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

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 standards and targets

InfluenceMap Comment:

Appearing to establish and finance grass-root campaign groups to oppose GHG emission reduction standards and targets (Bloomberg Business, November 2014)

Extract from Source:

A Powerpoint (MSFT) deck now being circulated by climate activists—a copy of which was sent to Bloomberg Businessweek—suggests that there is a conspiracy. [...] The Powerpoint deck details a plan to throttle AB 32 (also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and steps to thwart low carbon fuel standards (known as LCFS) in California, Oregon, and Washington State. Specifically, the deck from a presentation by WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd lays out the construction of what environmentalists contend is an elaborate “astroturf campaign.” Groups with names such as Oregon Climate Change Campaign, Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy, and AB 32 Implementation Group are made to look and sound like grassroots citizen-activists while promoting oil industry priorities. [...] In California, O’Connor points out, “we have 70 percent voter approval on clean energy alternatives, so it’s offensive and atrocious they’re using these supposed everyday citizens—who are really paid advertisers—to change the public discourse.”

Created: 11/09/2015 Last edited: 04/01/2017

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Evidence suggests supporting legislation that would prevent GHG emissions standards at a local level (Capital and Main, July 2017)

Extract from Source:

But some activists worry those efforts could stall if a proposal floated by Governor Jerry Brown and legislative leaders to extend cap-and-trade clears the legislature. One of the two measures in the package, Assembly Bill 398, contains what environmental justice advocates refer to as a “preemption provision,” a clause prohibiting local air districts from regulating carbon dioxide emissions at state-regulated facilities. [...] The preemption language, which didn’t exist in California’s original 2006 climate law, seems to have been added at the behest of the oil industry. Governor Brown has been engaged in controversial negotiations with the industry to craft the cap-and-trade package. The language granting the state air board sole authority over carbon dioxide regulation comes directly from a power point circulated by the Western States Petroleum Association, a powerful industry lobbying group which includes Chevron.

Created: 27/07/2017 Last edited: 01/08/2017

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing GHG standards in Orgon (Kuow, May 2018)

Extract from Source:

Critics of the Clean Fuels Program have raised concerns that the price of compliance will go up as the carbon reduction requirements increase over time. Oil companies represented by the Western States Petroleum Association have asked the Oregon Legislature to repeal the program altogether.

Created: 12/07/2018 Last edited: 12/07/2018

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Taking legal action against GHG emissions standards (Courthouse News Service, June 2016)

Extract from Source:

A trade organization representing the oil and gas industry in the American West pushed back against new regulations seeking to cut emissions at refineries in the Bay Area. The Western States Petroleum Association, or WSPA, sued the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in Contra Costa Superior Court last week, claiming the agency acted arbitrarily when it installed new rules aimed at curtailing emissions at five Bay Area refineries by 20 percent. "The district has not justified the need for any new regulations targeting the pollutants at issue here, much less the 20 percent reduction mandated from refineries," WSPA says in its May 25 complaint. WSPA — along with Valero Refining, Tesoro Refining & Marketing and Phillips 66 — say the district did not perform the necessary environmental review, known as a CEQA analysis, when it implemented the new rules. It further asserts the mandate unfairly targets the oil and gas industry as the emissions reduction was not implemented in any other industry. Furthermore, WSPA says the five refineries that comprise the Contra Costa-Solano refinery belt — the largest in California — account for less than three percent of air pollutants in the area. WSPA points to the air quality management district's own study performed in 2014 as a source. Ralph Borrmann, public information officer for the air quality management district, said the three percent number is misleading. The refineries are responsible for anywhere from four to 41 percent of the pollutants in the area, depending on which pollutant is identified, he said. "There are a lot of them," Borrmann said.

Created: 06/06/2016 Last edited: 14/11/2017

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Supporting an amendment to legislation to prevent GHG emissions standards at a local level (E&E News, July 2017)

Extract from Source:

WSPA led the companies, and the oil sector, on spending. The trade group spent $20.1 million since 2015 and nearly $1.4 million in the first quarter of this year. The association represents some two dozen oil companies, including BP PLC, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp. Several observers said WSPA won a major plum in the measure that passed, A.B. 398. It contains a provision stating that only the California Air Resources Board (ARB) can regulate carbon emissions at oil and gas facilities, and solely through cap and trade. That means the state's 35 local air districts cannot directly regulate carbon dioxide. Many familiar with negotiations around the bill say that language was inserted at the behest of WSPA and that Brown consented because he wanted a two-thirds vote approving the legislation. Brown needed allies, not opponents. In the end, eight Republicans voted for it, while three Democrats opposed it. [...] WSPA would not agree to an interview. In a blog post after the vote, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, WSPA president, said that the measure as written was the best option for meeting the state's 2030 mandate to cut greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels. Direct regulations from ARB would have been more costly, she said. "Cap-and-trade's market-based approach provides regulated facilities, like those of our industry, with more flexibility as they work to meet the new standards," Reheis-Boyd wrote. "The bipartisan support of A.B. 398 ensured an improved cap-and-trade program with tax cuts, cost containment measures, and significant bureaucracy reduction that will contain costs for all Californians."

Created: 01/08/2017 Last edited: 01/08/2017

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing GHG emissions standards on Californian oil refineries (East Bay Times, June 2017) 

Extract from Source:

Bay Area air regulators on Wednesday postponed adopting the nation’s first limits on greenhouses gases from oil refineries because of complaints that the public wasn’t given enough time to review 11th-hour changes. With both environmentalists and oil company workers complaining of insufficient notice, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District board agreed to wait at least two months before limiting overall annual greenhouse gas emissions from the five refineries in the region. [...] Bob Brown of the Western States Petroleum Association said the cap would result in refinery production shifting to other states with more lenient environmental rules, hurting the Bay Area economy without reducing pollutants that affect the world’s climate.  “Greenhouse gases are a global pollutant,” he said, “not a local one." Oil refineries currently have no overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions even though they face many different types of pollution controls and permit limits for various equipment and areas of plants.

Created: 12/07/2017 Last edited: 12/07/2017

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Supporting an amendment to legislation to prevent GHG emissions standards at a local level (Vox, July 2017)

Extract from Source:

Probably the biggest grievance environmental justice advocates had with AB 398, according to Bill Magavern, policy director of the Coalition for Clean Air, is a specific provision that prohibits California’s Air Resources Board and local air districts from directly regulating carbon emissions by sources that are also subject to the state’s cap-and-trade program. This preemption was one of the top asks of the Western States Petroleum Association, a massive trade group for oil companies that lobbied the legislature hard. Oil companies, as well as other businesses, favor the policy certainty that the preemption provision provides because cap and trade on its own allows for better planning of long-term strategies and investments, while the fear of new regulations does not. Environmental justice advocates, meanwhile, were more concerned that the policy limits the ability to protect the neighborhoods that are home to big emitters and whose residents disproportionately bear the burden of pollution. With the bill, local regulators will no longer be able to, for example, force an oil refinery “to clean up its own operations at the source, in the community where it operates,” Magavern explains. Instead, under only the cap-and-trade program a big polluter could, he says, “buy its way to compliance by purchasing allowances and/or offsets from elsewhere.”

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