Blog

Days after state regulators voted to ban gasoline and diesel cars and trucks, millions of California residents received an emergency alert to cut off all unessential electricity use and to stop charging their electric vehicles (EVs) in order to keep the lights on around the state. The timing is uncanny and shows the recklessness of a rushing to ban gas and diesel cars in order to force vehicle electrification.

McKinsey released a new report outlining the emissions profiles of plastic vs. non-plastic alternatives in multiple use cases. They found that in nearly every case examined, plastics are responsible for less greenhouse gas emissions throughout their lifecycle than alternative materials.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII) regulation. ACCII requires 35% electrification of light-duty vehicle sales by 2026 and 100% by 2035. To implement the policy, California will need authorization in the form of a Clean Air Act waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If EPA grants the waiver, millions of American consumers—including many outside of California—could soon lose the option to buy the car or truck THEY want. President Biden and EPA Administrator Regan should reject California’s waiver request for multiple legal and policy reasons.

AFPM president and CEO Chet Thompson issued the following statement in response to a vote of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approving California’s Advanced Clean Cars 2 regulation, establishing an escalating ban on the sale of gasoline and diesel-fueled cars and trucks, culminating with a 100% ban by 2035. "California’s radical ban on gasoline- and diesel-fueled cars and trucks will have devastating implications for consumers, energy security and the U.S. manufacturing economy. It is critical that President Biden and the EPA reject California’s request for a Clean Air Act waiver to proceed with this unlawful ban."

EPA’s existing Risk Management Plan (RMP) is doing what it was designed to do: drive continual safety improvements across workplaces to keep industry employees, contractors, facility neighbors and local environments safe. Any changes to a regulation as effective as the RMP need to be solidly evidence-based. Unfortunately, today’s proposal is filled with costly and misinformed changes, with little-to-no data to back them up. In fact, many of the proposed changes will adversely impact the safety and security missions of refining and petrochemical sites. AFPM looks forward to providing detailed comments on this proposal.

AFPM opposes the Inflation Reduction Act as written. We evaluated the bill against our core principles, specifically whether the legislation would support strong U.S. refining and petrochemical industries and whether it pursued emissions reductions in a market-based and cost-effective manner. Unfortunately, the IRA falls short of these goals.

AFPM President and CEO Chet Thompson issued the following statement: "AFPM applauds the United States Trade Representative (USTR) for elevating this important matter. Mexico’s policies toward American energy companies need to be addressed in the spirit of the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA). American refiners have made significant investments in Mexico-based operations, jobs and infrastructure and we want our trade relationships with Mexico to remain healthy and mutually beneficial.”