A new report from nonprofit The Climate Center has unearthed historical documents that show the big oil companies orchestrated a tax break that allows them to avoid paying an estimated $75 million to $146 million a year.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

Utility providers foresee a big rise in electricity demand which could lead to double-digit rate hikes if it is met with new natural gas-fired power plants, according to a new report.

PJM is the nonprofit independent system managing the power grid in Pennsylvania and 12 other states. It forecasts the need for 67 more gigawatts by 2039.

Sean O'Leary, senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute, said relying on natural gas for the increased power demand could drive up Pennsylvania's rates faster than the national average. He cautioned addressing the climate effects of increased carbon emissions later could make costs skyrocket even more.

"It costs almost as much to retrofit a gas-fired power plant so that it won't emit greenhouse gases as it costs to build the plant in the first place," O'Leary pointed out. "Right now, Pennsylvanians get about 60% of all of their electricity from natural gas."

O'Leary noted PJM anticipates needing around 100 gigawatts of new capacity, combining 30 gigawatts of retiring coal and older gas plants with additional demand, equating to about two-thirds of the system's current generation capacity.

The Institute's report recommended prioritizing renewable resources and called on PJM to reevaluate its demand projections, since it has a history of overestimating future needs. He added more than 90% of PJM's upcoming projects are solar, wind and battery storage, which underscores the growing role of renewable energy and efficiency measures.

"I think in total, there are more than 90 gigawatts, currently, of renewable resources currently queued up and wanting the opportunity to provide energy to PJM," O'Leary reported. "That should be the first place that PJM turns."

He added states like Texas have made enough progress on renewables, solar and wind power now supply almost one-third of the state's electricity. The report showed the growth in renewable energy has also seen rates come down significantly, surpassing Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, where it was once thought the natural gas boom lowered energy costs.

A new report contended Alabama needs to invest more in energy efficiency so it can do more to lower power bills and curb the effects of climate change.

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's report, "Energy Efficiency in the Southeast," said Alabama trails other states in utility company energy efficiency investments. It found this leads not only to higher energy bills for customers, but increased carbon emissions contributing to the warming climate.

Eddy Moore, decarbonization director for the alliance, said there are multiple benefits to prioritizing energy efficiency.

"If we take energy efficiency seriously, there will be everyday cost savings, there will be delays of expensive investments," Moore outlined. "There's also a reliability benefit."

The report found utilities like Duke Energy in North and South Carolina outperform others in the Southeast, with Alabama Power at the bottom of the list.

Heather Pohnan, senior energy policy manager for the alliance, said the barriers to energy efficiency in Alabama include limited funding, minimal program investment and challenges in reaching low-income and rental housing markets. She noted federal funding, from sources like the Inflation Reduction Act, could be a substantial resource.

"The IRA includes tens of billions of dollars for energy efficiency," Pohnan pointed out. "It was a massive investment that includes tax credits, consumer rebates, loan programs and competitive grant opportunities."

She noted Alabama has yet to apply for key resources, like Home Energy Rebate funds. The future of the funding is unclear with the new leadership headed to the White House. But the report argued energy efficiency will be essential to bolster Alabama's power grid against the rising electricity demands of data centers and population growth and to mitigate the effects of extreme weather events.

Virginians are buying more electric vehicles and need more charging stations but they are not being built across the state equally.

House Bill 1791 would create the Electric Vehicle Rural Infrastructure Fund to help private developers install charging stations.

Del. Rip Sullivan, D-Fairfax County, sponsored the bill and said federal efforts to build charging stations focus on areas on or within a mile of an interstate. While it makes sense, he argued rural areas should not be left out of the transition to electric vehicles.

"The bill is sort of rooted in the notion that all Virginians and all parts of Virginia should be participating in the transition to clean energy and to clean cars," Sullivan explained.

Sullivan added an increase in charging stations in rural areas would help those traveling through communities and increase tourism. Last month, the president of the Virginia Restaurant, Lodging and Travel Association called for more charging stations for electric vehicles in rural areas.

This will be the fourth time Sullivan has introduced the legislation. The first two times, the bill did not make it into the budget. Last year, the legislation reached the House of Delegates budget but not the state Senate's. He is hopeful the bill will cross the finish line, with $25 million for the fund. This year's bill emphasizes building charging stations around state and national parks in the Commonwealth to increase tourism.

"We're glad a lot of people come into Virginia but we got people coming in from all over the country, certainly neighboring states and many of them will be driving an EV," Sullivan pointed out. "We want those who are driving EVs to feel comfortable that they'll be able to charge their cars when they come visit us here in Virginia."

The Virginia Automobile Dealers Association saw a 49% increase in electric vehicles purchased in 2023. Last year, electric vehicles accounted for nearly 9% of all new vehicles sold in the Commonwealth.


get more stories like this via email