(mogharabi.nahal@epa.gov) SAN FRANCISCO — Today, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency released its annual Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) National Analysis, which shows releases of toxic chemicals into the air fell 56% from 2005-2015.Of the over 443 million pounds that were disposed of or otherwise released to the environment in the Pacific Southwest Region, approximately 94 percent went to land, 3 percent to air, less than 1 percent to water, and 2 percent was transferred to other facilities."In 2015, nearly 1,700 facilities submitted data to EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory in the Pacific Southwest region,” said Alexis Strauss, EPA’s Acting Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest.“It’s crucial for communities to have access to this valuable data and year-to-year trends.” In the TRI, a "release" generally refers to a chemical that is emitted to the air, water, or placed in some type of land disposal unit.Most of these releases are subject to a variety of regulatory requirements designed to limit human and environmental harm.

California:  A total of 1,242 California facilities reported 334.7 million pounds of production-related chemicals, a decrease of 233.8 million pounds when compared to 2014 data.Clean Harbors in Buttonwillow and Chemical Waste Management in Kettleman City were the top two facilities for total on-site and off-site releases.mobelhauser berlin und brandenburgCalifornia's total releases (on-site and off-site) were 31.2 million pounds.mobelhaus mainz umgebungFor detailed California information and the list of the top facilities, please visit: http://go.usa.gov/x9PkW Arizona: A total of 264 Arizona facilities reported 145.7 million pounds of production-related chemicals in 2015.das mobel wien fruhstuckAsarco LLC Ray Complex/Hayden Smelter and Freeport-McMoran’s Miami mine were the top two facilities for total on-site and off-site releases.mobel transport wien

Arizona’s total releases (on-site and off-site) were 85.5 million pounds.For detailed Arizona information and the list of the top facilities, please visit: http://go.usa.gov/x9PkR Nevada: A total of 141 Nevada facilities reported 504.8 million pounds of production-related chemicals.Newmont Mining Corporation’s Twin Creeks Mine in Folconda and Robinson Nevada Mining Company were the top two facilities for total on-site and off-site releases.möbel kaufen erfurtNevada’s total releases (both on-site and off-site) were 323.5 million pounds.möbelgeschäft in frankenthalFor detailed Nevada information and the list of the top facilities, please visit: http://go.usa.gov/x9Pky Hawaii: A total of 32 Hawaii facilities reported seven million pounds of production-related chemicals.Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam and Hawaiian Electric Company in Kahe Point were the top two facilities for on-site and off-site releases.

Hawaii’s total releases (both on-site and off-site) were 2.5 million pounds.For detailed Hawaii information and the list of the top facilities, please visit: http://go.usa.gov/x9Pkv America Samoa: In 2015, American Samoa total releases were 59,000 pounds from one facility, Star Kist Samoa Co.For detailed American Samoa information, please visit: http://go.usa.gov/x9PkG Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands: A total of eight facilities reported 4,900 pounds of toxic chemical releases during 2015, a decrease of more than 10,000 pounds compared to 2014 data.Mariana Acquisition Corp’s Saipan Terminal, a petroleum bulk terminal, and Mobil Oil Mariana Island’s Saipan Terminal were the top two facilities for on-site and off-site releases.For detailed CNMI information and the top facilities, please visit: http://go.usa.gov/x9Pks Guam: A total of ten facilities reported 467,000 pounds of toxic chemical releases during 2015.Naval Base Guam's Apra Harbor wastewater plant and Guam Power Authority, an electric generation utility, were the top two facilities for on-site and off-site releases.

For detailed Guam information and the list of the top facilities, please visit: http://go.usa.gov/x9PkH EPA, states, and tribes receive TRI data annually from facilities in industry sectors such as manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste management.Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), facilities must report their toxic chemical releases for the prior calendar year to EPA by July 1 of each year.The Pollution Prevention Act also requires facilities to submit information on pollution prevention and other waste management activities of TRI chemicals.Nearly 22,000 facilities submitted TRI data for calendar year 2015.The TRI National Analysis website includes new interactive features such as an automated “flipbook” [https://www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/30-year-anniversary-tri-program-slideshow] depicting how the TRI Program has evolved over the past 30 years, and a new embedded dashboard that allows users to build customized visualizations of TRI data by a chemical or a sector.

These features are intended to promote more user engagement and exploration of TRI data.To access the 2015 TRI National Analysis, including local data and analyses, visit www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis Information on facility efforts to reduce toxic chemical releases is available at www.epa.gov/tri/p2is facing pressure on climate change from asset owners and governmental investigators, as well as challenges affecting the entire oil and gas industry.Asset owners, along with regulators, international banking organizations and signatories of the Paris climate conference agreement — all alarmed by the environmental risks of fossil fuels and the impact on companies — are seeking a transformation of the energy sector.The $293.6 billion California Public Employees' Retirement System, Sacramento, is working with the $178.3 billion New York State Common Fund, Albany, and the New York City Retirement Systems, with combined assets of $154 billion, on campaigns for two proxy proposals at Exxon Mobil aimed at climate risk.

The company's annual meeting is scheduled for May 25 in Dallas.A climate proposal sponsored by the New York state fund was co-filed by the London-based Church of England, whose assets total �6.7 billion ($9.5 billion); the $51.7 billion University of California Retirement Plan, Oakland; the $4 billion Vermont State Retirement Systems, Montpelier; and other institutional investors.The proposal seeks an annual assessment of long-term impacts of climate change policies on the company's oil and gas reserves, resources and other operations under a scenario that assumes a global rise in global temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius by 2100.A proxy access proposal filed by the New York City systems would enable a shareholder or shareholders as a group that holds a combined 3% of the company's shares for three years to nominate up to 25% of Exxon Mobil's 14-member board of directors.“The case for proxy access is sound and the need for climate risk reporting is urgent,” said Anne Simpson, investment director, global governance, at CalPERS.

Also, Eric T. Schneiderman, New York state attorney general, initiated an investigation of Exxon Mobil in November over alleged misrepresentation on climate change risks disclosures.Since then, his effort has been joined and expanded by the attorneys general of 16 other states, the District of Columbia and the U.S.Virgin Islands, initiating an investigation into the broader energy industry on “whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions,” according to a March 29 news release from Mr.Suzanne McCarron, Exxon Mobil vice president of public and government affairs, said in a March 29 statement that allegations the company “reached definite conclusions about anthropogenic climate change ... and then withheld it from the broader scientific community” are “preposterous.” “Exxon Mobil recognizes the risks posed by climate change, and we believe that everyone should be engaged in meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

Earlier this year, Exxon Mobil failed in its challenge to the Securities and Exchange Commission to exclude the climate-reporting proposal from this year's proxy statement.Last year, the company successfully excluded a similar climate-reporting proposal, Ms.Exxon Mobil recommends shareholders vote against the climate proposal, saying in its proxy statement it already reports on climate change policy and carbon asset risks, including “how the company integrates consideration of climate change risks into planning processes and investment evaluation.” On proxy access, and at Exxon Mobil in particular, the asset owners want “directors who have experience dealing with some of this (climate) risk modeling in this new world that is in front of them,” Ms.“We really want to make sure we've got people on the board who have got expertise and experience to be able to address this (climate risk) positively.” Proxy access would “enable us to trigger board refreshment when companies' (directors) have been entrenched and failing,” Ms.

Last year, a proxy access proposal at Exxon Mobil filed by the New York City systems, for which CalPERS campaigned, won 49.4% of the vote in favor.Exxon Mobil also is recommending shareholders vote against the access proposal, saying in its proxy statement that company directors “do not believe that there is any meaningful evidence that proxy access would improve corporate governance or enhance market capitalization.Perhaps most concerning is the potential risk for the proposal to increase the influence of special interest groups and lead to single-issue participants on the board.” What affects Exxon Mobil on the climate change issue could reverberate with other fossil-fuel companies.“You do have that domino effect, obviously, once you start zooming down in a sector,” said Mamadou-Abou Sarr, Abu Dhabi-based global head of environmental, social and governance investing, Northern Trust Asset Management.“You might end up finding more companies that could be in breach of a convention or regulation.

... There will be more scrutiny (of) oil and gas companies.” Exxon Mobil has been an outlier, Ms.Simpson said, as other major oil companies have embraced climate reporting.Last year, BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC “faced similar proposals and in both cases the companies' management supported” them, she said.Since then, Anglo American PLC, Statoil ASA and Suncor Energy Inc., among other companies, have adopted shareholder proposals on climate reporting, Ms.“The game changer is the Paris agreement,” endorsed by 196 nations including the U.S.and China and signed April 22 at the United Nations, Ms.The agreement developed a framework for limiting worldwide “temperature rise to well below 2 degrees, maybe even 1.5” degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a U.N.statement about the signing ceremony.“We are essentially saying this is the new normal,” for companies and investors, Ms.“You've got a target for limiting global warming.That means we now have a budget for global warming emissions and from there is a new constraint on business and a new opportunity.” One reason asset owners are pressing for more corporate disclosure is that they themselves face pressure on climate change.

Since the Paris accord, France adopted a law requiring asset owners and investment management companies to report on their climate risk exposure, Mr.That reporting includes how they integrate ESG factors into their investment processes.Sweden and the Netherlands are considering similar laws, Mr.Earlier this year, Ontario enacted legislation requiring pension plans in the Canadian province to disclose whether they incorporate ESG factors and if so, how.“There are some pretty credible institutions talking about risk in fossil fuels, the ( International Monetary Fund), the World Bank ... the G-10 ... the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, raising questions.Those are big, very credible financial institutions,” said John Willis, London-based portfolio manager, equities, with Sustainable Insight Capital Management LLC.In addition, the Financial Stability Board, made up of financial system regulators worldwide, created a task force in December to develop voluntary standards for climate-related disclosures by companies for investors.

“What I think is absolutely fair at a minimum, even if you are a great energy proponent, (a) believer in fossil fuels, you have to admit all this discussion about fossil fuels has led to a focus on the financial risks ... of owning fossil fuels,” Mr.“The ultimate (pricing) of risk is the financial markets,” Mr.“So the financial markets are still trying to make up (their minds) ... Look what's happened to the coal companies.(They) became so worrying that the financial markets effectively said, "We are not going to finance you anymore.'Once that happens, what do you do?” Peabody Energy Corp.and Arch Coal Inc.— the two largest coal companies by production, according to the Energy Information Administration — filed for bankruptcy protection in April and January, respectively.“I'm not saying it has got to the oil companies at this stage,” Mr.“I'm not saying that the big banks aren't going to finance.But (oil and gas companies) are beginning to sweat a bit.... This (issue) is not going away.” In a 2015 report, “Investing in a Time of Climate Change,” Mercer LLC projected a potential impact of climate change on market sectors over 35 years.

The oil sector's expected annual returns could fall to 2.5% from 6.6%.“This would negatively impact unprepared investors,” the Mercer report said.The renewable energy company sector has “the greatest potential for additional returns: depending on the scenario, average expected returns may increase from 6.6% (per annum) to as high as 10.1%.” Ramifications include “how big a risk/return impact could climate change have on portfolios and when that might happen,” Mr.Asset owners need to begin “quantifying the carbon footprint they have in their investments,” he said.“We've seen an increase in climate-related (proposals) at annual general meetings,” Mr.For 2016 as of April 29, shareholders have filed 89climate-risk proposals, up 30% from 68 in 2015, according to Institutional Shareholder Services Inc.Jeff Finkelman, research associate, Athena Capital Advisors LLC, Lincoln, Mass., said: “The investigations (of Exxon Mobil) are at the very least a signal that those are risks that are real and have to be taken into consideration.” Ms.