This briefing contains an overview of the corporate advocacy detected by InfluenceMap related to fossil fuels for the month of October 2023.
Global: From the 17th to the 19th October, executives from the oil and gas industry gathered in London for the Energy Intelligence Forum. Many stressed the need to maintain oil and gas through the energy transition. Meanwhile, the International Gas Union released its 2023 Global Gas Report 2023, which reiterates calls for new gas infrastructure investments globally.
In the US: The Council of Environmental Quality’s Phase 2 Revisions for the National Environmental Policy Act were met with broad opposition, with many fossil fuel companies and industry groups pushing back on the consideration of climate and environmental justice effects in environmental reviews of proposed projects.
This briefing contains an overview of the corporate lobbying detected by InfluenceMap related to fossil fuels for the month of September 2023.
The Energy Intelligence Forum 2023, held in London from October 17th to 19th, brought together key executives from major global oil and gas companies. The forum provided a platform for industry leaders to share their perspectives on the future of energy, climate change, and the role of fossil fuels. A recurring theme was the industry's commitment to a balanced energy transition, combining fossil fuels with low-carbon solutions, and the continued importance of oil and gas in the global energy mix.
Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, and Woodside stress the need for new LNG, oil and gas investments: Woodside CEO Meg O’Niell stated that the best cure for high energy prices was more supply and stated that “we need to find a way to get them (Asian markets) on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) off coal” adding “hopefully more LNG supply will help do that.” There was also support for LNG investments in Europe, with ExxonMobil's senior vice president of global LNG, Peter Clarke, appearing to support investments in new LNG infrastructure in Europe to diversify supply in a panel discussion. Elsewhere, Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser promoted the need for additional oil production capacity, adding that he does not believe that renewables are ready to shoulder global energy demand, stressing energy security and affordability concerns.
TotalEnergies, Equinor, Hess, and Shell comment on the need for fossil fuels in the energy transition: Shell’s CEO Wael Sawan used his speech at the conference to appear to support more ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) ahead of COP28, but was also reported to have stated that he believes in a balanced energy transition that includes oil and fossil gas. Meanwhile, TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné stated that he believed that the company should be a responsible player in the transition but added that “we know we’ll need oil and gas in the energy mix.” He was also reported to have stated that people are “suffering due to the transition,” citing higher energy costs, and that there is no simple solution to solve climate change. Similarly, Equinor’s CEO Anders Opedal and Hess CEO John Hess used the conference to promote the value of oil and gas in the energy transition. Opedal stressed that “any net-zero scenario is tough,” adding that more renewables and carbon capture are needed, as well as oil and gas, while Hess stated that oil and gas are key to an affordable, just energy transition.
Repsol opposes an "ideological" energy transition: Repsol CEO Josu Jon Imaz used his address to argue against an ideologically driven vision of the energy transition. He cited Spain's promotion of electric vehicles, stating that an alternative policy of subsidizing new and more efficient cars that run on petroleum fuels would yield better results while promoting biofuels. He also appeared to criticize the European Union’s approach to climate policy, stating a preference for the approach taken in the US and the Inflation Reduction Act, which he stated uses "carrots" rather than "sticks."
On October 19th, the International Gas Union (IGU), in collaboration with Snam and Rystad Energy, published the 2023 Global Gas Report. The report emphasized two main points: firstly, underinvestment in fossil gas played a role in the energy crisis, and secondly, fossil gas is crucial for decarbonization, working in tandem with low carbon and renewable gases.
InfluenceMap previously analyzed efforts by IGU’s strategy documents, which showed how the fossil gas industry considers growing climate change concern an “existential” threat to its interests. The documents also revealed how the industry has intentionally developed regionally specific communication strategies to help promote fossil fuels, for example by promoting fossil gas as a tool for sustainable development in the Global South. The 2023 Global Gas Report labeled underinvestment in fossil gas resources as a key factor leading up to the energy crisis and relied on regionally specific narratives tailored to what IGU refers to as “developed,” e.g., Europe and the United States, and “developing,” e.g., India, China and Africa, regions to promote global investment in fossil fuel infrastructure. For example:
In Developed Regions: The report emphasized the continued need for fossil gas investments to tackle energy security and affordability concerns and linked the need for new gas-fired generation with the intermittent nature of renewables: “The growth of renewable energy sources within the power mix is directly correlated with a growing need for reliable, dispatchable, and flexible capacity resources to balance grids during periods of renewable energy sources intermittency. .... Gas is the most cost-effective grid resilience resource, and high renewable energy sources capacity additions will likely require pairing with gas-fired generation capacity to maintain grid security.“
In Developing Regions: The report advocated for new fossil gas investments to meet population growth and energy access requirements and to shift away from coal to gas: "As we think about how much gas we will need in the coming decades, we mustn’t forget about the emerging regions of the world where population and energy needs are quickly growing. The huge economic engines of the most populous countries in the world, China, and India, still rely heavily on coal, and the gas crisis contributed to an upward trajectory of its use. Africa is the fastest growing region of the world with the youngest population, 600 million of which lacks access to power while many others are faced with unstable energy systems and weak infrastructure that require reinforcement for any energy transition to happen.”
The International Gas Union’s promotion of new fossil gas infrastructure appears to contravene the guidance of the IPCC. In September, the International Energy Agency released its updated report on Net Zero by 2050, again finding that no new oil and gas fields are needed if the world is to meet global climate goals. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has also emphasized that new fossil fuel projects would need to be cancelled, with existing plants and infrastructure either decommissioned or used less for a 1.5°C energy pathway.
The report also focused on the pivotal role of fossil gas in decarbonizing the economy, highlighting issues with electrification and promoting low carbon and renewable gases as a means to prolong fossil gas. For example, it appeared to downplay the role of electrification in the buildings sector in favor of promoting low carbon gaseous solutions that would enable fossil gas technologies to be used for longer. This is despite the IPCC underlining the need to reduce fossil gas usage, while also highlighting electrification as the dominant decarbonization strategy in sectors such as buildings, in comparison to gaseous solutions such as hydrogen, due to conversion losses.
The public comment period for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Phase 2 Revisions closed on September 29th, 2023. NEPA, the federal policy that requires agencies to consider the environmental effects of certain projects, has been at the center of ongoing permitting reform talks in the US because of its direct influence upon the energy transition. InfluenceMap has been tracking industry engagement on permitting reform, available on this platform page here.
The Phase 2 Revisions build upon the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ)’s Phase 1 Revisions and explicitly incorporate the consideration of climate and environmental justice into the review process, which has clear implications for both the energy mix and biodiversity. Among other amendments, the CEQ proposes to:
Implement elements from the Fiscal Responsibility Act – the debt ceiling bill that passed this summer – that focus on streamlining environmental reviews;
Expand the definition of “effects” – which is used to evaluate the impact of a proposed action on the environment – to include “climate change-related effects” and “disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns”;
Asks agencies to consider the “potential global, national, regional, and local contexts” of proposed actions and whether potential effects are short-term or long-term. The CEQ explicitly calls out the negative impact of fossil fuel developments, stating in its proposal that “leases for oil and gas extraction or natural gas pipelines have local effects, but also have reasonably foreseeable global indirect and cumulative effects related to GHG emissions.”
InfluenceMap analysis of the docket comments, which continued to be uploaded into October, indicates strong opposition by the fossil fuel industry to the Phase 2 Revisions, with many emphasizing that review processes should respect all energy types, including fossil fuel projects. In addition, as described below, InfluenceMap highlights opposition by several entities to the inclusion of environmental justice provisions and definitions in the proposal.
Major power and energy companies push back on revisions and advocate for fossil fuel infrastructure: Several energy companies opposed the Phase 2 Revisions, including Chevron, Enbridge, and Williams Companies, all of which advocated for review processes to facilitate the buildout of fossil fuel infrastructure. Utilities Berkshire Hathaway and Southern Company also opposed the revisions, with Southern emphasizing that the proposal would “constrain the timing and availability of natural gas capacity.” The Cross-Cutting Issues Group (CCIG), a utility coalition, submitted comments – signed by AES, Alliant Energy, Dominion, Duke, Entergy, Evergy, PPL Corp subsidiaries, and Southern – that expressed concerns that the proposal favored clean energy projects over fossil fuel infrastructure and emphasized that the revisions would be “ineffective” in “maintaining reliability and affordability.” While Shell did not take a clear position on the proposal’s consideration of climate-related effects, it still appeared to push back on certain proposed amendments to the regulation.
Over twenty industry groups criticize revisions: Industry group engagement on the CEQ’s proposal skewed negative, with over 20 groups submitting comments that criticized the revisions. Many groups called for fossil fuel buildout, including American Gas Association, Natural Gas Supply Association, Portland Cement Association, and a US Chamber of Commerce-led business coalition signed by a few dozen associations.
In addition to the above revisions, the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) – in line with President Biden’s April 2023 Executive Order on Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All – proposed a new definition of environmental justice:
“The just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment so that people:
(1) Are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and
(2) Have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.”
On top of this language referring to distributional justice concepts, the CEQ incorporates procedural and recognitional justice elements in the revisions by proposing that “special expertise” can include Indigenous Knowledge and that agencies should consider “how an action may impact the reserved rights of Tribal Nations.”
Several companies and industry groups specifically opposed the environmental justice provisions in the Phase 2 Revisions, and emphasized that their inclusion would result in increased bureaucratic burden. Among others, Enbridge, as well as the American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC), Business Roundtable, Consumer Energy Alliance and a US Chamber of Commerce-led business coalition, singled out the environmental justice proposals in their negative comments. Comments by the CCIG (described above) – which were signed by utilities Dominion, Duke, and Southern, among others – stated that the proposed definition of environmental justice could “encourage a challenge to virtually any project involving a NEPA review.”
