Organisation Name
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)
InfluenceMap Query
Emissions Trading
Data Source
Main Web Site
 
 

Score for this Data / Query Cell

0.13

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 emissions trading

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing California's cap and trade scheme, legislated through AB 32 (Website, 2015)

Extract from Source:

WSPA and other industry representatives believe the California cap-and-trade program as currently designed creates severe competitive disadvantages for some businesses, including refiners. CARB also exceeded the authority granted it by AB 32 legislation by withholding allowances as a means of generating billions of dollars in new revenue for the State. According to a comprehensive study commissioned by WSPA, the highly regarded Boston Consulting Group concluded: California’s cap-and-trade auction program, as currently written and being implemented, will increase the cost of making gasoline and diesel 14 cents per gallon to 69 cents per gallon, depending on the cost of carbon allowances. The cost of compliance could be significantly higher if the cost of carbon rises above CARB's projected auction prices. Carbon costs could be extremely volatile initially, creating the potential for market disruptions.

Created: 10/09/2015 Last edited: 29/09/2016

 

Supporting emissions trading policy

InfluenceMap Comment:

Supporting cap and trade over other policy proposals in Oregon (Website, 2018)

Extract from Source:

WSPA and its members support market-based mechanisms such as cap-and-trade as the most effective way to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Oregon. Command and control approaches like the low carbon fuel standards outlined in Oregon’s Clean Fuel Program do not really help the overall goals and tend to put major burdens on consumers and local economies. Our members favor legislative proposals that set carbon emission limits and provide a market for trading carbon credits. We urge Oregon legislators to identify and support the most cost effective cap and trade program, minimizing higher transportation fuel costs for Oregonians.

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

 

Supporting emissions trading

InfluenceMap Comment:

Whilst opposing other emission standards, WSPA appears to state support for emissions trading as alternative (Website news release, 2015)

Extract from Source:

Market mechanisms, such as California’s broad cap-and-trade program, are the most feasible and balanced approach to climate change policy without placing our economy, communities and transportation at risk. California’s own cap-and-trade program currently includes transportation fuels under the program. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is not a complementary policy but a contradictory policy as other economists have noted. [...] WSPA believes a well-designed market-based program offers the most effective, lowest cost means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring reliable, affordable transportation fuels for businesses and consumers. California’s cap and trade program already spurs innovation in an array of alternative fuels. The program already includes transportation fuels and allows complying entities like the petroleum industry the most cost effective means of reducing all GHG emissions one generates. Conversely, a Low Carbon Fuel Standard drives up the cost of making every gallon of transportation fuel California businesses and families depend on.

Created: 18/03/2016 Last edited: 29/09/2016

 

Not supporting emissions trading

InfluenceMap Comment:

Evidence suggests not supporting emissions trading in California (Website news release, 2016)

Extract from Source:

“The passage of SB 32 is not a reason to celebrate. It is unfortunate it went this direction. The rushed vote was deliberately schemed in order to cover-up today’s terrible cap-and-trade auction results.  The lack of accountability and transparency in this sort of maneuver is embodied in SB 32.  There is no accountability in providing blank check authority to a state bureaucracy. Furthermore, SB 32 puts accessible and reliable energy at risk.  Today is, in fact, a setback for California’s global leadership on climate change. Although SB 32 was rushed ahead of the results of the auction, the fact is that the passage of this measure does nothing to put the market on the right track. The reality remains that SB 32 fails to address fixes to cap-and-trade, which sends the wrong signals to the market. Today’s miserable auction result reflects the market’s lack of certainty. AB 197 also does not address fundamental cap-and-trade issues that SB 32 conveniently dodges. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction by promoting a command-and-control system that is contrary to a market-based mechanism like cap-and-trade and would further undermine the market.  Despite today’s symbolic victory for some, we will continue to do the real work required to make the appropriate fixes to cap-and-trade that can send the market real certainty."

Created: 29/09/2016 Last edited: 14/11/2017