Category Archives: Local Regulation

Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Oil trains, Public protest, Take Action

‘Raging Grannies’ arrested after oil train protest

Repost from KREM2, Spokane WA

‘Raging Grannies’ arrested after oil train protest

By Bre Clark, September 02, 2016 9:36 AM. PDT

SPOKANE, Wash. – Three grandmothers were charged for obstructing a train on Wednesday. The three are known as the “Raging Grannies.” They blocked BNSF train tracks in protest because they want Spokane to stop oil and coal trains from going through downtown.

The grandmothers said they tried to talk to city officials about fossil fuels and fracking but when that did not work, they decided to protest.

“Even one person can stop a train it’s very easy to stop a train,” Raging Grannie Deena Romoff said.

Romoff and the other two “Raging Grannies” wrote letters and tried to get the Spokane City Council to stop oil and coal trains from going through downtown but the measure failed.

“People are getting frustrated that our government is not doing anything, that the world isn’t doing anything,” she said.

Romoff and several others decided to take matters into their own hands.

“When you have one city along the track that says ‘you can’t come through here,’ what happens? It stops,” she said.

BNSF railway officials said the protest group stopped 11 trains, one was fully loaded with coal.

“Even for that short period of time it gives us that much more time on this planet in my looking at it,” Romoff said.

The “Grannies” said their time behind the bars will not be in vain. They said they are joining forces with other environmental protests across the country and will go out every day if they have to.

“You don’t have to get arrested,” Romoff said. “You can be out there. If you believe in having a life for your children and your grandchildren”

BNSF said this in a statement in regards to ordinance to stop oil train operations:

“There are a number of better options to promote safety, including collaboration with industry and federal regulators to further enhance safety. We stand ready to work with federal, state, and local leaders to continue to improve safety while maintaining the efficient flow of commerce to and from Spokane.”

Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Benician C. Bart Sullivan sends letter to Cal. Attorney General

By Roger Straw, September 2, 2016
[Editor:  This post originally appeared with an error that has since been corrected.  C. Bart Sullivan is not an attorney.  The error was our own, not that of Mr. Sullivan.  We apologize for our error.  – RS]

Local Benicia engineer C. Bart Sullivan petitions Attorney General Kamala Harris, points out serious flaws in Valero CBR design

On August 9, local Benicia engineer C. Bart Sullivan wrote the following letter asking for help from California Attorney General Kamala Harris.  Sullivan’s comments focus on the lack of adequate safety setbacks and potential catastrophic dangers within Valero’s facility and nearby facilities in the Benicia Industrial Park should the plan be approved.

This approach is highly significant, showing that even if federal law prevents the City of Benicia from denying a permit based on rail impacts (a highly disputed contention), there are nonetheless enough significant and serious flaws in Valero’s onsite engineering designs to allow the City to refuse the permit and deny the project.

Text of Mr. Sullivan’s letter follows.  Mr. Sullivan has allowed the Benicia Independent to reprint this letter with the understanding that it is “his personal opinion, informational only, and is not to be construed as legal advice.”

August 9, 2016

California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
Office of the Attorney General
1300 “I” Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-2919

RE: Valero – Crude By Rail Project

Dear California Attorney General Harris:

Benicia needs your help. I am deeply concerned about the safety of the Valero Crude by Rail Project and the oral dismissal of your legal advice to the city of Benicia by the city contract attorney, Bradley R. Hogin, Esq.

Based on the fact that Valero is the largest private employer in Benicia, the city staff is in favor of the project, and due to the oral legal advice provided by Mr. Hogin implying the futility of any action by the city, from my perspective, it appears that Benicia City Council will vote to approve the project.

From my personal expertise as an engineer with refinery experience, and based on expert opinions of professional engineers who have reviewed the proposed project design, Valero’s proposed crude-by-rail project design is extremely dangerous. Specifically, the engineering design does not allow for sufficient safety setbacks (the distance between the rail cars and oil storage tanks, etc.) to mitigate the likelihood of a chain reaction explosion within the refinery. Thus, due to the massive explosive potential of each rail car and the close proximity of the rail cars to other explosive fuel sources, it is highly likely that an explosion of only one rail car within the refinery will escalate into larger explosions extending beyond Valero property and into the city of Benicia.

Therefore, because of the lack of safety setbacks and the number of proposed rail cars entering the facility on a daily basis, the likelihood of catastrophic explosions at the refinery in Benicia puts hundreds, if not thousands, of Benicia residents directly in harm’s way. Unfortunately, the city has no way to mitigate this terrible danger, let alone mitigate other safety and health issues such as additional health impacts from the predicted increase in local air pollution.

Valero has categorically asserted that Benicia City Council cannot look to these unmitigable health and safety issues to deny the project due to the law of federal preemption. Based on Valero’s assertion, I wanted to bring comments from Mr. Hogin and Mr. John Flynn, Esq., Valero’s attorney, to your attention.1

In his testimony to the Benicia City Council, Mr. Hogin,  advised that the city had no recourse under federal preemption to deny the project, summarily dismissed your letter of April 14, 2016, and did not provide the city with any legal advice on how to challenge the project under Constitutional law. For example, Mr. Hogin did not provide any legal advice concerning how the proposed project could be challenged under the 10th Amendment or the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC) using the rational basis test for the legitimate noneconomic purpose of protecting the health and safety of Benicia residents.

For your convenience, the following are recorded oral statements by Mr. Hogin and Mr. Flynn. I am deeply troubled by these statements, which I consider to be biased legal advice given to the Benicia city council April 18, 2016.

During the Benicia City Council meeting, Monday April 18, 2016, Mr. Hogin stated:

“The Attorney General letter really missed the point. The issue here is whether a City can regulate rail impacts indirectly by imposing requirements on a shipper that address rail impacts, as opposed to impacts from the shipper’s facility, and the Attorney General opinion really doesn’t discuss that.

The Attorney General opinion only discusses cases where cities were addressing impacts from a transloading facility that was owned and operated by a private party.

In none of the cases where — that the Attorney General cites were any of the cities addressing rail impacts…”

Moreover, during the same Benicia City Council meeting, Mr. Flynn stated:

“As for the AG’s letter, I’m going to choose my words very carefully because I have a lot of respect for Kamala Harris and I have a lot of respect for her office, but that letter on the issue of preemption is dead wrong. Your attorney — the advice that you’ve been given by your attorney is exactly right. If you follow the advice that’s been given to you by Kamala Harris, you’ll be making a terrible mistake, a terrible legal error.

Somebody has suggested that Valero, because it’s a — it’s a refinery, doesn’t have any standing to ask for a Declaratory Order from the — from the Surface Transportation Board. That, also, is dead wrong.

You don’t have to be a railroad to get a Declaratory Order from the Surface Transportation Board, and that’s been proven on many occasions as a result of the fact that the Surface Transportation Board has, in fact, issued a number of declaratory orders as the result of requests made by nonrail carriers.

Valero is a shipper. A “shipper” is a term of art under federal law. So we do have standing to request that Declaratory Order.” (Emphasis added)

Even though Mr. Hogin briefly mentioned later in his discourse that the city could look to non-rail related impacts to deny the project, the above quoted transcript of the oral arguments do not reflect the serious and biased tone of the legal advice as orally presented to the Benicia City Council. Specifically, the oral presentation by Mr. Hogin implied that any legal recourse would be futile, and that the city of Benicia has no other option but to approve the project.

While the legal advice from both attorneys concerns me greatly, Mr. Hogin’s legal advice seems especially biased toward Valero’s position, and does not seem to be in the best interest of his client, the city of Benicia.

Thus, Mr. Hogin provided legal advice in a manner strongly advocating Valero’s position without formulating a defensible and well thought out argument for the case opposing Valero’s position for the city to consider.

Based on the above, I emphatically urge you and your staff to personally visit the city of Benicia to reiterate your position. I implore you to please help the city of Benicia realize that they have the power to protect their citizens, and without taking your advice they would be making a terrible legal error and would be breaching their duty to the people of Benicia and beyond.

Sincerely,

C. Bart Sullivan, E.E, J.D.

1 REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDED PROCEEDINGS IN RE VALERO CRUDE BY RAIL PROJECT HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS (http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/vertical/sites/%7BF991A639-AAED-4E1A-9735-86EA195E2C8D%7D/uploads/City_Council_April_18_2016_Transcript.pdf)
Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Local land use authority, Local Regulation, Phillips 66 Nipomo Mesa refinery, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Maria Refinery, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Phillips 66 seeks six-month delay in San Luis Obispo rail spur hearing

Repost from the New Times, San Luis Obispo, CA

Phillips 66 seeks six-month delay in rail spur hearing

By Chris McGuinness, August 18, 2016

The oil company proposing one of SLO County’s most controversial projects is asking the SLO County Planning Commission to wait six months before taking up the issue again.

After months of lengthy hearings, Phillips 66 requested that a planned commission meeting on its proposed rail spur extension project scheduled for Sept. 22 be pushed back until March 2017.

The move comes as the company waits for a decision by federal regulators on another controversial proposal also involving oil-carrying trains in the Northern California city of Benicia.

Hearings for Phillips 66’s project, which would allow the company to bring in crude oil by train to its Santa Maria Refinery on the Nipomo Mesa, began in February. In a July 10 letter to county planning staff, the company said it wanted to wait until the Federal Surface Transportation Board ruled on a petition involving an oil train-related project in Benicia. The company in charge of that project, Valero, is seeking declaratory relief from the three-person federal board after the oil company’s proposal to transport 50 trains per-day carrying crude oil through the city was denied by the Benicia Planning Commission and appealed to its City Council.

At the heart of the Benicia case is the issue of pre-emption, or the extent of a local government’s authority over interstate rail transportation, which is the purview of federal government.

The same issue is at play in SLO. The hearings on the Phillips 66 project featured discussions over the county’s ability to set limits or conditions on the project.

“In the interest of efficiency of the commission as well as the planning staff, we believe it would be prudent to further continue the hearing on Phillips 66’s Rail Spur Extension Project until March 2017, so that all parties can benefit from the direction expected from the Surface Transportation Board,” the letter from Phillips read.

Andres Soto is a member of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, an organization of residents who oppose Valero’s proposed project. Soto told New Times he was concerned that the impact of a decision that favored Valero would have far-reaching consequences.

“It would gut local land-use authority across the country,” he said.

Whether Phillips 66 gets the delay will be up to the SLO County Planning Commission. The commission will take up the request at the Sept. 22 meeting.

Fracking, Local Regulation, Oil drilling, Oil industry lobby, Oil producers

Oil firms dig deep to battle Colo. anti-fracking initiatives

Repost from The Coloradoan

Significant funding gap in Colorado fracking fight

By Jacy Marmaduke, August 18, 2016 11:17 a.m. MDT
Anti-fracking protesters
Anti-fracking protesters

Committees fighting proposed Colorado ballot measures that would limit fracking have raked in about $15 million in donations this year, more than 35 times the contributions of groups backing the measures.

About 90 percent of the anti-ballot measure donations have come from energy companies, including $10.5 million from Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Noble Energy alone.

“We’ve never seen a number like this from the opposition,” said Luis Toro, executive director of Colorado Ethics Watch, the state government watchdog group that released the numbers confirmed by the Coloradoan. “It shows that (businesses) are ready to spend a lot of money in the best interest of the company’s bottom line.”

In contrast, individual donations of less than $1,000 have been the primary fuel for the pro-ballot measure efforts, bolstered by support from U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, his father and the executive director of the fundraising committees. The pro-ballot measure committees have received about $424,000 in donations this year.

Petitioners submitted signatures for proposed ballot measures 75 and 78 on Aug. 8, the day they were due. The Secretary of State will declare the signatures sufficient or insufficient by Sept. 8. If the office confirms petitioners collected about 98,500 valid signatures for each measure, they’ll appear in the November election.

Measure 75 would amend the state constitution to allow local control of oil and gas development, effectively overturning the Colorado Supreme Court’s denial of Fort Collins’ fracking moratorium and Longmont’s fracking ban.

Measure 78 would amend the state constitution to increase setbacks for oil and gas development from 500 feet to 2,500 feet from occupied structures. The measure would also require a 2,500-foot setback from “areas of special concern,” a category that includes most water sources and riparian areas, parks, sports fields, playgrounds and public open spaces.

The current setback of 500 feet is about the length of 1 1/2 football fields. The proposed setback of 2,500 feet is about a half-mile. It would apply only to new development — but the ballot measure includes reentry of existing wells in its definition of “new development.”

Two committees are working on each side of the proposed ballot measures: Yes for Health and Safety Over Fracking and Yes for Local Control Over Oil and Gas are on the pro-ballot measure side. Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence and Vote No on 75/78 are on the anti-ballot measure side.

About 30 percent pro-ballot donations were in the form of services from organizations like Food and Water Watch and Greenpeace. Those services are assigned cash values for record-keeping purposes.

“A successful ballot initiative usually costs at least a million dollars,” Toro said. “That might be an indication of where they’re headed.”

The committees could see a cash infusion if they’re approved for the ballot, Toro added. Committee representatives weren’t available for comment.

The anti-ballot measure committees have received about $15 million in donations this year, not including about $746,000 Protect Colorado had on-hand on Jan. 1. About 10 percent of those donations were in the form of services.

“These measures are so extreme and such a threat to Colorado’s economy that we’ve got the commitments to spend $24 million to fight them,” Protect Colorado spokeswoman Karen Crummy said. “We’ve been very upfront about that from the beginning.”

The anti-ballot measure committees have spent 20 times more than the pro-ballot measure groups as of Aug. 1 — $5 million versus about $250,000, according to data from the Secretary of State’s office. Also as of Aug. 1, the anti-ballot measure side had roughly $9.1 million to the opposition’s $43,000.

Lists of top monetary donors for each side of the issue give you a good idea of how their fundraising has taken shape.

Top monetary donors for pro-ballot measure committees:

  1. Patricia Olson (founder of both committees): $60,300
  2. J. Christopher Hormel (Boulder philanthropist): $60,000
  3. (tie) Lush Cosmetics: $25,000
  4. (tie) Jared Polis: $25,000
  5. (tie) Fracking Fund of the New World Foundation: $25,000
  6. (tie) Stephen Schutz (physicist, greeting card designer, Jared Polis’ father): $25,000

Top donors make up 52 percent of 2016 contributions.

Top monetary donors for anti-ballot measure committees

  1. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation: $5.5 million
  2. Noble Energy: $5 million
  3. PDC Energy: $750,000
  4. Synergy Resources Corporation: $650,000
  5. Bayswater Exploration and Production: $500,000
  6. Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation: $300,000

Top donors make up 85 percent of 2016 contributions.

The American Petroleum Institute, the national trade group representing the oil and gas industry, funded about $1.1 million worth of consulting and other services for Vote No on 75/78 but isn’t on this list because the donations were considered non-monetary.