Environmental Risk

Changes in Energy Regulation

The power of states and individuals to bring action in the case of an environmental event remains intact despite the new administration's proposals.
By: | April 7, 2017 • 5 min read

Even as the Trump administration takes steps to ease environmental regulations and defund the Environmental Protection Agency, insurance and environment experts expect little change in companies’ environmental stewardship or long-term responsibilities.

Advertisement




“I expect companies to stay the course of social and environmental responsibility,” responding to their own corporate cultures, the long-tail nature of environmental claims, tort law and regulations by each state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), said Tom Williams, head, environmental liability, North America, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty.

“Underwriters will still look for companies to take environmental and health and safety programs seriously,” said Marcel Ricciardelli, lead environmental insurance underwriter, Allied World.
“We look for a history of robust environmental risk management.”

The long-tail nature of environmental liability, said Avram J. Frankel, principal, Integral Consulting Inc., an international science and engineering firm, helps incentivize companies to support strong environmental programs.

“Administrations may end in four years, but environmental liability keeps on going.”

Long policy terms “lock underwriters into risk for the long term,” said Ken Burrell, managing director, Synapse Services LLC. Most of his clients plan accordingly, with 10 to 15 year business plans — exceeding even a two-term administration — that include budgets for environmental controls and risk management.

In addition, he said, “reputational risks are high considerations in business decisions, regardless of regulatory enforcement. Companies don’t want blowback from a blowout.”

What Regulations May Change?

“Expect a focus on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act,” Burrell wrote in an email. “If budgets are reduced, there will be fewer resources for enforcement, but reduced regulatory enforcement will not necessarily reduce exposure to loss. If enforcement wanes, expect an increase in litigation from private citizen suits in an effort to drive action.”

The EPA takes the lead in some regulatory arenas, Frankel said, and states lead in others. In some cases, the EPA delegates authority. Enforcement varies by state.

Past administrations’ inconsistent environmental track records confound predictions in this one, he said. New restraints are unlikely under President Trump, who declared in February that environmental regulations are “out of control.”

“It appears that much, if not all, pending rulemaking could be suspended under this administration,” Frankel said.

Final rules take years to promulgate, he said, and normally take years to undo. For example, the Stream Protection Rule — which seeks to protect waterways from coal mining residue and which Congress rolled back in February by invoking the seldom-used Congressional Review Act — was the result of eight years of review and analysis by the states and scientific bodies, said Pat Parenteau, senior counsel, professor of law, Vermont Law School in a National Public Radio interview.

The speed at which Congress acted to undo the Stream Protection Rule introduces “a brave new world for environmental regulation at the federal level,” Frankel wrote in an email.

“We appear to be in a new era, and it will be entirely up to the states to regulate these matters.”

Kevin Haas, partner, Clyde & Co.

Also “in peril,” said Kevin Haas, partner at Clyde & Co., an international law firm, are federal regulations pertaining to oil and gas exploration, offshore and ocean drilling, fracking, interstate oil and gas pipelines. Regulations that could curtail those operations in the interest of endangered species and national parks may also face rollback.

The administration’s February freeze on new and pending regulations would halt four very nearly finished Energy Department efficiency standards designed to reduce energy use, consumer bills and greenhouse gas emissions, according to the “Washington Post.”

Even in the absence of federal regulation or slowdown of enforcement — which would trigger significant pushback from the agencies themselves — states would continue to regulate, said Frankel, and tort law will continue to pressure companies toward environmental responsibility.

Federal standards usually represent the minimum, said Ricciardelli. Insurers can expect little change in enforcement in states with strong environmental protections, such as California, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.

For example, New Jersey’s air standards, said Larry Hajna, press officer, N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, historically exceed the EPA’s, driven by “the need to achieve federal clean air standards in a densely populated state with a lot of cars and industry.”

Even some oil- and gas-producing states have their own strict regulations that “we don’t see changing soon,” said Kevin Sisk, senior vice president, Lockton.

These include Louisiana, where a closely watched lawsuit against more than 90 oil, gas and pipeline companies alleges degradation of wetlands that form a natural hurricane buffer for New Orleans by drilling and dredging canals along the coast.

Advertisement




Claims related to that case may go back 100 years, said Sisk. “Any changes to federal regulations wouldn’t change potential liabilities associated with that lawsuit or with other common industry exposures.”

Counterintuitively, a reduction in exploration and production can trigger a spike in certain claims, said Sisk, when combined with a financially distressed industry.

After commodity prices collapsed and the moratorium on offshore drilling from the 2010 Mocondo Well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, some companies laid off staff and deferred preventive maintenance, which contributed to pollution releases.

“Any changes to federal regulations wouldn’t change potential liabilities associated with that lawsuit or with other common industry exposures.” – Kevin Sisk, senior vice president, Lockton

“The oil and gas infrastructure was neglected when companies couldn’t explore for new reserves,” said Williams. He speculates that the inverse will happen in the Trump administration.
“Presumably, the pendulum will swing in the other direction in the next administration,” said Haas.

More drilling, mining, exploration, etc., also creates more opportunities for risk of spills, leaks, effusions, contaminations and damage to endangered species, said Haas, but risk management tools and techniques, including new technology, can help prevent loss of product and claims from spills.

Energy companies and carriers can seek technological risk management and insurance solutions. “The Internet of Things contributes to fewer accidents by monitoring temperature, pressure, flow and leaks in pipelines and drill sites where people can’t see,” Haas said.

“Technology could offset adverse impacts from reduced regulation and EPA personnel on the job.” &

Susannah Levine writes about health care, education and technology. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Emerging Risks

Stadium Safety

Soft targets, such as sports stadiums, must increase measures to protect lives and their business.
By: | January 10, 2018 • 8 min read

Acts of violence and terror can break out in even the unlikeliest of places.

Look at the 2013 Boston Marathon, where two bombs went off, killing three and injuring dozens of others in a terrorist attack. Or consider the Orlando Pulse nightclub, where 49 people were killed and 58 wounded. Most recently in Las Vegas, a gunman killed 58 and injured hundreds of others.

Advertisement




The world is not inherently evil, but these evil acts still find a way into places like churches, schools, concerts and stadiums.

“We didn’t see these kinds of attacks 20 years ago,” said Glenn Chavious, managing director, global sports & recreation practice leader, Industria Risk & Insurance Services.

As a society, we have advanced through technology, he said. Technology’s platform has enabled the message of terror to spread further faster.

“But it’s not just with technology. Our cultures, our personal grievances, have brought people out of their comfort zones.”

Chavious said that people still had these grievances 20 years ago but were less likely to act out. Tech has linked people around the globe to other like-minded individuals, allowing for others to join in on messages of terror.

“The progression of terrorist acts over the last 10 years has very much been central to the emergence of ‘lone wolf’ actors. As was the case in both Manchester and Las Vegas, the ‘lone wolf’ dynamic presents an altogether unique set of challenges for law enforcement and event service professionals,” said John

Glenn Chavious, managing director, global sports & recreation practice leader, Industria Risk & Insurance Services

Tomlinson, senior vice president, head of entertainment, Lockton.

As more violent outbreaks take place in public spaces, risk managers learn from and better understand what attackers want. Each new event enables risk managers to see what works and what can be improved upon to better protect people and places.

But the fact remains that the nature and pattern of attacks are changing.

“Many of these actions are devised in complete obscurity and on impulse, and are carried out by individuals with little to no prior visibility, in terms of behavioral patterns or threat recognition, thus making it virtually impossible to maintain any elements of anticipation by security officials,” said Tomlinson.

With vehicles driving into crowds, active shooters and the random nature of attacks, it’s hard to gauge what might come next, said Warren Harper, global sports & events practice leader, Marsh.

Public spaces like sporting arenas are particularly vulnerable because they are considered ‘soft targets.’ They are areas where people gather in large numbers for recreation. They are welcoming to their patrons and visitors, much like a hospital, and the crowds that attend come in droves.

NFL football stadiums, for example, can hold anywhere from 25,000 to 93,000 people at maximum capacity — and that number doesn’t include workers, players or other behind-the-scenes personnel.

“Attacks are a big risk management issue,” said Chavious. “Insurance is the last resort we want to rely upon. We’d rather be preventing it to avoid such events.”

Preparing for Danger

The second half of 2017 proved a trying few months for the insurance industry, facing hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and — unfortunately — multiple mass shootings.

The industry was estimated to take a more than $1 billion hit from the Las Vegas massacre in October 2017. A few years back, the Boston Marathon bombings cost businesses around $333 million each day the city was shut down following the attack. Officials were on a manhunt for the suspects in question, and Boston was on lockdown.

“Many of these actions are devised in complete obscurity and on impulse, and are carried out by individuals with little to no prior visibility.” — John Tomlinson, senior vice president, head of entertainment, Lockton

“Fortunately, we have not had a complete stadium go down,” said Harper. But a mass casualty event at a stadium can lead to the death or injury of athletes, spectators and guests; psychological trauma; potential workers’ comp claims from injured employees; lawsuits; significant reputational damage; property damage and prolonged business interruption losses.

The physical damage, said Harper, might be something risk managers can gauge beforehand, but loss of life is immeasurable.

Advertisement




The best practice then, said Chavious, is awareness and education.

“A lot of preparedness comes from education. [Stadiums] need a risk management plan.”

First and foremost, Chavious said, stadiums need to perform a security risk assessment. Find out where vulnerable spots are, decide where education can be improved upon and develop other safety measures over time.

Areas outside the stadium are soft targets, said Harper. The parking lot, the ticketing and access areas and even the metro transit areas where guests mingle before and after a game are targeted more often than inside.

Last year, for example, a stadium in Manchester was the target of a bomb, which detonated outside the venue as concert-goers left. In 2015, the Stade de France in Paris was the target of suicide bombers and active shooters, who struck the outside of the stadium while a soccer match was held inside.

Security, therefore, needs to be ready to react both inside and outside the vicinity. Reviewing past events and seeing what works has helped risk mangers improve safety strategies.

“A lot of places are getting into table-top exercises” to make sure their people are really trained, added Harper.

In these exercises, employees from various departments come together to brainstorm and work through a hypothetical terrorist situation.

A facilitator will propose the scenario — an active shooter has been spotted right before the game begins, someone has called in a bomb threat, a driver has fled on foot after driving into a crowd — and the stadium’s staff is asked how they should respond.

“People tend to act on assumptions, which may be wrong, but this is a great setting for them to brainstorm and learn,” said Harper.

Technology and Safety

In addition to education, stadiums are ahead of the game, implementing high-tech security cameras and closed-circuit TV monitoring, requiring game-day audiences to use clear/see-through bags when entering the arena, upping employee training on safety protocols and utilizing vapor wake dogs.

Drones are also adding a protective layer.

John Tomlinson, senior vice president, head of entertainment, Lockton

“Drones are helpful in surveying an area and can alert security to any potential threat,” said Chavious.

“Many stadiums have an area between a city’s metro and the stadium itself. If there’s a disturbance there, and you don’t have a camera in that area, you could use the drone instead of moving physical assets.”

Chavious added that “the overhead view will pick up potential crowd concentration, see if there are too many people in one crowd, or drones can fly overhead and be used to assess situations like a vehicle that’s in a place it shouldn’t be.”

But like with all new technology, drones too have their downsides. There’s the expense of owning, maintaining and operating the drone. Weather conditions can affect how and when a drone is used, so it isn’t a reliable source. And what if that drone gets hacked?

“The evolution of venue security protocols most certainly includes the increased usage of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), including drones, as the scope and territorial vastness provided by UAS, from a monitoring perspective, is much more expansive than ground-based apparatus,” said Tomlinson.

“That said,” he continued, “there have been many documented instances in which the intrusion of unauthorized drones at live events have posed major security concerns and have actually heightened the risk of injury to participants and attendees.”

Still, many experts, including Tomlinson, see drones playing a significant role in safety at stadiums moving forward.

“I believe the utilization of drones will continue to be on the forefront of risk mitigation innovation in the live event space, albeit with some very tight operating controls,” he said.

The SAFETY Act

In response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. Homeland Security enacted the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective

Warren Harper, global sports & events practice leader, Marsh

Technologies Act (SAFETY Act).

The primary purpose of the SAFETY Act was to encourage potential manufacturers or sellers of anti-terrorism technologies to continue to develop and commercialize these technologies (like video monitoring or drones).

There was a worry that the threat of liability in such an event would deter and prevent sellers from pursing these technologies, which are aimed at saving lives. Instead, the SAFETY Act provides incentive by adding a system of risk and litigation management.

“[The SAFETY Act] is geared toward claims arising out of acts of terrorism,” said Harper.

Bottom line: It’s added financial protection. Businesses both large and small can apply for the SAFETY designation — in fact, many NFL teams push for the designation. So far, four have reached SAFETY certification: Lambeau Field, MetLife Stadium, University of Phoenix Stadium and Gillette Stadium.

Advertisement




To become certified, reviewers with the SAFETY Act assess stadiums for their compliance with the most up-to-date terrorism products. They look at their built-in emergency response plans, cyber security measures, hiring and training of employees, among other criteria.

The process can take over a year, but once certified, stadiums benefit because liability for an event is lessened. One thing to remember, however, is that the added SAFETY Act protection only holds weight when a catastrophic event is classified as an act of terrorism.

“Generally speaking, I think the SAFETY Act has been instrumental in paving the way for an accelerated development of anti-terrorism products and services,” said Tomlinson.

“The benefit of gaining elements of impunity from third-party liability related matters has served as a catalyst for developers to continue to push the envelope, so to speak, in terms of ideas and innovation.”

So while attackers are changing their methods and trying to stay ahead of safety protocols at stadiums, the SAFETY Act, as well as risk managers and stadium owners, keep stadiums investing in newer, more secure safety measures. &

Autumn Heisler is a staff writer at Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]