LAST THURSDAY, December 6, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) held what it guessed to be the largest public meeting in the office’s history. From enraged seventysomethings to blushing fifth-graders, the 700-plus attendees packed into a Portland conference hall came from a wide range of backgrounds and social pockets to discuss one highly controversial issue: exporting coal through Oregon and Washington ports.
In 2011, coal energy giant Ambre Energy proposed a project—under the banner of smaller company Morrow Pacific—that would haul Midwest coal to at least two export terminals via barges on the Columbia River and/or trains that would slice through Portland. Ships would then deliver that coal to Asia. Ever since, folks from across the Northwest have been sharing strong views—concerns over air and water pollution on one side of the debate, promises of jobs on the other.
But in the midst of the tumultuous conversation, clear answers to seemingly simple questions have been trampled by fine print and finger-pointing. While many of these answers remain blurry, others could use a bit more focus. So here we go!
_________________________________________________________________________________________
What’s been decided?
Nothing, really. That’s what makes the topic so hard to hash out. So far, Morrow Pacific has submitted its proposals for two Oregon export terminals (at Boardman’s Port of Morrow and Columbia City’s Port of St. Helens) to both the Oregon Department of State Lands and DEQ. The Army Corps of Engineers is also reviewing permits for train-fed terminals in both Washington and Oregon. All proposals are still in the public comment stage. DEQ won’t have its first permit hearing until at least next year.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Who’s against it and why?
The Portland and Milwaukie City Councils, Metro, a handful of Northwest tribes, Multnomah County, Governor John Kitzhaber, and a variety of other local agencies have spoken out against coal exports.
“We have so much to lose if we let our community’s health slide backward because we didn’t ask the right questions or looked the other way,” Multnomah County Chair Jeff Cogen said at a press conference in September.
Locally, many Portlanders are concerned about air pollution from proposed coal trains chugging through town. Oregonians closer to the proposed terminals are also worried about fires on barges hauling coal, mercury pollution in drinking water, and coal dust ruining nearby farmland. Currently, the Multnomah County Health Department is leading a review of potential health hazards from coal trains.
On the larger scale, many people see Oregon’s promotion of coal exports as aiding and abetting global warming. “The price of business as usual is too great,” said an older woman sporting a bright red “Beyond Coal” shirt at last week’s meeting. “We must stop this encouragement of dirty energy before it’s too late.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Who’s for it and why?
One of the few pro-coal attendees at last week’s meeting, Robert Crane, has worked in construction for more than 40 years. Crane said exports could turn the state’s construction economy around.
“This is huge for my industry, for my family, and for the jobless construction workers across the state,” Crane said.
Morrow Pacific promises 1,000 permanent operations jobs and 2,100 temporary construction jobs at its two proposed terminals as early as 2014. Additionally, the company says it will pay hundreds of thousands in property taxes, as well as hefty port fees.
Of people protesting the facilities, Crane added, “At the end of the day, they’re going to be jobless, too. They’re not paid to rally.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Who gets to decide?
Despite the demands from local leaders and the public, the fate of coal is not in their hands. If the slew of permits under consideration by multiple state agencies all pass, then the project’s good to go. Aside from one potential end-around: federal intervention.
If the federal government calls for a sweeping review of the plan—which many local agencies and Kitzhaber are requesting—and if the feds find it flawed, then the show’s over. But Eric Nigg, DEQ’s water quality manager, said the feds have shown no signs (yet) that they’ll step in.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
What’s the next step?
Patience. It’ll be a slow road to an agreement. After DEQ’s hearing sometime next year, it’ll be hard to say exactly when the other permits and signatures would come into play.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Why is this project so damn frustrating?
Sure, massive projects at the mercy of a bureaucratic process usually come with a fair share of griping. But this project seems to come with an extra heap of fist-shaking baggage—much of it driven by the overlapping, uncertain, and downright confusing set of players involved.
From coal-mine regulations in Wyoming to local counties’ restrictions, everyone’s got a finger in the pie. For this project to see daylight, all of these interests must line up. Last Thursday’s four-hour meeting illustrated the public’s frustration with this disconnect. After each specific question—ranging from salmon health to fruit tree pollution—the DEQ panel produced a similar response.
“I feel like a broken record,” admitted Mark Fisher, DEQ senior permit writer. “But that area is beyond our scope.”
The permit up for discussion at that meeting dealt solely with the plans for a coal terminal—and not the system that would take the coal there. This scattered regulation has left many advocates worried about clashing environmental standards between agencies, leaving a bigger mess than what they started with.
“The reason I became an environmental lawyer was because of these kind of meetings,” said Brett VandenHeuvel, director of Columbia Riverkeeper. “I would hear representatives say, over and over again, like tonight, that it’s ‘not in our jurisdiction.’ And I’d think, ‘Bullshit.’ It’s Kafkaesque to be here tonight and not ask, ‘What the hell is going on?'”
So far, I am not at all bothered by the plan to ship coal through Portland. I’ll wait for the County Health Department review before I get all angry about something like this. Until then, as far as I can tell, the downsides of this plan are purely speculative.
Oh yeah, Asian countries should keep building filthy coal-fired plants, and we should export whatever coal they need to help fuck up the environment forever, so that rich people with a stake in all that can further prosper. No one agrees on exactly how many pounds of coal dust per ton are lost en route, so who cares? Let’s go ahead and make our air quality worse. We don’t yet know all the health effects that result from this, but I’m sure it’ll be fine. Let’s keep putting huge amounts of mercury into the environment, acidifying the oceans, increasing acid rain, worsening public health. Each stage—mining, transportaion, processing, and combustion—adds to this horrible waste stream that impacts the environment and hurts human health, but why bother coming up with better forms of energy on the basis of a bunch of speculation? Why bother getting angry now when there will always be new studies in the future?
Geyser, don’t act like this is the first time anyone has ever shipped coal through a city. I suggest that we wait for the report because coal is shipped, by train, through hundreds of cities every day, and I’ve never heard of this coal dust plague before. Obviously, some city somewhere is doing it without killing all of its citizens. Maybe this could cause all of the damage you’re worried about, but I’d like to have all of the information before I make a decision. As for burning coal for power, I’m not a huge fan, but I don’t think that the City of Portland refusing to let coal pass is going to impact global coal usage by even 1 ounce. What gives you the idea that it will?
There’s plenty of information, and I don’t think anyone is talking about a plague or killing all citizens. Whether or not you’ve heard of this info is beside the point.
Of course any city putting up any obstacles to transportation and export of coal will influence global coal usage by at least an ounce. To suggest otherwise is silly. But then I’m one of those loonies who thinks we should develop sustainable sources of energy that don’t fuck the environment, and that the only ethical thing to do re: coal is leave as much as possible in the ground. There is no such thing as “clean coal,” regardless of Democrats and Republicans endlessly exploiting it as a campaign buzzword. I’ve formed that view by reading a lot of scientific studies. We will never have “all the information” and I really think we have more than enough to act now.
I have to go with Torgo on this one.
There are three categories of potential negative impacts that give rise to most objections for proposed coal projects. (1) global pollution, (2) local environmental impacts, (3) local traffic impacts. For the proposed Ambre operation, I can’t see how any of these complaints are warranted.
(1) global pollution. Asia has lots of coal plants, and they burn coal from all over the world, and it has a very nasty effect on the environment. If you could stop China (or other countries) from receiving coal to burn, then you could reduce the amount of coal consumed, and could reduce global pollution. But, the global coal market is just too damn big for these pacific northwest coal projects to have an impact. There is too much other coal on the market, enough to keep China happily burning coal for decades to come. Thus, the outcome of the Ambre project is likely to have no noticeable impact on global coal consumption and subsequent pollution. It would be interesting to see some sort of supply chain analysis, showing which countries produce coal, which consume coal, and how many different routes there are for countries to get their coal to market. Perhaps such an analysis would show that there’s a viable strategy for reducing coal consumption by cutting off the supply. However, I suspect the analysis would only confirm that the market is too big and too global to be impacted by any supply-side policy efforts.
(2) local environmental impacts. As Torgo said, I’m happy that someone is doing a study of what these impacts might be and how real they are. I’m not sure how barging a bunch of rocks of coal down the Columbia would affect public health along the route. But I’m open to any analysis that proves otherwise.
(3) local traffic. Coal trains are a bitch. They’re huge and block traffic for miles. But the Ambre proposal is for barges, which would not have any impact on our congested transportation system.