A new report from nonprofit The Climate Center has unearthed historical documents that show the big oil companies orchestrated a tax break that allows them to avoid paying an estimated $75 million to $146 million a year.

The California Legislature adopted the so-called "Water's Edge" tax policy in 1986.

Barry Vesser, chief operating officer with The Climate Center, said it allows companies to decide which of their earnings are taxable in California, and exclude those linked to operations elsewhere, thus dramatically reducing what they owe in taxes.

"The report shows is that companies like Chevron and Shell and Exxon, back in the '70s and '80s, worked really hard to get this exemption into the tax code, in spite of the fact that lots of advocates and many people in government were saying that this is a bad idea, including the head of the Franchise Tax Board at the time," Vesser explained.

The report estimates that "Water's Edge" costs California about $4 billion a year across all industries. The oil companies argue that it is unfair for a state to tax their global earnings. However, oil-rich Alaska prohibits this type of tax exemption.

Climate advocates are pressing California lawmakers to end all subsidies for these companies in budget negotiations this spring. Vesser noted that last year, California's budget cut billions from climate programs to help fill a $46 billion deficit. Meanwhile, Chevron, Shell and Exxon reported $83 billion in profits in 2023.

"Oil and gas companies spent $31.4 million in 2024," he continued. "They broke a record even in the first three-quarters of all-time spending at the California State Legislature. So, these companies are working to undermine sensible public policy outcomes."

Assemblymember Damon Conolly, D-San Rafael, said in a statement that eliminating the Water's Edge tax break for multinational oil and gas corporations is a common-sense solution to make polluting industries pay their fair share to fix the environmental and health problems they helped create.

A huge offshore wind project is forging ahead off Humboldt Bay in Northern California - and Saturday, elected officials will tour the deepwater port in Eureka. The port will be expanded to deploy commercial offshore wind turbines - and later, to transmit power to the grid.

Benjamin Collings, offshore wind advisor to the nonprofit Elected Officials to Protect America, which organized the tour, urged people to be patient.

"So, we just want to encourage people to stay the course and not have any delays," he explained. "Because it could be a 10- or 15-year timeline for some of these projects, and it's so critical that we do everything possible to mitigate climate change."

President Donald Trump's executive order halting future leases for offshore wind was signed after this project was already federally permitted with leases. The "Humboldt Bay Offshore Wind Heavy Lift Marine Terminal Project" is in the design phase, with plans to build access roads, utilities, and a wharf. A bill in Sacramento would add offshore wind ports to California's five-year infrastructure plan.

Mario Fernandez, Eureka City Council Member, says this huge project will bring good-paying jobs, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and help the state meet its clean energy goals.

"Just to have that type of workforce and dedication to something of that magnitude for the betterment of our environment would be very beneficial, not just for our region, but for the State of California overall," he said.

Natalie Arroyo, Humboldt County Supervisor, says she supports the project to repurpose an industrial area to bring in clean power - but stresses it must be done in consultation with local groups.

"As this goes forward, we certainly need to keep in mind the fisheries and aquaculture sector, the concerns of Tribes and the concerns of residents who live very close to where the port development will happen," she explained.

A 2021 report by Environment California found that offshore wind has the potential to generate more than 1.5 times the total amount of electricity used in the state as of 2019.

Iowa is the nation's leader in wind energy production but one of the biggest factors in pursuing alternative energy now hangs in the balance.

More than half of Iowa's electricity comes from wind power. The Iowa Environmental Council estimates the state saves at least $500 million a year by using wind. Congress is considering repealing the technology-neutral electricity tax credit which puts incentives to use green fuel in danger.

Dan O'Brien, senior modeling analyst at the think tank Energy Innovation, said a reduction in wind power would hurt not just households but Iowa farmers, too.

"In the Midwest, over 90% of wind turbines are sited on crop land because farmers use these
renewables, as often called drought proof cash crops," O'Brien explained. "They bring in money for farmers, even outside of harvest season when it doesn't rain enough, when the cost of labor goes up."

One report said repealing the energy tax credits would increase Iowans' household energy prices by as much as 3% as soon as next year, which could translate into an average annual hike of at least $460 over a decade.

National Economic Research Associates said energy prices are already projected to rise 7% this year, the result of climate change, an overreliance on fossil fuels and rising transmission costs. O'Brien stressed anti-alternative energy legislation would send them still higher.

"If you don't have sources like solar batteries, wind on the grid that can push down electricity prices and that are supported by incentives, like the tax credits, you're going to see business costs go up," O'Brien contended.

Nationwide, overall energy costs increased 22% between 2018 and 2023. The Trump administration said it is trying to reign in federal spending.

Groups in Pennsylvania are asking Congress to preserve federal clean-energy tax incentives.

Concerned about the possible repeal of 30% energy tax credits that have supported projects across the state, they gathered at a local charter school to tout its solar-panel installation as an example.

Andrew Reagan, president of the group Clean Energy for America, said there is bipartisan support for the tax credit. He said it directly benefits southeastern Pennsylvania residents, who are investing in solar and other forms of clean energy to save on energy bills while reducing air pollution.

"Folks are saving money," he said. "They're becoming more energy independent, and at a time of skyrocketing energy prices, it's never been more important to have that flexibility to both lower your energy bill as well as make some of these projects more self-sufficient."

One recent study predicted that repealing the tax incentives could raise residential electric rates by an average of $83 a year and eliminate close to four million jobs.

Reagan said now is the time for Pennsylvanians to let their representatives know how they feel.

The solar installation at ASPIRA Bilingual Cyber Charter School was done by the Bucks County company Exact Solar last year, and is one of many that have been supported by tax incentives.

Daniel Pompile, the school's director of culinary arts, environmental education and food services, said it offers a culinary arts program, and its greenhouse project is a way to provide fresh, organic produce and educate kids on where food comes from.

"It also allowed us to plant the seed about green initiatives and lowering carbon footprints," he said, "and the kids are learning about the world in the process - about the environment where their food comes from, agriculture - and they're doing it in a fun, experiential kind of way."

Michael Lehane, sales manager for Exact Solar, said it installed a ground array and off-grid solar system for the school greenhouse, and is working on community solar projects as well.

"We're doing more straightforward projects, where we're installing solar on homes and businesses that are providing the electricity that they would normally have to get from the utility," he said. "And the economics of it are such that the cost of energy is cheaper, no matter which way you go."

He said the upfront cost can be a challenge, which is where incentives come into play. But uncertainty about whether the credits will stay in place is causing people to hold back on making the investment.


get more stories like this via email