Odd provision in state law severely uncuts growth management
U.S. laws limit the burning of coal here, and Washington state has a strong green influence. Passenger rail in Seattle and beyond would suffer consequences from shipments to Bellingham. But the financial firepower lined up in favor of shipping coal from Washington ports to China is gigantic.
Washington may be on the verge of a classic environmental and political battle, due to China's insatiable demand for coal. The state's deep-water ports stand between the Asian giant and the massive Powder River strip mines of Montana and Wyoming.
Add to the oversize characters in the drama the world's largest stevedoring company, the region's dominant railroad, and one of the world's richest investors.
Against this formidable lineup will be organized opposition from the region's major environmental organizations and from community activists protective of the livability of the region and their neighborhoods in particular.
Economically, the looming match-up is overwhelmingly weighted to the big corporations involved, including Seattle-based Carrix Inc., the international giant that owns SSA Marine, the largest stevedoring company in the world. Politically, major players are keeping their heads down, respectful of the economic clout involved but also aware of the political power of Washington Greens.
Gov. Christine Gregoire's Department of Ecology, however, intervened on behalf of environmentalists attempting to stop Cowlitz County from approving a coal port at Longview, on the site of a former aluminum plant. Environmentalists are also watching closely as Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark goes about assessing plans to build a big shipping terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham, primarily to allow Burlington Northern Santa Fe to haul coal from Powder River. Sensitive aquatic sites are part of the process at Cherry Point; the Columbia River's fish and wildlife are keys to the Longview process.
Gregoire, after a hastily-arranged meeting Wednesday with Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, took no sides but worried environmentalists when she told King5 News, "I have no personal objection whatsoever to us having coal come through our ports and exported somewhere around the world."_Gregoire said that for the present, she just wants to be sure regulatory rules are followed, and she would take no position on the Longview site.
In October, Gregoire's Commerce director, Rogers Weed, said the governor wants to "move forward" a new shipping terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham, citing an opportunity to ship more Washington grain to Asia. Grain would benefit from any new shipping terminal in the state, but it is increasingly apparent that the real target is coal, primarily for Chinese power plants.
Despite the inevitable legal battles, the corporate power of coal port advocates is daunting. Although all the players have national and international reach, SSA, the company that would build and operate the Cherry Point facility, has its roots in Bellingham. In 1949, Fred R. Smith of Bellingham founded Bellingham Stevedoring, which later became Seattle Stevedoring Company and then, in 1990, Stevedoring Services of America.
SSA began efforts to develop the Cherry Point loading facility. SSA and two other affiliates make up Carrix, the world's largest marine and rail terminal operator. Smith's grandson, Jon Hemingway, is CEO of SSA, headquartered in Seattle (as is Carrix).
The Longview terminal would be operated by a subsidiary of Ambre Energy, a giant conglomerate based in Australia. The BNSF rail line is owned by Warren Buffett's Hathaway Inc., and the financial giant Goldman Sachs is playing a large role as an equity investor in Carrix. The coal is harvested by some the world's major corporations and, of course, China owns a large portion of the U.S. debt.
The market for American coal had been threatened by the closure of domestic coal plants, under fire for their carbon emissions, but the emergence of powers such as China and India has revived the coal market. Elisabeth Rosenthal in the New York Times notes that China now burns half of the 6 billion tons of coal used globally each year and has become a major importer of coal. "As a result, not only are the pollutants that developed countries have tried to reduce finding their way into the atmosphere anyway, but ships chugging halfway around the globe are spewing still more." While American laws strictly limit burning of coal, they are less strict regarding the mining, transportation, and shipping of coal.
If there is an inevitability to increased coal use in China — and it is hard to imagine the Chinese voluntarily halting economic growth — there may also be an offset, according to James Fallows in The Atlantic. Fallows believes the Chinese are in position to lead the way to clean methods of using coal, and have a technological step on other nations. An unusual collaboration of Chinese and American scientists is creating new ways to reduce carbon releases. "The group has sponsored research on sequestration, on post-combustion capture, and on the 'cleanest' of the emerging pre-combustion coal technologies," underground coal gasification, Fallows states. But any new breakthrough will lag demand for at least the near future.
China's explosive growth in recent years has awakened the plans for new shipping terminals in Longview and at Cherry Point. Until very recently, the idea of shipping coal on a massive scale through Pacific Northwest ports was not openly discussed, although it had long been on the table for BNSF and some of the other partners. But since nearly all the players are privately owned, most of those discussions were not aired publicly.
Public agencies play a smaller role in this case than in many industrial matters, because little of the basic infrastructure is publicly owned. The Longview coal port would be on property owned by Alcoa, the site of an aluminum plant, closed in 2001. Cowlitz County commissioners on Nov. 23 issued a shoreline development permit, certifying that there was no substantial environmental harm in constructing and operating the loading facility. Environmental groups petitioned the Shoreline Hearings Board, a quasi-judicial state agency, for reversal of the rulings. The board could rule as early as April. Cowlitz commissioners are elected, offering opponents a political remedy. About 75 protestors showed up to greet Gov. Schweitzer, but in an area hard hit by loss of jobs, it is hard to say that reflects community sentiment.
Politics played a role in Tacoma, where the elected port authority rejected consideration of shipping coal from the Port of Tacoma. The port cited "a multitude of community and business factors" in deciding not to expand its shipping to include coal.
In Bellingham, the nearest major city to Cherry Point, opposition to a coal port will also be political, led by some of the green-friendly community's major environmental organizations. City and county officials have no formal role in the process; Cherry Point is privately owned and outside any port authority. It presently houses the state's largest refinery (owned by BP), a ConocoPhillips refinery and an Aloca aluminum plant; in total they represent about 1,500 direct jobs.
SSA Marine, the Carrix affiliate that would build the $400 million loading facility at Cherry Point, led political and union leaders on a tour of the site in October, and elicited enthusiasm from several participants. SSA executives estimate the two-to-three year construction phase would employ 1,100 people, with a permanent workforce of 150 to 200 once the terminal is operating, according to the Bellingham Herald. "How can we not be in favor of it, for a variety of reasons?" Dave Warren, president of the Northwest Central Labor Council, told the Herald. "I don't know when another opportunity like this is going to come into our community."
There will be debate as to whether a coal port is an opportunity or a long-range sacrifice to short-term jobs. A sustainability group, Re Sources, and its affiliate, North Sound Baykeeper, have raised questions. Bob Ferris, ReSources executive director, points to the potential for 12 coal trains a day (six round trips), each a mile or more long, running right through the center of Bellingham, leaving coal dust and traffic disruption in their wake. The huge Roberts Bank coal port south of Vancouver, B.C., he charged, has created an aquatic "dead zone" and similar fears are raised at Cherry Point. Opponents also decry the "jobs" argument, saying that short-term employment will be outweighed by the long-term impact of pollution both here and in China (which circulates worldwide and in particular to the West Coast of the U.S.). They fear the U.S. will become a "colony" for China-exporting American natural resources that China uses to manufacture goods at low wages to sell back to Americans.
Coal port opponents in Bellingham will also point to the disruption of two of the city's major assets, the Fairhaven historic district and future development of the city's waterfront, where a 137-acre parcel is being prepared for mixed commercial, industrial, and residential use on a former paper mill site. In both cases, the BNSF tracks run through or directly adjacent to some of the city's most valuable property. The city has at least a half-dozen grade crossings on the railroad, and it runs alongside a heavily used waterfront park and trail. BNSF quietly began adding two or three coal trains a day to its lines in recent months, en route to Roberts Bank, without noticeable protest; doubling or tripling that number will not be as easy.
Although Bellingham by the nature of its urban concentration appears particularly vulnerable to increased coal trains, Mount Vernon is also bisected by rail tracks and in Seattle trains run between the city and its waterfront. Most cities along the route would have some impact from increased traffic.
The coal port proposals will test more than the mettle of neighborhood activists and environmentalists; Washington's commitment to rail passenger service will be directly tested. At the same time that the state looks forward to putting $161 million in new federal grants to work to improve Amtrak service from Seattle to Blaine, the prospect of sharing the tracks with mile-long coal trains is sobering.
Bruce Agnew, who is heading a passenger-train "modeling" exercise for the Cascadia Project and Whatcom County governments, says, "It is clear that expansion of coal trains from the Powder River Basin through Northwest ports to China is their (BNSF) major strategic initiative." Agnew is trying to find ways to double or triple the number of passenger trains scheduled from Seattle to Vancouver, B.C., but hits serious obstacles north of Everett, where every train runs on a single track with limited sidings. Of particular note is the narrow rail bed below the historic and scenic Chuckanut Drive south of Bellingham, where it would be impossible to construct additional tracks or sidings. The area is also subject to landslides and other earth movement. The degree to which coal trains could be scheduled at night, and implications from such a decision, are unknown.
It is difficult to see a scenario in which Amtrak could substantially increase its passenger trains north of Seattle at the same time that BNSF a dozen coal trains of a mile or more in length-all on a single track. Presently, passengers on Amtrak are accustomed to waiting on sidings while freight trains thunder by on the main track.
The tradeoffs are so large and in many ways so sweeping that they may ultimately involve the Legislature, as no one body at local or state level can deal with all the impacts of a development the size of coal ports in two or more Washington ports. The suggestion of a statewide response was raised by Kevin Wilhelm and Ross Macfarlane in a Seattle Times Op-ed calling for a rejection of coal ports.
The nation's railroad infrastructure, one of the worst in the industrial world, has been neglected for decades and now plays a big role in how we create an industrial and energy policy in a time of shifting global economics, climate change and environmental degradation. Our neglect of basic investment in transportation may save us from hasty decisions with repercussions far down the road.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!










Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Sat, Jan 8, 7:19 a.m. Inappropriate
Environmentalist concerns about the US supplying coal to China (or any other country) miss a simple reality: if we don't supply it, someone else certainly will. Australia, for one, is already a dominant player in this commerce.
Posted Sat, Jan 8, 8:54 a.m. Inappropriate
In the not-so-distant past during a period of low snowpack and sparse rains did we not buy power from the coal fired plant that is down near Chehalis? I believe we did and that illustrates that when we need the power and all other options have evaporated we too will burn coal for electric power. We did not ration electricity, nor as I recall, did we enact anything other than token rate increases. So, I suppose my point is that the anti-export factors (in a perfectly understandable way) are practicing hypocrisy. We want the world to be better than we are at self denial.
Posted Sat, Jan 8, 9:53 a.m. Inappropriate
I've been waiting for decades for direct rail service between Seattle and Vancouver that runs at convenient times (NOT early in the morning and late in the afternoon). So construction of this coal-loading facility will endanger the forever-unrealized plans that I've been waiting for? If it obviously takes so little to scuttle and delay such plans in the first place, why should I worry about this one? I say go ahead and build the port facility.
Posted Sat, Jan 8, 11:30 a.m. Inappropriate
The final pararaph about the condition of our nation's railroad system are extremely misleading. If you're talking about passenger service, then, yes, it has been neglected for decades and is among the worst in the world. But in terms of freight, the U.S. is among the best, if not the best, in infrastructure.
Posted Sat, Jan 8, 7:55 p.m. Inappropriate
The previous commenter is correct. U.S. passenger rail is a joke but even the Economist magazine in a recent analysis seems to think that freight is the best in the world. So it's not the infrastructure that's bad, it's the way the owners of it choose to use it. As the U.S. prints dollars by the trillions, it's hard to imagine the rest of the world continuing to want to trade them for the two thirds of the oil we burn. Fuel could skyrocket in price anytime. Once it gets and stays expensive passenger rail will be profitable again and we'll no longer see the strange sight of passenger trains waiting for coal trains.
Longview makes far more sense than any other place for a terminal if one is built. I'm sure Warren Buffett realizes it would be much better to run his coal trains down the gradeless Columbia Gorge rather than up and over the Cascades and through the Puget Sound bottlenecks. My guess is that the Cherry Point talk is just a way to squeeze a better deal from Longview.
Pleaae allow me to register one slightly indignant objection to this otherwise interesting article: since when is coal "harvested?" The overuse of this word in recent years, with its overtones of peasant life and honest toil, seems to have been started by the timber industry, which hasn't "cut" a tree in years now. Maybe there is at least some flimsy PRspeak excuse for their use of it, but to say that strip mines "harvest" coal is right up there with "harvest" of organs from condemned Chinese prisoners. In facilities heated by Powder River coal, no less.
Posted Mon, Jan 10, 12:08 a.m. Inappropriate
The article says that Bellingham and Whatcom County officials have no formal role in the process because Cherry Point is privately owned and outside any port authority. (So I guess that means that Bellingham Parks Dept. has no say over whether mile-long coal trains will be allowed to block entrance into and exit from Boulevard Park during concerts, despite safety issues.) So what decisions by which government officials can residents of Whatcom County can try to influence? Public hearings? Where? When? And who will pay to upgrade safety where rail lines cross Whatcom County roads?
Posted Mon, Jan 10, 8 a.m. Inappropriate
As a matter of fact (that can be used to argue whichever position you prefer) some 10 million tons of coal per year are ALREADY being transported by BNSF through Bellingham (en route to China via Roberts Bank).
Posted Mon, Jan 10, 1:55 p.m. Inappropriate
Several readers have pointed out that the American freight rail system is among the best in the world. They are correct; I meant to say our passenger rail system is among the worst in the industrial world, a statement I imagine most would agree with. Certainly that is the case in our region, and if we add more coal trains—we already have about three trains a day through Bellingham en route to Roberts Point—it makes it even more difficult to improve passenger service, as I pointed out in the story. There seems to be very limited opportunity for the public to be heard on these tradeoffs; which may explain in part why the freight lines have been so successful. I agree with Snoqualman that Longview makes a lot more sense than Cherry Point; less disruption to communities all along the coast and probably less opposition from within the community itself.
Posted Mon, Jan 10, 8:45 p.m. Inappropriate
I'm sorry to be so rude sometimes, but I've followed seattle road & rail transit plans carefully, analytically and find them wanting as you know. Honestly I'm sorry, but the doubts are serious and held by MANY within the engineering community outside where your cadre of 'poor-done' builders hang out congratulating each other as if they deserve it. The DBT is CRaP, speaking for various demographics right and left. All new concrete goes the DBT shell, more new added inside. Elsewhere, recycled concrete for sidewalks or ugly bridges. Good design at the stadium roundabout riser crossing though, IMO. What will the return ship back? Vegetables? Fine linen? Mike is right - NO to DBT.
Posted Mon, Jan 10, 9:05 p.m. Inappropriate
Again sorry to interrupt the subject with DBT notes. Consider how globalization may require a reduction of all shipping - not more exports, less imports as a reduction strategy. No brainer? The CRC is designed for increased import/export, a failure Washington shares with Oregon. Concept#1 Hayden Island Off Island Access "allows" 8+lanes or less than 10+lanes as proposed. Both DOTS are holding back on this simplification and major cost reduction. It's embarrassing. Go Mike!
Posted Wed, Jan 12, 5:02 a.m. Inappropriate
What pray tell are DBT and CRC?
Posted Thu, Jan 13, 11:18 a.m. Inappropriate
The article states that opponents have a political remedy since we Cowlitz Commissioners are elected. Commissioners get unelected often for a variety of reasons. But in spite of the great coal export debate, it was not a part of the decision to issue a shoreline development permit. The permit is in accordance with the State Shoreline Management Act. The applicant met or exceeded every aspect of the Act and corresponding County Ordinance. It wasn't politics. It was Commissioners following the rule if law. We aren't empowered to choose which companies can apply for permits. The Port of Tacoma made a decision regarding property they own. We issued a permit to a private company to develop private property. If the State wishes otherwise, the Legislature will have to pass new laws.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.