My better half and I are visiting my youngest daughter and son-in-law in the Big Apple this week. With last week’s coverage of EVs on my mind, I asked our Uber driver, Richard, when he switched to driving an EV and how much it costs.
He told me he switched two years ago, and it costs him about $20 per day to charge his electric taxi, vs the $40 he used to pay to gas up his car. He said the fuel cost represented 5 percent of his revenue now, vs 10 percent before. I wonder what this ratio might be for taxi drivers in other American cities with different gasoline and charging prices.
Now, let’s examine two energy news developments from the past week.
Shangyou Nie
Editor, Well Read
BP Fires its Chairman Over Governance and Conduct Issues
Tomeqs/Shutterstock.com
BP fired Albert Manifold, Chairman of the Board, on 26 May, effective immediately. This leadership change follows the British major’s firing of its former CEO Murray Auchincloss in December: BP’s current CEO Meg O’Neill took the helm in April.
BP’s share price dropped 4 percent upon the news of its latest leadership shakeup.
The latest:
According to the Financial Times, BP has “serious concerns” over Manifold’s behavior, which includes allegations of bullying.
There have been “a number” of whistleblower complaints against Manifold via BP’s internal helpline, accusing him of speaking down to staff in both one-on-one and group meetings.
One person claimed that Manifold attempted to restrict O’Neill’s ability to meet independently with BP’s other non-executive directors.
O’Neill is BP’s third CEO in three years. In September 2023, Bernard Looney resigned as CEO after confessing to incomplete disclosure of personal relationships with colleagues.
Manifold has been BP’s Chairman of the Board since 1 October 2025 and has been a key driver in the company’s refocus from renewables to its core oil and gas businesses.
The ousted Chairman fights back:
Manifold accepted the board’s decision to remove him but issued a strongly worded statement.
“What I do not accept is that lies can be told about me,” said Manifold in his statement. “I will not allow a false narrative to go unchallenged,” he told the Financial Times.
Manifold added, “I dispute entirely this characterization of my conduct,” while acknowledging he might have “pushed hard and challenged people directly” to drive change.
In his statement, Manifold praised O’Neil, calling her “ambitious and very talented.” He also labeled Kate Thompson a “strong, level-headed CFO.”
What they’re saying:
“Albert has helped bring a welcome focus and pace to BP’s transformation,” said Amanda Blanc, BP’s senior independent director. “However, the board has been surprised and disappointed to learn of governance oversight and conduct issues it deems unacceptable and has taken decisive action.”
“They thought they were hiring a tough change agent. They didn’t think they were hiring a bully,” one unnamed person reportedly told the Financial Times.
Board member Ian Tyler said that BP’s board has been “very impressed” with O’Neill since she took over and that BP has “deep conviction in the strategic direction we have laid out, and the company is moving at a pace to deliver it.”
The bigger picture—The European vs. American leadership models
American majors such as ExxonMobil and Chevron appoint the same leader to be chairman of the board and CEO.
The American model emphasizes unified vision between the Board and the Executive team, which proponents say results in faster decision-making.
It’s interesting to note this model doesn’t carry over to Big Tech. For example, Google and Amazon both have separate chairman and CEO holders.
Most of the European IOCs, including Shell, BP, Equinor, ENI, and Repsol, appoint two different people to fill the chairman and CEO roles.
The European model is designed to avoid potential conflicts of interest by having board oversight be independent from executive responsibilities. It also aims to avoid one person having too much power.
TotalEnergies is an exception. It began combining the Chairman and CEO posts into one role in December 2015, giving CEO Patrick Pouyanné the Chairman position after he became the organization’s top executive in October 2014.
What to watch:
BP has said that Tyler will become interim Chairman while the group searches for Manifold’s permanent replacement.
Will BP choose to take TotalEnergies’ approach, consolidating the Chairman and CEO role into one, if no ideal candidate can be found?
Sponsored
Unlocking Subsurface Potential Through Science & Strategy
We specialize in geologic consulting and project management, providing expert guidance from initial assessments to final execution.
California Walks Back Emission Policy due to Affordability
Gas prices in Santa Clara, California in April 2026
Robert V Schwemmer/ Shutterstock.com
California, America’s most progressive state and a leader of energy transition initiatives, agreed last Friday to revamp a carbon market policy that will reduce costs for the oil industry.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to give an estimated $4 billion in emission allowances to oil refiners and other industry companies. The decision aims to prevent further gas price hikes in California, which is already home to the nation’s highest gas price.
The vote:
According to the L.A. Times, CARB voted 10–3 in favor of a policy update.
CARB’s latest legislative update will create a new pool of 118 million allowances, which companies can apply for and receive if they invest in decarbonization projects.
The update also includes $800 million in incentives for oil refiners and industrial facilities, which will help to reduce gasoline prices.
Background:
California has a mandate to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
California started a “cap-and-trade” program in 2013, with an annual limit on industrial greenhouse gas emissions that is estimated to account for 80 percent of California’s carbon emissions. The cap declines each year.
Oil refiners, cement producers, and industrial players have to acquire allowances—one for each metric ton of carbon dioxide—to cover their emissions.
The allowances are given to the companies by the CARB for free as an incentive to remain and invest in California. They can also be purchased through quarterly auctions.
In January 2026, CARB proposed to tighten emission limits by removing 118 million emission allowances from the market, so the state could remain on track to meet its 2030 emissions targets.
State legislators, including many Democrats, expressed concerns about the proposal in view of rising gasoline prices and affordability issues.
California is the second large state—New York being the first—to retreat on climate ambitions this year in an effort to address cost-of-living issues.
In March, New York Governor Kathy Hochul proposed to revise a 2019 climate law, delaying the implementation by several years, stating that the previous targets are “costly and unattainable.”
Hochul said that the new proposal is “solely out of necessity—to protect New Yorkers’ pocketbooks and economy.”
California’s challenge:
According to the American Automobile Association, the average gasoline price in California was $6.02/gallon on 1 June, compared to the United States’ national average of $4.32/gallon.
Washington had the second-highest gasoline price at $5.71/gallon. Indiana had the lowest gasoline price at $3.67/gallon.
In Texas and Oklahoma, the average gasoline price is $3.81/gallon, tied for the second lowest in the country.
Chevron moved its headquarters from California to Texas in August 2024.
Two major refineries, Valero and Phillips 66, announced plans to exit California in 2025.
What they’re saying:
“It is no secret that climate policy is at a crossroads, under attack by an openly hostile and well-funded opposition and upended by global economic upheaval,” said Lauren Sanchez, chair of CARB.
Meredith Fowlie, a professor at U.C. Berkeley's Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, said that “a qualifying refinery could receive free allowances well in excess of its GHG emissions,” potentially resulting in a rise in emissions.
What to watch:
Which states will be able to continue their climate change and energy transition targets, and which states might change them in the coming months and years?
Want to help AAPG grow?
Consider supporting AAPG's free resources, like this one, by donating today.
AAPG thanks our advertisers for their support. Sponsorship has no influence on editorial content. Advertise with us.
