American Bus Association Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Chemistry Council Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Forest & Paper Association Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Highway Users Alliance Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Iron & Steel Institute Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Rental Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
American Trucking Associations Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Americans for American Energy Y
Amway Y Y Y Y
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Anderson Columbia Co., Inc. Y Y Y Y Y
Applied Fiber Manufacturing, LLC. Y Y Y Y
ArcelorMittal Y
Arctic Branding & Apparel Y Y
Arkansas Environmental Federation Y Y Y Y Y Y
ArrMaz Custom Chemicals Y Y Y Y Y
Associated General Contractors of Alaska Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Associated Industries of Florida Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Association of Corporate Travel Executives Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Association of Equipment Manufacturers Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Axia Partners Y
Axioun Strategic Planning Y
Axistrade, Inc. Y Y Y
Babcock & Wilcox Company Y Y Y
Bayer Corporation Y Y Y Y
Beaver County Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Beneficiation Technologies Y Y Y Y Y
Better Roads Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Bettis Brothers Sand and Gravel Y
Big Lake Economic Development Corporation Y
Blue Dragonfly Brewing LLC Y
Blue Dragonfly Inn Y
Bodø Graduate School of Energy Management (Norway) Y Y Y
British-American Business Council Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Broken Arrow Chamber of Commerce Y
Brownsville Area Revitalization Corporation Y
Bug Ware, Inc. Y Y Y Y
Building Industry Association of Central Ohio Y
Business Council of Alabama Y Y Y
C & H Printing Y
Canadian American Business Council Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CAP Logistics Y Y Y Y Y
Capital Region Chamber of Commerce Y
CareerSource Florida Y
Casis Y Y Y
Caterpillar Global Petroleum Group Y Y Y
Caterpillar, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CCC Group, Inc. Y
CF Industries, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y
Chamber of Commerce of the Mid-Ohio Valley Y
Chamber of Shipping of America Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Chemung County Chamber of Commerce Y
Cimarron Cycle Works Y
Clay County Chamber of Commerce Y
Clay County Farm Bureau Y
Cleveland Bros Caterpillar Dealership Y
Cleveland Brothers Equipment Co., Inc. Y Y Y Y Y
Cole Chemical Y
Colorado Building and Construction Trades Council Y
Colorado Business Roundtable Y Y Y
Colorado Energy Coalition Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Colorado Farm Bureau Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Colorado Motor Carriers Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Comanco Y Y Y Y
Combined Arms Y
Commonwealth North Y Y Y
Consortium for Ocean Leadership Y Y Y
Consumers United for Energy Solutions Y Y
Cornerstone Business Solutions Y
Corpus Christi Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y
Council for Dredging and Marine Construction Safety Y
Crafton, Tull & Associates Y Y
Credence Corp. Y
Culbreth Financial Group Y Y Y Y Y
Dawson and Associates Y Y Y
DcR Engineering Services, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Decision Strategies Y Y Y Y
Deutsche Post DHL Y Y
DHL (Deutsche Post World Net – USA) Y
Dow Y Y Y Y
Dynamotive USA, Inc. Y Y Y Y
Economic Alliance Port Region Y
Edmond Chamber of Commerce Y
ELEC/Operating Engineers Local 825 Y Y
Elite Parking Services of America, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Enaxis Consulting, LP Y Y
Energy Industries of Ohio Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Energy People Connect Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Ernst & Young Y Y Y Y
Exponent Consulting Y Y
Fairfax Chamber of Commerce Y
Farmington Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y
Florida Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Florida Family Association, Inc. Y Y Y Y
Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Florida Handling Systems, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Florida Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Y
Florida Minerals and Chemistry Council Y Y Y Y Y
Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Florida Sugar Cane League Y Y
Florida Taxpayers Union Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Florida Transportation Builders Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Freanna Yoghurt LLC Y
Fueling California Y Y Y Y Y
Gainesville Area Chamber of Commerce Y
Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. Y Y Y Y
Gallup-McKinley County Chamber of Commerce Y
Garcia Jewelers Y Y Y Y Y
GATE Petroleum Company Y
GCI Industrial Telecom Y Y Y
General Electric Y Y Y
Georgia Agribusiness Council Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Georgia Association of Manufacturers Y Y Y
Georgia Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y
Great Lakes Maritime Task Force Y Y Y Y Y Y
Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce Y
Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Greater Houston Partnership Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Greater Houston Restaurant Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Greater Louisville, Inc. Y
Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y
Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y
Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce Y
Grocery Manufacturers Association Y Y Y Y Y Y BERMAN?
Gulf Coast Business Council Y Y Y
Gulf County Economic Development Council Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Gulf Economic Survival Team Y
Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission Y
Harman Farms Y
Hispanic Leadership Fund Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Hispanic Policy Group Y
Hotel D 2 Y
Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce Y
Houston Restaurant Association Y Y Y Y
Houston Technology Center Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce Y
Illinois Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Illinois Trucking Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Indiana Builders Association Y
Indiana Manufacturers Association Y Y
Inlet Mechanical Y Y
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers – Local Union 111 Y Y
International Foodservice Distributors Association Y Y Y Y Y
International Longshoremen’s Association – Local 1768 Y Y Y Y
International Union of Operating Engineers – Local 450 Y
International Union of Operating Engineers – Local 66 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
International Window Film Association Y Y
Iowa Association of Business & Industry Y Y Y Y
Iowa Motor Truck Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Iron Workers International Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Iron Workers Local 3 Y Y Y Y
Irrigation Association Y
J. B. Coxwell Contracting, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Jefferson Chamber Y
John L. Wortham & Son, L.P. Y Y Y Y Y Y
Kentucky Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y
Kentucky Motor Transport Association Y Y Y Y Y Y
Kenworth Alaska Y Y Y Y
Kissimmee – Osceola County Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y
LA 1 Coalition Y Y
Laborers District Council of Western Pennsylvania Y
Laborers’ International Union of North America – Midwest Region Y Y Y
Laborers’ International Union of North America – Northwest Region Y Y Y
Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores Y Y Y Y Y Y
Luna County Farm & Livestock Bureau Y
Lynden Y Y Y
Maine Motor Transport Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Manufacture Alabama Y Y Y Y
Manufacturers Association of Florida Y Y Y Y Y
Marcellus Shale Chamber of Commerce Y
Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association Y Y
Maritime Exchange for the Greater Delaware River and Bay Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Marsh Wortham Insurance Y
Marshall County Chamber of Commerce Y
MatSu Business Alliance Y Y Y Y
McDonald Construction Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Melbourne Florida Regional Chamber of Commerce Y
Metal Treating Institute Y
Methanex Corporation Y Y Y Y
Methanol Institute Y
Mid Frisian Dairy LLC Y
Mid Frisian Farms LLC Y
Midland Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance Inc. Y
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y
Mississippi Economic Council Y Y Y
Mississippi Energy Institute Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Mississippi Manufacturers Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry Y Y Y Y Y Y
Missourians for a Balanced Energy Future Y Y
Mitsubishi Hitachi Y
Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Monahans Chamber of Commerce Y
Monarch Corporation Y Y Y Y
Montana Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Moretrench Y
Morgantown Area Chamber of Commerce Y
Morgantown Area Partnership Y
Morrison Auto Group Y
Mosaic Company Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Motiva Enterprises Y
Move Texas Forward Y Y Y
Mowell Financial Group, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y
MS Industrial Corporation Y Y
Muscle Wall, LLC Y Y Y
MWH Global Y Y Y Y
My Town, My Job, My Voice Y Y Y Y Y
Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
NANA Regional Corporation Y Y Y
National Association of Convenience Stores Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
National Association of Home Builders Y Y Y Y Y
National Association of Manufacturers Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
National Association of Neighborhoods Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
National Association of Truck Stop Operators Y Y Y Y Y
National Energy Education Development Project Y Y
National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry Y
National Ocean Policy Coalition Y
National Small Business Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
National Tank Truck Carriers Y Y Y Y Y Y
Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Nebraskans for Jobs and Energy Independence Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Nevada Trucking Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
New England Ratepayers Association Y Y Y Y
New Jersey Chamber of Commerce Y
New Mexico Business Coalition Y Y
New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau Y
New Mexico Trucking Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
NextOp Y Y Y Y
NGVAmerica Y
North Carolina Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
North Carolina Farm Bureau Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
North Florida Clean Cities Coalition Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Northeast Florida Builders Association Y
Northeast Pennsylvania Manufacturers and Employers Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Northrim Bank Y Y Y Y
Nucor Corporation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Nucor Steel Y Y Y
Odessa Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Offshore Marine Services Association Y Y Y Y
Ohio AgriBusiness Association Y Y Y Y
Ohio Cast Metals Association Y Y Y Y Y Y
Ohio Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program Y
Ohio State Grange Y
Ohio Trucking Association Y Y
On Deck Seafood Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Orbital Engineers Y
Ostego County Chamber of Commerce Y
Oviedo-Winter Springs Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y
Palmetto Agribusiness Council Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y
Pelco Structural, LLC Y Y Y
Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Y Y Y Y Y Y
Pennsylvania Chemical Industry Council Y Y
Pennsylvania Energy Infrastructure Alliance Y Y Y Y
Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association Y Y
Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Y Y
Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Petroleum & Convenience Marketers of Alabama Y Y
Pipefitters Local Union 208 Y Y Y
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors—National Association Y Y Y Y Y
Port of Corpus Christi Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Port of Houston Authority Y Y Y Y Y
Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor Coalition Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Poten and Partners Y Y
Premier Edge Barber Shop Y
ProEnergy Y
Promes-Atlas Y
Prosperity Alaska Y Y Y
Queens Chamber of Commerce Y
Ragin’ Cajun Y
Regional Airline Association Y
Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Resource Development Council for Alaska Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Rifle Area Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y
Rigzone Y Y Y Y
Ring Power Corporation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Rivere Foods Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Robinson Fans Y Y Y Y Y
Rural Jobs Coalition Y
Safety Kick Y Y Y
Santa Barbara County Energy Coalition Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Science & Engineering Fair of Houston Y Y
Shale Crescent USA Y Y Y Y
Shepherd Safety Systems Y Y
Shipbuilders Council Of America Y
Slover Consulting Y Y Y
Smiths Group, PLC Y Y Y Y
SMM Pogo Y
Softway Solutions Y Y Y
South Carolina Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
South Carolina Trucking Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Southeast Energy Alliance Y
Southeastern Fisheries Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Southern Chemical Corporation Y Y
Southern Saratago County Chamber of Commerce Y
Southpointe Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Spitzer Industries, Inc. Y Y
St. Louis Regional Chamber Y Y Y Y Y Y
State Chamber of Oklahoma Y Y Y Y Y Y
Steel Manufacturers Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Straits Lighting Company Y Y Y
Sun Glass Y Y Y Y Y
Tampa Tanks, Inc. Y
Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Tennessee Farm Bureau Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Texas Association of Manufacturers Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Texas Motor Transportation Association Y Y
Texas Prosperity Project Y Y Y
Texas Trucking Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
The Business Council of New York Y Y Y
The Carey Group Y Y Y
The EarthQuest Institute Y Y
The Fertilizer Institute Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
The Hispanic Institute Y
The Hispanic Leadership Fund Y Y
The Peace and Prosperity Project Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
The Plaza Group Y Y Y Y Y Y
Third Coast International Y
thyssenkrupp Y Y
Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce Y
Torch Energy Solutions Y Y Y Y
Townsend Marine Y Y Y Y
Transportation Advocacy Group Y Y
Truth or Consequences Chamber Y
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Ukpeaġvik Iñupiat Corporation Y Y Y
Union Contractors and Subcontractors Association, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Union of Operating Engineers Local 66 Y
United Brotherhood of Carpenters Millwrights Y
United Motorcoach Association Y Y Y Y Y
United Piping Y Y
University of Texas, Center for Energy Economics Y Y Y
US Energy Stream Y
Virginia Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Virginia Manufacturers Association Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Vision Shared Y Y
Vital for Colorado Y Y Y Y
Voovio Y Y
W. W. Gay Mechanical Contractor, Inc. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Ward Packaging and Associates Y Y Y Y
Washington County Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
WD Scott Group, Inc. Y
West Gulf Maritime Association Y Y Y Y Y Y
West Virginia Manufacturers Association Y Y Y
West Virginia Route 2 and I-68 Authority Y
West Volusia Chamber of Commerce Y
Winkler Public Relations Y
Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Inc. Y
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Wisconsin Motor Carriers Association Y Y Y Y Y Y
Wyoming County Chamber of Commerce Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Ygrene Energy Fund Y Y Y
Youngstown / Warren Regional Chamber Y
Academic Groups
Member 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
BRITE Energy Lab Y
CSTEM Teacher & Student Support Services Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Houston Museum of Natural Science Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
HoustonWorks USA Y
National Energy Education Development Project Y Y Y Y Y Y
Offshore Energy Center Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Science & Engineering Fair of Houston Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Tech Belt Energy Innovation Center Y
University of Nordland (Norway) Y Y
University of Texas, Center for Energy Economics Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Contact & Address
The Consumer Energy Alliance listed the following contact information on its website as of November 2018: [38]
Consumer Energy Alliance
2211 Norfolk Street, Suite 410
Houston, TX 77098
(713) 337-8800 (main number)
Social Media
@ConsumerEnergyAlliance on Facebook
@CEAorg on Twitter.
Consumer Energy Alliance on YouTube
Resources
https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/07/12/bradley-foundation-funds-web-climate-change-deniers/
Armiak
Bradley Foundation internal documents reviewed by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reveal a concerted effort by the organization to delegitimize climate science, while promoting fossil fuel energy development in the United States.
An analysis of Bradley’s climate-related activities shows that the foundation has made significant grants to support energy policy think tanks, attack-dog groups that target environmentalists, and efforts to discredit climate science.
A 2013 internal foundation document details how Bradley “instructed staff to explore options…to make more energy-related grants.” The document also notes that the Board gave a “terminal grant” of $263,591 to the Sand County Foundation (SCF), which previously administered the Bradley Fund for the Environment.
The documents do not reveal Bradley’s motivation in splitting from SCF, but they do outline a serious effort to promote fossil fuel industry interests at the expense of the environment.
CENTERS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL AND FOSSIL FUEL DEVELOPMENT
As part of its push to support studies and public relations to cast doubt on mounting scientific evidence on climate change, Bradley has focused its resources on “Energy Policy Centers,” many of which are housed in “Bradley-supported” State Policy Network (SPN) “think tanks.” SPN is a web of 156 right-wing groups in 49 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Canada, and the UK that receives funding from the billionaire Koch brothers, the Bradley Foundation, and the Roe Foundation, as well as many multi-national corporations.
The examined documents show that the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (CEPE) at the **Manhattan Institute**for Policy Research (MIPR), a member of SPN, received a total of $500,000 for its Center, with another $200,000 distributed in 2016. (Manhattan Institute for Policy Research GPR, February 23, 2016) CEPE works to promote fossil fuel development despite the devastating effects of climate change. A background document on CEPE states its goal clearly: “The Center’s research and public education activity aims at demonstrating that the United States is poised to reap substantial economic benefits in the form of job creation, lower gasoline and electricity prices, and increased productivity provided public policies allow companies to access valuable energy resources and distribute them at home and abroad.”
A recommendation by Bradley staff on the Manhattan Institute’s 2016 grant proposal specifically states that CEPE is worth funding because, “They have succeeded in identifying and publicizing so many of the falsehoods that surround energy and the environment.” (Manhattan Institute for Policy Research GPR, February 23, 2016) Anexample of this “success” can be found in the work of CEPE senior fellow Mark Mills, who is recognized as originating the idea that North America can surpass the Middle East as the largest energy supplier in the world. (Manhattan Institute for Policy Research GPR, November 12, 2013)
The Energy Policy Center (EPC) at another SPN “think tank”, the Independence Institute, received $195,000 from the Bradley Foundation between 2012 and 2016.
Bradley documents examined show that EPC’s purpose is to “consciously counter-balance former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter’s environmental think tank” at Colorado State University, which promotes a “New Energy Economy.”
Bradley considers EPC to be highly successful in fighting local and federal environmental initiatives. The Bradley documents note that EPC was a “key coalition partner” in preempting local bans on fracking in Colorado, and that it “has developed a toolkit for policymakers, attorneys general, and other conservative state think tanks to help them push back against U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.” (Independence Institute GPR, June 2, 2015)
In addition to these two centers, Bradley has funded the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an “associate member” of SPN, and the Center for Energy Innovation and Independence at Consumers’ Research.
CEE is led by the prominent climate change denier Myron Ebell, who steered Trump’s EPA transition team. Ebell also chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition, which brings together right-wing activists and scholars for monthly meetings. The coalition was established on May 6, 1997, “to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific and risk analysis.”
CEI was long tied to tobacco disinformation campaigns, but is now a leading organization in the movement to discredit climate science.
Bradley does not mention how much of its funding to CEI was designated for CEE operations. Between 1986 and 2015, Bradley Foundation gave $2.2 million to CEI, the majority of which was “to support general operations.” (Competitive Enterprise Institute GPR, June 2, 2015).
The Center for Energy Innovation and Independence received $250,000 from Bradley in 2013 to get the new group off the ground. According to a background document, the group “will closely monitor federal environmental regulations and potentially lay the foundation for multi-state litigation against them, similar to those actions in the Obamacare and Dodd-Frank lawsuits, of which aggressive (Scott) Pruitt was and is a part.” Pruitt is the former AG of Oklahoma and recently resigned as the EPA Administrator under Trump.
SMEAR CAMPAIGNS AND FUNDING EFFORTS TO DISCREDIT CLIMATE SCIENCE
At the same time Bradley rolled out funding for “Energy Policy Centers,” it was doling out cash to discredit environmental organizations and climate change science.
A grant proposal record for the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a front group created by the close Bradley ally Rick Berman, details an organized effort to weaken the credibility of well-respected, national environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, and Food and Water Watch. (The Center for Consumer Freedom GPR, November 12, 2013) Berman also founded Berman and Company, a notorious Washington, D.C.-based corporate lobbying and PR company known for creating numerous corporate “front groups” and astroturf propaganda campaigns.
Berman’s anti-environmental project at CCF was called Big Green Radicals and was seeded with a $150,000 “public education” grant from Bradley in 2013.
According to Bradley’s background document, the Big Green Radicals project would include the following components:
[N]ew, updated research profiles for NRDC, Food and Water Watch, and Sierra Club; standalone websites for all three organizations; a Facebook group seeded with several thousand fans to provide a base for the message; the production of two online videos to explain the real agenda of the environmental left; and Google keyword advertising for members of the media and the public searching for information about one of the targeted groups.
In addition to providing the start-up funding for Big Green Radicals, Bradley gave $85,000 to the Capital Research Center (CRC), a group led by former Berman and Company employee Scott Walter. The grant was designated for “general operations,” but it may have been used to support the publication Green Watch. A background document on CRC states that, “Green Watch tracks the money flow to environmental nonprofits and critiques their positions, and those of their allies, including their policymaking ones.” (Capital Research Center GPR, August 19, 2014)
Since 2014, the Bradley Foundation has distributed numerous grants to discredit the vast amount of scientific research demonstrating the harmful effects of climate change. In 2014, it gave $65,000 to the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI), a right-wing front group largely funded by oil and gas interests. Newsweek called GMI “a central cog in the denial machine” in 2007.
GMI folded in late 2015,so Bradley recommended $50,000 in “seed funding” the following year for its “successor organization,” the CO2 Coalition. The coalition is led by a Dr. William Happer, a well-known climate change denier. “We’re doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It’s not a pollutant at all,” Happer said at a Heritage Foundation event on energy and climate.
Another $10,000 Bradley grant in 2014 for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) went to support its Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI). A staff recommendation notes that SPPI “has helped demonstrate that no real-world data confirms that floods, draughts [sic], or hurricanes are becoming more frequent or severe, as global-warming alarmists allege. Neither is there any real-world data that sea levels are about to rise precipitously, inundating the world’s coasted [sic] lowlands, as is also often alleged.” (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change GPR, June 17, 2014)
ENERGY ROUNDTABLES
Documents show that, beginning in 2013, Bradley provided funding to the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, also an SPN member, to host and organize two “energy roundtables” a year — one before the Heritage Foundation’s annual Resource Bank meeting, and the other before SPN’s annual fall meeting. (Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy GPR, November 10, 2015)
The $50,000-per-year grant from Bradley for the meetings was matched “by staff arrangement” by the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a front group for the energy industry that promotes fossil fuel development and opposes efforts to regulate its activities.
“Planned and put on in close cooperation with the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), the roundtables allow state think tanks to better promote free-market energy and environmental policies,” one document states. (Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy GPR, November 12, 2013)
Attendance has been high at the roundtables, with as many as “67 SPN leaders” attending the event in Denver in September 2014. The agenda for that meeting details presentations from a number of fossil fuel lovers including: Artic Power, Consumer Energy Alliance, Vital for Colorado, Devon Energy, GOPAC (a political action committee that backs and trains Republican candidates), and Freedom Partners. Freedom Partners, a funding conduit for the billionaire Koch brothers, delivered a talk on “Messaging and State Action.” (Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy GPR, November 11, 2014)
BRADLEY GRANTEES WORKED TOGETHER TO DEFEAT LOCAL REGULATIONS ON FRACKING IN COLORADO
In 2014, the Independence Institute and Berman’s Big Green Radicals worked in lockstep in Colorado to defeat local fracking bans, such as the one that passed by ballot measure in Longmont in November of 2013. A 2015 Bradley backgrounder on the Independence Institute praises the anti-fracking work of Independence Institute’s Energy Policy Center, saying, “It has also been a key coalition partner in the movement to stop local and statewide bans on hydraulic fracturing. Last year, current Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper crafted a delicately balanced compromise on local control of oil and gas drilling that removed all initiatives on the issue from the state ballot.”
Berman’s Big Green Radicals rolled out an attack campaign to discredit anti-fracking efforts in the state in May of 2014. Big Green Radicals assertedthat “extreme groups, mostly based far from Colorado in San Francisco, New York, or Washington D.C., are spending millions and spreading their anti-science message to scare voters into approving ballot measures in November to send the oil and gas industry (and the jobs and affordable energy it provides) packing from the Centennial State.”
The efforts by these two groups were successful in overturning local fracking bans. Bradley agreed and decreased its funding recommendation for EPC to $25,000 in 2016, saying, “it is unlikely that there will be any significant developments for EPC in the upcoming months, and therefore staff believes this reduced award is important.”
It is uncertain where the next battleground for energy development will be for Bradley, but the documents demonstrate that they have the funds to bankroll infrastructure in place to discredit climate science and smear the opposition.
OTHER NOTABLE BRADLEY GRANTS
Other significant Bradley grants to support fossil fuel development or dispute climate science in recent years include:
- $150,000 to Opportunity Ohio for “program activities.” (2016)
- $100,000 to Energy and Environment Legal Institute for “transparency practice general.” (2016) HORNER SCHNARE
- $20,000 to Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment for “general operations.” (2016)
- $200,000 to Competitive Enterprise Institute for “general operations” and “litigation.” (2013, 2015)
- $100,000 toThe Sand County Foundation for “energy resource development.” (2014)
- $100,000 to National Center for Policy Analysis for “general operations.” (2014)
- $20,000 to Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment for “general operations.” (2014)
==
==
Two editorials (Oct 22 and 24) in support of Enbridge, were written by Christopher Ventura, an employee of Consumer Energy Alliance.
While its name suggests it is “for” consumers, in fact, SourceWatch.org says CEA is a “front group for the energy industry that opposes political efforts to regulate carbon standards while advancing deep water and land-based drilling for oil and methane gas.”
As such, CEA has a history of submitting fraudulent letters to the media, the purpose of which is to sow doubt about climate change. CEA’s long list of financial backers and affiliates, includes BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon, and Shell – four of the six fossil fuel companies that, along with the American Petroleum Institute and a host of front groups, were recently exposed in “Climate Deception Dossiers.”
This thoroughly documented report from the Union of Concerned Scientists outlines how the fossil fuel industry was fully aware of the link between fossil fuels and the reality of climate change since 1981 but mounted a multimillion-dollar public relations and lobbying campaign to discredit that link – using Big Tobacco tactics — to stave off regulation.
While editorials can be widely opinionated, in this age of fake news, it is vitally important that the St. Cloud Times adopt measures to disclose when an editorial is part of a multimillion dollar propaganda machine.
In that way, the Times will not become an unwitting pawn in an industry campaign to obscure the truth and whose goal, as stated in an internal memo (USC dossier), is to “get ‘average citizens’ to believe that the realities of climate science are uncertain.”
Please Times we need the truth.
SHAIKH: We turn now to the latest move by the Trump administration to undo President Obama’s environmental legacy. Trump has already withdrawn the United States from the Paris climate change agreement, rescinded the Clean Power Plan, reversed a moratorium on leasing federal lands for coal mining and proposed deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency. On Tuesday, the EPA announced new plans to roll back an Obama administration policy that environmentalists say will remove drinking water safeguards for one in three Americans and threaten thousands of streams that flow into large rivers and lakes, as well as wetland areas that filter pollutants and absorb floodwaters. The 2015 regulation, known as Waters of the United States, determined that more than half of the country’s waterways are covered under the Clean Water Act.
AMY GOODMAN: Now The Intercept has revealed the person that President Trump has tapped to head the EPA agency in charge of water safety is a former lobbyist with deep ties to a fossil fuel advocacy group that promotes the Dakota Access pipeline and offshore drilling. Dennis Lee Forsgren will help oversee the EPA’s Office of Water, which implements the landmark Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act, that were passed in the early ’70s. This includes studying the toxic effects of fracking on groundwater safety, the downstream consequences of industrial pollutants, and the environmental impacts of oil spills.
For more, we go to San Francisco. We’re joined by Lee Fang, investigative journalist at The Intercept covering the intersection of money and politics. His latest piece, "EPA’s New Water Safety Official is a Lobbyist with Deep Ties to the Dakota Access Pipeline."
Lee, welcome back to Democracy Now! Tell us what you found.
LEE FANG: Amy and Nermeen, thank you so much for having me.
The latest political appointee in the Trump administration, as you mentioned, is Dennis Lee Forsgren. This is an individual who’s been appointed to head up the department within the EPA that deals with safe drinking water and, you know, reviewing research into water safety. And this is a potentially problematic political appointee, because this person comes directly from a fossil fuel lobbying firm, HBW Resources, that is kind of infamous for cloak-and-dagger tactics. They were very prominent in the fight over the Keystone XL pipeline and, more recently, on the Dakota Access pipeline.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, who are—Lee Fang, just tell us a little bit more about HBW Resources and who their clients have been.
LEE FANG: Well, we’ve tracked HBW for a while now, and this is a lobbying firm that actually specializes in kind of deceptive tactics. And I’ll just give you three examples of that.
They operate a kind of fake consumer group. This is the Consumer Energy Alliance, purportedly, you know, an organization that represents mom-and-pop energy users. But, in fact, this is an organization fully controlled by these fossil fuel lobbyists, funded by large oil and gas companies, oil refineries, that goes out and kind of misrepresents itself to influence the public debate around these oil and gas issues.
Another example is the fight over Arctic drilling. You know, when Shell Oil was pushing to drill in a very sensitive area of the environment near Alaska, there was a letter-writing campaign to kind of convince regulators to give them approval. And HBW and CEA helped facilitate a lot of these letters. One of these letters supposedly came from an onion farmer group. But we looked at these letters, and they were essentially copied and pasted from language provided by these lobbyists. So it didn’t seem like a truly authentic letter. They kind of specialize in these type of astroturf or fake grassroots strategies.
And on the Dakota Access pipeline, you know, these same lobbyists were involved in setting up events and going up to Standing Rock and being quoted in the media. They attacked the protesters at Standing Rock, claiming that the protesters who went to demonstrate against the pipeline, they weren’t interested in protecting the environment, that the people involved in these protests were simply going up there to slow down the American economy. And, you know, if you’ve talked to any of these protesters, that’s clearly not true. But that’s kind of part and parcel to the tactics used by this lobbying firm.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to read a statement by Consumer Energy Alliance President David Holt in October 2016 during the protests by waterkeepers against the Dakota Access pipeline. Holt stated, quote, "The steps taken by these individuals to sabotage pipelines—in addition to the threats, intimidation, and cyber-bullying tactics they are using—clearly show that their agenda has nothing to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with shutting down the American economy and hurting everyday Americans, families, small business, and our economic way of life." So, Lee Fang, can you respond to that and also explain who the funders are for the CEA, the Consumer Energy Alliance?
LEE FANG: Right. Well, you know, the CEA group, you know, they pretend to be an independent organization, but we’ve gone through tax filings and found that large oil refineries, companies like Koch Industries, that you previously referenced on your show, and Phillips 66, these big kind of industrial polluters, are providing a significant portion of the financing for CEA. And, you know, the quote that you just read is kind of a typical strategy. They place advertisements, they write letters to the editor, they hold rallies and kind of organize opposition to actual social movements and to grassroots groups. And the individual that provided that quote you just read, you know, he says that he is a voice of the consumer, but actually he’s just another person at the same lobbying firm where Dennis Lee Forsgren is from. So, you know, they control this fake consumer group. They go out, and they use these kind of aggressive tactics to diminish the work of social movements.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, earlier this week, the EPA taking steps to rescind the Waters of the United States rule, explain what the administration is trying to do and how it links in to the current man that Trump has tapped, Forsgren?
LEE FANG: Well, the Waters of the United States rule is a major achievement by the Obama administration. It extends Clean Water Act protections. You know, this law originally applied only to large bodies of water like the Chesapeake Bay. But the regulation in 2015 extended these protections to wetlands and streams, bodies of water that feed into larger bodies like the Chesapeake Bay. And this has been bitterly opposed by lobbyists. We see big agribusiness and industrial polluters lobbying very aggressively against this rule. You know, back when there was the debt ceiling fight, the government shutdown fight, lobbyists attempted to attach budget riders to repeal this rule, and they were unsuccessful.
But now with the Trump administration, they have another opportunity to repeal this regulation, and that’s exactly the process that began this week. The Office of Water in the EPA will be managing that process. And, you know, the EPA, under the Trump administration, is a perfect example of industry capture. From the top of the administration down, we’ve seen political appointees directly from industry. You know, the legal affairs office is now staffed by Trump administration appointees from the utility industry. We see a coal lobbyist as the number two appointee. Just this week we saw another oil and gas lobbyist from the American Petroleum Institute appointed to another legal affairs office of the EPA. So, as the EPA moves to repeal these environmental safeguards, you literally have oil and gas lobbyists, who have spent the last, you know, three to four years fighting this regulation, now in charge of repealing it.
AMY GOODMAN: Does Forsgren have to go through congressional approval, Lee Fang?
LEE FANG: No, and that’s kind of an interesting dynamic here. You know—
AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds.
LEE FANG: No, he does not. He’s a deputy administrator. And the EPA has been pushing through a lot of deputy roles that do not require Senate confirmation.
==
Consumer Energy Alliance Fights "Discrimination" Against Gasoline and Diesel
One of the other Alberta ALEC Academy sponsors was the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), an oil industry front group that has campaigned against LCFS for several years, and which has close connections to AFPM, ALEC and the Alberta government. A top lobbyist for the group has played a key role in the coordinated fight back against the LCFS initiative.
In a 2011 article for Salon.com [16], Canadian reporter Geoff Dembicki exposed email communications between Michael Whatley and then Alberta government diplomat Gary Mar, in which Whatley pitched the Alberta government on a campaign to oppose LCFS in the U.S. at the state and federal level. In the emails, Whatley warned that the northeast state governors' plan needed "a very serious response on all levels."
In a later email, Whatley told Mar that his plan was to work to oppose LCFS with "affiliated energy coalitions and trade associations, thought leaders, elected officials, unions and key allies."
Soon after, CEA began vigorously campaigning against LCFS. According to the group's 2011 [17] and 2012 IRS filings, it devoted about one quarter of its entire budget in both years to an anti-LCFS campaign, amounting to $882,890 in 2011 [17] and $730,607 in 2012. After the New Hampshire law passed, Whatley took the opportunity to slam LCFS, bemoaning that it would inevitably "discriminate against traditional fuels like gasoline and diesel."
CEA is organized as a non-profit group and its list of funders is unknown, but on its website it does list "affiliates," [18] including a large number of oil companies with interests in the Canadian tar sands such as BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Devon Energy. The list also includes industry lobby groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and the AFPM, both of which have proven financial ties to CEA.
In its 2011 IRS filings [19] (the most recent to be publicly available), AFPM noted that it was seeking "contribution pledges from specific member companies to introduce a public relations campaign to educate and inform target audiences about the adverse impacts of low carbon fuel standards." The same year it provided more than a million dollars to CEA in consulting fees.
SW
Michael Whatley is a lobbyist for HBW Resources, which lobbies on behalf of the Alberta Tar Sands project. He also serves as Vice President on the Board of Directors of the energy industry front group, the Consumer Energy Alliance, which lobbies on behalf of extractive energy industries, like oil and methane gas. Whatley is a former Chief of Staff to Elizabeth Dole.[1][2]
Whatley advocates in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline project, saying it will create jobs, but he does not address the environmental aspects of the project.[3]
Contents |
Sourcewatch resources
External resources
- Geoff Dembicki Big Oil and Canada Thwarted U.S. Carbon Standards, published article, December 15, 2011
- Michael Whatley Why Oil Sands Crude is Still Good for the United States, blog/article, November 12, 2011
Contact
References
- ↑ OpenSecrets Whatley, Michael D, Lobbyist employment history, OpenSecrets.org, accessed December 19, 2011
- ↑ Geoff Dembicki Big Oil and Canada Thwarted U.S. Carbon Standards, published article, December 15, 2011
- ↑ Michael Whatley Why Oil Sands Crude is Still Good for the United States, blog/article, November 12, 2011
SW
The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is a nonprofit organization and a front group for the energy industry that opposes political efforts to regulate carbon standards while advancing deep water and land-based drilling for oil and methane gas. The CEA supports lifting moratoria on offshore and land-based oil and natural gas drilling, encourages the creation and expansion of petroleum refineries and easing the permitting process for drilling. The group also says it supports energy conservation. CEO portrays itself as seeking to ensure a "proper balance" between traditional non-renewable and extractive energy sources and alternative energy sources. The group also supports construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.[1][2][3]
According to Salon.com, which obtained over 300 emails of personal messages between lobbyists and Canadian officials, the CEA is part of a sophisticated public affairs strategy designed to manipulate the U.S. political system by deluging the media with messaging favorable to the tar-sands industry; to persuade key state and federal legislators to act in the extractive industries' favor; and to defeat any attempt to regulate the carbon emissions emanating from gasoline and diesel used by U.S. vehicles.[4]
Contents [hide] |
Formation and history
The CEA was created in the late 2000s by Michael Whatley, a founding partner of a Washington, D.C.-based Republican lobbying group HBW Resources that has close ties to the Alberta, Canada tar sands industry. In a January 25, 2010 pro-industry strategy proposal to an Alberta government official, Whatley wrote that he was interested in "conducting a grassroots operation" in "target states" that would "generate significant opposition to discriminatory ow carbon fuels standards" that were created to address climate change. Whatley created the CEA with backing from big energy producers BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon, Shell and the Norwegian energy company Statoil. Despite it's backing by big corporations, the group claimed it provided "a voice for consumers interested in vital public issues."[5]
A December 15, 2011 article in Salon.com reported that
In August 2009, it began running a series of slick radio and TV ads in Tennessee, Montana and the Dakotas, warning that such policies “threaten thousands of American jobs” and “would be disastrous for American consumers.” Each ad instructed viewers to complain to their state’s representatives in Congress, providing phone numbers to make it easier.[6]
E-mails obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act reveal the relationship between the Consumer Energy Alliance and the energy industry, and show the group is part of a coordinated astroturf strategy to create an echo chamber putting forth pro-industry messaging. [7]
Board of Directors
The CEA's Board of Directors includes lobbyists for extractive energy industries:
- David Blackmon, Director of Government Affairs (lobbyist) for the El Paso Corporation, a methane gas drilling and pipeline company based in Houston, Texas. Blackmon previously served as Communications Manager for Shell Oil Company. [8][9]
- Dave Harbour, Executive Director of the Consumer Energy Alliance of Alaska. He coordinated public relations strategies for two dozen gas pipeline members of Arctic Gas Consortium the lobby Congress to support passage of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976.[10]
- David Holt, President (and a managing partner at the oil and energy industry lobbying group HBW Resources) [11]
- John Heimlich, formerly with United Airlines financial planning
- Melissa Taldykin, formerly of the Carlyle Group
- Rich Moskowitz, a lawyer for the trucking industry [12]
Energy industry supporters/affiliates of CEA
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
- American Association of Petroleum Geologists
- American Exploration & Production Council
- **American Gas Association**
- **American Petroleum Institute**
- American Public Gas Association
- American Public Power Association
- Apache Corporation
- Association of Oil Pipe Lines
- Barney’s Pumps, Inc.
- **BP**
- CCC Group, Inc.
- The Center for North American Energy Security
- **Chevron**
- Choice! Energy
- Comanco
- Delta American Fuels
- Devon Energy Corporation
- [[El Paso Energy Corporation
- **Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil Shale**
- Environmentally Friendly Drilling Project
- **Exelon Corporation**
- **ExxonMobil**
- Florida Handling Systems
- Florida Petroleum Council
- Foresight Wind
- Gas Technology Institute
- Green Earth Fuels
- Greenline Industries
- Gulf Coast Clean Energy Application Center
- **Halliburton**
- HD Supply
- **Hess Corporation**
- Houston BioDiesel
- Houston Clean Energy Park
- Houston Renewable Energy Network
- HT/DcR Engineering, Inc.
- **Independent Petroleum Association of America**
- Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
- Lakeridge Energy Corporation
- **Marathon Corporation**
- Material Transfer Industries, LLC
- Metal Treating Institute
- Moretrench
- MS Industrial Corporation
- National Algae Association
- National Ocean Industries Association
- National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
- Natural Gas Supply Association
- New England Fuel Institute
- Nuclear Energy For Texans
- Nuclear Energy Institute
- Ocean Energy Institute
- Offshore Energy Center
- **Peabody**
- Petrohawk Energy Corporation
- Sasol
- **Shell Oil**
- Smith Brothers Oil
- Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
- StatoilHydro
- Tampa Tanks, Inc.
- Texas Alliance of Energy Producers
- Trans Pacific Oil Corporation
- U.S. Oil & Gas Association
Sourcewatch resources
External resources
Contact
Consumer Energy Alliance
2211 Norfolk
Suite 614
Houston, Texas 77098
713.337.8800
info@consumerenergyalliance.org
References
- ↑ Consumer Energy Alliance CEA Encouraged by passage of of Legislation to Move Forward Keystone XL Project, news release posted on organizational website, undated, accessed December 19, 2011
- ↑ Consumer Energy Alliance CEA Applauds Passage of Keystone XL Legislation, news release, undated, accessed December 19, 2011
- ↑ Consumer Energy Alliance Supporting Thoughtful Utilization and Development of Energy Resources (pdf), organizational/promotional brochure, accessed December 19, 2011
- ↑ Geoff Dembicki Big Oil and Canada Thwarted U.S. Carbon Standards, published article, December 15, 2011
- ↑ Geoff Dembicki Big Oil and Canada Thwarted U.S. Carbon Standards, published article, December 15, 2011
- ↑ Geoff Dembicki Big Oil and Canada Thwarted U.S. Carbon Standards, published article, December 15, 2011
- ↑ Geoff Dembicki Slide Show, copies of internal emails obtained through FOIA by Salon.com, Salon.com, accessed December 19, 2011
- ↑ El Paso Profile Overview, corporate website, accessed December 19, 2011
- ↑ Consumer Energy Alliance David Blackmon, biosketch, accessed December 19, 2011
- ↑ Consumer Energy Alliance Dave Harbour, APR, biosketch, accessed December 19, 2011
- ↑ LinkedIn David Holt, Professional profile, accessed December 19, 2011
- ↑ Consumer Energy Alliance Board of Directors, organizational website, accessed December 19, 2011
- Front groups portal
- Environment
- Energy and Environment Policy (U.S.)
- Energy policy
- Astroturf
- Climate change
Four States Introduce Keystone XL Resolutions, Lifting Language from ALEC and TransCanada Itself
by Brendan Fischer [1] — February 15, 2013 - 8:29am
- Topics: Corporations [2], Environment [3], Politics [4]
- Projects: ALEC Exposed [5]
Share this [6]
Legislators in four states have introduced bills in recent weeks supporting the controversial TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, with language that appears to have been lifted directly from a "model" American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) bill and from TransCanada's own public relations talking points.
Some of the first bills proposed in Missouri, Mississippi, Michigan and Minnesota in 2013 have been resolutions calling on the president and Congress to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which the Obama administration delayed last year in response to a wave of protest and civil disobedience. Environmentalists oppose the pipeline because extracting oil from Canadian tar sands would unlock huge amounts of carbon, increasing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Rallies are planned for this weekend [7] to hold President Obama to his promise to fight climate change by urging him to not approve Keystone XL's pipeline application.
Missouri Resolution Tracks ALEC Model
The Missouri resolution is nearly identical to an ALEC "model" resolution approved at the December 2011 ALEC meeting. TransCanada had been a member [8] of the ALEC Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force in 2010 (along with oil companies like BP and Exxon Mobil). In states like Ohio and South Dakota, the corporation paid into the state "scholarship" fund [9] that pays for legislators' flights and hotel rooms to ALEC meetings. The ALEC resolution has been passed [10] in a handful of states.
Both Missouri's HCR 19 [11] and the ALEC Resolution in Support of the Keystone XL Pipeline [12] begin:
WHEREAS, the United States relies - and will continue to rely for many years - on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, as well as renewable and alternative sources of energy;
And conclude:
The Missouri bill was proposed by Rep. Caleb Rowden (R), a newly-elected politician who has been in office for less than two months. It is not known whether Rowden has already become an ALEC member, but he may have been assigned the legislation by a more senior ALEC member legislator -- an increasingly common way of hiding ALEC's fingerprints. Rowden, who before becoming a legislator [13] was a
[14], certainly did not come up with this legislation on his own.
Though the Keystone XL approval will happen on the federal level, the corporate interests that stand to benefit from the pipeline have lobbied extensively to curry favor in the states, which can lend the appearance of grassroots support and put pressure on federal officials.
ALEC resolutions have been one avenue for TransCanada and the oil industry to advance these goals. As ALEC was approving its Keystone XL resolution in December 2011, that month's :{"Inside ALEC" Magazine:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: [15] featured an article titled "Keystone XL -- A Critical Project for America," written by Michael Whatley of the oil industry front group Consumer Energy Alliance. The CEA is :{an "astroturf" group parading as a grassroots organization:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: [16] that was started with funding from big energy producers like BP and ExxonMobil (both of which are ALEC members). CEA's Board of Advisors has :{included:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: [17] Tom Moskitis, top lobbyist for the natural gas trade group American Gas Association and the corporate co-chair of the ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.
Just weeks after ALEC adopted its Keystone XL Resolution in early 2012, President Obama denied TransCanada's application for the pipeline. ALEC promptly issued a press release [18] announcing its "disappointment" with Obama's decision, but it did render the resolution slightly outdated. Missouri's legislation closely tracks the ALEC model but deviates in some areas because of the shifting landscape surrounding the pipeline.
MI, MN, MS Bills Identical to One Another and TransCanada Talking Points
Legislators in Mississippi [19], Minnesota [20], and Michigan [21] also introduced legislation in recent weeks supporting the Keystone XL pipeline. The thrust of the resolutions are largely the same as the ALEC model, but the language deviates from the ALEC bill approved in December 2012. However, each state's proposed resolution is identical to the other states -- which certainly seems more than coincidence.
It is not known whether ALEC has been pushing an updated version of ALEC model legislation, but the language in these state resolutions can be traced back directly to TransCanada, the corporation that has been pushing the pipeline for years. Entire paragraphs from the Mississippi, Minnesota, and Michigan resolutions are nearly identical to public relations spin produced by TransCanada and posted as a "backgrounder" [22]on its website. Check out these paragraphs in the Mississippi [19], Minnesota [20], and Michigan [21] legislation, and compare the language from TransCanada's "backgrounder:" [22]
This identical language cannot be a coincidence. But it is further proof that some legislators are doing the bidding of corporate interests rather than the people that elected them.
This well-funded effort to influence state and federal legislators stands in sharp contrast with the growing grassroots environmental movement opposed the pipeline. With tens of thousands of anti-pipeline activists [7] expected in Washington DC this weekend, it remains to be seen whether federal officials reviewing the pipeline will pay closer attention to the industry's influence-peddling or the people on the streets.
Center for Media and Democracy • 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 • Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Phone: 608-260-9713 • Fax: 608-260-9714
Source URL: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11982/four-states-introduce-keystone-xl-resolutions-lifting-language-alec-and-transcana
Links:
[1] http://www.prwatch.org/users/35275/brendan-fischer
[2] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations
[3] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/environment
[4] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/politics
[5] http://www.prwatch.org/projects/alec-exposed
[6] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F02%2F11982%2Ffour-states-introduce-keystone-xl-resolutions-lifting-language-alec-and-transcana&linkname=Four%20States%20Introduce%20Keystone%20XL%20Resolutions%2C%20Lifting%20Language%20from%20ALEC%20and%20TransCanada%20Itself
[7] http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11981/presidents-day-rally-hold-obamas-feet-fire-climate-change
[8] http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/energy,environment&agriculture_35-day_mailing%20San%20Diego.pdf
[9] http://www.prwatch.org/files/BUYING_INFLUENCE_ALEC_Scholarships_by_State.pdf
[10] http://www.commonblog.com/2012/02/13/24-hour-push-to-say-no-to-alec-on-keystone-pipeline/
[11] http://openstates.org/mo/bills/2013/HCR19/documents/MOD00005814/
[12] http://www.prwatch.org/files/ResolutioninSupportoftheKeystoneXLPipeline.pdf
[13] http://calebrowden44.com/meet/
[14] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3Zcd0CkKyo&list=UU0L1EPA0SmqiAR67CW04xWQ&index=2
[15] http://www.alec.org/docs/Final_NovDec2011_IA
[16] http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/big_oil_and_canada_thwarted_u_s_carbon_standards/singleton/
[17] http://www.truebluenaturalgas.org/thomas-l-moskitis/
[18] http://www.alec.org/2012/01/1437/
[19] http://openstates.org/ms/bills/2013/SC543/documents/MSD00051985/
[20] https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0479.0.html&session=ls88
[21] http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/concurrentresolutionintroduced/Senate/pdf/2013-SICR-0006.pdf
[22] http://www.transcanada.com/6059.html