Chevron Memorandum

The passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), H.R. 2454, is a landmark example of the ways in which political forces from across the broad spectrum of American politics can unite together in order to produce long-lasting and effective reforms of energy policy, as well as work together to reduce the negative impact of energy utilization on the environment. Chevron, as a major oil and natural gas producer, supports aspects of the legislation that are conducive towards expanding business opportunities and regions of economic growth. Moreover, Chevron supports the aggregation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on the national level and believes that addressing climate change as a whole is a long process that will require in-depth research and long-term application of major changes in national energy policy decisions - possibly even authorizing the use of more Liquid Thorium Reactors for energy. Thus, Chevron opposes any legislation that is seen as acting too quickly or without proper scientific background, and supports the idea of funding research that would contribute to a scientific conclusion regarding the best way to combat the effects of GHG emissions on the national and international level. 

Specifically, Chevron supports the passage of comprehensive climate change and energy reform policies seen in H.R. 2454. The provisions that Chevron approves of consist of the promotion of a cap-and-trade program, provisions to increase tax incentives for domestic oil and gas production (H.R. 2454). Chevron also argues that “H.R. 2454's climate-related environmental benefit should be considered in a global context” and there should be a strong “desire to engage the developing world in the reduction effort” (Parker et. al. 1). Moreover, Chevron explicitly states that it believes that the change in global temperatures since the mid-20th century is almost assuredly the result of human influences; the company, then, stands firmly behind legislative and other domestic efforts to create a sustainable and prosperous energy future for the United States.

H.R. 2454 offers a valuable opportunity to stress the importance of Chevron’s strategic goals as a multinational energy corporation. The passage of H.R. 2454 will likely result in the creation of nearly 2 million clean energy jobs; Chevron, though not looking to dramatically increase its staff size, will nonetheless benefit from the creation of these additional jobs in several ways. While “most adaptation actions to date appear to be incremental changes [and] not the transformational changes that may be needed [in order to prevent further climate change]”, current efforts by Chevron support the idea of a national discussion on the effects of climate change (Verduzco et. al., 2013, p. 361). Chevron will be seen in the public eye as a modern multinational that has broken with its counterparts and fully embraced a desire to reduce the impact of GHG emissions on the planet. This public relations boost will have tangible benefits to the corporation. Chevron, moreover, will also be enabled to partake in the economic benefits of helping to develop and spur the clean energy movement in the United States—opportunities for economic growth are abound in this field. Secondly, H.R. 2454 will provide immense federal funding for national energy programs aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of the nation, and Chevron is effectively guaranteed to partake in at least some of the $7.5 billion worth of private industry investments into clean energy sources allocated by the bill (H.R. 2454). 

Overall, Chevron’s strategic goals are orientated towards supporting the growth of the company while simultaneously contributing to the growth of clean energy sources and a positive environmental impact in the United States and abroad. By embracing most of the provisions of H.R. 2454, Chevron is acting with goodwill towards the American people and government and will not be seen as a hostile obstruction to the passage of much-needed energy reform. At the same time, there is little reason to oppose the passage of this bill, nor should the company view the added regulations and requirements as a burden of any consequence. Moreover, while Chevron’s “approach to statutory interpretation” set forth by federal regulatory agencies can be seen as somewhat hesitant in enacting substantial policy change, the company clearly supports the idea of comprehensive energy reform for the United States (Barker 73). Instead, Chevron’s goals of diversification and expansion into the clean energy industry are being met, and opportunities for growth in new sectors continues to develop at an incredible rate. Thus, Chevron furthers its own interests by working hand-in-hand with government and regulatory agencies while, at the same time, diversifying itself into this new, profitable sector. 

Since 2009, the U.S. Congress has experienced a shift in political allegiance, where the ruling Democrat Party lost support in the House of Representatives to find itself controlling the Senate, but not the House, in 2013. In 2009, the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. This change in the political climate has intriguing consequences for Chevron—on one hand, the Republican-dominated House is not eager to embrace further government control over the energy sector, nor is it likely to want to shunt additional funding to clean energy sources. Thus, the impact is twofold: first, the House is not likely to want to continue expanding efforts on clean and renewable energy, meaning oil and natural gas will remain the principal drivers of Chevron’s economic focus; second, the lack of additional funding and research into clean energy means that the potential benefits Chevron could reap from expanding into a profitable, government-backed new industry may not be as large as initially anticipated. Regardless, Chevron’s policies are not bound with that of the government, and the shift in political makeup of Congress should likely only mean that the company may need to reevaluate the extent to which it should involve itself in clean energy. 

Chevron supports the political views of the Republican Party, and donates considerable funding to the Republican Congressional Leadership Fund, a political action committee (PAC) that supports conservative candidates. Andrew states that "Chevron's values appear to align closely with those of conservative organizations and Republican candidates.” According to opensecrets.com (2013), this PAC, in 2012 alone, spent $9,450,223 on Republican campaigns and raised approximately $11,286,590 during the same year. Chevron contributes to the Republican PAC primarily because it promotes candidates who support the idea of lower regulation and free market enterprise, as well as lower corporate taxes. While Chevron stands by the principles of H.R. 2454, it would prefer to perform its operations with as little government oversight as possible, as that affords more opportunities for increased profits. Thus, Chevron contributes to the Republican PAC wholeheartedly. 

The example of H.R. 2454 clearly shows that a bipartisan effort aimed at unifying both ends of the political spectrum is the way to achieve long-lasting and sustainable climate change. Chevron stands by the principles of the bill, but argues that any long-term changes made with regards to national energy policy must be made only after sufficient research and analysis. Chevron cannot condone any major shifts in energy policy as a result of discussion regarding clean energy if that discussion comes as a result of manufactured public opinion or tensions that have run high in the course of the debate. Instead, coalition building between legislators and the private sector in the form of organizational representatives must be attempted.

While the efforts of the government to pass H.R. 2454 have been admirable, we would like to stress the importance of integrating private industry into the debates regarding the future of the energy policy in the United States. We argue that, moreover, private industries and American multinationals are the primary movers of American energy policies as a whole, and that any government-mandated change in the way in which private companies perform in their sectors must come only after serious discussion and deliberation with organizational representatives. It is illogical and improper for the government to attempt to pass a major reform bill of a fundamental sector of the American economy without the direct input of the industries that will be affected. 

Works Cited

Andrew S., Ross. "Super PAC aided by Chevron's millions." San Francisco Chronicle (10/1/2007 to present) 31 Oct. 2012: C1. Newspaper Source. 

Barker, D. Wiley. "The Absurd Results Doctrine, Chevron, And Climate Change." BYU Journal Of Public Law 26.1 (2011): 73-98. 

Laura Verduzco, et al. "A Comprehensive Review of Climate Adaptation in The United States: More Than Before, But Less Than Needed." Mitigation & Adaptation Strategies For Global Change 18.3 (2013): 361-406.

Parker, Larry, and Brent D. Yacobucci. "Climate Change: Costs and Benefits of The Cap-And-Trade Provisions of H.R. 2454: R40809." Congressional Research Service: Report (2009): 1-95. 

Specific Issues Reports for H.R. 2454 by Chevron Corp | OpenSecrets. (n.d.). OpenSecrets.org Retrieved July 20, 2013, from http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/specissue.php?bid=107281&id=D000000015&year=2 009

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009: The Numbers. U.S. House of Representatives, 2009.