Big oil: influence peddling in California and the Bay Area

Repost from Air Hugger
[Editor:  Global Community Monitor‘s excellent blog, Air Hugger, has been around since early 2010.  Tamhas Griffith’s piece is a thorough exploration of the oil industry’s influence over local, regional and California government officials.  See especially his expose on the behavior of Jack Broadbent, Chief Air Pollution Control Officer of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.  – RS]

Influence

By Tamhas Griffith, August 14, 2014

Recently I have been spending more time in city and county meetings where the topic is theoretically how local government will regulate the activity of a local refinery – which is actually a multi-national multi-billion dollar entity with a local franchise.  Somehow during these meetings the regulation of health and safety of the community always seems to take a back seat to jobs and money.

We all know  one thing that these big oil companies have is a lot of MONEY. For example, the 2013 profits for the BIG 5 oil companies, you know, BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell­­­­­­ – were $93.3 billion last year! That’s $177 G’s  per minute.

Admittedly, Big Oil companies do have some expenses. But where they are spending this money Top 5 oil co graphmay surprise you.

Over the past 15 years, Big Oil spent $123.6 million to lobby Sacramento and $143.3 million on California political candidates and campaigns. I wouldn’t know from experience but I’d bet you can make a lot of friends with that much money dropping out of your pockets, year after year.

These friends might attach more importance to Big Oil’s concerns about over-regulation than they would to a resident who might not have the funds to contribute to anyone’s campaign fund.

A recent report by the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Institute (ACCE) and Common Cause, “Big Oil Floods the Capitol: How California’s Oil Companies Funnel Funds into the Legislature,” speaks to the extreme power of the Oil and Gas Lobby, as well as the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) in Sacramento.

Dan Bacher, California Central Valley reporter for IndyBay, in his review of the report, noted that the

“fact that the oil industry is the largest corporate lobby in California, one that dominates environmental politics like no other industry“ makes California “much closer to Louisiana and Florida in its domination by corporate interests.”

Another way oil companies grease the wheels of influence is through their charitable giving in local oil and gas lobbycommunities. Where I live in Martinez, the yellow Shell refinery logo is on virtually all city events including our local Earth Day celebration located at the historic home of iconic environmentalist John Muir.  In Richmond, Chevron ladles out millions of dollars to local social services nonprofits working with low-income Richmond residents while simultaneously polluting their community.

These kinds of donations seem  to  reduce  short term costs for the local government, but there is a very real long term cost as well.

And one of the most insidious dynamics is that city budgets are structurally reliant on tax revenue from refineries.   According to the Contra Costa Times, “tens of millions in Chevron tax revenue bolster the [Richmond] city budget, providing police and other services that similarly sized cities in Contra Costa County can only dream about.”

It certainly seems like Big Oil has a stranglehold on California politics and regulatory agencies. Recently, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) came out in favor of Chevron’s expansion project.  After being advised by members of the Stationary Source committee that the appropriate behavior would be to merely answer questions at the Richmond meetings, BAAQMD Chief Air Pollution Control Officer, Jack Broadbent, chose to sign up as a speaker at both Richmond public meetings. He spoke in favor of the Chevron project and formally stated that there was no scientifically feasible way to mitigate condensable particulate matter for the Chevron project. This kind of emission from refineries is composed of carcinogenic particles about 1 micron in width that can lodge deep down in your lungs – see reference below.

microns

Prior to the two Richmond meetings, it had been clearly spelled out for the BAAQMD Stationary Source committee by multiple experts (with Broadbent present) that there was a mitigation technique (SCAQMD FEA Rule 1105.1) that would lessen pollution in Richmond by some 56 tons of the worst stuff you can breathe per year. And it has been mitigated since 2003 in the South Coast Air Quality Management District. So, choosing not to mitigate the really dangerous stuff pouring out of Chevron, like cancer-causing condensable particulate matter, is an impossible conclusion to reach by the authority charged with air quality control. Especially when you know otherwise. This is a 56 ton stain on the BAAQMD board and staff. And 56 tons of micron sized particles are unnecessarily heading for the lungs of the men, women, children, and animals that live or work in Richmond over the next year.

Is anyone at these BAAQMD meetings pushing for cleaner air except the community rights advocates?  What influence removes the teeth from the bill, waters down the regulation at the last minute, and causes people to lose their most basic moral compass?  A healthy community and environment should always be the priority.  And nothing should influence you to believe otherwise.

-Tom Griffith, Martinez Environmental Group, August 14, 2014.

Latest Public Comments on Valero Crude By Rail Draft EIR

Public Comments on Valero Crude By Rail DEIR – August 6-14, 2014

August 15, 2014 Roger Straw

The City of Benicia has posted on its website new comments received from August 6 through August 14.  See new public comments here:  Public Comments August 6-14, 2014 (52 pages, 3.0MB).

In addition to many comments from Valero supporters, you will find excellent critical comments from those of us who oppose the project and who have carefully examined the Draft EIR.

The public has until September 15 to submit comments on the DEIR.  For resources in framing your comments, see http://safebenicia.org/basic-information/downloadable-resources/.

The DEIR itself may be studied here, and an extensive library of previously submitted public comments may be studied here.

Canada may require new electronically controlled brakes (and other measures) for oil trains … by 2020

Repost from the Globe and Mail, Ottawa, Canada
[Editor: Significant quote: “Electronically controlled air brakes are favoured by some rail-safety advocates because they allow an engineer to apply the brakes on all of a train’s cars at the same time – regardless of how close they are to the locomotive.  In contrast, traditional air brakes rely on a signal that begins from the locomotive and moves car by car toward the back of the train. On longer unit trains such as those typically used to haul crude oil, rail cars near the back of the train won’t receive the signal as quickly, increasing the risk of a derailment when the brakes are applied suddenly.”  – RS]

Putting the brakes on train derailment

By Kim Mackrael, Aug. 15 2014

The federal government is mulling a plan to require new electronically controlled air brakes for rail cars that haul dangerous goods such as crude oil and ethanol after a series of explosive oil-train derailments in Canada and the United States.

A consultation document sent to the railway transportation industry last month laid out Transport Canada’s proposal for a new class of tank car, including the new air brake system and full head shields to prevent punctures. Older-model DOT-111 tank cars have been heavily criticized as prone to puncture and corrosion.

Electronically controlled air brakes are favoured by some rail-safety advocates because they allow an engineer to apply the brakes on all of a train’s cars at the same time – regardless of how close they are to the locomotive.

In contrast, traditional air brakes rely on a signal that begins from the locomotive and moves car by car toward the back of the train. On longer unit trains such as those typically used to haul crude oil, rail cars near the back of the train won’t receive the signal as quickly, increasing the risk of a derailment when the brakes are applied suddenly.

Don Ross, who led the Transportation Safety Board’s investigation into last year’s rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Que., said the agency generally supports the use of the electronically controlled brakes because they can improve rail safety, particularly on longer trains. “It’s encouraging, now, that they’ve got out for discussion a very good standard,” Mr. Ross said in a recent interview.

“We would be very happy to see the industry adopt that.”

Transport Minister Lisa Raitt told The Globe and Mail on Friday that she had already begun consultations on the matter, but has so far heard that the industry does not believe electronically controlled air brakes are necessary. “The ones that I’ve been speaking to say it’s too difficult to implement in the North American market,” Ms. Raitt said, adding, “That’s the consultation so far, but we’re still gathering information right now.”

One concern with electronically controlled brakes is that the system would need to be installed on all of a train’s cars for it to function properly, a factor that would limit railways’ flexibility in assembling longer or mixed trains.

In addition to the new air brake system, the proposed new standard includes full head shields to prevent puncture, improved top-fitting protection for the pressure release valve, mandatory thermal jackets to prevent overheating, and new standards for bottom outlet valves to prevent leaks during an accident.

The standard goes beyond requirements announced in April for a three-year phaseout or retrofit of pre-2011 tank cars used to haul crude oil. Those rules included half-head shields, top-fitting protection and thicker steel.

The new proposal would give industry until May, 2020, to start using the next-generation cars to move the most dangerous flammable liquids, classified as Packing Group 1. New or retrofitted cars would be required for moderately dangerous flammable liquids by May, 2022, and for all flammable liquids by May, 2025.

A spokesperson for Canadian Pacific said on Friday that the company is evaluating Transport Canada’s proposal, but did not comment on any specific aspect of the proposed change. Canadian National said it is reviewing the proposal and would provide comments to the regulator as part of the consultation process.

Last month, U.S. regulators issued three possible requirements for next-generation DOT-111 tank cars.

The toughest standards proposed by the U.S. are similar to the Transport Canada proposal and include electronically controlled air brakes.

Rail Logjams Are Putting The Whole US Economic Recovery At Risk

Repost from Business Insider
[Editor: Significant quote: “Many experts blame an incomplete recovery from last winter’s freight backlogs, coupled with record crops and rising competition with crude oil tankers for track space amid an economic recovery.”  – RS] 

Rail Logjams Are Putting The Whole US Economic Recovery At Risk

Susan Taylor and Solarina Ho, Reuters, Aug. 15, 2014

TORONTO (Reuters) – More than eight months after an extreme winter began snarling North American rail traffic, a Reuters analysis of industry data shows delays lingering, raising the risk of a second winter of chaos on the rails.

Across the continent’s seven largest operators, trains ran almost 8 percent slower on average and sat idle at key terminals for nearly three hours longer in the second quarter than a year earlier, data from the main railroads, known as Class 1, show.

While Canada’s rail operators have nearly recovered, many U.S. operators lag far behind.

The concerns are sharpest in the U.S. Farm Belt, with lawmakers fearful that the biggest crops on record may be slow to reach markets or could even rot.

Rail logjams contributed to the economic slowdown early in the year, rippling across corporate America and affecting everything from car makers to ethanol producers.

Many experts blame an incomplete recovery from last winter’s freight backlogs, coupled with record crops and rising competition with crude oil tankers for track space amid an economic recovery.

“It’s like a sinking ship – you’re bailing out at one end, but it’s coming in the other end just as fast, if not faster,” said Citigroup Global Markets transportation analyst Christian Wetherbee.

Performance fell behind as loads grew: between April and June, U.S. rail carload volumes grew 5.4 percent and intermodal traffic, which include shipments partly by rail, rose 8 percent, Association of American Railroads (AAR) data shows.

At the same time, the industry is producing “tremendous” margins, profit and cash flow, with some companies setting records, said rail analyst Tony Hatch.

The largest operators plan to spend about 18 to 20 percent of annual revenue this year on new terminals, track, sidings and equipment to help boost capacity and efficiency, according to Thomson Reuters data. That is slightly higher than recent average annual spending.

Some shippers complain that spending hasn’t been sufficient to meet demand, especially in bad weather. Still, many investment projects are multi-year improvements that can’t quickly fix traffic jams.

“We’re criticized … because we haven’t put infrastructure in to handle the growth. But then when you try to put infrastructure in, the not-in-my-backyard lobby kicks in and says: We don’t want you here,” Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd Chief Executive Hunter Harrison said on a recent earnings conference call.

Over the four decades to 2000, the nation’s major track system shrank by about half, in terms of miles of rails, according to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration.

Although Berkshire Hathaway’s BNSF Railway Co is spending a record $5 billion this year, its performance lagged those of competitors last quarter.  BNSF trains traveled 11 percent slower than year-ago speeds, and stayed at terminals for 18 percent longer.

Fadi Chamoun, an analyst at BMO Capital Markets, said BNSF is unlikely to recover until mid- to late-2015 due to the amount of work it must do.

In recent years, BNSF accounted for some 50 percent of the entire rail industry’s volume growth, analysts said. The company says it handles up to 15 percent of U.S. intercity freight.

BNSF declined to respond to Reuters’ questions about its performance metrics. The Fort Worth, Texas-based railway has said it is working closely with shippers to clear backlogs and adding track, locomotives and crews.

The other four U.S. Class 1 railroads are CSX Corp, Kansas City Southern, Norfolk Southern Corp and Union Pacific Corp.

Kansas City Southern and Norfolk Southern did not respond to requests for comment. CSX said it was investing in strategic capacity additions and was adding train crews and locomotives to restore performance and support growth. Union Pacific CEO Jack Koraleski told Reuters that the railroad’s performance has been improving even as volumes have been increasing, adding that it has worked hard to address disruptions and customer issues.

Cowen & Co analyst Jason Seidl said winter exacerbated problems for the industry. “As they were trying to dig out, the volumes took off,” he said.

ECONOMIC FALLOUT

In the United States, more than 40 percent of goods, valued at more than $550 billion, are shipped by railroad each year on some 140,000 miles of track. Canada’s 30,100 miles of track carry half of the country’s export goods.

Frozen transportation links contributed to a nearly 3 percent contraction in the U.S. economy during the first quarter, the New York Federal Reserve said last week.

Lawmakers and the $395 billion agricultural industry fear that trains may fail to clear last year’s record-breaking crops in the Midwestern U.S. Farm Belt, which could strand part of this summer’s grain harvest.

“We’re sounding the alarms right now,” North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp told Reuters. “We believe the 2014 crop could be taken off the fields and there won’t be any place to store it, because of the lack of ability to move product by rail.”

BNSF and Canada’s CP Rail operate the main rail networks in North Dakota, where farmers vie for space with some 700,000 barrels per day of crude oil shipped by rail from the state’s Bakken Shale.

“You can’t see these massive increases in crude-by-rail and not appreciate that they are creating problems for moving agricultural products,” Heitkamp said.

Members of Congress, utility companies, the United States Department of Agriculture and others are asking the U.S. rail regulator, the Surface Transportation Board, for help.

“With remaining grain in storage due to the backlog, grain elevators in some locations, such as South Dakota and Minnesota, could run out of storage capacity during the upcoming harvest, requiring grain be stored on the ground and running the risk of spoiling. The projected size of the upcoming harvest creates a high potential for loss,” USDA Under Secretary Edward Avalos wrote to the regulator this month.

Utility Xcel Energy said coal deliveries to a key Midwest facility were behind schedule.

“When we run out of coal, the plant can’t produce electricity. We are right in the middle of summer when air-conditioning load creates our highest levels of electric demand,” Xcel Chief Executive Ben Fowke wrote in a letter to the STB at the end of July.

Since an April 10 hearing on rail service, the STB has issued several orders, primarily involving CP and BNSF. The most recent directive, issued in June, required the two railways to publicly file their plans to resolve their backlog on grain orders and provide a weekly update on grain car service. It declined to comment on complaints or its plans.

Earlier this month, the Canadian government ordered Canadian National Railway Co and CP to further boost regulated grain shipments, in an effort to prevent a repeat of last season’s backlog.

Recent University of Minnesota data showed that transportation bottlenecks cost the state’s soybean, corn and spring wheat farmers nearly $100 million between March and May.

United Parcel Service Inc, the world’s largest courier company, said that “very poor” railroad performance last quarter raised its costs. Even passenger service Amtrak has been affected, with some of the trains it runs on Class 1 tracks falling far behind schedule.

Canada’s biggest rails, CN and CP, operated their trains at speeds 4.7 percent and 3 percent slower in the second quarter than year-ago levels respectively, better than most U.S. rivals.

CN said its ability to avoid Chicago, a hub notorious for bottlenecks, helped its sector-leading recovery. In 2009, CN bought a rail network that encircles Chicago, the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Co.

CHICAGO BLUES

Chicago’s third-snowiest winter on record severely tangled traffic at a hub that handles one quarter of the nation’s freight-by-rail and has recently become a major conduit for Bakken crude.

Data from Union Pacific shows its trains idled in Chicago for an average 65 hours in February, around double the typical time for much of 2013.

Following a severe 1999 blizzard that paralyzed trains for days, government and railroads launched a $3.8 billion plan to improve the Chicago system.

That’s not a quick solution for the industry’s woes.

“It takes a long time for new lines and new terminals to get built, and additional locomotives to be delivered and additional crews to be trained,” said Steve Ditmeyer, an adjunct professor at Michigan State University’s Railway Management Program.

“There’s a time lag that the railroads cannot snap their finger and, all of a sudden, get out of the current problem.”

(With additional reporting by Joshua Schneyer and Jonathan Leff in New York, and Sagarika Jaisinghani in Bangalore; editing by Joshua Schneyer and Peter Henderson)

For safe and healthy communities…