Chevron claims California’s policies have made investments riskier

  • Chevron criticizes California’s proposed refiner profit margin penalty
  • Chevron claims California’s policies have made investments riskier
  • Chevron has reduced spending in California by hundreds of millions of dollars
  • Chevron calls on the California Energy Commission to articulate a theory on how the penalty will solve challenges
  • CEC workshop discusses refining margin and possible penalty
  • Industry experts suggest a profit margin penalty that is equitable
  • Western States Petroleum Association warns of decreased production and refiners leaving the state
  • Participant in discussion calls for a reduction in gasoline supply and transition away from refineries
  • CEC workshop rescheduled

Chevron has strongly criticized California’s proposed refiner profit margin penalty, stating that the state’s policies have made investments riskier and led to reduced spending. The company has called on the California Energy Commission to provide a theory on how the penalty will address challenges in the fuel market. A workshop held by the CEC discussed the refining margin and possible penalty, with industry experts suggesting an equitable approach. The Western States Petroleum Association warned of decreased production and refiners leaving the state. One participant in the discussion called for a reduction in gasoline supply and a transition away from refineries. The CEC workshop has been rescheduled.

Public Companies: Chevron (CVX)
Private Companies:
Key People: Andy Walz (President of Products at Chevron), Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins (Economics Professor at Vanderbilt University), Catherine Reheis-Boyd (President of Western States Petroleum Association), Elena Kriger (Director of Research at Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy)

Track all markets on TradingView

Factuality Level: 7
Justification: The article provides quotes and statements from Chevron and other individuals involved in the discussion about California’s proposed refiner profit margin penalty. However, it does not provide any counterarguments or perspectives from those who support the penalty. The article also includes some opinions and speculation about the potential effects of the penalty, which may not be based on concrete evidence.

Noise Level: 3
Justification: The article provides a mix of relevant information and opinions from different stakeholders. However, it lacks scientific rigor and intellectual honesty as it does not provide evidence or data to support the claims made by Chevron and other participants in the discussion. It also does not offer actionable insights or solutions to the challenges facing the state’s fuel market.

Financial Relevance: Yes
Financial Markets Impacted: The article discusses Chevron’s criticism of California’s business climate and its impact on the company’s investments and spending in the state. This could potentially affect Chevron’s financial performance and the overall energy sector in California.

Presence of Extreme Event: No
Nature of Extreme Event: No
Impact Rating of the Extreme Event: No
Justification: The article focuses on the financial implications of California’s business climate on Chevron and does not mention any extreme events.

Reported publicly: www.marketwatch.com