US Coal Exports
Exports Economic Contributions Report
Sep 06 2013

Feds, States to Separate Coal Exports Reviews (Seattle Times)

Posted in All News, U.S. Ports

Feds, state to conduct separate reviews of coal train proposals

By Brian M. Rosenthal

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Department of Ecology will conduct separate reviews of proposals to expand state coal exports  – not the joint reviews that had been planned, both agencies announced Friday.

The decision to separate the reviews is in some ways not surprising, since the agencies have staked out different criteria in determining whether to approve a proposed export terminal at Cherry Point, near Bellingham: The feds say they will only consider the impacts on the area immediately surrounding the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, while the state says it will factor in everything from how more trains would affect cities on the rail route to how burning coal in Asia affects the environment.

The Cherry Point plan, which would export up to 48 million tons of coal a year to Asia, is one of two proposals in Washington working through a long approval process. The other is proposed for Longview.

Still, the decision marks a reversal and highlights the gulf between the two reviews.

“Based on the difference of that review scope, it made sense to separate it out into two documents,” said Patricia Graesser, a spokeswoman in the Corps’ Seattle office, although she added that the two reviews will be conducted collaboratively.

Supporters of the proposals praised the separation of reviews, framing it as an indication of the inappropriateness of the state’s broad review, which is unprecedented in scope.

“What more evidence do we need that Ecology was way out on a limb with its interpretation of environmental policies?” said Herb Krohn, Washington state legislative director for the United Transportation Union. “The Corps doesn’t want to be attached to that, to no one’s surprise. We have only been asking for a fair review, a fair time frame, and a fair sense of urgency so we can create these jobs and help our economy. We applaud the Corps’ decision.”

Opponents, on the other hand, said it is in the state’s interest to conduct as broad a review as possible.

“It only makes sense to conduct a comprehensive review that includes impacts on our health and climate change,” said Brendon Cechovic, executive director of Washington Conservative Voters. “There is a reason why the coal companies don’t want us to study these things.”

See article here.

  • “The fact that we’re no longer in the age of energy scarcity – that we’re in the age of energy abundance – positions the United States in a totally different place. This gives access to affordable, reliable energy in the United States, and gives the U.S. a major competitive advantage.”
    – Dave Banks, Special Assistant to President Donald Trump for International Energy, June 2017
  • “It is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation. Moreover, the prudent development of these natural resources is essential to ensuring the Nation's geopolitical security.”
    – Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, March 28, 2017
  • “Historically, U.S. companies seeking to expand their revenues focused first on increasing their number and share of U.S customers. For years, this focus served as a winning strategy for many of the most successful U.S. companies. Today, global economic trends make clear that successful companies are those that reach and sell to consumers outside U.S. borders and around the globe.”
    — 2011 National Export Strategy, U.S. Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee
  • “Federal regulatory agencies should not require climate change studies in the course of their permitting processes for proposed facilities. Coal will be consumed around the world regardless of U.S. trade policy. The only question is whether the coal is produced here in North America, where environmental standards are high, or elsewhere.”
    — U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, January 7, 2014
  • “At present 19% of the world’s population, 1.3 billion people, lack access to electricity and on New Policy Scenario projections there will still be 1 billion people without such access in 2030. To meet the UN Millennium Development Goal of eradicating extreme poverty by 2015, 395 million more people need access to electricity. There is a strong correlation between electrification and improvement in the United Nations’ Human Development Index.”
    — International Energy Agency, Coal Industry Advisory Board
  • “Access to electricity is strongly correlated with every measurable indicator of human development”
    — Berkeley Science Review, 2008

Count on Coal

National Mining Association

Twitter Logo

facebook Logo