California: Oil Interests Fight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Advocates for suspending California’s ambitious effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions say they are concerned it will hurt the economy. But the big money behind the campaign suggests another motivation: Oil companies worried that the legislation will reduce private vehicle usage not only in the Golden State but nationwide as other states follow suit.

Companies directly involved in oil production, refining, or retailing—many located outside California—have contributed the vast majority of the $4.2 million raised by supporters of Proposition 23, which would suspend California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32). AB 32 requires that the state's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. A companion bill (Senate Bill 375) requires localities to plan for more compact, transit-oriented, "sustainable" land use patterns: in other words, to craft plans that encourage walking and the use of transit and discourage driving.

Other states are headed in the same direction, most notably Oregon and Washington, with more studying options to reduce GHG emissions.

The oil interests remember that California was among the states that fought the Bush Administration for the right to enact tough automobile fuel efficiency standards. California's standards prevailed, and similar standards are now being implemented nationally.

The oil interests also know that a successful effort by California to reduce GHG emissions and encourage cities to plan for compact, less car-dependent communities will set the direction for the nation, and they are pumping millions into the fight to suspend AB 32 in the November 2 election.

Flint Hills Resources, an independent refining and chemicals company based in Wichita, Kansas, donated $1 million to support suspension of AB 32. Other major donors include Occidental Petroleum Corp. of Los Angeles and two Texas-based firms, Valero Services Inc. and Tesoro Companies.

According to the California secretary of state, the only donors of $50,000 or more that are not directly involved in oil production, refining, or retailing are the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Adam Smith Foundation, and the California Trucking Association.

Proposition 23 does not address Senate Bill 375, which requires all areas of the state to develop plans to show how they will change land and transportation use to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles. However, the GHG reduction targets are the driving force behind SB 375, and suspension of AB 32 would almost certainly reduce the value of the plans required by SB 375, if not derail the process completely.

Don't let the oil companies shape policy to line their pockets.