Douglas A.

Grandt

PO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506
(510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015

Senator Deb Fischer

United States Senate
383 Russell Senate Oce Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Fischer,
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 oil
companies have largely ignored this guidance, which isnt legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physical
climate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-based
companys disclosures poor.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: To the extent there are significant changes in the
Earths climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets we
serve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, our
operations 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 doesnt when it comes
to 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, theyll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by the
massive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldmans report recommends
that the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines arent mandatory and arent actively enforced by
the SEC: companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances on
this 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
answerthecall@mac.com

Douglas A. Grandt

PO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506
(510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015

Senator Ben Sasse

United States Senate
B40E Dirksen Senate Oce Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Senator Sasse,
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 oil
companies have largely ignored this guidance, which isnt legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physical
climate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-based
companys disclosures poor.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: To the extent there are significant changes in the
Earths climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets we
serve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, our
operations 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 doesnt when it comes
to 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, theyll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by the
massive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldmans report recommends
that the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines arent mandatory and arent actively enforced by
the SEC: companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances on
this 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
answerthecall@mac.com

Douglas A. Grandt

PO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506
(510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015

Representative Jeff Fortenberry

United States House of Representatives
1514 Longworth House Oce Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Representative Fortenberry,
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 oil
companies have largely ignored this guidance, which isnt legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physical
climate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-based
companys disclosures poor.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: To the extent there are significant changes in the
Earths climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets we
serve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, our
operations 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 doesnt when it comes
to 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, theyll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by the
massive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldmans report recommends
that the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines arent mandatory and arent actively enforced by
the SEC: companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances on
this 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
answerthecall@mac.com

Douglas A. Grandt

PO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506
(510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015

Representative Adrian Smith

United States House of Representatives

2241 Rayburn House Oce Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Representative Smith,
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 oil
companies have largely ignored this guidance, which isnt legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physical
climate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-based
companys disclosures poor.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: To the extent there are significant changes in the
Earths climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets we
serve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, our
operations 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 doesnt when it comes
to 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, theyll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by the
massive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldmans report recommends
that the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines arent mandatory and arent actively enforced by
the SEC: companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances on
this 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
answerthecall@mac.com

Douglas A. Grandt

PO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506
(510) 432-1452
March 2, 2015

Representative Brad Ashford

United States House of Representatives

107 Cannon House Oce Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: Oil Refining - Considering future eventualities versus the myopia of the present
Dear Representative Ashford,
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 oil
companies have largely ignored this guidance, which isnt legally required.
Of the companies studied in the report, only Phillips 66 has disclosed any physical
climate risks in SEC filings, according to the report, which calls the Texas-based
companys disclosures poor.
In its 2014 filing, Phillips 66 stated: To the extent there are significant changes in the
Earths climate, such as more severe or frequent weather conditions in the markets we
serve or the areas where our assets reside, we could incur increased expenses, our
operations 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 doesnt when it comes
to 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, theyll either be hit by demand risk and the rise of clean energy, or by the
massive physical impact of climate change, or perhaps both.
[Lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy] Goldmans report recommends
that the SEC push companies to follow its guidelines for disclosing climate change risks.
An SEC spokesperson said the guidelines arent mandatory and arent actively enforced by
the SEC: companies can use the guidance to assess their own facts and circumstances on
this 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
answerthecall@mac.com