Still fighting . . .

[Alexandra Kepner]

Hi, everyone--

After the excitement of the Chapter 91 amendment making it through the conference committee last week, we're now waiting to see whether Governor Patrick will sign it into law.  Prospects are not looking good.  While Global Partners has officially withdrawn their proposal for upgrading their Revere rail facility, they are strongly lobbying the Governor to veto the amendment.  Global's stance is that the amendment will destroy the gas & oil industry in the Commonwealth.  If you have not done so already, PLEASE call the Governor's office TODAY (617.725.4005) and urge him to sign the bill.

Meanwhile, you've probably been following the unfolding news story regarding the horrific oil-train disaster that took place this past weekend in Lac-Megantic, Québec.  A 73-car unit train full of Bakken crude heading for the Irving terminal in New Brunswick derailed, multiple tanker cars exploded, the majority of the downtown area was destroyed, and ~50 people were most-likely vaporized.  As investigations continue, we've learned that the railroad company (Montreal, Maine & Atlantic) was using DOT-111 tankers, known for their structural vulnerabilities in the event of derailment.  Many other aspects of inadequate regulation most-likely contributed to this accident as well.

We need to heed the Lac-Megantic accident for the warning it is.  Global Partners may have withdrawn their proposal for now, but you can bet they're going to come back and try again in the near future.  An article in today's Boston Globe notes a dramatic increase in oil transport by rail:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/07/09/quebec-tragedy-unlikely-slow-oil-shipments-via-rail/KGKrxeEe84Rixz3R47DFvJ/story.html

We need to continue to monitor this very important issue--it's not likely to go away.  I hope we can continue to work on it together.

In it for the long haul (pun intended),

--Alix

[Robert Winters]

On 7/10/2013 1:46 PM, Alexandra Kepner wrote:
> After the excitement of the Chapter 91 amendment making it through the
> conference committee last week, we're now waiting to see whether
> Governor Patrick will sign it into law. Prospects are not looking
> good. While Global Partners has officially withdrawn their proposal
> for upgrading their Revere rail facility, they are strongly lobbying
> the Governor to veto the amendment. Global's stance is that the
> amendment will destroy the gas & oil industry in the Commonwealth. If
> you have not done so already, PLEASE call the Governor's office TODAY
> (617.725.4005) and urge him to sign the bill.

I'm not disputing the possibility that Global Partners is lobbying the
Governor to veto the amendment, but on what do you base this assertion?
I was not aware that lobbying efforts are usually known to the public.
Is this just speculation? Until somebody can convince me otherwise, I
will assume that Global Partners has not changed their statement issued
last week that they are "a good company that doesn�t want to go against
the wishes of the local community." Lobbying to the contrary would go
against that statement, so I would like to know what the basis is for
the claim that this lobbying is taking place.

Robert Winters

http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=2822

[Alexandra Kepner]

Members of the Chelsea group met with the Governor's staff yesterday to ask that he sign the amendment.  Global Partners' reps met with the Governor's staff afterwards.

--Alix

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013, Robert Winters wrote:

On 7/10/2013 1:46 PM, Alexandra Kepner wrote:

After the excitement of the Chapter 91 amendment making it through the conference committee last week, we're now waiting to see whether Governor Patrick will sign it into law. Prospects are not looking good. While Global Partners has officially withdrawn their proposal for upgrading their Revere rail facility, they are strongly lobbying the Governor to veto the amendment. Global's stance is that the amendment will destroy the gas & oil industry in the Commonwealth. If you have not done so already, PLEASE call the Governor's office TODAY (617.725.4005) and urge him to sign the bill.

I'm not disputing the possibility that Global Partners is lobbying the Governor to veto the amendment, but on what do you base this assertion? I was not aware that lobbying efforts are usually known to the public. Is this just speculation? Until somebody can convince me otherwise, I will assume that Global Partners has not changed their statement issued last week that they are "a good company that doesn’t want to go against the wishes of the local community." Lobbying to the contrary would go against that statement, so I would like to know what the basis is for the claim that this lobbying is taking place.

Robert Winters

http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=2822

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Stop Ethanol Trains in Greater Boston" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stop-ethanol-trains-in-g...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Robert Winters]

On 7/10/2013 3:09 PM, Alexandra Kepner wrote:
> Members of the Chelsea group met with the Governor's staff yesterday
> to ask that he sign the amendment. Global Partners' reps met with the
> Governor's staff afterwards.

Who was privy to the discussions between Governor Patrick and the
representatives from Global Partners? It's quite possible that they were
discussing alternative options - other locations for their facility, for
example. I have no way of knowing and I'm perfectly willing to believe
that Global would still like to build their Revere facility even if the
plans for rail transport do not materialize.

Robert Winters

[Brad Bellows]

Whether Global is lobbying the Governor to veto the ethanol amendment, or working with him to figure out what their next steps should be, or both, it is clear that fuel transport by rail is not going away anytime soon. We need to keep in mind that our most recent victory, while hard won and extremely welcome, is very narrow - relating only to construction in "tidelands" (Chapter 91) and not to the larger problem of high-risk shipments through high-density areas. This point will not have been lost on Global. Even if the Governor does not veto the amendment, there is nothing stopping them or any other company from shipping any cargo through our neighborhoods at any time provided they don't need to build on tidelands to do it. As the unfolding Lac Megantic disaster makes clear, federal rail policies are woefully inadequate in addressing this hazard, and need to be changed to better protect the public and ensure that shippers demonstrate financial capacity to bear the full costs of any accident and any public safety investments their shipments may require. These common sense liability requirements will go a long way toward discouraging irresponsible shipping decisions and will create an economic incentive for safer equipment and rail operations. In addition to calling Governor Patrick, I also suggest we begin reaching out to our Congressional delegation to start discussions on this important next step. We can anticipate great resistance from business and agricultural interests happy with the laxity of current regulation, but we might find allies in the trucking and highway industries, who are disadvantaged by the implicit public subsidy rail shippers enjoy. In any case, until federal policy changes, Lac Megantic can happen anytime, anyplace, and if that place happens to be a major population center, the stakes will be far higher.

Brad Bellows

[Ellin Reisner]

There's going to be discussion of rail transport of petroleum products on the 3pm prgram on WBUR today.
One of hosts lives in E. Somerville.
Ellin

--

[Alexandra Kepner]

Fantastic, Ellin!!!  Did you make this happen?  I've always hoped that Radio Boston would pick up on this story!  Thank you!!!

--Alix

[Peg Blum]

Glad to hear this.

Just heard on WGBH hour-long monthly talk with Gov. Patrick hosted by Marjory Eagan and Jim Braude where a listener sent a question about the Ch 91 Amendment but, although the question was addressed, I didn't hear a definite answer from the Gov., except that he is well aware of the issue. 

Since it is unclear yet if Gov Patrick will sign the budget by tomorrow, what will happen to the Ch 91 Amendment if he returns the budget to the legislature? 

Peg

--
Peg Blum
175 Richdale Ave  #414
Cambridge, MA 02140-3354
(617) 576-1334

[Paula Garrity]

I agree with everything that you have said here.  We cannot sit back and let the situation continue business as usual. 
Thank you for stating the issues so clearly.
Paula Garrity

 

This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney/client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.

---

From: Brad Bellows <bbacam...@gmail.com>
To: stop-ethanol-train...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 4:03 AM
Subject: [stop-ethanol-trains-in-greater-boston] Re: Still fighting . . .next steps

--