Category Archives: State regulation

Spill prevention and response, State regulation

Tacoma Editorial: Washington should impose per-barrel fees like California

Repost from The News Tribune, Tacoma, Washington

Paying to protect ourselves from North Dakota crude

EDITORIAL, The News Tribune, July 1, 2014
Tank cars loaded with crude oil head east at Hurricane, West Virginia, on May 11. Oil trains have become an increasingly common sight traveling through South Sound communities – and their numbers are projected to continue growing. CURTIS TATE — MCT

There’s good news about the explosive oil tankers rolling through our communities: We can finally find out what the bad news is.

Until Tuesday, the public knew only that the state had suddenly become a magnet for thousands of antique tanker cars, each filled with 680 barrels of volatile crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken region.

We’ve all seen them: huge black tanks topped with what look like black caps. Their design is a half-century old. The National Transportation Safety Board has been yelling for years about their tendency to split open and explode in crashes.

Federal regulators finally took the risk seriously after one oil train — more or less identical to countless others — exploded in Quebec last year and incinerated 47 human beings.

The new gusher of North Dakota crude has sent a storm surge of tankers across the continent. The rail industry and some states haven’t been eager to tell the public where the trains are going and how many there are.

One particularly specious claim is the information might fall into the hands of terrorists — as if any terrorist with time on his hands couldn’t simply stand by the track in a given locale and count.

The U.S. government last month declared that the train movements aren’t state secrets. Washington state’s emergency preparedness people last week released the details. In Pierce County, for example, BNSF Railway is currently moving 11 to 16 major oil trains through University Place, Tacoma and other communities.

The typical train pulls about 100 cars. Trains that pull fewer than 35 or so aren’t reported. Keep in mind: Shipments are still curving up. In 2011, zero crude was sent to Washington refineries by rail. In 2013, that zero had grown to 29 million barrels.

It’s crucial that the public have this information. Without it, we couldn’t assess either the threat or the preventive measures.

BNSF appears to be trying to get ahead of the problem. (As common carriers, railways are legally obligated to carry oil trains.) It is upgrading its tracks aggressively and is funding training for the state’s first responders.

Railway companies don’t normally deploy cars of their own, but BNSF is buying a small fleet of modern, much-safer oil tankers. Credit where it’s due.

Washington is reacting to the surge faster than the federal government did. This year’s Legislature appropriated nearly $1 million to develop response plans. State agencies are on task.

Unfortunately, lawmakers failed to take one obvious step: imposing a per-barrel fee on rail-borne oil, as California does and as this state already does with the seaborne crude that arrives at our refineries. As a result, taxpayers are footing the bill for much of the emergency preparation.

Heaven knows how many oil barons and CEOs are enriching themselves by rolling these potential bombs through our cities. It’s galling that we have to pay to protect ourselves from them.

Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Emergency Readiness & Response, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Hazmat notification, Local Regulation, Massive increase in crude-by-rail, Positive Train Control, Rail inspection, Rail routing, Risk Assessment, State regulation, Train speed

Law professor: 9 ways that STATES can help regulate railroad safety and transportation

Repost from LegalPlanet.org
[Editor:  Federal preemption under the Commerce Clause is NOT the last and only word on regulating crude oil trains.  Here are some suggestions for State regulation by Professor Jayni Foley Hein, executive director of UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment.  – RS]

Oil By Rail: Nine Things California Can Do to Increase Safety

While FRA Considers New Federal Regulations, States Can Ramp Up Prevention and Emergency Response
By Jayni Hein, June 24, 2014

At a joint Senate and Assembly hearing last week on oil by rail safety in California, some lawmakers expressed frustration at slow federal action, and asked what California can do to increase public safety. My testimony focused on federal preemption issues, defining areas where the state can regulate, and those where it is preempted by the Commerce Clause, Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), or ICC Termination Act, or all three.

While the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have primary authority over railroad safety and transportation, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) shares authority with the federal government to enforce federal rail safety requirements and conduct inspections. And even with strong federal preemption provisions, there are actions that California and other states can take right now to increase public safety in light of the enormous growth of oil by rail.

Here are nine things the state can do:

1. Prioritize track and rail car inspection.

California has more than 5,000 miles of mainline railroad track. Inspection of track and rail cars is vital, as derailments are the most common type of train accident in the United States. A national analysis of freight train derailments from 2001 to 2010 on the Class I freight railroads’ mainline track found that broken track rails or track welds were the leading cause of derailments. Broken rail car wheels and track obstructions are also common causes of derailments. (Liu, et. al. 2012).

Governor Brown’s new budget includes funding to hire seven additional rail safety inspectors for the CPUC, paid for by rail industry assessments. The state should ensure that it has enough CPUC inspectors to accommodate the projected rise in oil by rail traffic each year. If seven new inspectors are needed right now; we will likely need many more by 2016, when oil by rail shipments are projected to increase as much as 25-fold, to 150 million barrels per year.

2. Obtain robust data on rail routing, rail car contents, and accident causes.

California agencies need more information from FRA and the railroads on routes, frequency, and rail car contents, as well as data on train derailments, their causes, and risk factors specific to crude by rail transit. The state should obtain this data from FRA – a recommendation echoed in the June 10, 2014 California Inter-Agency Working Group Report. The CPUC needs both national data and California-specific data in order to do its job.

3. Conduct an analysis of the risks that crude by rail poses to the state, including identification of high-risk areas of track, and propose specific measures to increase safety.

The legislature should consider requiring an annual report from the CPUC on the specific risks that crude by rail poses to the state, and measures that it can take to increase safety. Voluntary agreements with the railroads may also be an important outgrowth of this state-specific analysis that can inform where and how to direct limited state resources. As previewed above, this state analysis should be guided by the most recent data available from FRA and the railroads.

The legislature could also consider requiring information sharing among the relevant state agencies, including CPUC, Office of Emergency Services (OES), Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), California Environmental Protection Agency, and more.

4. Require state oil spill contingency plans for trains transporting oil into the state.

SB 1319 (Pavley) would require state oil spill contingency plans for trains transporting oil into the state. Such a state-mandated plan would provide an opportunity to secure better emergency response protection for the environment and public safety.

5. Get access to daily information on oil shipments into California, and ensure that state and local emergency personnel can access this information immediately in the event of an accident.

A recent DOT Emergency Order requires that each railroad operating trains containing more than 1 million gallons of Bakken crude oil, or approximately 35 tank cars, to provide states with weekly notice that includes estimated volumes of Bakken oil  transported per week and routing information.

The state should also have immediate access to real-time shipment information, assuming the technology exists to enable this. The state should also ensure that local emergency response personnel are well trained to deal with any crude by rail accident, and can readily identify the contents of any shipment. Training and information sharing with local emergency response personnel can be paid for by the industry, using a fee or assessment like the 6.5 cent/barrel fee on all oil imports recently approved by the state.

6. Advocate for more stringent federal safety regulations.

Legislative pronouncements, as well as the CPUC’s robust participation in the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) are needed to secure better federal standards.

California joins others states such as New York in advocating for more stringent rail car design standards (phasing out DOT-111 cars, for example), mandatory placards on rail cars identifying Bakken crude oil,  expediting Positive Train Control, and requiring electronically-controlled pneumatic brakes on all crude oil trains. The state can also advocate for further federal analysis of possible routing changes, to avoid sensitive population and habitat areas.

7. Monitor compliance with new voluntary measures that the railroads agreed to implement this year.

As part of a February 2014 agreement with DOT, the Class I railroads will perform one additional internal-rail inspection each year than required by the FRA on routes over which trains carry 20 or more tank cars of crude oil, and will conduct at least two track geometry inspections over these routes. The  railroads also agreed to use end-of-train braking systems on all oil trains, and lower train speed in federally-designated “high-threat-urban-areas.”

The CPUC should monitor the railroads’ compliance with these voluntary measures. At the same time, CPUC and the state should advocate for making these voluntary measures mandatory, by issuing new or revised FRA regulations.

8. Consider issuing guidance to local permitting agencies on requirements for offloading facilities and oil refinery expansion.

There are currently at least five crude-by-rail refinery projects being pursued in California: one in Pittsburg, one in Benicia, two in Bakersfield, and one in Wilmington. There is a patchwork of local permitting agencies responsible for land use, air, water, and other local safety and environmental issues that may be relevant to offloading sites and refineries.

Local government and permitting agencies can deny land use and other permits for refineries and offloading facilities if they find safety risks or improper environmental mitigation under statutes like the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). But, local agency personnel may have varying levels of expertise in oil and rail issues and may apply permitting criteria inconsistently. As such, the state, through the Office or Planning and Research (OPR), should consider issuing guidance to local permitting agencies on necessary permits and requirements for offloading facility or refinery expansion.

9. Provide guidance on CEQA review and the public comment and participation process, especially relevant to environmental justice communities that may be located near offloading sites or refineries.

While rail accidents can happen anywhere, communities near offloading sites and refineries are especially vulnerable to oil by rail transport risks. The state can provide information and guidance to these communities on opportunities for engagement, comment and participation.

In addition, the state can encourage railroads, industry and refineries to work directly with potentially affected communities to disclose as much information as possible about shipments, safety measures, and how community members can participate in the process to make their communities safer.

Federal Regulation (U.S.), Oil Industry, Rail industry, State regulation

California Energy Commission workshop on trends in sources of crude oil (Wed. 6/25/14)

Repost from California Energy Commission
[Editor: this 9am-5pm workshop will have a broad range of knowledgeable presenters.  Agenda here.  Sorry for short notice.  – RS]

Lead Commissioner Workshop on Trends in Sources of Crude Oil

Wednesday, June 25, 2014, 9:00 AM

The California Energy Commission Lead Commissioner on the Integrated Energy Policy Report will conduct a workshop to highlight changing trends in California’s sources of crude oil with emphasis on the potential growth of crude oil transport to California by rail, and the impacts of these trends on the transportation energy market and existing government policies. The discussions will focus on existing and possible new roles of federal, state, and local government to address market changes.

Commissioner Janea A. Scott, Chair Robert Weisenmiller, and Commissioner Karen Douglas will be in attendance. CPUC President Michael R. Peevey will also be in attendance. Commissioner Scott is the Lead Commissioner for the 2014 IEPR Update and the Lead Commissioner on Transportation. Other Commissioners of the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission may attend and participate in the workshop. The workshop will be held:

June 25, 2014 9:00 AM
Berkeley City College Auditorium
2050 Center Street
Berkeley, California 94704
(Wheelchair Accessible)

Remote Access Available by Computer or Phone via WebEx
Presentations and audio from the meeting will be broadcast via our WebEx web meeting service. For additional details on how to participate via WebEx, please see the notice at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014_energypolicy/documents/#06252014

Computer Log on with a Direct Phone Number:
– Please go to https://energy.webex.com/ec/ and enter the unique meeting number 924 482 257
– When prompted, enter your information and the following meeting password meeting@9 . (Please note that password is case sensitive.)

For More Information:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014_energypolicy/documents/index.html#06252014

Agenda  (Go here for the detailed timed agenda.)
This workshop will address current and anticipated trends in petroleum, crude oil distribution logistics, safety requirements and oversight of crude oil by rail transport, and California policies and activities designed to diversify the mix of future transportation fuels. Staff will facilitate discussions on these topics from industry, government agency, and academic perspectives. Participants will be asked to present information and insights on crude oil trends, the need for changes in government oversight responsibilities and regulatory requirements, and the potential options to reduce the need for petroleum as a transportation fuel.

Background

California obtains crude oil from foreign imports, Alaska, and in-state production. Since 2003, crude oil production from Alaska and California has declined while foreign imports have increased to over 50 percent of the state’s supply. Imports from Alaska and foreign sources are delivered to California by marine vessel. However, California’s crude oil sources appear to be shifting to new supplies, spurred by hydraulic fracturing and other extraction technology advances in North Dakota and other states and development of Canadian oil sands. Shipments of these new resources by rail or by barge from the state of Washington are increasing and could represent over 25 percent of California’s crude oil within a few years, depending on the economics of the extraction, transport, and development and approval of receiving/storage terminals in California. The development of the Monterey shale formation in California, while offering significant production potential, has not progressed primarily because the complex geology of the formation makes it expensive to develop.

California’s gasoline demand is expected to decline from 14.6 billion gallons in 2013 to 12.7 billion gallons in 2020 as the result of improvements in corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE), requiring automakers to achieve 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016 and 54.5 mpg by 2025. Diesel and jet fuel are expected to grow at a rate of 1 – 2 percent per year, spurred by increased freight movement and other factors. California’s net crude oil demand to produce refined petroleum products is expected to decline in this period. California refineries also produce petroleum products for Arizona and Nevada and may be exporting the refined products to international markets.

Federal and California laws, regulations, and incentives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce transportation demand, and increase the development and use of alternative fuels as a petroleum displacement have begun to show modest changes in the transportation energy market and could be poised for significant growth and displacement of petroleum fuels. The federal government provides the primary oversight of rail safety with additional roles by state agencies. California local governments review the environmental impacts of modifications and new construction of crude oil storage and delivery terminals under the California Environmental Quality Act regulations.

Public Comment

Oral Comments. The IEPR Lead Commissioner will accept oral comments during the

workshop. Comments may be limited to three minutes per speaker. Any comments will

become part of the public record in this proceeding.

Written Comments. Written comments should be submitted to the Dockets Unit by

July 10, 2014. Written comments will also be accepted at the workshop, however, the

Energy Commission may not have time to review them before the conclusion of the

workshop. All written comments will become part of the public record of this proceeding.

Additionally, written comments may be posted to the Energy Commission’s website for

this proceeding.

The Energy Commission encourages comments by e-mail. Please include your name

and any organization name. Comments should be in a downloadable, searchable format

such as Microsoft® Word (.doc) or Adobe® Acrobat® (.pdf). Please include the docket

number 14-IEP-1F and indicate Trends in Sources of Crude Oil in the subject line. Send

comments to docket@energy.ca.gov and copy the technical lead staff at

Gordon.Schremp@energy.ca.gov.

If you prefer, you may send a paper copy of your comments to:

California Energy Commission

Dockets Office, MS-4

Re: Docket No. 14-IEP-1F

1516 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814-5512

Public Adviser and Other Commission Contacts

The Energy Commission’s Public Adviser’s Office provides the public assistance in

participating in Energy Commission proceedings. If you want information on how to

participate in this forum, please contact Alana Mathews, Public Advisor, at

(916) 654-4489 or toll free at (800) 822-6228, or by e-mail at

PublicAdviser@energy.ca.gov.

If you have a disability and require assistance to participate, please contact Lou Quiroz

at LQuiroz@energy.ca.gov or (916) 654-5146 at least five days in advance.

Media inquiries should be sent to the Media and Public Communications Office at

(916) 654-4989, or by e-mail at mediaoffice@energy.ca.gov.

If you have questions on the technical subject matter of this meeting, please call Gordon

Schremp, Senior Fuels Specialist, at (916) 654-4887 or e-mail at

Gordon.Schremp@energy.ca.gov. For general questions regarding the IEPR

proceeding, please contact Lynette Green, IEPR project manager, at (916) 653-2728 or

by e-mail at Lynette.Green@energy.ca.gov.

The service list for the 2014 IEPR Update is handled electronically. Notices and

documents for this proceeding are posted to the Energy Commission website at

www.energy.ca.gov/2014_energypolicy/index.html. When new information is posted, an

e-mail will be sent to those on the energy policy e-mail list server. We encourage those

who are interested in receiving these notices to sign up for the list server through the

website at www.energy.ca.gov/listservers/index.html.

Remote Attendance

You may participate in this meeting through WebEx, the Energy Commission’s online

meeting service. Presentations will appear on your computer screen, and you may listen

to the audio via your computer or telephone. Please be aware that the meeting may be

recorded.

To join a meeting:

VIA COMPUTER: Go to

https://energy.webex.com/energy/onstage/g.php?d=924482257&t=a and enter the

unique meeting number: 924 482 257. When prompted, enter your information and the

following meeting password: meeting@9

The “Join Conference” menu will offer you a choice of audio connections:

1. To call into the meeting: Select “I will call in” and follow the on-screen directions.

2. International Attendees: Click on the “Global call-in number” link.

3. To have WebEx call you: Enter your phone number and click “Call Me.”

4. To listen over the computer: If you have a broadband connection, and a headset

or a computer microphone and speakers, you may use VolP (Internet audio) by

going to the Audio menu, clicking on “Use Computer Headset,” then “Call Using

Computer.”

VIA TELEPHONE ONLY (no visual presentation): Call 1-866-469-3239 (toll-free in the

U.S. and Canada). When prompted, enter the unique meeting number: 924 482 257.

International callers may select their number from

https://energy.webex.com/energy/globalcallin.php.

VIA MOBILE ACCESS: Access to WebEx meetings is now available from your mobile

device. To download an app, go to www.webex.com/overview/mobile-meetings.html.

If you have difficulty joining the meeting, please call the WebEx Technical Support

number at 1-866-229-3239

Availability of Documents

Documents, agenda and presentations for this meeting will be available online at

www.energy.ca.gov/2014_energypolicy/documents/index.html by June 20.

Date: June 16, 2014

JANEA A. SCOTT

Lead Commissioner

2014 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update

Mail Lists: energy policy, transportation, altfuels

 

 

 

Federal Rail Administration, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Hazardous cargo transparency, Hazmat notification, Rail routing, State regulation

Feds: Oil train details not security sensitive

Repost from Associated Press

Feds: Oil train details not security sensitive

By Matthew Brown  |  Jun. 18, 2014

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — U.S. transportation officials said Wednesday that details about volatile oil train shipments are not sensitive security information, after railroads sought to keep the material from the public following a string of fiery accidents.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has ordered railroads to give state officials specifics on oil-train routes and volumes so emergency responders can better prepare for accidents.

Railroads have convinced some states to sign agreements restricting the information’s release for business and security reasons.

But the Federal Railroad Administration determined the information is not sensitive information that must be withheld from the public to protect security, said Kevin Thompson, the agency’s associate administrator.

Thompson added that railroads could have appropriate claims that the information should be kept confidential for business reasons, but said states and railroads would have to work that out.

Montana officials said they intend to publicly release the oil-train information next week.

The move is mandated under the state’s open records law and will help protect public safety by raising community awareness, said Andrew Huff, chief legal counsel for Gov. Steve Bullock.

“Part of the whole reason the federal government ordered that this information be given to states is to protect the communities through which these trains roll,” Huff told The Associated Press. “If there’s not some federal pre-emption or specific regulation or statute that prevents release of this information, then under our records laws we have to release it.”

Washington state officials also have said the oil-train details should be made public under state law. Last week, they gave railroads 10 days to seek a court injunction challenging the release of the information.

An oil-train derailment and explosion in Quebec last July killed 47 people. Subsequent derailments and fires in Alabama, North Dakota, Virginia and New Brunswick have drawn criticism from lawmakers in Congress that transportation officials have not done enough to safeguard against further explosions.

In response to the accidents, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in last month’s order that railroads must provide the details on routing and oil-train volumes to states. The order covered trains hauling a million gallons of oil or more from the Bakken region of North Dakota, Montana and parts of Canada.

The Bakken’s light, sweet crude is more volatile than many other types of oil. It’s been involved in most of the major accidents as the crude-by-rail industry rapidly expanded during the past several years.

Some states have agreed to requests from BNSF Railway, CSX and Union Pacific to keep the information confidential after the railroads cited security concerns. Those include California, New Jersey, Virginia, Minnesota and Colorado.

Officials in New York, North Dakota and Wisconsin said they still were weighing whether restrictions on the information would violate state open-records laws.

State officials who questioned the confidentiality agreements sought by the railroads have said the notifications about oil trains were not specific enough to pose a security risk.

BNSF — the main carrier of crude oil in many western states — was notified late Tuesday of Montana’s intentions. A representative of the Texas-based company had said in a June 13 letter that BNSF would consider legal action if Montana moved to release the details on oil shipments.

“We must be cognizant that there is a real potential for the criminal misuse of this data in a way that could cause harm to your community or other communities along the rail route,” wrote Patrick Brady, BNSF’s director of hazardous materials, in a letter to a senior official at the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

Company spokesman Matt Jones said Wednesday that at this time BNSF has no plans to ask a court to intervene.

While it’s important for emergency planners to have the information, Jones added, BNSF will “continue to urge discretion in the wider distribution of specific details.”

A second railroad, Montana Rail Link, submitted notifications earlier this month revealing that its tracks were carrying three oil trains a week along a route from Huntley, Montana, to Sandpoint, Idaho. The railroad said the trains pass through as many as 12 counties across southern and western Montana and through Bonner County in Idaho, according to copies of the documents obtained by the AP.

U.S. crude oil shipments by rail topped a record 110,000 carloads in the first quarter of 2014. That was the highest volume ever moved by rail, spurred by the booming production of shale oil from the Northern Plains and other parts of the country, according to the Association of American Railroads.