<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Friday, March 29, 2024
March 29, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Striking a Good Balance

State agency weighs environmental, economic impacts of oil terminal plan

The Columbian
Published: March 23, 2016, 6:00am

While the process might seem to be interminable, Washington’s method for considering large energy facilities strikes a proper balance between economic and environmental concerns.

Since Tesoro Corp. and Savage Cos. reached an agreement in 2013 with the Port of Vancouver to build and operate what would be the nation’s largest rail-to-marine oil terminal at the port, the proposal has been inching along through a laborious permitting and approval process. The state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council has been examining the proposal, considering public comment, evaluating input from various stakeholders and preparing to make a recommendation to the governor — who will have the final say.

In an era when economic concerns are often reduced in the political arena to assertions that the regulatory climate is burdensome, the debate over the proposed terminal would appear to be rife for such accusations. Proponents of the terminal, after all, can claim that a three-year process is damaging to the economy when the facility could have been providing jobs and paying taxes by this point. But those proponents would be inaccurate in their assessment; large energy facilities can be transformative to a community and deserve the utmost deliberation.

“By going this far, the state has supported procedures that are essential to the wise use of our dwindling resources and the responsible stewardship of an expanding economy,” wrote University of Washington law professor William Rodgers in 1971 as he critiqued the creation of the site evaluation council.

That labyrinth of regulations was examined recently by Columbian reporter Brooks Johnson, who took a look at the role performed by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. The investigation found that of 20 projects submitted to the council during its 46 years of existence, five of them are currently operating. Johnson wrote: “Many of the others either fell short of winning full state approval, missed a narrow window in the market, or just gave up trying to get past the regulatory gatekeepers.”

Those gatekeepers play a crucial role in adhering to the environment-friendly ethos of Washington. Last year, WalletHub.com weighed 14 metrics and ranked Washington as the sixth-most eco-friendly state. At the same time, Forbes ranked Washington as the 10th-best state for business. Such rankings always can be quibbled with, but the gist is that economic concerns and ecological interests can, indeed, coexist.

That is the point of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which was designed to be a one-stop outlet for the permitting process that can engulf large energy projects. By considering both business permits and environmental permits, the council and the governor’s approval streamline the process and render decisions that supersede all local oversight.

That has not prevented the occasional legislative attempt to do away with the council — attempts that typically come from lawmakers who express frustration with what they see as overregulation. But, as Vancouver resident Jim Luce, a former chair of the council, warned in a meeting with The Columbian: “Be careful what you ask for. Then you have no preemption; then you have multiple permits.”

For many Clark County residents, the oil terminal proposal has shed light on a state regulatory agency that previously garnered little attention. Now, that newfound attention has revealed that the process strikes the kind of balance that Washington residents demand and deserve.

Loading...