Organisation Name
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)
InfluenceMap Query
Renewable Energy Legislation
Data Source
Social Media
 
 

Score for this Data / Query Cell

-1.43

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 renewable energy legislation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing a 50% renewable energy target in SB 350 (Joint letter to California State Senate members, June 2015)

Extract from Source:

The California Chamber of Commerce and above listed organizations respectfully OPPOSE SB 350 (de Leon), which has been labeled as a JOB KILLER. As introduced, SB 350 is an arbitrary and unrealistic reduction of petroleum use by 50% by 2030, increasing the current Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50% by 2030 and increasing energy efficiency in buildings by 50% by 2030, without regard to the impact on individuals, jobs and the economy. [...] In addition to the 50% reduction in petroleum, SB 350 also seeks to increase the current Renewable Portfolio standard from 33% to 50% as well as increasing energy efficiency in buildings to 50%. Both of these policies will significantly increase costs to ratepayers. California’s energy price per kilowatt hour is among the highest in the nation and our energy efficiency standards are among the strongest. Given the cost of upgrading current energy efficiency standards, while at the same time increasing the cost of energy, makes California’s businesses less competitive.

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

 

Not supporting renewable energy legislation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Oregonians for Sound Fuel Policy, a program funded by WSPA, opposed Low Carbon Fuel Standards in Oregon (Oregon Fuel Policy, June 2015)

Extract from Source:

Please help put a stop to the LCFS, a hidden gas tax that is masquerading as climate change policy. Contact your elected representatives today and tell them you aren’t willing to support their agenda by paying more for gasoline and diesel. We’ve provided a draft email below. Please feel free to personalize your message. Thank you!

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

 

Opposing renewable energy legislation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing a 50% renewable energy target in SB 350 (Joint letter to California State Senate members, September 2015)

Extract from Source:

The California Chamber of Commerce and above listed organizations respectfully OPPOSE SB 350 (de Leon), which has been labeled as a JOB KILLER. As amended September 4, 2015, SB 350 is an arbitrary and unrealistic reduction of petroleum use by 50% by 2030, increasing the current Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50% by 2030 and increasing energy efficiency in buildings by 50% by 2030, without regard to the impact on individuals, jobs and the economy. [...] IMPACTS ON ENERGY COSTS In addition to the 50% reduction in petroleum, SB 350 also seeks to increase the current Renewable Portfolio standard from 33% to 50% as well as the doubling of energy savings. As we understand it, there are positive negotiations surrounding the Renewable portfolio standard section of this legislation. At the same time, while we support energy efficiency, the aggressive goals set in SB 350 will hit every homeowner and business in the state. The cost of upgrading current energy efficiency standards, coupled with high per kilowatt hour energy costs, makes California’s businesses less competitive.

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

 

Not supporting renewable energy legislation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Washingtonians for Sound Fuel Policy, a program funded by WSPA, opposed Low Carbon Fuel Standards in Washington (Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy website, 2015)

Extract from Source:

While the coalition supports appropriate and cost effective improvements to fuel and energy policies, a LCFS has been shown to be an infeasible regulation that will likely result in fuel supply disruptions and extreme marketplace volatility. [...] A LCFS could create fuel shortages if fuel providers are unable to comply with the regulation, leaving them no choice but to reduce fuel supplies. [...] According to a Charles River Associates study, a national LCFS would lead to major compliance costs that could drastically increase fuel costs by 2025. Indeed, the study found consumer costs could rise between 30 and 80 percent within five years of adoption of a national LCFS regulation.

Created: 14/11/2017 Last edited: 16/11/2017

 

Not supporting renewable energy legislation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Oregonians for Sound Fuel Policy, a program funded by WSPA, opposed Low Carbon Fuel Standards in Oregon (Oregon Fuel Policy, June 2015)

Extract from Source:

As the press has reported, the Oregon legislature was not able to reach agreement on a comprehensive transportation package last week – a package which would have included repeal of Oregon’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). While we were hopeful that this package would go through, and very grateful to a key group of legislators and the governor’s office for working diligently toward a sound-policy compromise, the bill died in a special transportation committee last Thursday morning. [...] And as we said, we are not done yet. With your ongoing support, we will continue our efforts to mitigate the negative effects of LCFS. We will look for every opportunity to protect Oregon families and businesses from poorly conceived fuel policies like the LCFS.

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