Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 1/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Lisa Murkowski, ChairmanSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources709 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Chairman Murkowski,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate change
posed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 2/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Lamar AlexanderSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources455 Dirksen Senate O!ce Building Washington, DC 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Alexander,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 3/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator John BarrassoSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources307 Dirksen Senate O!ce Building Washington, DC 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Barrasso,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 4/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Shelley CapitoSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources5 Russell Senate O!ce Building Courtyard Washington, DC 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Capito,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 5/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Bill CassidySenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources703 Hart Senate O!ce Building Washington, DC 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Cassidy,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 6/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Steve DainesSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources1 Russell Senate O!ce Building Courtyard Washington, DC 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Daines,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 7/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Jeff FlakeSenate Committee on Energy and Natural ResourcesRussell Senate O!ce Building 368 Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Flake,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 8/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Cory GardinerSenate Committee on Energy and Natural ResourcesDirksen Senate O!ce Building SD-B40B Washington, DC 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Gardiner,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 9/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator John HoevenSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources338 Russell Senate O!ce Building Washington DC, 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Hoeven,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 10/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Mike LeeSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources316 Hart Senate O!ce Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Lee,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 11/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Rob PortmanSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources448 Russell Senate O!ce Building Washington, DC 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Portman,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 12/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator James E. RischSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources483 Russell Senate O!ce Building Washington, DC 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Risch,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 13/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Maria CantwellSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources511 Hart Senate O!ce Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Cantwell,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 14/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Al FrankenSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources309 Hart Senate O!ce Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Franken,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 15/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Martin HeinrichSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources702 Hart Senate O!ce Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Heinrich,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 16/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Mazie HironoSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources330 Hart Senate O!ce Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Hirono,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 17/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Joe ManchinSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources306 Hart Senate O!ce Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Manchin,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 18/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Debbie StabenowSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources731 Hart Senate O!ce Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Stabenow,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 19/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Elizabeth WarrenSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources317 Hart Senate O!ce Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Warren,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 20/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Ron WydenSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources221 Dirksen Senate O!ce Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Wyden,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 21/22
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506 (510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015
Senator Bernie SandersSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources332 Dirksen Senate O!ce Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Sanders,
The article “Investors ask oil companies to disclose refineries' risks from climate change”appeared in The Guardian on February 26. I found it very alarming to read the following:
“[T]he US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 issued guidance suggesting that
companies disclose climate change-related risks that might affect their bottom lines. But oilcompanies have largely ignored this guidance, which isn’t legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physicalclimate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-basedcompany’s disclosures “poor”.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: “To the extent there are significant changes in theEarth’s climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets weserve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, ouroperations could be materially impacted and demand for our products could fall.”
And in its most recent earnings statement, filed last week, the company said climate changeposed a serious potential risk to its business.
None of the companies provided information on how they will prepare for these risks.
“Really in the end, the industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t when it comesto climate change,” says Andrew Logan, director of sustainability advocate nonprofit Ceres’carbon asset risk program. “If oil companies continue along the business-as-usual
path, they’ll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by themassive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.”
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldman’s report recommendsthat the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines aren’t mandatory and aren’t actively enforced bythe SEC: “companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances onthis issue and provide disclosure to the extent material to investors”.
Congress has an obligation to compel the industry to behave in the national and public interest.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
8/9/2019 2 Mar 2015 Letter to US Senate Ctee on Energy & Natural Resources
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-mar-2015-letter-to-us-senate-ctee-on-energy-natural-resources 22/22
