Western States Petrol Assoc

---

see bak/2

see injection well wastewater fracking

a lot here, franta wonders why not in lawsuit w API

opposed AB 32 2006

doubled lobbying $ 2014

big win 7/17 CA cap and tradeBrown, model big concensions

Indeed, winning the blessing of the Western States Petroleum Association and other industry groups was widely seen as a political necessity — the only way to secure support from business-friendly Democrats and some Republicans.

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the top lobbyist for the oil industry in the western United Statesand the oldest petroleum trade association in the country

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

Chevron alone reported spending nearly $14 million

SEE CA COC

western states petrol assoc asserts 1st amend vs berkeley gas pump sign

---

bp DEFECTS Feb. 26, 2020 [Dio?]

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

NO LNX

Evan Bush and Hal Bernton

Seattle Times staff reporters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

SOME LNX

:{:{}:

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

:{,,....

---

====

jun 23

Oil and Gas Lobbying Threatens California’s Game-Changing Climate Bills

two transparency bills in the California Legislature would require corporations to disclose more information about their emissions and their efforts to fight the climate crisis. The oil and gas industry is spending millions to kill them.

The bills would force big companies that do business in California to report all of their emissions and require firms that buy or sell carbon offsets — which are credits that represent a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions — to disclose more information in an effort to crack down on bogus climate claims. Both SB 253 and AB 1305 have momentum but could be blocked by moderate Democrats historically aligned with corporate interests.

Since the legislation would make new information available beyond California, the two bills could represent a watershed moment for holding big polluters accountable when they claim climate bonafides, supporters say.

Reporting requirements for corporate emissions are currently fragmented, and SB 253 would be a landmark law pinning down the climate impacts of some of the world’s largest companies. And as more companies market themselves as partners in the climate fight, greater oversight over voluntary carbon trading markets could help verify their claims. Challenges range from a lack of information on who is buying and selling credits to credits handed out for emissions reductions that never actually happened. AB 1305 requires this information to be reported publicly.

The bills are opposed by the Western States Petroleum Association, which has already spent $2.38 million on lobbying and advocacy groups this year. While some oil and gas companies in California have expressed their support for rolling back climate change, industry opposition fits into an agenda of delaying action, said Ryan Schleeter, communications director at the Climate Center.

“Delay is the new denial,” said Schleeter. “Climate denial won’t fly in this state, and companies are smart enough to figure that out, so they delay as long as possible and squeeze out as much profit as they can.”

“We Can’t Improve What We Don’t Measure”

Lawmakers are evaluating the bills as the climate crisis intensifies around the world. Halfway into 2023, smoke from extreme wildfires blanketed Canada and the U.S. Record-breaking temperatures have struck Texas, Mexico, Ireland, Britain, Puerto Rico, Europe, Northern Africa and Asia.

In California, WSPA insists that it wants to be part of the “climate conversation,” according to Kevin Slagle, the association’s vice president of strategic communications.

WSPA’s opposition to the transparency bills “is based not so much on not wanting to progress, as it is how we get to those places,” he continued, noting areas where the oil and gas industry is promoting solutions like hydrogen and biofuels. “Is it that we are often pushing too far, too fast?”

But industry warnings about pace and ambition contrast with the U.N.’s insistence that deep, rapid and sustained reductions are needed now. And the bills are in line with recommendations from a group of experts convened by the United Nations, which concluded that companies should annually report their emissions and reliance on carbon offsets as early steps to eventually ending fossil fuel production.

When pressed on the matter, Slagle deflected, offering his view that the oil and gas industry has been unfairly painted as “evil” due to its frequent opposition to climate accountability measures. In public comments and written testimony, WSPA representatives have said little about why they oppose reporting requirements proposed under SB 253. The California Chamber of Commerce, which has spoken for a broader opposition coalition that includes WSPA and other business associations, cites compliance costs.

Companies that participate in California’s cap and trade system already report emissions information to the state, including Scope 3 emissions, which account for the vast majority. These are from burning oil and gas sold by fossil fuel companies. Scope 1 and 2 refer to emissions from a business’s day-to-day activities and electricity usage.

SB 253, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), expands reporting requirements to all companies generating revenues of more than $1 billion a year. It’s more expansive than a rule currently under consideration by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the disclosures have the potential to affect climate action worldwide, said Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters.

“This would be pretty monumental,” said Creasman, whose organization is sponsoring the legislation. “There is a movement to say we can’t improve what we don’t measure, full stop.”

Sometimes companies claim to reduce their climate pollution by buying offset credits, which can be used by a company or a country to offset their own emissions.

But offsets have dubious track records across industries and regions. One study into offsets for cooking stoves found that only one in seven represented actual reductions.

Another study found 93% of Chevron’s offsets over the last two years were likely junk. The company, a WSPA member, opposes AB 1305 and spent $1.27 million on lobbying this spring, the most of any oil company. It plans to use offsets while continuing to produce oil and gas.

In a legislative filing, WSPA called the bill’s reporting requirements unclear and redundant, pointing to the SEC’s rulemaking process.

For Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Woodland Hills), who authored AB 1305, the argument holds little water. Financial filings by one WSPA member company, the refining giant Valero, warned that disclosure rules could “be used to advance agendas that disfavor the fossil fuel industry.”

“If these companies want to get the benefit of showing they are on the right side of history, [AB 1305] will encourage them to show that they are purchasing offsets that will actually make a difference,” Gabriel said.

Moderate Democrats Will Decide Bills’ Fate

A nearly identical version of SB 253 failed last year by one vote in the Assembly. It’s now headed to committees in that chamber that must approve it before a floor vote.

Democrats dominate the chamber, 62 to 18 Republicans. This supermajority means opponents are focusing on swaying moderate Democrats, who are historically more likely to oppose regulations on businesses than progressive lawmakers.

In addition to all Assembly Republicans, one Democrat who is still in the Assembly — Sharon Quirk-Silva (Buena Park) — voted against climate disclosures last year. Fifteen others who registered “no vote recorded” in 2022 will have an opportunity to vote if the bill reaches the floor this year.

Combined, these legislators have received millions from the California Chamber of Commerce, as well as the oil and gas industry and other corporate interests.

“It’ll be a tough bill to pass in the Assembly,” said Creasman. “We’re hopeful this year, because it’s part of a strong package of other corporate leadership and accountability bills.”

Meanwhile, AB 1305 passed by a large majority in the Assembly and is now moving through the Senate. Gabriel is hopeful about its chances.

“I actually think the bills would fit together nicely in terms of creating a regulatory architecture that’s going to really just provide more accountability and transparency,” Gabriel told Capital & Main.

As scrutiny of the fossil fuel industry has grown, companies have cloaked themselves as climate warriors, said Melissa Aronczyk, an associate professor of media studies at Rutgers University who studies the history of the industry’s public relations strategies.

The public has caught on to squishy climate claims in recent years, but oil majors still often announce actions or aspirations that are impossible to measure.

“These are efforts to sidestep real rules, regulation or other frameworks, to actually hold these companies accountable,” Aronczyk said. “The irony is that it is a very simple need that we have, which is to phase out fossil fuels. It’s straightforward.”

===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

The suspects

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

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

American consumers

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

Batteries

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

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

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

Oil companies

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

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

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

Car companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV...EV1s in a junk yard are shown in the film

With GM as its primary example, the film documents that car makers engaged in both positive and negative marketing of the electric car as its intentions toward the car and California legislation changed. In earlier days, GM ran Super Bowl commercials produced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Light_%26_Magic" Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) for the EV1. In later days it ran "award winning" doomsday-style advertising featuring the EV1 and ran customer surveys which emphasized drawbacks to electronic vehicle technology which were not actually present in the EV1.^[4] (As a side note, CARB officials were quoted claiming that they removed their zero emission vehicle quotas in part because they gave weight to such surveys purportedly showing no demand existing for the EV1s.) Other charges raised on GM included sabotaging their own product program, failing to produce cars to meet existing demand, and refusing to sell cars directly (it only leased them).

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

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

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

U.S. government

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

California Air Resources Board

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

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

Hydrogen fuel cell

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

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

Response from General Motors

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

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

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

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

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

Reception...

After 26 years with the trade group,Reheis-Boyd is the soft-spoken public face of the oil industry, backed up by a team of lobbyists. She leads an organization that is decidedly old school: Each winter, it hosts a reception for lawmakers at the upscale Esquire Grill a few blocks from the Capitol building, and continues to wine and dine them throughout the year, often in tandem with its smaller counterpart, the California Independent Petroleum Association, or CIPA.

In 2015, for instance, when state lawmakers convened for an annual corporate-sponsored summit in Maui, WSPA treated nine legislators to dinner at Spago, running up a $3,300 tab. The following month, CIPA whisked 22 lawmakers and two candidates to its oil symposium at the Resort at Pelican Hill, a five-star property in Newport Beach overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Two state senators and a Senate candidate enjoyed $300 rounds of golf. The outings are legal under the state’s campaign-finance laws.

But WSPA’s real influence stems from the millions more its members—including Chevron, California’s third-largest company by revenue—pour into a network of political-action committees—outside groups designed to boost industry allies and target critics under innocuous names such as the Coalition to Restore California’s Middle Class. They run attack ads and send out mailers to influence campaigns as well as legislation. “Unless leadership directly intervenes for a bill, the oil industry can hold it hostage,” said former Assemblyman Das Williams, a Santa Barbara Democrat who chaired the California Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee. “On any given day, they’ve got between six and nine Democrats, in addition to most of the Republicans.” That approaches half the 80-member Assembly, and that bipartisan coalition has established a track record of watering down or blocking climate-related legislation.

The industry had already changed the rules of legislative debate; in2010, Chevron was the leading corporate sponsor of a ballot measure to require a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority, for state and local governments to enact new fees on businesses.

When energy-related bills pass the Legislature, WSPA and its members have a hand in how rules are crafted and laws are enforced. Lobbyists pick up meals for regulators at fast-food restaurants, refinery cafeterias, and oceanfront resorts. Oil executives and state regulators meet as an “oil and gas work group” to discuss rule making, and WSPA’s Reheis-Boyd was even appointed to a state panel that helped create marine sanctuaries. Last year, when an assemblyman filed a request to audit the state agency that administers the state’s cap-and-trade program, the Microsoft Word file showed it had a different author: WSPA’s chief lobbyist. The lawmaker’s chief of staff told the Los Angeles Times that the group, like any other special interest, “tend[s] to have the policy expertise when we have questions.”...

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

Western States Petroleum Association challenge to City of Berkeley Municipal Code

proposed amendment (2014)—After a city council voted to put stickers on gas pumps to warn

consumers that burning fuel contributes to global warming an oil industry group threatened tosue based on its corporate free speech rights.

AB 398

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/01/climate-change-and-bail-reform-bills-fall-short-in-the-california-assembly/

http://www.mercurynews.com:(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}::{/2017:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}::{/07/11/debate-rages-over-california-cap-and-trade-deal-concessions-to-big-oil/

A new deal to extend California’s landmark climate program known as cap and trade was met with both praise and condemnation Tuesday as environmentalists, business groups and lawmakers worked furiously to untangle — and wrangle over — the complex proposal that could be up for a vote within days.

Reactions to the agreement, unveiled late Monday by Gov. Jerry Brown and top lawmakers after weeks of closed-door talks, reflect a long-running split in the world of environmental advocacy. As grass-roots “environmental justice” groups expressed shock over regulatory changes and other concessions granted to Big Oil, mainstream environmental organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Nature Conservancy lined up behind the hard-fought compromise as a pragmatic way forward.

One of the more controversial provisions of the bill would block local air regulators from setting additional carbon-emission rules for industry. The proposal also would limit the California Air Resources Board’s ability to set rules for carbon outside of the cap-and-trade program.

“The concessions to industry are bitter pills,” Alex Jackson, legal director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s California climate project, said in a statement, “but on balance the package ensures our emissions limits are enforceable against polluters and secures critical gains to improve air quality for millions of Californians. The world is watching for California to chart a path through the climate denial and obstruction coming from the White House — and California is yet again poised to deliver.”

Securing the future of the cap-and-trade program — and protecting it from future court challenges — will require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, a heavy lift especially in the more politically moderate state Assembly, where another cap-and-trade proposal last month failed to win even a majority vote. So far, no Republicans have publicly come out in support of the bill, but Brown and other supporters are working to drum up the support they need from both sides of the aisle.

Assembly Bill 398 would extend through 2030 a program that sets an ever-lowering cap on greenhouse gas emissions and essentially requires industry to pay to pollute, acquiring permits for every ton of carbon released into the atmosphere.

State regulators now issue millions of free permits, but had planned to begin weaning factories and the refineries from the help starting next year, forcing them to pay for a larger share of the permits. Instead, the new proposal would keep the aid flowing. Free permits for the oil and gas industry alone would add up to $10 billion-$30 billion from 2018 to 2030, said Danny Cullenward, an economist and researcher with the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University.

“The biggest winners of this proposal are the oil industry, by and large,” said Cullenward, who advised Sen. Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, on another cap-and-trade proposal that has been stalled in the Senate.

Officials with the governor’s office say that the free permits are designed to keep industry from leaving the state and emitting carbon somewhere else. They argue that this and other concessions won’t slow emissions reductions — the overarching goal of the program.

But the change to local authority would stop the Bay Area Air Quality Management District from setting new limits on greenhouse gases from the area’s Chevron, Shell, Tesoro, Valero and Phillips 66 refineries — a proposal scheduled for a vote in September. The air district — which opposes the cap-and-trade bill for that reason and others — would be able to set a cap on emissions that contribute to local air pollution, but not on carbon.

“We find it painful to be in a position where we’re having to oppose a goal that we support so strongly,” said Tom Addison, a senior policy adviser for the Bay Area district.

Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, who serves on both the Bay Area Air Quality Management District board and the California Air Resources board, said he was concerned about the regulatory changes.

“My reaction to this is it is unfortunate that the bill takes away local authority to regulate greenhouse gases at large, stationary sources like refineries,” he said. But he noted that “this is part of the horse-trading in Sacramento to get the two-thirds vote to extend cap and trade.”

The California Chamber of Commerceon Tuesday said only that it was reviewing the bill language, and the petroleum association did not respond to requests for comment.

Two Bay Area business groups— the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the East Bay Leadership Council — quickly endorsed the measures. The negotiations, said Mike Mielke, one of the Silicon Valley group’s executives, “have resulted in a proposal that maintains the integrity of the program while balancing the needs of the business community.”

To address local environmental concerns, especially in districts long burdened by dirty and toxic air, Brown and top leaders introduced a separate bill, Assembly Bill 617. It would require oil refineries and other plants in heavily polluted areas to replace their equipment with cleaner technology by the end of 2023. The bill could pass with only a simple majority vote.

“Overall, I find it really encouraging that they went the route of a separate bill targeting local pollutants,” saidProfessor James Bushnell, a UC Davis economics professor and former research director at the University of California Energy Institute in Berkeley.“To get to two-thirds, you need a coalition of the people who are really focused on the local pollutants joining the people who are focused on the climate question.”

But the air-quality bill was not enough to assuage the concerns of advocates such as Amy Vanderwarker, of the California Environmental Justice Alliance.

While it contains important provisions, she said,“Our bigger picture analysis is that even with those steps forward in the air quality bill, it’s not enough to justify the backsliding under AB 398.”

---

Western States Petroleum Association challenge to City of Berkeley Municipal Code

proposed amendment (2014)—After a city council voted to put stickers on gas pumps to warn

consumers that burning fuel contributes to global warming an oil industry group threatened to

sue based on its corporate free speech rights.

WSP$5 mil lobby Sacramento onfracking,chevron 4 plus 4/14

http://www.alternet.org/environment/california-drilling-plan-verges-insanity-environmentalists-say

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (CN) -Environmental groups sued Kern County for a zoning revision they say will allow the oil industry to drill 73,000 new oil wells in unincorporated areas - 10 a day for 20 years.

Among the severe and illegal shortcomings of the new county ordinance is that it treats the drilling of 72,490 oil and gas wells on 2.3 million acres for 20 years as a single project, the local and national environmental groups say.

The Committee for a Better Arvin, Committee for a Better Shafter, and Bakersfield-based Greenfield Walking Group sued the county, its Board of Supervisors and its planning and development department on Thursday in Superior Court. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity joined as plaintiffs. It is the Top Download at Courthouse News on Monday.

The Western States Petroleum Association, California Independent Petroleum Association, and the Independent Oil Producers Agency are named as real parties in interest.

"The oil industry is trying to fast-track permitting for thousands of oil wells," plaintiffs' attorney William Rostov told Courthouse News.

"It's unfortunate that the Board of Supervisors went along with the oil industry on this. Our clients feel they have no other recourse but to take it to court."

Kern County, at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, already has some of the worst air pollution in the country, from oil drilling, pesticides, dust and microparticulates, and ozone from auto and farm machinery exhaust.

The rezoning violated the California Environmental Quality Act, one of whose purposes is to educate the public about projects in their vicinity, Rostov said.

He said the new ordinance would drastically transform Kern County and have a "tremendous effect" on water and air quality. The county knows about the impacts, but did not properly analyze them, he said.

"This is a very important case that could affect Kern for decades to come," Rostov said. "We think we have a very good case."

According to the lengthy complaint: "Proposed and paid for by the oil industry, the ordinance and the accompanying final environmental impact report ('Final EIR') purport to authorize the development of up to 3,647 new oil and gas wells and extensive associated construction and operation activities, each year for 20 to 25 more years, without any further, site-specific assessment of those activities' health and other environmental impacts. The ordinance jeopardizes the health and well-being of hundreds of thousands of people across Kern County."

Kern County, population 839,631, at the southern end of the Central Valley. Nearly the size of New Jersey, it extends from Delano, its northernmost city, south to the Tehachapi Mountains, east into the Mojave Desert and west across the San Joaquin Valley.

Its two biggest industries are agriculture and oil and gas development. Kern produces one-tenth of the nation's petroleum and is the top oil-producing county in California, with 81 percent of the state's active oil wells.

That number will surge drastically if the amended ordinance, approved on Nov. 9, is allowed to stand, the environmentalists say...

---

ucs: dossiers

Internal documents have shown that a key component of the major fossil fuel companies’ deception campaign about climate change has been the cultivation of so-called “astroturf” organizations, groups created to falsely represent grassroots opposition to forward-looking policy on climate change and renewable energy. These activities have rarely been revealed as starkly as in a presentation leaked in 2014 from the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the top lobbyist for the oil industry in the western United Statesand the oldest petroleum trade association in the country (Figure 5, p. 14 and Appendix C, p. 39).

Chevron alone reported spending nearly $14 million (Bacher 2015; California Secretary of State 2015). But what makes the leak of the WSPA presentation especially noteworthy is the glimpse it offers of the extent of the fossil fuel companies’ deceptive practices. The Illusion of Grassroots Opposition The presentation was delivered by WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd to the Washington Research Council, a business group, and was subsequently leaked to Bloomberg Businessweek (Wieners 2014). In it, Reheis-Boyd explainsWSPA’s plan to “activate” a “significant number of campaigns and coalitions.”

:{As a presentation slide obliquely explains, WSPA “:{invested in several coalitions that are best suited to drive consumer and grassroots messages to regulators and policymakers.” In all, Reheis-Boyd showcased a total of 16 fake-grassroots groups and campaigns orchestrated and funded by WSPA and its allies. Among these astroturf coalitions were groups with names such as Fed Up at the Pump, the California Drivers Alliance, Californians Against Higher Taxes, and Oregonians for Sound Fuel Policy.}:I

in addition to WSPA’s direct lobbying on behalf of the fossil fuel companies, the group planned to use this network of front groups—some of which WSPA created out of whole cloth—to counter California’s state climate and energy policy. The groups were designed to sound like grassroots public interest groups (Wieners 2014). But, in truth, they were little more than channels through which the fossil fuel companies could exaggerate the extent of popular support for}:

its positions undermining action on climate change. Through these groups, the industry attempted to create the impression of a consumer backlash against climate legislation. Recent filings with the California secretary of state show that WSPA nearly doubled its lobbying budget in 2014—the year of Reheis-Boyd’s presentation—to nearly $8.9 million. Equally revealing, the vast majority of this spending—some $7.2 million—was reported under a catchall “other” category that requires no detailed disclosure about how the money was spent. The leaked presentation slide strongly suggests where much of this money went: to create and promote astroturf groups (Rosenhall 2015).

Undermining Public Discourse

WSPA’s tactics are clearly designed to undermine authentic public discourse, especially given that California boasts a roughly 70 percent voter approval on clean energy issues. Concerns are raised by groups of purportedly everyday citizens when, in fact, they are disguised messages from fossil fuel companies seeking to undermine climate legislation. At least two of the front groups set up by WSPA—California Driver’s Alliance and Fed Up at the Pump—launched aggressive public relations campaigns in 2014, including radio ads and billboards. Their efforts were credited with

helping to convince 15 Democrats in the California Assembly

to argue in June 2014 that the policy placing transportation

fuels under the state’s carbon cap should be postponed.

Ultimately, the groups’ efforts failed, and transportation fuels

were included in the emissions limits set up by the state. The

fabricated Fed Up at the Pump group still has a Facebook

page that bills itself as “a grassroots coalition of consumers,

businesses, and advocates” concerned about gas prices

(Fed Up at the Pump 2015). The portrayal is badly undercut,

however, when a click on the link describing the mission of

the group redirects the visitor, inadvertently or not, to the

website of the California Independent Oil Marketers Association

(CIOMA 2015).

Even though WSPA’s efforts in California were unsuccessful,

the organization has adopted a regional approach,

aware that nearby states are watching California closely.

While working to dismantle California’s policies,WSPA is also

active in Washington and Oregon—states that are also debating

aggressive carbon emissions reduction policies—through

groups such as Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy

and Oregon Climate Change Campaign (Wieners 2014).

After the details of WSPA’s presentation were leaked,

Reheis-Boyd defended WSPA’s use of front groups by euphemistically

calling them “partnerships.” As she put it: “The fact

we are engaged in partnerships with a large array of business

and consumer coalitions isn’t a secret to anyone familiar with

our active engagement on behalf of our members in all of

the states for which we are responsible.” She suggested that

WSPA’s actions were transparent, while charging—with no

trace of irony—that its opponents “skulk in the shadows and

attack the legitimacy of voices with whom they disagree”

(Reheis-Boyd 2014)

8/15

Leaked internal memos reveal a coordinated, decades-long disinformation campaign.

by Elliott Negin

When internal documents revealed earlier this year that ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel interests were secretly funding scientifically discredited studies authored by climate contrarian Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, the news didn’t come as a complete surprise.

Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report identified Soon—an aerospace engineer with little formal training in climatology—as one of a dozen scientists affiliated with more than 40 ExxonMobil-funded think tanks that then constituted the backbone of the climate change–denier PR machine. Soon, who erroneously claims the sun is largely responsible for global warming, produced work for at least five of these ExxonMobil-backed groups, including the now infamous Heartland Institute.

He described his scientific work and congressional testimony as “deliverables” to his funders. And some of his contracts specifically dictate that the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where Soon works, not disclose the names of his funders. These internal documents, on top of what UCS had already uncovered, indisputably establish Soon’s efforts as part of a calculated climate deception campaign.

Dossiers of Deception

pm dl doc

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.Vc98KflViko

Willie Soon, however, is just a small part of a much bigger story, according to a new UCS report,The Climate Deception Dossiers. After spending nearly a year reviewing and analyzing a wide range of internal corporate and trade group documents, a team of UCS researchers has, for the first time, compiled a broader tale of climate deception. The Climate Deception Dossiers draws upon evidence culled from 85 documents that were pried loose by leaks, lawsuits, and FOIA requests.

Spanning nearly three decades, these documents reveal that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, coal giant Peabody Energy, and Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API)—the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association—and a host of front groups, have colluded to intentionally deceive the public; their corporate officials have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful; and their disinformation campaign continues today—despite the fact that most of the companies now publicly acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change.

A team convened in 1998 by the American Petroleum Institute—the country’s largest oil trade association whose member companies include BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell Oil—outlined a road map for climate deception including a plan to cultivate purportedly independent scientists as climate misinformers. The campaign would achieve “victory,” according to the memo, when “average citizens” believed that the realities of climate science were uncertain.

The collected documents reveal a variety of deceitful tactics, including creating front groups, secretly funding purportedly independent scientists such as Soon, and even forging letters from nonprofit groups to try to influence members of Congress. But you don’t have to rely on UCS’s interpretation. All 340 pages of the documents in seven “deception dossiers” are available online, so you can read them and reach your own conclusions.

A Damning Paper Trail

The 340 pages include not only Soon’s contracts, but also a 1998 API disinformation road map memo as well as a 2014 Western States Petroleum Association memo on creating phony grassroots consumer groups to challenge California’s climate policies.

One eye-opening, formerly secret document reveals that scientific experts commissioned by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC)—a coalition of 50 U.S. corporations and trade groups including British Petroleum (now BP), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Mobil, and Shell—warned that heat-trapping gases were indeed causing global warming. Regardless, the GCC continued to conduct a multimillion-dollar lobbying and public relations campaign to undermine national and international efforts to address global warming.

One of the GCC’s “backgrounders” for legislators and journalists, for example, claimed “the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood” and emphasized that “scientists differ” on the issue. But the 17-page, internal 1995 GCC primer written by the companies’ own scientists states: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied[emphasis added].” The primer’s lead author, Leonard S. Bernstein, a staff scientist at Mobil Oil, would later participate as a lead author of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports in 2001 and 2007.

One draft version of the primer even addressed and dismissed the major arguments made by climate change contrarians, such as the “solar variability” argument touted by Soon. “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes,” the draft stated, “but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.” This section was deleted from the primer’s final version.

Three years later, the API set up what it called the Global Climate Science Communications Team to try to derail the KyotoProtocol, the 1997 international agreement signed by 192 countries—but not the United States—to meet binding carbon emissions reduction targets. A leaked 1998 campaign memo from this team, cowritten by representatives of the API and API members Chevron and Exxon, laid out a road map for climate deception largely based on the tobacco industry’s strategy to stave off government regulation by deceiving the public about smoking hazards.

Echoing that strategy—encapsulated in the notorious internal tobacco industry memo claiming “Doubt is our product”—the API memo states: “Victory will be achieved when: average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science.” The API team planned to emphasize “uncertainties” in climate science at least partly by identifying, recruiting, and funding previously unaffiliated scientists. After all, the memo notes, such scientists would have more credibility with reporters and the public than those already known to be working with the fossil fuel industry.

What makes the secret API memo so revealing is how closely its instructions seem to have been carried out in the Soon case. One of the API memo’s contributors, RobertGehri, even negotiated one of Soon’s contracts on behalf of his industry backers. All told, Soon received more than $1.2 million from fossil fuel interests over the last decade and failed to disclose that conflict of interest in most of the scientific papers that money underwrote. More than $400,000 came from a subsidiary of the Southern Company, a large utility holding company with a fleet of coal-fired power plants. ExxonMobil gave Soon $335,000. The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation kicked in another $230,000. The API, meanwhile, contributed more than $100,000.

What did they get for their money? The papers conclude that solar activity is the main cause of global warming and that carbon emissions have had little or no impact. Despite the speciousness of Soon’s findings,members of Congress—notably Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe—routinely cite his workto argue that climate science is a hoax.

DOCUMENTING FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES’ CLIMATE DECEPTION

Jul 15,2015 by Casey Coates Danson

Climate denier dossiers

Leaked internal memos reveal a coordinated, decades-long disinformation campaign.

by Elliott Negin

Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report identified Soon—an aerospace engineer with little formal training in climatology—as one of a dozen scientists affiliated with more than 40 ExxonMobil-funded think tanks that then constituted the backbone of the climate change–denier PR machine. Soon, who erroneously claims the sun is largely responsible for global warming, produced work for at least five of these ExxonMobil-backed groups, including the now infamous Heartland Institute.

But the latest cache of documents, obtained by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, lays bare a wealth of detail that was not available eight years ago. For example, they show that Soon received his funding exclusively from fossil fuel interests, including ExxonMobil, utility giant Southern Company, and Charles Koch. He described his scientific work and congressional testimony as “deliverables” to his funders. And some of his contracts specifically dictate that the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where Soon works, not disclose the names of his funders. These internal documents, on top of what UCS had already uncovered, indisputably establish Soon’s efforts as part of a calculated climate deception campaign.

Dossiers of Deception

Willie Soon, however, is just a small part of a much bigger story, according to a new UCS report, The Climate Deception Dossiers. After spending nearly a year reviewing and analyzing a wide range of internal corporate and trade group documents, a team of UCS researchers has, for the first time, compiled a broader tale of climate deception. The Climate Deception Dossiers draws upon evidence culled from 85 documents that were pried loose by leaks, lawsuits, and FOIA requests.

A Damning Paper Trail

The 340 pages include not only Soon’s contracts, but also a 1998 API disinformation road map memo as well as a 2014 Western States Petroleum Association memo on creating phony grassroots consumer groups to challenge California’s climate policies.

One eye-opening, formerly secret document reveals that scientific experts commissioned by theGlobal Climate Coalition (GCC)—a coalition of 50 U.S. corporations and trade groups including British Petroleum (now BP), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Mobil, and Shell—warned that heat-trapping gases were indeed causing global warming. Regardless, the GCC continued to conduct a multimillion-dollar lobbying and public relations campaign to undermine national and international efforts to address global warming.

One of the GCC’s “backgrounders” for legislators and journalists, for example, claimed “the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood” and emphasized that “scientists differ” on the issue. But the 17-page, internal 1995 GCC primer written by the companies’ own scientists states: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied [emphasis added].” The primer’s lead author, Leonard S. Bernstein, a staff scientist at Mobil Oil, would later participate as a lead author of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports in 2001 and 2007.

Three years later, the API set up what it called the Global Climate Science Communications Team to try to derail the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international agreement signed by 192 countries—but not the United States—to meet binding carbon emissions reduction targets. A leaked 1998 campaign memo from this team, cowritten by representatives of the API and API members Chevron and Exxon, laid out a road map for climate deception largely based on the tobacco industry’s strategy to stave off government regulation by deceiving the public about smoking hazards.

What makes the secret API memo so revealing is how closely its instructions seem to have been carried out in the Soon case. One of the API memo’s contributors, Robert Gehri, even negotiated one of Soon’s contracts on behalf of his industry backers. All told, Soon received more than $1.2 million from fossil fuel interests over the last decade and failed to disclose that conflict of interest in most of the scientific papers that money underwrote. More than $400,000 came from a subsidiary of the Southern Company, a large utility holding company with a fleet of coal-fired power plants. ExxonMobil gave Soon $335,000. The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation kicked in another $230,000. The API, meanwhile, contributed more than $100,000.

What did they get for their money? The papers conclude that solar activity is the main cause of global warming and that carbon emissions have had little or no impact. Despite the speciousness of Soon’s findings, members of Congress—notably Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe—routinely cite his work to argue that climate science is a hoax.

Although the Industrial Revolution began more than 250 years ago, more than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies knew about the harm their products were causing.

Holding the Perpetrators Accountable

The tobacco industry successfully stalled meaningful regulations for decades. The fossil fuel industry has been using virtually the same strategy, at least when it comes to federal legislation. Meanwhile, as the fossil fuel companies’ deception campaign has continued, we’ve taken a heavy toll in rising temperatures and a host of climate impacts.

As the new UCS report notes, recent research has documented that 90 state- and privately owned corporations alone have produced and marketed the fossil fuels and cement responsible for nearly two-thirds of the world’s industrial heat-trapping carbon emissions over the past two and a half centuries. Of these, 50 are investor-owned coal, oil, and natural gas companies, including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Peabody, and Shell. Furthermore, nearly 30 percent of all industrial emissions can be traced to just 20 investor- and state-owned companies.

What’s more, the rate of carbon emissions has increased dramatically in our rapidly industrializing world. As a result, more than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released into the atmosphere since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies indisputably knew about the harm their products are doing to the climate.

What Is to Be Done?

There are a number of potential ways to hold large industrial polluters accountable for their actions. Shareholder engagement, divestment campaigns, and state court litigation could all play an important role in forcing them to take responsibility for their emissions, ending their disinformation campaigns, and even requiring them to pay reparations to cover the cost of climate damages, preparedness, and mitigation. The most effective tactics remain a subject for debate. But, as the picture of the fossil fuel companies’ efforts to deceive the public becomes clearer, it is high time to hold these companies accountable for their actions and the damage they’ve done

---

Western States Petroleum Association challenge to City of Berkeley Municipal Code proposed amendment (2014)—After a city council voted to put stickers on gas pumps to warn consumers that burning fuel contributes to global warming an oil industry group threatened to sue based on its corporate free speech rights,

===

5/14

ACalifornia bill that would have banned fracking while the state studied its risks was narrowly defeated in the state Senate on Thursday, despite polling that showed a majority of California voters favored the legislation.

SB 1132, authored by Democratic state senators Holly Mitchell and Mark Leno, failed to pass with a vote of 18-16. In all, seven Democrats prevented the bill from moving forward, with four voting against the bill and three more abstaining from voting.

The bill’s defeat was widely seen as a win for the state’s large oil lobby, led by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). The group, according to Truth Out, spent $4.6 million in 2013 on lobbying in California, and has so far spent $1.4 million in just the first 3 months of 2014. Altogether, the oil industry — including WSPA, Chevron, and BP — spent more than $56 million lobbying the California Legislature from 2009 through 2013.

The group Californians Against Fracking — which includes 350.org, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Oil Change International — estimates $15 million has been spent altogether on lobbying activities to specifically defeat SB 1132.

“It’s disappointing to see our leaders in Sacramento fail to pass a moratorium on fracking, siding with the powerful oil and gas industry at the expense of the health of our families and climate,” said Arturo Carmona, Executive Director of Latino online organizing group Presente.org. “Latinos will bear the brunt of the worst effects of fracking in California–from poisoned water to asthma, and are in the areas worst affected by climate change across the nation.”

Fracking is a method of extracting fossil fuels that is coveted for its ability to increase the flow of oil or gas from a well. This is done by injecting high-pressure water and chemicals miles-deep into the ground into subsurface rock, effectively “fracturing” the rock and allowing more spaces for oil and gas to come through. The process relies heavily on groundwater by injecting a mixture of chemicals and water into rock formations to release oil and gas deposits.

California’s ongoing severe drought emergency had prompted lawmakers to push for thestatewide ban until more information could be found about how much water the process used and how safe it was, as a Ceres report found that 96 percent of California fracking wells are located in the areas experiencing drought and high water stress.

But lawmakers who voted against the statewide ban on Wednesday argued that the bill would have led to a “heavy reduction” of jobs, while others argued that the state “needs gas to run on.”

Many had also argued that California was about to experience a shale oil boom, and that a fracking ban would prevent the jobs to come from that boom. Fracking and other unconventional methods of drilling are the primary methods to reach the oil in California’s Monterey Shale, which is too difficult to recover with other methods of drilling.

However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration last week admitted that the amount of oil that could be extracted from the Monterey Shale formation had been overstated by 96 percent, saying only 600 million barrels of oil could be extracted with currently available technology. That amount of oil is only enough to meet U.S. oil consumption for 32 days.

“In other words, there’s not going to be a giant oil boom in California’s near future, and the state, as a result, is not going to add 2.8 million new industry jobs or see its tax revenue increase by $24.6 billion annually, as oil and gas interests had claimed,” Robert Gammon wrote in the East Bay Express on Thursday. “As such, there’s no reason for the governor and lawmakers to continue to back a controversial practice that involves shooting massive amounts of water and toxic chemicals deep into the earth and has been linked to groundwater and air pollution and to earthquakes.”

Even though the statewide ban has failed, though, regional bans on fracking are popping up all over the state — and they’re passing.

In February, the Los Angeles City Council passed a ban on fracking within its jurisdiction, until the council is assured that the practice does not pose a threat to residents’ health and safety.Beverly Hills passed a fracking ban this month, as did Santa Cruz, which last week passed the state’s first-ever permanent fracking ban.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/30/3443332/california-fracking-ban-fails/

---

http://en.**wikipedia.**org/wiki/Western_States_Petroleum_Association

astroturf co

http://www**.sourcewatch**.org/index.php?title=Woodward_%26_McDowell

---

Bacher kos CA:

Ocean 'guardian' leads charge for fracking

The drive by the oil and natural gas industry to frack California is highlighted by recent disturbing developments that reveal the enormous power of Big Oil in the state.

In yet one more example of the revolving door between government and huge corporations that defines politics in California now, State Senator Michael Rubio (D-Bakersfield) on February 22 suddenly announced his resignation from office in order to take a “government affairs” position at Chevron.

Rubio went to work for Chevron just two months after alleged “marine protected areas,” overseen by the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, a coastal real estate developer, a marina corporation executive and other corporate interests, went into effect on California’s North Coast.

These “marine protected areas,” created under the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, fail to protect the ocean from fracking, oil drilling, pollution, wind and wave energy projects, military testing and all human impacts other than fishing and gathering.

In a big scandal largely ignored by the mainstream media,Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association, not only chaired the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called “marine protected areas” on the South Coast, but also served on the task forces to create “marine reserves” on the North Coast, North Central Coast and South Coast.

“It’s clear that government and petroleum officials want to ‘frack’ in the very same areas Reheis-Boyd was appointed to oversee as a ‘guardian’ of marine habitat protection for the MLPA ‘Initiative,’” said David Gurney, independent journalist and co-chair of the Ocean Protection Coalition, in his report on the opening of new lease-sales for fracking. (http://noyonews.net/...)

“What’s becoming obvious is that Reheis-Boyd’s expedient presence on the ‘Blue Ribbon Task Force’ for the MLPAI was a ploy for the oil industry to make sure no restrictions applied against drilling or fracking in or around so-called marine protected areas,” Gurney emphasized.

The oil industry claims fracking is environmentally sound and already regulated. In an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle on May 12, Reheis-Boyd claimed, “In truth, hydraulic fracturing has been used in California for 60-plus years, is not destructive and has never been linked to any environmental harm here. The process is and has been closely regulated. California's well construction and testing regulations that protect our groundwater are the strictest in the nation." (http://www.sfchronicle.com/...)

On the other hand, fracking opponents say hydraulic fracturing is environmentally destructive, since it uses huge volumes of water mixed with sand and dangerous chemicals to blast open rock formations and extract oil and gas, as exposed in the film documentaries Gasland and Gasland II. They note that the controversial technique has been used in hundreds and perhaps thousands of California oil and gas wells, but it's currently unregulated and unmonitored by state officials.

...

Reheis-Boyd apparently used her role as a state marine “protection” official to increase her network of influence in California politics to the point where the Western States Petroleum Association has become the most powerful corporate lobby in California. The association now has enormous influence over both state and federal regulators. (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/...)

Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California (http://www.stopfoolingca.org), an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies’ efforts to mislead and confuse Californians. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent more than $16 million lobbying in Sacramento since 2009.

The Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) is a regional, non-profit trade association that focuses on energy and public lands issues in the thirteen-state Intermountain West of the United States. Founded in 1974, IPAMS represents about 400 independent natural gas and oil producers, service and supply companies, banking and financial institutions and industry consultants. Ninety percent of the natural gas wells in America are developed by companies whose names are often unknown. These companies, known as independents, are small businesses that don’t have refining and retail operations such as gas stations.

IPAMS advocate the benefits of increased domestic natural gas and oil production from the Intermountain West as a way to reduce greenhouse gases and decrease the U.S. dependence on foreign energy. IPAMS primarily focuses its efforts on federal policy and regulatory interests, including access to federal lands for exploration and production, federal agency permitting, air and water quality, wildlife conservation, health and safety, taxation, and other issues.

IPAMS also provides public and media relations support through a wide variety of media and community outreach efforts. As a regional trade-association, IPAMS has become a source for information and statistical analysis for the natural gas and oil industry in the Western United States.

Sources

Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), “Reports & Statistics: Oil & Gas in Your State”

---

It's time for a fracking moratorium

“Californians are telling pollsters and policymakers they don’t want fracking pollution fouling up our state,” said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. “There’s strong public support for a moratorium on this dangerous practice. We need to stop the oil industry’s fracking expansion now, while there’s still time to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the climate we depend on."

Oil companies, represented by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), are increasingly interested in fracking the Monterey Shale, an oil-laden geological formation beneath some of the state’s most productive farmland, important wildlife habitat and scores of towns and cities.

"Fracking routinely uses numerous toxic chemicals, including methanol and benzene. A recent Colorado School of Public Health study found that fracking increases cancer risk and contributes to serious neurological and respiratory problems in people living near fracked wells," according to Siegel.

Fish and wildlife are also at risk. Fish, including endangered Central Valley Chinook salmon and steelhead, can die when fracking fluid contaminates streams and rivers. Birds can be poisoned by chemicals in wastewater ponds and the intense industrial development that accompanies fracking pushes threatened or endangered animals out of wild areas they need to survive, Siegel stated.

"Drilling and fracking also release huge amounts of methane, an extremely powerful global warming gas," said Siegel. "Methane is about 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas over a 20-year period. Burning the estimated 15.5 billion barrels of oil in the Monterey Shale will generate more than 6.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to calculations based on Environmental Protection Agency figures."

Besides threatening groundwater supplies, endangered salmon and steelhead in the state's rivers and bird populations through the state, fracking also poses an enormous rise to California's marine waters.

Ocean fracking operations in Santa Barbara Channel approved

An investigative piece by Mike Ludwig at www.truthout.org on July 25 has confirmed that federal regulators approved at least two fracking operations on oil rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of California since 2009 without an updated environmental review that critics say may be required by federal law.

These operations were approved as state officials and corporate "environmental" NGO representatives gushed about the alleged "Yosemites of the Sea" and "underwater parks" created in Southern California waters under the "leadership" of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association.

"The offshore fracking operations are smaller than the unconventional onshore operations that have sparked nationwide controversy, but environmental advocates are still concerned that regulators and the industry have not properly reviewed the potential impacts of using modern fracking technology in the Pacific outer continental shelf," said Ludwig. (http://www.truth-out.org/...)

"Oil drilling remains controversial in Santa Barbara, where the memory of the nation's third-largest oil spill lingers in the minds of the public. In 1969, the nation watched as thick layer of oil spread across the channel and its beaches following a blowout on an oil rig, killing thousands of marine birds other wildlife. The dramatic images helped spark the modern environmental movement and establish landmark federal environmental laws that eco-groups continue to challenge the government to enforce," Ludwig noted.

The current push by the oil industry to expand fracking in California, build the Keystone XL Pipeline and eviscerate environmental laws was made possible because state officials and MLPA Initiative advocates greenwashed the key role Reheis-Boyd and the oil industry played in creating marine protected areas that don't protect the ocean.

Reheis-Boyd chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force to create alleged "marine protected areas" that fail to the protect the ocean from fracking, oil drilling and spills, pollution, military testing, wind and wave energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. She also served on the task forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast.

Reheis-Boyd apparently used her role as a state marine "protection" official to increase her network of influence in California politics to the point where the Western States Petroleum Association has become themost powerful corporate lobby in California. The association now has enormous influence over both state and federal regulators. (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/...)

Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California (http://www.stopfoolingca.org), an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies' efforts to mislead and confuse Californians. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent more than $16 million lobbying in Sacramento since 2009.

As the oil industry expands its role in California politics and environmental processes, you can bet that they are going to use every avenue they can to get more water for fracking, including taking Delta water through the peripheral tunnels proposed under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).

The industry will also use its power to expand fracking in the ocean, as evidenced by the recent approval of ocean fracking operations off the Southern California coast, unless Californians rise up and resist these plans!

---

http://en.**wikipedia.**org/wiki/Western_States_Petroleum_Association

wiki bs

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) is a non-profit trade association that represents companies that account for the bulk of petroleum exploration, production, refining, transportation and marketing in the six western states of Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Founded in 1907, WSPA is the oldest petroleum trade association in the United States of America.WSPA's headquarters are located in Sacramento, California. Additional WSPA locations include offices in Torrance; Santa Barbara; Bakersfield; Scottsdale, Arizona and Olympia, Washington.^[1]

The current WSPA president is Catherine Reheis-Boyd.^[2]

Members of the WSPA include Aera Energy LLC, Alaska Tanker Company, Berry Petroleum, BP, Big West of California LLC,Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Lloyd Properties, Navajo Refining Co., Noble Energy, Olympic Pipeline Company, Occidental Petroleum, Pacific Operators Offshore, Plains All American, SeaRiver Maritime, Seneca Resources Corp., Shell, Tesoro, U.S. Oil and Refining, Valero**Energy Corporation, Venoco, and Western Refining.^[3]

References

http://www.wspa.org/what-is-wspa.aspx
http://www.wspa.org/offices-staff.aspx WSPA staff (2010)
http://www.wspa.org/member-list.aspx WSPA web site Member List page

External links

WSPA website

Categories:

---

off bs bio

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, Chair

Catherine (Cathy) Reheis-Boyd is the chief operating officer and chief of staff for the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Affiliated with WSPA since 1990, she currently directs WSPA's government affairs, assists the president in media affairs, oversees all office and committee operations, manages WSPA's staff and financial resources and provides strategic oversight of key issues. Prior to joining WSPA, Reheis-Boyd was employed with Texaco, Inc.'s Bakersfield Division for seven years as an Environmental Regulatory Compliance Coordinator. She worked for three years prior to that as an environmental consultant.

Reheis-Boyd was appointed by the Governor as a California petroleum industry representative on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and is a member of theCalifornia Chamber of Commerce Natural Resources and Policy Committee. She has chaired the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Air Quality Committee, and was past president of the Sacramento chapter of the Air & Waste Management Association. She has also served as past president of the Kern County Chapter of the American Lung Association, and is a past recipient of the Bureau of Land Management's State Director's Oil and Gas Award for Special Achievement. Reheis-Boyd was first appointed by the California secretary for resources to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the central coast and was reappointed for the north central coast.

Reheis-Boyd received her bachelor's of science degree in natural resource management from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo and pursued her post-graduate studies in environmental engineering at the University of Southern California. She is a graduate of the Bakersfield and California Leadership Programs.

William W. Anderson

William (Bill) Anderson has been president and chief operating officer of Westrec Marinas since 1989. Westrec Marinas is the nation's largest owner and operator of waterfront marinas. Anderson previously worked for the National Park Service as part of the management team that established the Golden Gate and Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Areas. During that time, he worked with federal, state and local land management agencies, private land trusts and environmental organizations in developing complex land management strategies to preserve open space while providing for balanced public use.

Anderson is a past member of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. He has also served as a board member of the Grand Canyon National Park Foundation and is the past President of the Association of Marina Industries. He was appointed to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the both the central coast and the north central coast. Anderson is a graduate of Penn State University's Recreation and Park Management program.

Meg Caldwell

Meg Caldwell is a member of the faculty and serves as director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law and Policy Program at Stanford Law School. She is also Interim Director of the Center for Ocean Solutions whose mission is to elevate the impact of science on ocean policy. In May 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Caldwell to the California Coastal Commission, where she served as its chair December 2004-2006. She was previously counsel to MicroClean, Inc., an instructor in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at San Jose State University, and an associate in the environmental law group at McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and Enersen. She was a policy analyst at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a national fellow research assistant for the Hoover Institution.

Caldwell previously served on the boards of San Francisco Baykeeper, the Bay Area Sports Organizing Committee, the Coyote Creek Riparian Station, and the City of Saratoga Planning Commission.

Caldwell is a member of the California State Bar and the American Bar Association. She was first appointed by the California secretary for resources to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the central coast and was reappointed for the north central coast. She earned her bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and Juris Doctorate from Stanford Law School.

Dr. Jane Pisano

Dr. Jane Pisano has served as president and director of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County since November 1, 2001. Her top priorities are to support research and create programs that realize the museum's mission "to inspire wonder, discovery and responsibility for our natural and cultural worlds"; to renovate and build new facilities; and make the museum an essential community resource. An officer of the University of Southern California for 10 years, Pisano was senior vice president for external relations, vice president for external relations, and dean of the USC School of Public Administration. She remains a tenured full professor in the USC School of Policy, Planning and Development. Before 1991, Pisano was president of Los Angeles 2000 and The 2000 Partnership, a civic organization working to improve the quality of life in Southern California.

Pisano is president and chair of the research and grants committee of the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation Board of Trustees, and serves on the board of trustees of theLincoln Club and on the board of directors of WellPoint, Inc. She was elected to the National Academy of Public Administration, where she served as chair of the board, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the board of the California Council for the Humanities. Pisano is past chair of the board of directors of the California Community Foundation and past president of the American Society of Public Administration, Los Angeles Chapter.

Prior to her arrival in Los Angeles, Pisano was on the faculty of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and served as a White House Fellow on the National Security Council staff. She earned M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from the Johns Hopkins University, and a B.A. degree in political science from Stanford University.

Gregory F. Schem

Gregory F. Schem is president and chief executive officer of Harbor Real Estate Group, specializing in marina and waterfront real estate investments, including a marina, fuel dock, and boat yard in Marina del Rey, in addition to other California assets. Schem has had a successful career in the national real estate market as an investor, developer and manager, including the re-development of loft residential units and hotels in Los Angeles, marinas, office buildings, shopping centers and industrial facilities. Schem has acquired in excess of $2.5 billion in real estate assets on behalf of private and public pension funds, banking institutions, and private investment groups. He has negotiated complex ground leases, achieved entitlements, and secured regulatory approvals from the California State Lands Commission, County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Catalina Island Conservancy and Island Company.

An avid yachtsman and sport fisherman, Schem has fished, cruised, and scuba dived extensively throughout the United States and Mexico. He currently serves on the Marina del Rey Design Guidelines Task Force and has just completed the pro bono development of a new pier on Catalina Island for the Boy Scouts of America. He is an assistant scoutmaster, major sponsor of the Pacific Palisades "Movies in the Park," and an ambassador member of the executive board for the West Los Angeles County Council-Boy Scouts of America.

Schem earned his bachelor's of science in chemistry from the State University of New York and his master's in business administration from Cornell University. As an undergraduate student, Schem was an intern at the New York Ocean Science Laboratory at Montauk, where he co-published his work in analytical chemistry.

Don Benninghoven (Chair and Member through August 4, 2009)

Don Benninghoven

Don Benninghoven retired as executive director of the League of California Cities (LCC) and later of the City-County-School Partnership. During his 40-year tenure at LCC, Benninghoven was intimately involved in every facet of municipal operations, financing, and policy. Working locally as well as statewide on issues involving local government training, revenue sources and community planning, Benninghoven served on a variety of statewide commissions, including the Governor's Commission on Transportation Financing (under Governor Gray Davis), Vice Chair of the California State Constitution Revision Commission (Governor Pete Wilson), and the Governor's Commission on Local Government Financing (Governor George Deukmejian).

As executive director, Benninghoven worked intently to modernize the organizational structure and services of LCC to meet the very diverse needs of all cities. He was passionate about including the voices of city officials when setting LCC policy and was the driving force behind the creation of a variety of handbooks and library materials to help cities meet their unique needs for fiscal enhancement, economic development, land use planning, and dozens of other topics.

Benninghoven earned bachelor's and master's degrees in political science and public administration from the University of California, Berkeley. He's a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administrators, which includes a worldwide membership of 250. Don served on the boards of directors of the National Civic League, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Regional Councils, and served as secretary of the City-County-School Partnership. He was on the executive committee of the Institute for Local Self Government and is currently chairman of the California Center for Civic Renewal. Don has continued his interest in city government by working with local officials and universities as an advisor and lecturer. He was first appointed to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the north central coast.

---

The Western States Petroleum Association supports the goals established by AB 32 and is a committed partner in California’s climate change solutions.

Extensive, independent research shows that the implementation of current AB 32 policies will have a detrimental impact on California’s jobs market, the state’s fuel supply and will lead to a significant increase in fuel costs.

We will work with the state’s elected leaders, regulators, environmental advocates and business community to encourage theredevelopment of AB 32 regulations to avoid disruptive and costly impacts on California’s businesses and consumers.

—–

California Fuel Facts is dedicated to providing facts about California’s transportation fuel markets and a platform for a responsible discussion about how the state can achieve its climate change objectives without unduly disrupting those markets.

California fuel providers (petroleum refiners) have become increasingly concerned that recently adopted policies designed to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions could have significant unintended consequences that will disrupt fuel markets.

We believe California can and should continue to play a leadership role on climate change polices. But to do so successfully, we must begin now to chart a new course for achieving emission reductions without unnecessary fuel market disruptions.

2012 Western States Petroleum Association

Sources: All of the information comes from public sources: California Energy Commission; California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources; U.S. Energy Information Administration; California Air Resources Board; American Petroleum Institute; LECG, LCC

- See more at: http://www.cafuelfacts.com/about-us/#sthash.8Uk268f5.dpuf