Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 6, 2018)
Page 4A East Oregonian Thursday, December 6, 2018 CHRISTOPHER RUSH Publisher KATHRYN B. BROWN Owner DANIEL WATTENBURGER Managing Editor WYATT HAUPT JR. News Editor Founded October 16, 1875 OTHER VIEWS Lawmakers don’t owe secrecy to fuel industry The Bend Bulletin H ere’s a prediction for the coming legislative session, which begins in January: The fuel industry, led by Chevron, will seek to change the law underpinning Oregon’s Clean Fuels Program in a way that hides the operation of its credit market securely from public view. When that effort begins, legislators should consider the state motto, “She flies with her own wings.” This motto celebrates Oregon’s independent spirit, which has sent the fuel industry into a tizzy in recent weeks. How dare Oregon be different! Perhaps nowhere is this indignation more evident than in the words of Jason Schwenneker, executive director of Iowa- based biofuel giant Renewable Energy Group. REG has joined a November lawsuit brought by Chevron that seeks to block the release of credit-transaction information related to the Clean Fuels Program. Disclosing such information, Schwenneker practically huffs in a court filing, would make Oregon’s credit market “the only carbon compliance trading program in North America, if not in the world, in which this kind of disclosure occurs.” Since when is being different a bad thing, if that’s what the public interest demands? This transparency fight began in October, when the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality refused to release credit-transaction information requested by a Bend Bulletin editor. The Bulletin appealed the denial, and in November the Oregon Department of Justice ordered DEQ to release the information. Chevron promptly summoned its lawyers to fight the release and, in an unmistakable message to journalists, sued the editor who’d made the request. Transparency matters because the credit market is, at heart, a mechanism for spending public money. Under the Clean Fuels Program, importers of conventional road fuels, such as Chevron, generate carbon deficits, which they eliminate by purchasing credits from a variety of entities, including producers of low-carbon fuels such as REG. This complex subsidy program is funded by motorists, who pay for carbon credits at the pump. Problem is, the people footing the bill aren’t permitted to see where their money’s going, as DEQ makes only aggregate credit- sale data available to the public. Anyone who wonders which companies are winning big under the Clean Fuels Program, and whether the program is operating as lawmakers intended, is out of luck. Of course, that’s just the way the fuel industry likes it. To paraphrase REG’s Schwenneker, if secrecy is good enough for the rest of North America — and maybe the world — why shouldn’t it be good enough for Oregon? We’re in no position to judge the operations of credit schemes elsewhere. But to the degree that other schemes resemble Oregon’s fuel program, a better question might be why transparency is the exception rather than the rule. Consider Schwenneker’s arguments for secrecy. The Bulletin, Schwenneker notes, requested information that would show “the timing of trades, the identities of the participants, the number of credits to be transferred and the price to be paid per credit.” The release of such information, he argues, might allow competitors “to undercut and manipulate others’ pre-existing trading relationships, which in many cases have been developed over the years with significant effort and investment.” Transparency certainly would change the credit-trading landscape. However, as the DOJ argued in its order requiring disclosure, “it is at least as likely the efficiency of the credit market will improve as a result of greater transparency.” An economist consulted by the DOJ AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File This March 9, 2010 file photo shows a tanker truck passing the Chevron oil refinery in Richmond, Calif. noted, for instance, that “transparency should make it easier for the market participants and others to detect any collusive — and potentially illegal — market behaviors that could contribute to market inefficiencies.” You’d think such a policing mechanism would reassure market participants. Yet Schwenneker argues that credit sellers “like REG, which have opportunities to do business in multiple markets, may opt to take their business elsewhere.” Harrumph! But even as he insists upon secrecy, Schwenneker accidentally makes a case for its opposite: “To function effectively,” he argues, “a market requires an adequate supply of both buyers and sellers at each point when a transaction is needed. Oregon’s CFP credit market has already struggled with striking this balance. To date, the market has suffered from a lack of liquidity resulting from an insufficient supply of available credits when needed.” So, even after two years in operation, the state’s Clean Fuels Program still doesn’t work well. And as a consequence, it suffers from a supply and demand mismatch that could, one imagines, encourage the sort of market behaviors about which the DOJ warns. Yet journalists, lawmakers and other members of the public can do no more than imagine the kind sort of sausage that’s being made inside Oregon’s super-secret credit market. They must place their trust, instead, in program regulators. What could possibly go wrong? If insisting upon transparency is weird, then state lawmakers should embrace weird next year. Resisting attempts to bury credit- market information even deeper would be a good start. Better yet, legislators should require its regular disclosure as a matter of law. If such transparency causes the Clean Fuels Program to implode, as Schwenneker warns, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. If he’s to be believed, it doesn’t work well anyway. And surely a state that prides itself on its independent spirit can come up with a way to subsidize alternative-fuels businesses and reduce carbon emissions without keeping the public utterly in the dark. OTHER VIEWS YOUR VIEWS Case against Flynn nears end with no-jail recommendation City hall losing focus on city streets M ichael Flynn has been adviser, had phone conversations waiting for more than a with Russia’s then-ambassador to year to be sentenced. The the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. Because retired three-star Army general, Kislyak was under American who spent 24 days as the Trump surveillance, U.S. intelligence and White House national security law enforcement agencies had adviser, pleaded guilty on Dec. recordings and transcripts of the 1, 2017, to lying to the FBI in the calls, in which Flynn and Kislyak Byron Trump-Russia investigation. He discussed the sanctions Obama had York agreed to cooperate with special just imposed on Russia in retaliation Comment counsel Robert Mueller. for its 2016 election interference. Flynn’s sentencing, which There was nothing wrong with has been delayed a number of times for an incoming national security adviser reasons that have never been disclosed, talking to a foreign ambassador during is scheduled to finally take place on a transition. There was nothing wrong Dec. 18. Late Tuesday, Mueller filed with discussing the sanctions. But some what is called a sentencing report. Citing officials in the Obama Justice Department Flynn’s “substantial assistance” to the decided that Flynn might have violated investigation, Mueller recommended “a the Logan Act, a 218-year-old law under sentence at the low end of the guideline which no one has ever been prosecuted, range — including a sentence that does that prohibits private citizens from acting not impose a period of incarceration.” on behalf of the United States in disputes It’s no surprise Flynn might be spared with foreign governments. jail time. So far, two figures in the Trump- The Obama officials also said they Russia matter have been sentenced for were concerned by reports that Flynn, in lying to investigators, the same offense a conversation with Vice President Mike as Flynn. Alex van der Zwaan, a bit Pence, had denied discussing sanctions. player connected to Paul Manafort, was This, the officials felt, might somehow sentenced to 30 days in jail. George expose Flynn to Russian blackmail. Papadopoulos, a short-time Trump So Obama appointees atop the Justice campaign foreign policy adviser, was Department sent FBI agents to the White sentenced to 14 days — and that was after House to interview Flynn, who was Mueller complained that Papadopoulos ultimately charged with lying in that had not been cooperative when he was interview. purportedly assisting the investigation. The FBI did not originally think Flynn Flynn, on the other hand, is a retired lied. In March 2017, then-FBI director general with a long record of service to James Comey told the House Intelligence the United States, which Mueller took Committee that the two FBI agents who into consideration in recommending no questioned Flynn “did not detect any jail time. “The defendant’s record of deception” during the interview and “saw military and public service distinguish him nothing that indicated to them that (Flynn) from every other person who has been knew he was lying to them,” according to charged as part of the (special counsel’s) the committee’s report on the investigation investigation,” Mueller wrote. into the Trump-Russia affair. Comey said What the sentencing recommendation essentially the same thing to the Senate did not address was the sketchy Judiciary Committee and, in the words beginnings of the Flynn investigation. It of chairman Charles Grassley, “led us to started with the Obama administration’s believe ... that the Justice Department was unhappiness that Flynn, during the unlikely to prosecute (Flynn) for false transition as the incoming national security statements made in the interview.” Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian. FBI number two Andrew McCabe told the House the same thing. “The two people who interviewed (Flynn) didn’t think he was lying, (which) was not (a) great beginning of a false statement case,” McCabe told the Intelligence Committee. Only later, after Comey was fired and Mueller began his investigation, was Flynn accused of lying. He ultimately pleaded guilty. Mueller’s sentencing recommendation specifically mentions the suspicion that Flynn violated the Logan Act. It says nothing about the Obama Justice Department’s blackmail tale. Hill Republicans have been suspicious about the Flynn case for quite a while. But they have not been able to get their hands on some key documents and testimony that might tell them what happened. House investigators have a chance to learn more this week when, on Friday, Comey appears for a behind-closed-doors interview with members of the Judiciary and Oversight committees. Lawmakers have promised to release the transcript of the interview within a day or two of its completion. That might possibly give the public a more complete picture of the Flynn case. Investigators could ask Comey specifically how the agents who interviewed Flynn characterized his answers and behavior. They could ask whether Comey believed Flynn would be indicted. They could ask what evidence Comey saw to suggest that Flynn did, in fact, lie. And they could ask if Comey ever saw the reports, the so-called 302s, that the agents wrote describing the interview. Congress has long ago pressed the Justice Department to hand over the 302s and other documents. So far, the answer has been no. But soon the Flynn case will be entirely over. Perhaps then the public will finally learn what really went on in United States of America v. Michael T. Flynn. ■ Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner. Now that construction of a new hotel at the Pendleton airport has been approved, city hall is proposing construction of a second hotel in the Happy Canyon parking lot. However, it seems the city doesn’t own the property and would trade publicly owned property west of Southwest 18th Street for the proposed construction site. Evidently hotels are big business; our city streets and convenient parking are not. I fully expect the Rivoli Theater Coalition will soon be approaching the city council to request another handout. They are rapidly running out of money, and the city always seems eager to provide more, keeping this money pit above water while the asphalt on Main Street continues to crack and crumble. Perhaps declaring city streets as “historical,” city hall would show more interest in their renovation. In an effort to deflect attention away from the delays and ballooning costs of the Eighth Street Bridge project, it appears city management has decided to form another new committee, the North Bank Umatilla Advisory Committee. It looks like we’ll end up with another new program much like the “River Quarter Overlay,” spending huge amounts on consulting fees to develop some plan the city cannot afford to fund, and all at the expense of maintaining our city streets. According to recent city news, $781,000 was planned for street repairs in 2018. After promising an increase using a portion of the marijuana taxes and increased state gas taxes, the public works director expects to spend $725,000 in 2019, a decrease of $56,000. Spending $190,000+ of gas tax funding for electricity instead of the asphalt for which it was intended makes little sense, considering the condition of our city streets. Despite generous salaries, our city management team seems unable to operate the city efficiently. Another consultant, an efficiency expert, is apparently in the cards to get the city back on track. Discipline, a little bit of common sense, and a focus on a program that affects everyone, not just a chosen few, are really what’s needed, and that, my friends, is maintenance of our public streets. Rick Rohde Pendleton The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send letters to managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or email editor@eastoregonian.com.
