The second mailer in a month touting Chevron’s Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project hit local mailboxes on the last day of 2007, fast on the heels of a telephone push poll designed to elicit negative comments on the Contra Costa County Assessor, the Richmond City Council and Mayor McLaughlin.

Click here for a copy of the latest Chevron propaganda. Like the previous mailer, the most recent uses erroneous claims to solicit support for the project.

• Claim: The Renewal project replaces existing equipment with new equipment that is more energy efficient and includes enhanced environmental controls.

Fact: This is actually correct. The purpose of the project is to make Chevron more profitable. State of the art equipment and energy reduction contribute to profitability.

• Claim: By upgrading the equipment at the Refinery, overall emissions will be reduced, making Richmond’s air quality even better.

 Fact: The EIR states: “Operational activities associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project would increase air pollutant emissions of volatile organic compounds by potentially significant quantities. This impact would be significant and unavoidable both for the Proposed Project and cumulatively as well. Proposed Project activities could result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the Refinery.”

• Claim: The improvements are expected to generate millions in new revenues for Richmond that could be used to fund city services, including public safety, street repairs and youth programs.

 Fact: Chevron is doing everything in its power to bleed the City of Richmond dry financially. Chevron is currently appealing its property tax assessment that would, if successful, cost Richmond tens of millions of dollars, much of which has already been spent and would have to be refunded. Just last year, Chevron voluntarily changed the way its utility user tax is computed, reducing its taxes by about $4 million. Despite repeated requests, Chevron has not provided any details about its claim regarding “new tax revenues.” See Chevron Unable to Back Up Claims Made in Letter to KPFA, July 21, 2007.

• Claim: The project does not cost the City of Richmond or local taxpayers any money. Chevron will pay the entire project cost.

Fact:  Of course Chevron is paying for the project! Why would the City of Richmond pay for it? What this claim does not take into account is the collateral cost to Richmond resulting from the refinery, such as the cost of periodic shelter in place orders and the health-related costs associated with pollution. A new study entitled “Still Toxic After All These Years, Air Quality and Environmental Justice in the San Francisco Bay Area,” by the Center for Justice, Tolerance and Community, University of California, Santa Cruz, confirms what we always knew – that poor and minority communities, including Richmond, are far more exposed to air pollution and its negative health impacts than other communities. One proposal that has come out of the study is assessing the impact of new facilities based on their cumulative effect on air quality rather than the conformance of the individual facility to emission standards.

The new mailer asks recipients to “Learn more about our plans at www.RichmondRefinery.com,” which is actually a nice little website. It has a cool slideshow on the history of the Richmond Refinery, and it details some of the charitable giving and volunteer projects by the Richmond Refinery, including testimonial letters from various community organizations and former Mayor Anderson.

It’s true that Chevron spreads a lot of cash around the community, and we appreciate that. We really do. We just wish Chevron would spread a little more. In 2002, Chevron was awarded a “D” in corporate philanthropy by the Capital Research Center Foundation watch (http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3759843322.pdf).

 
Good corporate giving programs average about 0.1% of revenue and about 0.1% of profits. See http://www.corporatephilanthropy.org/research/pubs/GivinginNumbers2007.pdf).

Former Chevron CEO Ken Derr said, “

Chevron’s annual revenues are about $200 billion with profits of about $17 billion. According to Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/investing/philanthropy/2005/donations.htm ), in 2006, Chevron’s charitable donations totaled $64 million, or about 0.03% of revenue and 0.3% of profit. More generous corporations, like Wal-Mart (0.1% of Revenue and 1.2% of profit) and Target Corporation (0.2% of revenue and 3.6% of profit) dig far deeper for charity.

The fuel manufactured at the Chevron Richmond Refinery brings in after tax revenue of about $11 billion (very rough guess). Chevron should be making charitable contributes in Richmond of at least 0.1% of that or at least $11 million annually , way more than ten times what is now contributed.

Where does Chevron’s largesse go instead of Richmond? For starters, the corporation funds a host of ultra-right wing organizations that consistently try to undermine government regulation of the oil industry, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEX), the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Cato Institute. Founded in the early 1970s to promote right-wing policies at the state level, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s focus has shifted to favor the promotion of state legislation and regulation that benefits its corporate sponsors. A fact that should come as no surprise given its funding by right-wing foundations and corporate membership fees ranging from $5000 to $50,000. The council boasts a large clearinghouse of research, model bills, and legislative strategies to promote its agenda. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank that often works in coalitions with right-wing groups. Cato’s extensive publications program deals with a host of policy issues including budget issues, Social Security, monetary policy, natural resource policy, military spending, government regulation, international trade, and myriad other issues. While the Cato Institute has increased its ties to right-wing policymakers over the years, it often reveals its libertarian philosophy in addressing government intrusion into privacy issues.

Chevron’s annual revenues are about $200 billion with profits of about $17 billion. According to Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/investing/philanthropy/2005/donations.htm ), in 2006, Chevron’s charitable donations totaled $64 million, or about 0.03% of revenue and 0.3% of profit. More generous corporations, like Wal-Mart (0.1% of Revenue and 1.2% of profit) and Target Corporation (0.2% of revenue and 3.6% of profit) dig far deeper for charity.

The fuel manufactured at the Chevron Richmond Refinery brings in after tax revenue of about $11 billion (very rough guess). Chevron should be making charitable contributes in Richmond of at least 0.1% of that or at least $11 million annually , way more than ten times what is now contributed.

Where does Chevron’s largesse go instead of Richmond? For starters, the corporation funds a host of ultra-right wing organizations that consistently try to undermine government regulation of the oil industry, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEX), the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Cato Institute. Founded in the early 1970s to promote right-wing policies at the state level, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s focus has shifted to favor the promotion of state legislation and regulation that benefits its corporate sponsors. A fact that should come as no surprise given its funding by right-wing foundations and corporate membership fees ranging from $5000 to $50,000. The council boasts a large clearinghouse of research, model bills, and legislative strategies to promote its agenda. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank that often works in coalitions with right-wing groups. Cato’s extensive publications program deals with a host of policy issues including budget issues, Social Security, monetary policy, natural resource policy, military spending, government regulation, international trade, and myriad other issues. While the Cato Institute has increased its ties to right-wing policymakers over the years, it often reveals its libertarian philosophy in addressing government intrusion into privacy issues.