American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

InfluenceMap Score
E-
Performance Band
26%
Organisation Score
Modifications to InfluenceMap Scoring
Sector:
Energy
Head​quarters:
Washington, DC, United States

Climate Lobbying Overview: The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) is negatively lobbying on a wide range of US climate policies. In particular, the AFPM appears to oppose policies intended to aid the electrification of transport and the uptake of biofuels, such as the Renewable Fuel Standard, which it appears to have repeatedly criticized.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) does not appear to be supportive of climate policy in its top-line messaging. Although it has stated support for policies to tackle climate change, as of March 2021, this support appears to be significantly qualified, emphasizing the need to protect US competitiveness and for any policy to be “flexible”, and “achievable”. After criticism from members for its failure to support the Paris Agreement in April 2019, AFPM claimed not to have a position on the Agreement in July 2019. Despite recognising the need to respond to climate change, AFPM does not appear to support a specific emissions reduction target or temperature limit. Furthermore, AFPM has been reported to fund groups actively involved in climate change denial, i.e., the Competitive Enterprise Institute in July 2019.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) appears to have repeatedly opposed specific climate-related regulations. In March 2019, CEO Chet Thompson stated: “We currently do not support, as a trade association, a carbon tax.” In 2018, the group strongly supported the Scalise-McKinley anti-carbon tax resolution introduced in Congress and has funded campaigns to oppose carbon tax policies in Washington State in 2018. AFPM also appears to have run an extensive public campaign in 2018 to support the rollback of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and CEO Chet Thompson previously applauded the US federal government’s October 2018 decision to freeze the standards at 2020 levels until 2026. On its website, as of March 2021, AFPM seems to maintain opposition to “unrealistic” standards that “effectively function as bans on internal combustion engines” and states that fuel efficiency standards should be “market-driven”.

The AFPM appears to broadly oppose ambitious GHG standards; on its website, as of March 2021, it has stated it “opposes any national, regional or state low carbon fuel standards”, as well as appearing to oppose changes that would increase the ambition of the New Source Performance Standards for stationary methane emission sources, such as refineries. Furthermore, in May 2020, the AFPM (with others) attempted legal action against California's CARB regulations that aimed to cut GHG emissions from vehicles by 20% by 2030. Similarly in March 2019, AFPM opposed Colorado’s Low-Emission & Zero-Emission vehicle standards as part of the Freedom to Drive Coalition.

Positioning on Energy Transition: The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) does not appear to support the transition of the energy mix. In particular, the AFPM do not appear to support the electrification of transport and policies that mandate a higher proportion of biofuels in the fuel mix. AFPM has repeatedly criticized the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), stating in August 2020 that the policy is “broken” and in October 2020, that “ethanol mandates are both too expensive and too unrealistic to maintain a healthy refining sector”. In January 2021, the AFPM opposed a decision by the 10th Circuit court that would reduce the number of parties able to apply small refinery exemptions (SREs), and in February 2021, supported an effort by certain State Governors for refineries to receive general waivers from the RFS from the EPA. As of March 2021, AFPM appears to oppose mandates and subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs) on its website. In spring 2020, AFPM joined the Transportation Fairness Alliance, which seems to oppose measures intended to promote EVs. In October 2020, AFPM strongly criticised a proposed ban by 2035 on ICE vehicles in California.

Beyond transport, AFPM do not appear to support the transition of the broader energy mix. For example, in October 2020, in the run up to the 2020 US Presidential Election, CEO Chet Thompson strongly criticized Democrat candidate Joe Biden's ambition to transition the US away from oil and gas, claiming such a move would "devastate communities across the country, eliminate millions of high-paying jobs, raise energy prices, and undermine our economy". The AFPM appears to strongly support the development of fossil fuel infrastructure. For example, in February 2021, Thompson criticised the Biden administration decision to revoke the permit for Keystone XL pipeline, stating this “jeopardizes the significant economic, environmental and energy-security gains the pipeline stands to deliver”.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
Main Web Site Social Media CDP Responses Legislative Consultations Media Reports CEO Messaging Financial Disclosures
Communication of Climate Science
1 -2 NA NS 0 -2 NA
Alignment with IPCC on Climate Action
-1 -2 NA NS NS NS NA
Supporting the Need for Regulations
-1 -1 NA -1 -2 -2 NA
Support of UN Climate Process
NS -2 NA NS 0 NS NA
Transparency on Legislation
2 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Carbon Tax
NS -1 NA NS -2 -2 NA
Emissions Trading
NS NS NA NS NS NS NA
Energy and Resource Efficiency
-1 1 NA -1 -2 -2 NA
Renewable Energy
-2 -1 NA -1 -2 -2 NA
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies
-2 -1 NA -2 -2 -2 NA
GHG Emission Regulation
0 -1 NA -1 -2 NS NA
Disclosure on Relationships
2 NS NA NA NA NA NA