Organisation Name
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)
InfluenceMap Query
GHG Emission Standards
Data Source
Social Media
 
 

Score for this Data / Query Cell

-2.0

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.

 

Opposing GHG emissions targets

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing GHG emissions targets in SB 32 (Joint letter to Senate Environmental Quality Committee, April 2015)

Extract from Source:

The California Chamber of Commerce and above listed organizations must respectfully OPPOSE your SB 32, which has been labeled as a JOB KILLER. SB 32 will increase the cost to California businesses, make them less competitive and discourage economic growth by mandating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 with no consideration of the economic side effects. [...] Before any additional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are set, there must be a credible and independent marginal cost analysis on the strategies adopted thus far in order to educate and guide greenhouse gas emission reductions post 2020. This will allow the Legislature to make informed decisions, provide appropriate guidance to regulatory agencies, and effectively oversee agency implementation to ensure that the costs and benefits of policy choices are realized. Before extending out greenhouse gas reduction mandate beyond 2020, the Legislature should independently evaluate the cost and benefit of the state’s current climate change programs to better understand what has and has not worked. Therefore, we must OPPOSE your SB 32 as a JOB KILLER.

Created: 19/04/2017 Last edited: 19/04/2017

 

Opposing GHG emissions targets

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing GHG emissions targets in SB 32 (Joint Letter to California State Assembly Members, August 2016)

Extract from Source:

The California Chamber of Commerce and above-listed organizations must respectfully OPPOSE SB 32 (Pavley), which has been labeled as a JOB KILLER. As amended August 19, 2016, SB 32 will increase the cost to California businesses, make them less competitive and discourage economic growth by mandating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 with no consideration of the economic side effects or ongoing oversight for the Legislature. [...] UNILIMITED AUTHORITY TO CARB SB 32 provides the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with unfettered authority in pursuit of a GHG reduction goal. [...] SB 32 WILL SIGNIFICANTLY DRIVE UP HOUSING COSTS SB 32 creates significant uncertainty for residential construction and all types of development which will result from prematurely enacting increasingly speculative GHG reduction targets without first acknowledging the technological feasibility, the cost implications for housing, and the significant CEQA litigation risks that would be presented for development projects and plans adopted today. Before extending greenhouse gas reduction mandates beyond 2020, the Legislature should independently evaluate the cost and benefit of the state’s current climate change programs to better understand what has and has not worked. Therefore, we must OPPOSE SB 32 (Pavley) as a JOB KILLER.

Created: 19/04/2017 Last edited: 14/11/2017

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Supporting legal action against the Clean Air Rule in Washington state (Press Release, September 2016)

Extract from Source:

“WSPA and its member companies are in strong support of the lawsuit against the Washington State Department of Ecology because significant environmental evaluations and policy checkpoints, as required by law, were not adequately developed during the rulemaking of the ‘Clean Air Rule.’ WSPA helped provide the best technical experts from across the nation to participate in the rulemaking process, but the insights of these subject matter experts, who provided dozens of suggestions on how to make the rule balanced and workable, were ignored and the state chose not to use the valuable information that was abundantly offered throughout the process. Furthermore, the manner in which this Rule was put forth circumvents the Legislature and it is clear the Governor went beyond his constitutional authority by creating policy via executive order.”

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