Climate Lobbying Overview: Repsol appears to show mixed support for progressive policy to respond to climate change. Although its top-line messaging is broadly supportive of the need to reduce emissions and it has stated for the Paris Agreement and EU Green Deal, Repsol has shown much more mixed support for specific climate regulations and policies. Repsol does not appear to be fully supporting a transition away from fossil fuels in line with IPCC guidelines; although it has advocated for switching from coal to natural gas in the energy mix, it appears to view natural gas as a long-term energy source rather than as a transition fuel.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Repsol appears broadly supportive of the need for climate policy in its top-line messaging. In 2018, Repsol stated support for the Paris Agreement and is a signatory of the Paris Pledge for Action. In 2020, Repsol has stated support for the need to reduce GHG emissions in order to limit global temperature increase to 2°C, and in May 2020, Repsol appeared to support the EU Green Deal target of reaching climate neutrality by 2050. In November 2019, Repsol committed to support and lobby for “effective measures across all areas of public policy that aim to mitigate climate change risks”. In June 2019, CEO Josu Imaz called for governments to set “economically meaningful” carbon pricing policies, including carbon tax and emissions trading, in a joint statement. However, in July 2019, in an op-ed, Chairman Antonio Brufau criticized the “demonisation of fossil fuels” and warned that climate change regulation could damage the EU’s industrial competitiveness.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Repsol appears to have shown mixed support for specific policies to reduce emissions. In Repsol’s response to the EU consultation on the 2050 climate law in February 2020, it was unclear if Repsol supported the interim 2030 GHG reduction target of 55%. In its 2019 CDP disclosure, Repsol also stated that it is opposed to an EU 2030 energy efficiency target, expressing preference for a single target to reduce GHG emissions. For the same reason, it appears to oppose an EU 2030 renewable energy target.

However, in August 2020, Repsol appeared to support the direct regulation of methane emissions as part of the EU methane strategy, and appears to support similar regulation in other regions that it operates in, such as Alberta. In its 2020 CDP disclosure, Repsol appeared to support the EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS); however, this support was significantly qualified by emphasizing the risk of carbon leakage and stressing the need to maintain EU industrial competitiveness. In April 2020, Repsol appeared to support the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism intended to help avoid carbon leakage, whilst arguing that the existing free allocation system that provides exemptions for trade-exposed industries under the ETS should be maintained.

Positioning on Energy Transition: Repsol appears to have a mixed position on the transition of the energy mix. In top-line statements, Repsol has repeatedly communicated support for a transition to a low-carbon energy mix, i.e. in July 2020. In August 2020, it appeared to support switching from coal to gas as a means to cut carbon emissions. However, in Repsol's 2020 climate change roadmap, Repsol appeared to support a long-term role for gas in the energy mix without clear conditions related to the use of carbon capture and storage as a means to abate CO2 emissions. Furthermore, in its 2019 CDP disclosure, Repsol appeared to oppose the exclusion of the oil and gas industry from the EU sustainable finance taxonomy, which gives guidelines for investors over which investments can be deemed sustainable.

Industry Association Governance: Repsol has disclosed a list of industry association memberships, albeit with limited detail regarding how Repsol is engaging with these groups or what their climate policy positions are. In May 2020, Repsol published a full audit disclosure of its alignment with these industry associations. The company identified two cases of partial misalignment with the American Petroleum Institute and the Canadian Society For Unconventional Resources. However, it retained memberships to both organizations as well as numerous other industry associations globally that are actively lobbying to oppose climate policy including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, BusinessEurope and FuelsEurope.