E-mails Suggest a Very Cozy Relationship Between California’s Oil Industry and the State’s Regulators

E-mails Suggest a Very Cozy Relationship Between California’s Oil Industry and the State’s Regulators

E-mails Suggest a Very Cozy Relationship Between California’s Oil Industry and the State’s Regulators

“A little too cordial.”

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

As California regulators oversaw an oil boom, industry representatives lobbied to ease drilling rules and shape new regulations. Four years of e-mails obtained by the Center for Public Integrity suggest a comfortable—at times, chummy —relationship between Governor Jerry Brown’s appointees and the industry. Exchanging hundreds of notes, state officials at the California Department of Conservation and the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) forwarded internal memos to trade groups, alerted oil companies of legislative inquires, and coordinated media responses with industry. Teresa Schilling, a state spokeswoman, said California’s oil agency “communicates openly with all stakeholders” and seeks input from a variety of groups when writing regulations. “That information informs and strengthens regulations and empowers our inspectors to ensure operators are complying with regulations,” she said. Still, Schilling acknowledged that some e-mails produced in response to a Center public-records request “do not reflect the Department’s values and principles today.”

2013

As Kern County worked with the oil industry to develop a new permitting process for oil drilling, Mark Nechodom, then head of the state Department of Conservation, drafted a letter of support to the chairman of the county’s board of supervisors. But before sending it, he shared a copy with Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association. “Any thoughts?” Nechodom asked. “We’re in this partnership together, so it’s not inappropriate to share this with you to make sure we’re sending the right message.”

He added: “Thanks for any coaching.”

“I think the message you are communicating is spot on,” Reheis-Boyd responded, “and will be received quite favorably by the Kern County Board and will be most helpful.”

2014

While regulators were developing rules for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, they also appeared at a number of public meetings organized by WSPA to calm public fears about the controversial extraction technique. Before a gathering with farmers, officials with WSPA and the Department of Conservation coordinated their presentations.

“My plan for tonight is to give a very brief talk on our views of the safety of fracking,” wrote Tupper Hull, a WSPA vice president. “Are you OK with that?”

“It sounds fine,” replied Jason Marshall, the conservation department’s deputy director. “I WILL have to say something about how we are the regulator and not the advocate, but it’s what you’d expect.”

“I think you SHOULD present yourself as the regulator,” Hull wrote. At an earlier meeting, he said, “Some folks thought the Department seemed a little too cordial with oil. Be hard on us.”

2015

In February, lawmakers held an oversight hearing on fracking and pressed Steven Bohlen, the new oil-and-gas supervisor, about whether there were significant amounts of the carcinogen benzene in fracking fluid. No, he said firmly. The chemical was a natural byproduct of the extraction process.

“An outstanding job,” an oil-industry lobbyist wrote to Bohlen after the hearing. “Your efforts are certainly not going unnoticed.”

“I…look forward to digging our way out of this mess together,” Bohlen replied.

2016

In September, Marshall enrolled in a leadership training course. As part of the course he asked a handful of oil-industry representatives to evaluate him in an anonymous survey. “I am hoping that through your candid assessment of me,” he wrote, “I will be able to identify areas to improve my leadership skills as well as capitalize on strengths I may not perceive.”

Read the full story of Big Oil’s outsize influence on California’s politics.

An urgent message from the Editors

As the editors of The Nation, it’s not usually our role to fundraise. Today, however, we’re putting out a special appeal to our readers, because there are only hours left in 2025 and we’re still $20,000 away from our goal of $75,000. We need you to help close this gap. 

Your gift to The Nation directly supports the rigorous, confrontational, and truly independent journalism that our country desperately needs in these dark times.

2025 was a terrible year for press freedom in the United States. Trump launched personal attack after personal attack against journalists, newspapers, and broadcasters across the country, including multiple billion-dollar lawsuits. The White House even created a government website to name and shame outlets that report on the administration with anti-Trump bias—an exercise in pure intimidation.

The Nation will never give in to these threats and will never be silenced. In fact, we’re ramping up for a year of even more urgent and powerful dissent. 

With the 2026 elections on the horizon, and knowing Trump’s history of false claims of fraud when he loses, we’re going to be working overtime with writers like Elie Mystal, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Jeet Heer, Kali Holloway, Katha Pollitt, and Chris Lehmann to cut through the right’s spin, lies, and cover-ups as the year develops.

If you donate before midnight, your gift will be matched dollar for dollar by a generous donor. We hope you’ll make our work possible with a donation. Please, don’t wait any longer.

In solidarity,

The Nation Editors

Ad Policy
x