Climate Lobbying Overview: Phillips 66 appears to be largely opposed to progressive climate change policy, albeit with limited engagement on specific policy measures. Despite some evidence suggesting support for ambitious action to curb emissions, the company has not expressed a clear position on the Paris Agreement or the need to limit temperature rise below a certain threshold. Phillips 66 does not appear to support the transition of the energy mix in line with IPCC advice, holding the view that fossil fuels will make up the majority of the energy mix for at least the next three decades.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Phillips 66 appears to have relatively limited top-line messaging on climate policy. It has not expressed a clear position on the Paris Agreement, and while some evidence from 2019 and 2020 suggests support for GHG emission targets in some regions it operates in, such as the United Kingdom and California, it does not appear to have clear official position on the requirement to cut emissions to net zero by 2050 or to limit temperature increase to below 1.5C. Although Phillips 66 appears to accept the need for policy in general to respond to climate change, it has stressed that regulations must also "address economic concerns" and apply nationally, rather than at the state level.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Phillips 66 shows relatively limited engagement with specific climate change policies as well as limited transparency in its climate change policy positions. In July 2020, CEO Greg Garland stated that Phillips 66 did not currently have an official position on any future carbon tax but could potentially support one if certain broad conditions were met. However, in 2018, Phillips 66 made political contributions totaling over $7 million to the 'No on 1631 campaign' which opposed the introduction of a carbon tax in Washington State. In December 2018, Phillips 66 was linked to an advertising campaign encouraging people to support the rollback of US fuel economy standards. Phillips 66 appears to have opposed ambitious renewable fuel mandates; in August 2019, it made a submission to the EPA stating "2020 proposed volumes remain too high and should be further reduced." Previously, in August 2018, Phillips 66 objected to proposed biofuel volumes for 2019 on similar grounds.

Positioning on Energy Transition: Evidence suggests Phillips 66 does not support a transition towards a low-carbon economy, stating on its website that high GHG emission energy sources are desirable in the energy mix 'for the foreseeable future'. Phillips 66 stated on Twitter in 2020 that 'Even in the most successful energy transition, the world will still need a lot of petroleum products to power the globe. And we will deliver that fuel'. Further to this, CEO Greg Garland stated in January 2020, that for “two and three decades we still see that fossil fuels are going to be a majority part of the energy mix”. Phillips 66 also appears to not support specific measures to encourage the transition of the energy mix, such as a proposed ban on ICE vehicles in California from October 2020. In May 2019, Phillips 66 also expressed support for proposed legislation that would criminalize protests against fossil fuel infrastructure projects.

Industry Association Governance: Phillips 66 has not provided a dedicated disclosure of its membership to industry associations, beyond a list of groups to which it has given funding above a certain threshold. It therefore has not disclosed any information on the extent to which it is aligned with these groups on climate change policy or how it is engaging with these groups in this area. Senior executives of Phillips 66 are board members of the National Association of Manufacturing and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers while Phillips 66 CEO Greg Garland is on the board and executive committee of the American Petroleum Institute. These trade associations appear to be actively opposing numerous strands of climate change policy in the USA.