Organisation Name
American Petroleum Institute (API)
InfluenceMap Query
Energy Policy and Mix
Data Source
Legislative Consultations
 
 

Score for this Data / Query Cell

-1.11

InfluenceMap has researched and collated the following pieces of evidence associated with the data source and query indicated above. Extraordinary information is indicated by a coloured flag in the upper right corner. Evidence items in order of data inputted with exceptional items first.

 

Generally supporting high GHG emissions energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Not supporting measures to transition to a low carbon economy. (Evidence from joint statement submitted during the EPA's consultation on 'Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, December 2014)

Extract from Source:

At a minimum, EPA must eliminate the interim compliance period to give States and affected EGUs sufficient time to develop and implement plans to reduce CO2 emissions from the electricity sector. Further, the costs associated with the emission reductions will be significant and will force utilities to accelerate pre-existing plans to retire coal-fired EGUs and result in stranded assets, the cost of which may be passed on to consumers.

Created: 03/06/2015 Last edited: 11/04/2017

 

Strongly supporting maintenance of high GHG emissions energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Advocating for policy makers to support unconventional oil production (Jack Gerard letter to Governor Hogan of Maryland expressing opposition to hydraulic fracturing legislation, May 2015)

Extract from Source:

On behalf of API and our membership, we are writing to express our opposition to HB 449/SB 409 Environment - Hydraulic Fracturing - Regulations. This legislation would further delay the development of the Marcellus Shale in Western Maryland for up to two years. [...] Governor O'Malley's Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Advisory Commission studied hydraulic fracturing for 3-1/2 years and concluded that it could be safely done with certain safeguards and proper regulatory oversight and proposed rules in January, 2015 to implement their conclusions. The measure pending before you contradicts this exhaustive long term study. HB 449/SB409 will further delay the economic benefits presented by natural gas production and sends the wrong signal to capital investors prepared to create high paying jobs in Maryland. As you know, Marylanders have already significantly benefitted from unconventional oil and natural gas development in the United States. It has saved each of their households thousands of dollars, enabled them to breathe cleaner air, created jobs and increased their energy security. [...]Unfortunately, the portion of your state that needs the most help and could realize the greatest economic benefits directly from natural gas development has not been given an opportunity to participate in this energy revolution. [...] We urge you to move forward with finalizing safe, balanced and reasonable regulations to allow unconventional drilling in Western Maryland. Furthermore, we request you make clear that you will strongly oppose any further delay or proposal that would harm efforts to develop Western Maryland's natural gas resources.

Created: 17/03/2016 Last edited: 11/04/2017

 

Strongly supporting maintenance of high GHG emissions energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Actively lobbying against an increase to payments for fossil fuel operations, thus supporting a form of fossil fuel subsidization (API, NMA and others, letter to US Department of Interior, royalty payments on fossil projects, February 2017) (p.20 of linked document)

Extract from Source:

Final Rule is first effective as to royalty reporting due February 28, 2017 for oil, gas, and coal production in January 2017. For the reasons set forth below and in the Petitioners’ court filings and submitted comments on ONRR’s proposed rule, which mirrors the Final Rule, postponement of the Final Rule’s implementation is necessary in the interests of justice. [...] Petitioners initiated the challenge to the Final Rule because it adopts new royalty reporting and payment requirements that are impracticable, and in some cases impossible, for Petitioners and many other federal and Indian lessees to comply with by the February 28, 2017 [...] Postponement of the Final Rule’s implementation pending judicial review, consequently with no risk of retroactive application, would avoid the above harms, and also serve the public interest. royalty reporting due date.

Created: 13/03/2017 Last edited: 13/03/2017

 

Mixed position on transmission of the energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing DOE proposition to subsidise coal and nuclear for 'reliability', although seemingly promoting natural gas as alternative for reliability (API, Comments submitted to FERC on the DOE Grid Reliability study, October 2017)

Extract from Source:

On September 28, 2017, the Secretary of Energy issued the “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule” (“DOE NOPR”) for final action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”). [...] API respectfully submits the following comments in protest of the rule.API has previously elaborated on the many benefits the use of natural gas in power generation has brought to the electric industry, its residential, commercial and industrial customers, and the nation as a whole. [...] The DOE NOPR seeks to force competitive wholesale energy markets to provide cost-of-service type guaranteed cost recovery to a subset of resources under the guise of maintaining reliability and resilience [...] This DOE NOPR would distort the markets and support power generators that cannot compete with the superior economics of natural gas generation, citing a reliability “emergency,” even though one has not been shown to exist API’s submission of these comments should not be construed to accept that the 20-day comment period was sufficient. It was not, particularly for a proposed rule that upsets the very foundations of the competitive wholesale electricity markets

Created: 14/11/2017 Last edited: 14/11/2017

 

Opposing transition of the energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Directly lobbying against the policy to encourage the electrification of transport (API, joint letter with 5 trade groups to the leaders of the US Senate and US House of Representatives, November 2018)

Extract from Source:

We urge you not to extend or expand the federal tax credit for electric vehicles as part of tax extenders or any other bill during the rest of this session of Congress. [...] We encourage the House and Senate to build on tax reform and not take a step backward by expanding the EV tax credit this Congress. Even if the new policy has a phase out year, once it is included as part of tax extenders, it is very likely to be renewed year-by-year. The EV tax credit is particularly bad policy. It is a giant transfer to wealthy Americans. [...]Car companies are busy investing billions in research and development of electric vehicles. Sales of EVs are increasing, and product offerings are growing. These vehicles should compete for customers without government choosing sides.In summary, it is unwise public policy to subsidize a highly inefficient means of GHG reduction that primarily benefits the wealthy, driving up the deficit or forcing taxpayers to make up the difference. We urge you instead to build on the historic tax reform bill and, at minimum, reject adding an EV tax credit to the extenders bill.

Created: 04/01/2019 Last edited: 15/03/2019

 

Not supporting measures to transition the energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Evidence suggests not supporting strong measures ot transition US power sector - advocating that utitlity regulation alternative to CPP prioritise natural gas generation (API, Comments on ACE, October 2018)

Extract from Source:

Given its abundance and affordability, natural gas is now the primary source of domestic electricity generation, and is expected to remain so for the foreseeable future. The dominant role of natural gas in electricity production provides benefits to consumers as well as to the environment. [...] natural gas-fired power production has reduced domestic CO2 emissions to 25-year lows, while providing the on-demand “dispatchable” power necessary to foster the expansion of clean but intermittent renewable power sources.Natural gas is also a reliable and resilient power source. The physical operations of natural gas production, transmission, and distribution make the system inherently reliable and resilient. Disruptions to natural gas service are rare [...] Given these favorable attributes, API supports EPA’s proposal to exclude natural gas-fired EGUs from the “affected facilities” that will be subject to regulation under the Proposed ACE Rule. Natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines are already highly efficient, and any further emission reductions would likely be modest in size and prohibitively expensive.

Created: 16/01/2019 Last edited: 16/01/2019

 

Mixed position on transmission of the energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing subsidies for nuclear or coal fired power plants, promoting natural gas (API, CEO Jack Gerard letter to the US President, April 2018)

Extract from Source:

Regarding the recent request for emergency assistance under the Federal Power Act Section 202(c) to support certain coal and nuclear power generation assets, API opposes the request and is grateful your administration is taking time to thoughtfully consider the potential for significant, negative implications should the request be granted. [...] API supports an “all of the above” approach to America’s power generation fuel mix. Natural gas and natural gas generation provide both performance and cost attributes that contribute to the reliability and resilience of the electric grid and allowing a range of fuels to compete in the market will ensure the best outcome for American families and businesses

Created: 16/01/2019 Last edited: 16/01/2019

 

Opposing specific measures towards a transition of energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing incentives to encourage decarbonization of transportation (USA EPA Incentives for Electric Vehicles, Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles, standards revision consultation, Aug 2012)

Extract from Source:

While API has no comment on the stringency of the proposed fuel economy and CO2 standards, we are concerned that the proposal provides a number of incentives that appear to reflect an attempt to pick winning and losing technologies in the marketplace, an action which could potentially limit consumer choice and increase societal costs [...] As EPA and NHTSA staff should be aware, the history of government agency efforts to dictate the pace of technology development and utilization in the market place is usually unsuccessful, to the detriment of US taxpayers

Created: 09/06/2015 Last edited: 11/04/2017

 

Strongly supporting maintenance of high GHG emissions energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Directly advocating to policy makers for measures that will maintain high GHG energy mix, arguing for removal of restrictions and to allow increased oil and gas production in the Arctic (API, Chamber of Commerce, NOIA comments to proposed BSEE-BOEM Arctic Rules, May 2015)

Extract from Source:

Access to Oil and Gas Resources in the Alaska OCS under Balanced and Science-Based Regulations Is Essential to the Nation’s Economy and Energy Security. [...] Development of new oil and gas resources is a critical state and national interest. The offshore oil potential of the Alaska OCS is similar to Russia and larger than that of Canada and Norway. [...] The search for energy resources in the Arctic is not new. The long record of our industry’s exploration and production operations in the region demonstrates that exploration and development of oil and natural gas resources in the Alaska OCS can take place in a safe and environmentally responsible manner; [...] America’s Alaska OCS can make an important contribution to sustaining our nation’s overall crude oil supplies at a time in the future when Lower 48 production [...] Studies show that development of the Alaska OCS would increase economic activity and jobs. [...]Of central importance in our nation’s ability to benefit from the resource endowment of the Alaska OCS will be regulatory approaches that establish alignment of policy and consistency in regulation among agencies with jurisdiction over operations, and that support decision making with information and processes that take advantage of advances in science and technology [...] The Associations Urge Adoption of Regulations That Accommodate a Broader Range of Equipment and Drilling Platforms . . .

Created: 17/03/2016 Last edited: 11/04/2017

 

Supporting maintenance of high GHG emissions energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Directly advocating in favour of increased natural gas in energy mix appears to support a permanent (as opposed to transitional) role of natural gas (Testimony of American Petroleum Institute Chief Strategy Officer Marty Durbin, House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy, October 2017)

Extract from Source:

The abundance, affordability, low-emissions profile and flexibility of natural gas and natural gas-fired generating units make natural gas a fuel of choice. [...] Natural gas is a domestically produced, abundant, reliable and low-cost energy resource that lowers energy costs for consumers and spurs economic growth and opportunity for our nation. Natural gas enhances the reliability, decreases the cost, and lowers the environmental impact of the nation’s electric system

Created: 14/11/2017 Last edited: 14/11/2017

 

Strongly supporting maintenance of high GHG emissions energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Actively supporting policy  that will promote increased oil development in the Arctic (API, comment to BOEM, on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, August 2017)

Extract from Source:

The Associations believe that at this point in the Five-year Program development process all OCS areas with the potential to generate jobs and new revenue by advancing America’s energy renaissance should be considered for inclusion in the Draft Proposed Program. Anything less undermines the comprehensive process set forth in the OCS Lands Act and could have significant impacts on U.S. energy policy options well into the future. We fully support keeping existing exploration production areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and Alaska available for leasing in the 2019-2024 Leasing Program and also urge BOEM to make new areas in the Atlantic, Eastern Gulf of Mexico (EGOM), Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of Alaska, and the Pacific available for leasing as part of the program.

Created: 14/11/2017 Last edited: 13/12/2017

 

Not supporting measures to transition the energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Supporting repeal of the US Clean Power Plan, stressing the need for natural gas to be prioritised in its replacement (API, Testimony at a public hearing on GHG from existing electric generation units, regions to New Source Review Program, October 2018)

Extract from Source:

API has supported the Trump administration’s review of the Clean Power Plan as promulgated on October 23, 2015 and supports the administration’s proposed repeal of the CPP. Our April 26, 2018 comments on the proposed repeal stated: “Any EPA regulations replacing the CPP should provide States flexibility, be fuel neutral, and fully recognize the benefits of natural gas and of combined industrial heat and power generation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. [...] If the EPA promulgates this proposed replacement for the Clean Power Plan, the Agency must leverage the benefits of clean, reliable, and affordable natural gas. [...] It is in the states’ interest to have reliable fuel for power generation. Clean and abundant natural gas is a key driver of reliability in power generation. Any replacement of the CPP should contemplate states relying on natural gas for compliance, and all activities that reduce emissions – including increasing use of natural gas generation – should be counted and included by states as contributors to compliance.

Created: 16/01/2019 Last edited: 16/01/2019

 

Not supporting measures to transition the energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Supporting measures to increase oil and gas development in the US (API, letter to Secretary of the Interior, August 2018)

Extract from Source:

We appreciate and support efforts to modernize and reorganize the Department in order to improve governance, streamline permitting and approvals, and improve coordination of government services so that unnecessary barriers to oil and natural gas development are minimized and eliminated. [...] The oil and natural gas industry stands ready to engage as Interior moves forward with its plans for reorganization.

Created: 16/01/2019 Last edited: 16/01/2019

 

Not supporting measures to transition the energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Supporting unconventional oil and gas production, opposing ban on fracking production techniques (API, letter to the BRBC, March 2018)

Extract from Source:

API promotes forward-looking burden-reducing policy decisions promoting domestic energy resources,the organization was disappointed to see a seven-year stalemate on the Commission’s 2010 regulatory proposal be replaced with a new proposal to prohibit high volume hydraulic fracturing (“HVHP”) within the Delaware River Basin. [...] The DRBC proposed regulations are unnecessary and, in many ways,duplicative and/or conflicting with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) oil and natural gas regulations, and do not respond to a legislative mandate or clearly demonstrate factual need.

Created: 16/01/2019 Last edited: 16/01/2019

 

Strongly supporting maintenance of high GHG emissions energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Directly advocating to policy makers for measures that will maintain high GHG energy mix, advocating against any restrictions leasing land for oil/gas production. General support for increased U.S hydrocarbon production (Letter from Erik Milito to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management with Industry Comments on the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2017–2022, March 2015)

Extract from Source:

We fully support keeping the DPP as is with no additional areas being removed from future leasing consideration. Considerable acreage has already been excluded at this early stage of the planning process, especially in the Atlantic, eastern Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska OCS. The decisions made regarding what areas are available for leasing will have long-term implications for our nation’s energy security, prospects for job creation, and government revenue generation.The U.S. has undergone an energy renaissance in recent years that has put millions of Americans to work, generated billions of dollars in revenue for Federal and State governments, and put downward pressure on prices for consumers.Growing U.S. production has dramatically increased our resistance to energy shocks, but our long-term energy security can only be ensured with a lasting commitment to expanding offshore oil and natural gas development to new areas as the DPP has done. However, to continue this resurgence, the associations believe that OCS areas should not be prematurely removed from leasing consideration as the administration has done in the Atlantic or permanently removed from future consideration as happened in Alaska. These areas have not been adequately explored and, in the case of the Atlantic, the decision to include a 50-mile buffer zone was made without the benefit of a full environmental analysis and could remove substantial resources from future production.

Created: 17/03/2016 Last edited: 11/04/2017

 

Opposing specific measures towards a transition of energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing incentives to encourage decarbonization of power generation ( API comments in support of Castleton Commodities International on zero-emission credit scheme, November 2016)

Extract from Source:

American Petroleum Institute (API) herby submits comments in support of Castelton Commodities Internatnioal LLC's (castleon) application for rehearing of the PSC's August 1, 2016 order adopting a Clean Energy Standard. Castleton argues that the Zero-Emissions Credit program subsidizing selected nuclear generating facilities (Zec Program) instituted in the Eustst 1 Order will improperly trespass on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions' (FERC) exclusive jurisdiction over New Yorks's wholesale electric power markets. API supports Castleton's request for rehearing. [...] By subsidizing nuclear generators that would otherwise be uneconomic in a competitive market, the ZEC Program directly interfers with these market signals, potentially deterring or harming more efficient generators. The PSC should instead allow the market to incent the most efficienct and competitive resource mix for the state.

Created: 08/12/2016 Last edited: 08/12/2016

 

Supporting transition of energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Supporting removal of subsidies for coal power generation, although not in specific context of support for decarbonisation (API, JOINT INDUSTRY COMMENTS OPPOSING THE DOE PROPOSAL, OCtober 2017)

Extract from Source:

Through the DOE NOPR, the Secretary of Energy asks the Commission to provide discriminatory compensation to certain coal and nuclear resources located within regional transmission organizations (“RTOs”) and independent system operators (“ISOs”) with energy and capacity markets [...] the proposed rule has not been shown to be just and reasonable and cannot be adopted by the Commission.

Created: 14/11/2017 Last edited: 13/12/2017

 

Opposing transition of the energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Directly lobbying against the policy to encourage the electrification of transport (API, joint letter with 6 trade groups to US state governors, June 2018)

Extract from Source:

“Zero Emission Vehicles” continue to capture the imagination and resources of some states. Therefore, it was with great interest that we read the plea from the Auto Alliance to increase the already generous incentives and subsidies available in your states to spur the purchase and recharging of zero emission vehicles (ZEV). [...] the Alliance’s letter should be a harbinger of the negative issues associated with government policies that attempt to override market forces and consumer choice. [...] Not only have electric vehicle tax credits failed to generate substantial increases in sales, they are demonstrably regressive in terms of consumer impact. According to a study by University of California Berkeley faculty, clean energy “tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans… The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits.” [...] As you contemplate these calls for additional handouts, consider what other state services will be sacrificed. Schools, emergency response, road repairs, and public safety all compete for limited state funds. [...] Regardless of existing subsidies and incentives, consumers still are not purchasing significant numbers of ZEVs. The lack of consumer response may be due to the concern that, according to recent studies, the cost of ownership of a battery electric vehicle (BEV) representative of current technology is between 50% and 400% more expensive than a conventional vehicle equipped with an internal combustion engine (ICEV)  [...] Transportation policies should acknowledge that consumers are purchasing internal combustion engine vehicles today, and those vehicles are staying on the road longer19 and are going further on a gallon of gasoline. Transportation policies that conflict with the will of the consumer and attempt to force changes in behavior should be considered with caution as they may impose undue costs [...] While your state desires to expedite deployment and widespread adoption of “zero-emission” and near-zero emission vehicles and engines, we encourage you to examine whether allowing your citizens to choose their mode of transportation (such as using newer vehicles with today’s clean fuels) offers equal or more beneficial approaches to achieving your state’s energy and environmental goals.

Created: 04/01/2019 Last edited: 15/03/2019

 

Opposing measures towards transition of the energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Broadly unsupportive of the electrification of the transport sector - stressing the importance of internal combustion engines, suggesting that EV adoption might be overtaken by 'unforeseen breakthroughs' in conventional technologies. Strongly opposing government measures to incentives electric vehicles (API, Testimony before the house of representatives, May 2018)

Extract from Source:

API opposes mandates and subsidies, as they distort the free market and ultimately increase consumer costs. [...] The internal combustion engine is the backbone of the U.S. transportation system and significant, systemic changes would be extraordinarily complex and must be approached with substantial caution [...] Some commentators refer to electric vehicles (EVs )as“zero-emission” vehicles. EVs may better be described as “emissions displacement” vehicles. The “zero-emission” classification fails to acknowledge the energy required in manufacturing the vehicle and battery systems, the energy sources used to generate the electricity required to charge the vehicle, and the environmental cost of battery disposal [...] While we support market-driven activity, API opposes government intervention in the markets to pick winners and losers because it creates an un-level playing field. [...] The ultimate trajectory and level of market penetration achieved by electric vehicles should not rely on government interference in the free market. [...] The trajectory of EV adoption also depends, heavily, on the assumption that future improvements in EV technology will not be overtaken by overtaken breakthroughs that may impact the relative energy and environmental performance of existing conventional automotive technologies.

Created: 16/01/2019 Last edited: 29/01/2019

 

Mixed position on transmission of the energy mix

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing subsidies for nuclear or coal fired power plants (API, coalition comment on bailouts, May 2018)

Extract from Source:

[...] we write to oppose any action by the United States Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) that would use any of its emergency authorities as a means to provide economic support to a favored class of power plants. Power plant retirements are a normal, healthy feature of electricity markets. There is no emergency or threat to the national defense on which the Department could lawfully base the exercise of its emergency authorities. [...] For the foregoing reasons, the Department must reject FirstEnergy’s petition under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, as well as any other related action under the Defense Production Act, Section 215A of the Federal Power Act or any other authority that provides unwarranted “emergency” relie

Created: 16/01/2019 Last edited: 16/01/2019