If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now
CDP Internal Carbon Price

Big Oil, Major Firms Plan for Carbon Price

CDP Internal Carbon PriceWalmart, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric and about two dozen other major US companies have already integrated a price on carbon emissions into their long-term business plans, according to a CDP report.

In 2013, 28 companies based or operating in the US disclosed that they use an internal carbon price in their financial planning, CDP says. This includes nine energy companies and eight utilities.

ExxonMobil is assuming a cost of $60 per metric ton (see chart) by 2030 while BP and Shell use $40 per metric ton. Microsoft began charging its business groups an internal carbon fee associated with the use of electricity and business air travel July 1, at the start of the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

All of the companies that disclose using an internal carbon price are: Delphi Automotive, Walt Disney, ConAgra Foods, Walmart, Apache Corporation, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, ExxonMobil, Hess, Shell, Wells Fargo, Cummins, Delta Air Lines, General Electric, Google, Jabil Circuit, Microsoft, E.I du Pont de Nemours, Ameren, American Electrical Power, CMS Energy, Duke Energy, Entergy, Integrys Energy, PG&E and Xcel Energy.

Meanwhile, California companies paid about $297 million to release carbon emissions at the state’s most recent cap-and-trade auction in November and PetroChina, the state-owned oil and gas company, bought 10,000 Chinese carbon offsets from wind power producer Longyuan last month for 16 yuan ($2.62) each — six times higher than international carbon prices.



OSHA Written HazCom Plan Template
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Choosing the Correct Emission Control Technology
Sponsored By: Anguil Environmental Systems

GHS Label Guide
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

EHS & Sustainability Journey Infographic
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS


3 thoughts on “Big Oil, Major Firms Plan for Carbon Price

  1. So, 1) the Carbon Tax is a TAX, not voluntary donations to political parties, & 2) Carbon Taxes will be passed on to the poor consumers.
    Dougie, how can you debunk me, when you have just been debunked by this story.
    So, taxing the poor, & sending the money to the British Crown (Canada) is helping U.S. how exactly?
    Where in the U.S. &/or CA Constitution can the U.S. or CA be taxed by a foreign government?
    How can a tax be “green?”

  2. CO2Good’s repeated false characterization that the CA carbon auction represents a tax can easily be debunked:
    There are many types of regulations governing industry. For example, in many cases it takes money for a company to even apply for a license to operate in the first place. Does that represent a ‘TAX’? Other companies must follow various kinds of environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Does that represent a ‘TAX’? Additionally, other companies are required to submit their products to OSHA and/or FDA testing and approval (among other reviews), and often that represents significant expense to the company. Does that represent a ‘TAX’?
    The answers to the above are all obviously ‘no’. Most of these industry regulations stem from significant harm that the public has suffered at the hands of industry. For example, before the Clean Water Act, the Cuyahoga river in Ohio actually caught fire from the industry waste continually dumped into it. As another example, the FDA came into existence because of a mass poisoning when many members of the public died after ingesting a medicine made by an unregulated company.
    Forcing industries to reduce their carbon pollution is merely another example of protecting the public interest in the face of narrow industrial self-interests. And the CA carbon cap&trade program actually offers companies a range of options by which they can comply. First off, emitting entities are automatically given a certain number of free allowances. If those allowances are sufficient to cover all their emissions for the year, they need not do anything to be in compliance. In the case that the entity emits more CO2e than are covered by their free allowances, there are several distinct ways they can comply. First, they can choose to buy additional carbon allowances in the CA auction. Second, they can choose to buy allowances from any other entity that has an excess and wishes to sell their excess allowances to others. Third, they can choose to invest in carbon offsets. Fourth, they can choose to reduce their CO2e emissions through suitable investments and/or by changing how they operate. Or, they can choose to employ any combination of the above.
    In summary, there is clearly no ‘TAX’ involved in any aspect of the CA cap&trade program.
    Furthermore, CO2Good likewise continues to repeat his false charge that CA carbon auction proceeds (not a tax) are sent to the “British Crown (Canada).” Eslewhere (https://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/11/25/carbon-market-in-ca-caps-off-successful-first-year/#comment-1290445) I provided a word-for-word quote from the actual CA auction proceeds investment plan; that clearly and unequivocally states how CA auction proceeds are to be distributed to CA state agencies and not to Quebec or to any other entity – period. Here is that quote again: “This implementing legislation requires that the Department of Finance (Finance) submit a plan to the Legislature which identifies priority investments that will help achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals. Funding will be appropriated to State agencies by the Legislature, consistent with the three-year investment plan submitted by the Administration.”
    So both of CO2Good’s charges are debunked. The auction of carbon allowances is clearly not a tax, and no CA auction proceeds are sent to any entity outside the state of CA.

  3. Furthermore, CO2Good is apparently forgetting (or ignoring) all the public debates regarding which would be better or more effective to help reduce CO2 pollution: a carbon tax or a cap&trade program. Did you catch that, CO2Good? The debates are between a tax and a cap&trade program – the clear implication being that a cap&trade program is something other than a tax…

Leave a Comment

Translate »