A new report from nonprofit The Climate Center has unearthed historical documents that show the big oil companies orchestrated a tax break that allows them to avoid paying an estimated $75 million to $146 million a year.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

Over the past 15 years, West Virginians have been shelling out more of their income each month on electricity bills. Now, as lawmakers continue to push a reliance on coal, with support from the Trump administration, advocates say they are worried about residents' bottom line.

According to federal data, U.S. production of coal has steadily dropped over the past two decades.

Emmett Pepper, policy director for Energy Efficient West Virginia, said coal is now an expensive choice for producing energy compared with renewable resources. He adds big coal's grip on the state is costing households.

"We have monopolies in West Virginia for our electric utilities, so they should be run in a way that is the most cost effective reducing the bills for West Virginians," he explained.

Residents have seen their average electricity price jump by 90% since the early 2000s, according to Conservation West Virginia. The West Virginia Coal Association argues ramping up coal production will lower consumers' bills.

Last month Appalachian Power, one of the state's largest utilities, asked state regulators to raise rates to make up for operating costs. If approved, residents' bills would increase by around $5 per month. Meanwhile, Pepper noted, grants for energy efficiency and assistance are shrinking, leaving residents with few options.

"The state and federal government could be doing more to help people who are struggling with their electric bills," he continued. "Instead, we've seen a budget come out that actually completely eliminates support that people have had in the past."

More than 60% of Americans support the goal of taking steps for the nation to become carbon neutral by 2050, according to a Pew Research Center survey released last year.

A bipartisan group of current and former elected officials said the continued use of fossil fuels threatens global security and they want funding for climate investments restored.

Rep. Debbie Sariñana, D-Albuquerque, state director of Elected Officials to Protect America, is a member of the bipartisan group Elected Officials to Protect America. At the group's Energy Security Summit Tuesday, she emphasized the importance of provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Sariñana cited the 161 pumpjacks located within a mile of an elementary school adjacent to the oil-producing Permian Basin, exposing kids to cancer-causing chemicals.

"The hardest part of being a legislator is watching on this committee, where they have the representatives from their districts sitting there and they don't do anything, they don't say anything," Sariñana explained. "They don't see it as wrong because money is the most important thing about the Permian Basin."

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has asserted fossil fuels are better for energy security. The Biden administration's laws aimed to invest in domestic energy production while promoting clean energy and represent the federal government's biggest climate investments in history.

Sariñana acknowledged it can be a challenge to advocate for clean alternatives because New Mexico derives a significant portion of its revenues from fossil fuels. At the same time, the state's clean energy portfolio includes solar, geothermal and wind, with the state ranked seventh in the nation in wind generation. She noted funding for almost 1,000 state projects, covering everything from transportation to agriculture and wildfires are at risk.

"All these provisions and funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan infrastructure Law and environmental regulations must be restored for the future of our people, for their prosperity and health, and security," Sariñana contended.

An executive order by President Donald Trump April 8 instructed the Department of Justice to eliminate the independent constitutional authority of every state to govern its own climate laws.


get more stories like this via email

Today, the Republican budget package on the nation's energy policy gets a closer look from the House Natural Resources Committee in Congress.

A new poll showed many of the proposed changes are unpopular among voters in Montana and the West. The proposals include reducing royalty rates paid by energy companies to federal and local governments, limiting opportunities for public participation and mandating the sale of oil and gas leases on all available public lands within 18 months.

Lori Weigel, principal at New Bridge Strategies, which conducted the poll said there is a trend in voter preferences about the importance of various public land uses.

"It stands out, really, that providing land to be leased for oil and gas development was significantly lower than every single other attribute that we tested," Weigel reported.

Among Montana respondents, 92% said keeping air and water clean is an important function of public lands. Outdoor recreation and providing wildlife habitat were about equally important, at roughly 86%. Only 34% of Montanans said they think providing land for oil and gas development is important.

Russell Kuhlman, executive director of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, said many oil and gas proposals coming from lawmakers right now promote a misconception.

"There's this belief that every inch that you walk on public land has this huge, untapped resource of fossil fuel," Kuhlman observed. "That could not be farther from the truth. It is very localized, in certain areas."

One proposal would cancel the $5 per acre nomination fee oil and gas companies pay to help cover the cost of a review process to determine whether land is appropriate for development. Among Montana respondents, eight in opposed canceling the fee, as did seven in 10 Montanans who self-identified as MAGA supporters.


get more stories like this via email