Tag Archives: Chevron

Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Emergency Readiness & Response, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Tank car retirement, Train speed, U.S. Department of Transportation

Groups Question Industry Influence on Oil Train Safety Rules, submit FOI request

Press Release from ForestEthics

Groups Question Industry Influence on Oil Train Safety Rules

Freedom of Information Requests Target Five Federal Agencies, Nearly 100 Lobbyists

By Eddie Scher, Jan 15, 2015

Today four public interest groups requested records exchanged between five US government agencies and nearly 100 oil and rail industry representatives on new oil train safety standards. The Department of Transportation announced yesterday that the agency would miss the January 15 deadline set by Congress and issue final rules by May 12, 2015.

“New oil train safety standards are decades late: the National Transportation Safety Board first called antiquated DOT-111 tank cars unsafe for hauling crude oil in 1991,” says Ross Hammond, ForestEthics US campaigns director. “But the administration seems to have trouble asking the oil and rail industry for common sense safety standards like speed limits, sharing information with firefighters, and a ban of the most dangerous cars.”

The Freedom of Information Act requests filed by ForestEthics, Communities for a Better Environment, Ezra Prentice Homes Tenants Association (Albany, NY), and Citizens Acting or Rail Safety (La Crosse, WI) name 97 individual lobbyists from the American Petroleum Institute, Association of American Railroads and specific oil and rail companies, including Chevron, Tesoro, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Among the lobbyists named are six former members of Congress: Trent Lott, Vin Weber, John Breaux, Steve LaTourette, Max Sandlin and Bill Lipinski.

“The public has the right to know how an army of lobbyists is influencing the Department of Transportation,” says Ross Hammond, ForestEthics US campaigns director. “Oil trains carrying millions of gallons of toxic, explosive crude oil threaten the 25 million Americans who live in the blast zone. DOT should listen their own safety experts and quickly finalize strong new standards that take DOT-111s off the tracks, slow these trains down, prepare first responders and protect families.”

Government agencies and officials covered by this FOIA request are US Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, Surface Transportation Board, Federal Railroad Administration, and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

##

ForestEthics demands that corporations and government protect community health, the climate, and our wild places. We’ve secured the protection of 65 million acres of wilderness by pushing major companies to shift hundreds of millions of dollars to responsible purchasing. www.ForestEthics.org

Air Quality, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Refineries

Bay Area Air Quality Management District approves plan to cut pollution at oil refineries

Repost from The Contra Costa Times

Bay Area Air Quality Management District approves plan to cut pollution at oil refineries

By Denis Cuff , 12/18/2014

SAN FRANCISCO — Regional air pollution regulators on Wednesday approved a far-reaching blueprint to cut Bay Area oil refinery emissions by 20 percent.

Under the plan, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District board will consider a package of air pollution rules in 2015 to reduce emissions from five refineries.

More rigorous monitoring of refinery emissions will be required. To assure continued clean air improvements, refiners will be required periodically to assess their pollution and ways to reduce it.

“This strategy will ensure that refineries are taking the strongest steps to cut emissions and minimize their impacts on neighboring residents and the region as a whole,” Jack Broadbent, the air district’s executive officer, said.

The plan was approved unanimously by the air board, which regulates pollution in nine counties.

The five Bay Area refineries are Chevron, Shell, Valero, Phillips 66 and Tesoro.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Regulation, Oil Industry

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.

Bakken Crude, CPC-1232 standard, Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Federal Regulation (U.S.)

White House agency under pressure from big oil & rail – accused of “coddling” the industries

Repost from DESMOGBLOG
[Editor: The influential White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is reviewing the newly-proposed oil-by-rail safety regulations rolled out by the DOT and PHMSA.  Significant quote: “A DeSmogBlog review of OIRA meeting logs confirms that in recent weeks, OIRA has held at least ten meetings with officials from both industries on oil-by-rail regulations. On the flip side, it held no meetings with public interest groups.”  See also important statements by BNSF and the DOT on the need for an entirely new tank car design near the end of this article.   – RS]

Meeting Logs: Obama White House Quietly Coddling Big Oil on “Bomb Trains” Regulations

Sun, 2014-06-15  |  Justin Mikulka and Steve Horn

When Richard Revesz, Dean Emeritus of New York University Law School, introduced Howard Shelanski at his only public appearance so far during his tenure as Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Revesz described Shelanski as, “from our perspective, close to the most important official in the federal government.”

OIRA has recently reared its head in a big way because it is currently reviewing the newly-proposed oil-by-rail safety regulations rolled out by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

During his presentation at NYU, Shelanski spoke at length about how OIRA must use “cost-benefit analysis” with regards to regulations, stating, “Cost-benefit analysis is an essential tool for regulatory policy.”

But during his confirmation hearings, Shelanski made sure to state his position on how cost-benefit analysis should be used in practice. Shelanski let corporate interests know he was well aware of their position on the cost of regulations and what they stood to lose from stringent regulations.

“Regulatory objectives should be achieved at no higher cost than is absolutely necessary,” Shelanski said at the hearing.


Howard Shelanski; Photo Credit: White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

With the “cost-benefit analysis” regarding environmental and safety issues for oil-by-rail in OIRA’s hands, it appears both the oil and rail industries will have their voices heard loudly and clearly by the White House.

A DeSmogBlog review of OIRA meeting logs confirms that in recent weeks, OIRA has held at least ten meetings with officials from both industries on oil-by-rail regulations. On the flip side, it held no meetings with public interest groups.

“Cost-Benefit”: A Brief History

OIRA was created in 1980 by President Ronald Reagan with the goal of getting rid of “intrusive” regulations.

“By instructing agencies to clear drafts of regulations through OIRA, Presidents have made the agency…a virtual choke point for federal regulation,” explains the Center for Progressive Reform, a think-tank critical of OIRA and its cost-benefit analysis.

Cost-benefit analysis was put on the map by Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein, “regulatory czar” and head of OIRA for President Barack Obama before Shelanski.

The ideology, which is embraced by President Obama, is inspired by the “Chicago School” of free market economics, unpacked in depth in Naomi Klein’s book, “The Shock Doctrine.”

“He’s a University of Chicago Democrat, so he’s very attuned to the virtue of free markets and the risks of free-market regulation,” Sunstein told The Wall Street Journal about Obama in 2009. “He’s not an old-style Democrat who’s excited about regulations.”


Cass Sunstein; Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Washington Post described Sunstein as Obama’s “intellectual mentor” who “had a major influence on Obama’s view of government — stressing pragmatism over ideology.”

But of course, the “Chicago School” has its own ideological roots: neoliberalism.

Big Oil Meet and Greet

The first on-the-books meeting OIRA held in the second quarter of 2014 about the newly-proposed oil-by-rail safety regulations written by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) was with lobbyists, economists and attorneys representing both the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Chevron on May 19.

Attendees of that meeting included Misty McGowen, Director of Federal Relations for API and Michael Yoham, Manager Rail Transportation Services for Chevron.

This API-Chevron White House visit parallels the one they made together when OIRA mulled over new rules on sulfur in gasoline. In 2012, a group led by API president Jack Gerard went to the White House to discuss this issue with another of President Obama’s closest advisers, Valerie Jarrett.

This visit clearly paid dividends for the industry when the new regulations were delayed.

Akin to what is currently happening with the oil-by-rail regulations regarding Bakken shale oil and the DOT-111 tank cars, it was coordinated with a big public relations push trashing the regulations as unnecessary.

History, as they say, has repeated itself in the oil-by-rail sphere.

A new report touting the safety of oil obtained from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the Bakken Shale was released by industry groups the same week as the API-Chevron visit with OIRA.


Image Credit: Shutterstock | Trueffelpix

Less than two weeks later on May 30, OIRA met with representatives from the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and Tesoro, among others. Stephen H. Brown, a Tesoro lobbyist, represented the company — which has a multi-pronged oil-by-rail footprint — at the meeting.

AFPM has also gone on the record saying Bakken fracked oil is safe for railway transportation, also concluding DOT-111 tank cars are “fine” for moving Bakken crude to market.

“Can we have an intellectually honest discussion about mechanical and track integrity on the rails?,” AFPM president Charles Drevna asked rhetorically in a May 19 Railway Age article. “You shouldn’t blame the cargo for an accident.”

Other Big Oil companies that got the ear of OIRA in June included Phillips 66 (purchased as a wholly-owned subsidiary by ConocoPhillips in 2001) and ExxonMobil.

BNSF Lands Two Meetings in One Week

Records also reveal OIRA met twice in one week with Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF), the oil-by-rail behemoth owned by Warren Buffett. The first was held on June 3 and the second on June 6.

Buffett was a major donor to President Obama for both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. He also gave big money to Hillary Clinton — former Secretary of State for the Obama Administration and likely presidential candidate in 2016 — during the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, and has already endorsed her for 2016.


Warren Buffett (L), President Barack Obama (R); Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

BNSF Executive Chairman Matthew Rose came to the June 3 meeting flanked by two BNSF lobbyists: Amy Hawkins and Cliff Rothenstein (who maintains BNSF as a client on behalf of K&L Gates). Some speculate Rose could succeed Buffett as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, the holding company that bought BNSF in 2009.

On June 6, Roger Nober, BNSF Executive Vice President for Law and Corporate Affairs, landed a one-on-one meeting with Shelanski. Before working for BNSF, Nober passed through the government-industry revolving door, serving as an attorney for the Department of Transportation.

According to an article published in EnergyWire, BNSF supports an “aggressive phase out” of its DOT­-111 tank cars.

”[BNSF] believe[s] the next ­generation tank cars should exceed the 2011, stronger new standard known as the CPC­-1232 tank car,” Roxanne Butler, a spokeswoman for BNSF told EnergyWire.

Butler did not respond to questions from DeSmogBlog about what BNSF discussed with OIRA in the meetings, nor did she specify what she meant by an “aggressive phase out.”

The CSX Corporation oil-by-rail train that exploded in Lynchburg, Virginia in late-April, though, had CPC-1232 “next ­generation tank cars.”

On the May 14 edition of The Rachel Maddow Show, Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx told Maddow that he does not believe the CPC-1232 is the solution.
Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx interview with Rachel Maddow, via YouTube.

“I can tell you that I don’t have confidence in the DOT-111 [and] I’m unconvinced that the 1232 — which is the upgraded car — is the absolute solution,” said Foxx. “I think there’s going to have to be a new type of tank car established to keep this country as safe as possible.”

Oil Exports Connection

For its first oil-by-rail meeting of June, DOT officials and OIRA officials sat alongside Russell Smith, lobbyist for oil and gas industry capital investment firm Quantum Energy; FTI Consulting lobbyist John Cline; and John Whitcomb, legislative analyst for FTI Consulting.

Cline formerly headed up C2 Group, a Washington, DC-based lobbying group purchased in March 2013 as a wholly-owned subsidiary of FTI Consulting.

BNSF is one of C2 Group’s clients.

As his C2 Group biography explains, Cline has also passed through the revolving door, formerly working for both the White House and DOT. 

“John served in the White House as a Special Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs under President George H.W. Bush,” Cline’s bio states.

“Prior to his service in the White House, he was Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)… John entered public service in 1989 upon his selection by President Bush as Associate Administrator for the Federal Transit Administration at DOT.”

FTI — overseer of public relations efforts for fracking front group Energy in Depth — published a report promoting oil exports in June 2013.

Many prospective coastal crude oil export terminals rely on oil-by-rail to move product to the coast.

For example, the exploding CSX Corporation oil-by-rail train in Lynchburg, Virginia owned by Plains All American was on its way to the Yorktown facility. Yorktown has been marked a potential export terminal if the ban on exporting U.S. oil is lifted.

Map Credit: CSX Corporation

Cui Bono?

While Shelanski’s remarks at NYU discussed cost-benefit analysis, he also talked about how the question over regulatory policy often boils down to shifting costs.

“A more honest debate and better policy will emerge if the debate acknowledges the difference between creating costs and shifting costs back to their source to reduce harmful externalities,” he said.

Which raises the big questions on oil-by-rail regulations, or lack thereof: cui bono? And who pays the costs?

A case in point is Lac-Mégantic, Quebec — site of the massive “bomb train” explosion which killed 47 people on July 6, 2013 — where the cost to clean up and rebuild the town is estimated at $2.7 billion.


Lac-Mégantic Disaster; Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

With all six of the oil and rail companies involved refusing to pick up the tab, the cost has been transferred to taxpayers from the oil and rail industries.

Exactly what API, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BNSF and other powerful factions discussed in their meetings with OIRA remains unknown for now.

But one thing remains clear: the only side OIRA has listened to so far in official meetings is Big Oil and Big Rail.

This is consistent with the trend-lines unpacked in the Center for Progressive Reform’s study titled, “Behind Closed Doors at the White House,” a comprensive review of OIRA meeting logs between 2001-2011.

“Over the last decade, 65 percent of the 5,759 meeting participants who met with OIRA represented regulated industry interests — about five times the number of people appearing on behalf of public interest groups,” stated the report.

“[E]ven under this ostensibly transformative President [Obama]…industry visits outnumbered public interest visits by a ratio of almost four to one.”


Table Credit: Center for Progressive Reform

As the old adage goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

“The oil-by-rail situations illustrates the way that the process is, all too often, stacked in favor of industry,” Daniel A. Farber, professor at University of California Law School, scholar for the Center for Progressive Reform and critic of OIRA‘s version of cost-benefit analysis, told DeSmogBlog.