Count on Hawaii — tied for No. 1 as the the state with the highest percentage of renewable energy — to deliver yet another blow to B.C.’s lofty liquefied natural gas (LNG) ambitions.

On July 15, the state’s public utilities commission recently shot down a proposed $4.3 billion takeover of the Hawaiian Electric Companies (which provide 95 per cent of the state’s electricity) by Florida-based NextEra Energy in a 265 page ruling.

NextEra, the largest provider of the wind power in the U.S., was positioned to play a key role in financing the importing of 800,000 metric tons per year of LNG from FortisBC’s Tilbury LNG storage facility in Delta for use in an upgraded power plant on the west coast of Oahu.

The deal, struck in May between a Fortis subsidiary and the Hawaiian Electric Company, would have lasted for 20 years beginning in 2021. The LNG would have been exported by WesPac Midstream via its proposed terminal on the Fraser River.

But Hawaii has committed to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2045 — only four years after the LNG contract would expire — which was a major factor in the utilities commission’s decision to reject the takeover.

26 Million Tonnes of CO2 Rejected

Voters Taking Action Against Climate Change (VTACC) estimates the 20-year deal could generate 26 million tonnes of carbon pollution.

“I think it’s a rejection of B.C.’s core argument for LNG: this notion that it’s somehow a useful step in the transition to renewables and a bridge fuel,” says VTACC director Kevin Washbrook. “Hawaii said ‘we’re going to skip that step and go straight to renewables.’ I think it’s a very big deal.”

The contract between the Fortis subsidiary and the Hawaiian Electric Company was cancelled shortly after the decision by the utilities commission.

There were five major components to the verdict, including concerns about benefit to ratepayers and maintained competition. While there wasn’t a specific reference to the impacts of importing LNG as a factor in kiboshing the proposal, the commission clearly stated the parties didn’t “adequately disclose their plans” on meeting Hawaii’s clean energy targets.

Renewables For Profit Over Diversification?

In what could be taken as a bit of a passive-aggressive slight, the commission concluded the section by noting that it was “left to speculate whether this was simply an oversight, or, possibly, indicative of a predisposition for utility-scale solutions.”

NextEra has been criticized for its tendency to only favour renewables “when it serves its own profit goals.” A major subsidiary, Florida Power & Light, has opposed rooftop solar installations and donated to astroturf groups that allegedly attempt to confuse customers.

In June 2015, Hawaii Governor David Ige introduced a series of energy bills, one of which attempts to “democratize renewable energy” by allowing renters and condo owners to buy electricity from sources such as community-based solar farms. Such an approach seems to stand in stark contrast from that of NextEra.

At last count, 17 per cent of Hawaiian Electric customers have rooftop solar, including 32 per cent of customers on Oahu, the most heavily populated island.

Hawaii Utilities Commission Shoots Down Plan To Import #LNG from B.C. https://t.co/f80g49d9jx #bcpoli #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/JwytsLfpBH

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 25, 2016

B.C. a “Big Megaproject Kind of Government"

Washbrook adds that Hawaii’s approach also serves as a rebuke of sorts to the way the B.C. government has approached energy policy in recent years.

“They’re a big megaproject kind of government: whether it’s Site C dam or the Massey Bridge. With LNG, they’re looking for the home run that’s going to do everything,” he says. “They’re slowing scaling back their expectations: a year ago it was going to be everyone’s hip replacement would be paid for by LNG and ‘if you want better schools we better have LNG.’ And it’s not just how the world works anymore.”

In February 2015, FortisBC announced a 10-year contract with BC Ferries, helping justify the company’s $400 million expansion of its Tilbury facility that began the previous October.

In June, the company noted: “A further expansion at the Tilbury LNG facility would be required if a recently announced agreement to supply 800,000 metric tonnes of LNG annually to Hawaiian Electric moves forward.”

Review Process for LNG Allegedly Undermined

In late 2013, the B.C. government issued an exemption to FortisBC’s expansion plans, something then explained by minister of energy and mines Bill Bennett as: “Government wanted to get out of the way and allow the transportation fuel component of the LNG industry develop quickly.”

Then, in June 2015, the federal government decided that B.C. should head up the environmental assessment of the proposed $175 million WesPac LNG terminal in spite of a recommendation from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that the project warranted a federal review.

Washbrook emphasizes that such decisions have undermined the processes, noting that such proposals should be assessed in a cumulative fashion (something the expert review panel of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will figure out in future months).

“It’s ironic that in Hawaii, it was the utilities commission that said ‘we’re not going to allow you to import LNG because it’s not in the public interest,’” Westbrook says. “B.C.’s fettering of its utilities commission of doing its role and it was up to some other jurisdiction’s utilities commission to say ‘no, this is a bad idea.’ It kind of came back to bite them.”

Image: Province of B.C./Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

With news of the Port of Vancouver ruffling the feathers of the federal government by issuing a permit for a jet fuel pipeline without so much as a heads up, the port authority’s integrity has been thrust into the spotlight yet again.

While the port has apologized to Transport Minister Marc Garneau, the thorny issue of the port conducting environmental reviews of projects, while profiting from the same projects, remains.

Complicating matters, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (which regulates the Port of Vancouver) is a member of the Coal Association of Canada — a lobby group that glosses over the impacts of burning coal on climate change and that has gained notoriety in recent weeks for spreading misinformation about the phase-out of coal-fired electricity in Alberta.

The port authority has also been outed in the past for a covert and intimate relationship with the Vancouver-based Coal Alliance, an aggressive lobby group with a membership that includes rail companies, export terminals and other lobby groups.

Meantime, the port authority was responsible for reviewing the $50-million Fraser Surrey Docks coal-transfer terminal that would export more than four million tonnes of thermal coal to Asian markets — which it approved in December 2015.

“If you’re going to be a member of some other organization or alliance and you approve the projects that are related to that membership, it puts into question the fairness of the decision-making process and leads one to question whether or not they’re biased — whether or not things are predetermined,” says Paula Williams, who co-founded Communities and Coal, a Vancouver-based organization that opposes the export of thermal coal from the port.

Port Authority Part of Coal Lobby, Also Responsible for Regulating

The transportation of coal has been critical to the port’s recent financial successes. In 2015, the port sent out 35 million tonnes of the stuff, compared to 25 million tonnes of grain, speciality crops and feed and 23 million tonnes of forest products — and that was a slow year on the coal front.

If the port authority was just serving as landlord, it would make sense for it to collaborate with coal lobby groups to push for increased exports and generate as much profit as possible for its owners.

But the port authority’s mandate also requires it to fulfill duties such as the “safety and security of all land and waters” and the “permitting of all projects proposed for the use of federal port land.” In a single word: regulating.

“They shouldn’t be doing both,” says Voters Taking Action Against Climate Change (VTACC) director Kevin Washbrook, who notes the port authority has approved every coal export project that’s come before it in recent years.

VTACC is one of four plaintiffs that have taken the port authority to court on allegations of bias and failing to consider climate change impacts when approving the permit for the Fraser Surrey Docks coal terminal.

A federal court is currently evaluating a request by Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and Fraser Surrey Docks to toss out the lawsuit filed against them.

“That’s really why we’re taking them to court: we think the public interest isn’t being met by this dual mandate,” Washbrook told DeSmog Canada.

Port Authority Covertly Sponsored Coal Conference in 2013

A series of disturbing revelations about the port authority’s intimate relationship with the coal industry came out in late 2013, courtesy of digging by Voters Taking Action Against Climate Change.

First came the news the port authority had been swapping e-mails with National Public Relations (a firm connected with the Coal Alliance that has lobbied the federal government on behalf of Fraser Surrey Docks). The Vancouver Sun described the exchange as seeming “as if they were allies, rather than as a public regulator and private proponent.”

In one instance, the two entities traded information on a VTACC protest, with the port authority directing media inquiries to Alan Fryer, a senior consultant for National Public Relations and lobbyist for the Coal Alliance.

A month later, it was revealed the port authority covered up its sponsorship of the 2013 Coal Association of Canada conference, including a $5,000 contribution and golf swag, because it was concerned about “press and public backlash.” The Vancouver Sun noted the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority had publicly sponsored the conference in 2012.

“They get it in the sense that it doesn’t look good,” Washbrook says. “Whether they think that it’s actually a bad thing: I’m not sure.”

Washbrook notes the port authority’s response to pressure for more regional involvement and transparency has been to launch a Twitter feed, YouTube channel and run some TV commercials. None of those PR products mention coal at all, he says.

Tangled Web of Business Relationships 

Williams of Communities and Coal suggests it may also be worth paying attention to some other business relationships that encircle Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and Fraser Surrey Docks.

In 2011, SNC-Lavalin, the embattled Montreal-based engineering services firm, bought a 23 per cent share in AltaLink (an electricity transmission company) from Macquarie Essential Assets Partnership .

The partnership is owned by a subsidiary of the Macquarie Group, a member of which owns Fraser Surrey Docks.

In 2013, Fraser Surrey Docks contracted SNC-Lavalin to prepare the environmental impact assessment, which was described by Vancity credit union as “entirely inadequate” and criticized by activists as being limited in scope.

Then, in 2014, SNC-Lavalin sold AltaLink to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, which owns BNSF Railway, the company transporting the coal to the Port of Vancouver. Both BNSF Railway and Fraser Surrey Docks are members of the Coal Alliance.

Williams emphasizes that a trail of prior business isn’t necessarily a problem. But given the port authority’s habit of getting a bit too cozy with private industry, it’s a trend that might be worth paying attention to in the future.

“[Vancouver Fraser Port Authority] should not have a say in the decision of whether or not to approve a project at the port,” she reiterates. “This should not happen. They should be removed from that. They can have an opinion and give their input, but they shouldn’t be part of the decision-making process.”

Citizens Push for More Input

Opposition to the way the port is doing business continues to build.

Washbrook notes that people in North Vancouver are fighting the proposed G3 grain terminal, while folks in Delta are concerned about the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project. Meanwhile, people in Richmond worry about Agricultural Land Reserve property being bought up and the small leaseholders the port is “shaking down” for exorbitant increases in water lot lease rates.

All have common interests, he says: more regional inputs, more representation, a more transparent and open processes.

If the VTACC lawsuit doesn’t get derailed by the port authority and Fraser Surrey Docks, the verdict could help shape the future conversation. But ultimately, solving the issue seems to come back to the federal government and its power to amend the Canada Marine Act to redefine the mandate of port authorities.

“I think there are discussions happening in Ottawa right now about how to reform the ports,” Washbrook says. “The question will be about how much of that is an inside discussion that tweaks things, and how much of it brings about meaningful reform.”

Image: Jason Mrachina/Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada’s major ports handle more than 300 million tonnes of cargo every year. They’re how we import products like cars and TVs and how we export commodities like grain and oil. Yet many of us have likely never thought of how the country’s 18 Canada Port Authorities (CPAs) are run — until now.

The way that decisions are made at Canada’s ports are coming under increasing scrutiny from environmentalists, who take issue with ports operating as both a promoter and regulator of trade.

The boards of directors of Canada’s port authorities determine what terminals receive approval for construction, and thus what types of commodities end up leaving the harbour.

Take Port Metro Vancouver (officially known as the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority), for example. It’s the largest port authority by tonnage in the country: in 2015 it facilitated the exchange of 138 million tonnes of cargo.

In September 2012, Fraser Surrey Docks — one of 28 marine terminals located at Port Metro Vancouver — announced plans to export eight million tonnes of thermal coal mined in Montana and Wyoming to Asian markets every year.

Paula Williams co-founded the advocacy group Communities and Coal in May 2013 in response to potential health effects and climate impacts stemming from such exports.

While Port Metro Vancouver’s CEO has readily admitted the port authority has never encountered such considerable opposition to a proposal before, the terminal’s proposal is still slated to go ahead (there are multiple lawsuits filed against it over alleged lack of consultation).

“At times, I’ve felt powerless, even though I remained hopeful,” Williams says. “You really start to see the machine that you’re up against.”  

Port Users Nominate Board of Directors

That’s because seven of the 11 people who serve on the board of directors for Port Metro Vancouver are nominated by port users. In other words, the businesses that reap financial benefits from port-related transactions have a majority of the say in who gets recommended as a board member to the federal minister of transportation, who makes the final selection.

The other four spots are filled with selections by: 1) the 16 municipalities within Port Metro Vancouver’s jurisdiction; 2) the province of British Columbia; 3) the three prairie provinces; and 4) the federal transport minister (without recommendation from the port user group).

The selection process is spelled out by 1998’s Canada Marine Act, which established port authorities as federal not-for-profit corporations mandated with the three-pronged task of facilitating trade, consulting with communities and protecting the environment. Today, Canada Port Authorities serve as landlord, regulator and property developer.  

Fox Watching the Hen House

Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia, expresses concern over the board nomination process, as there’s no requirement for the ports to seek representation from First Nations, environmental or public health groups.

“The nomination process really exemplifies for me the degree to which this port authority has been envisioned as an agency that pursues the interests of industry,” she says. “It has a coordinating role, so you’ve got to have all the industries represented. But think about it: now you have a board primarily made up of those industries overseeing regulation of themselves.”

Peter Hall, director and professor of urban studies at Simon Fraser University and expert on port institutions, says that while ports can introduce widespread consultation, it makes little difference if they don’t have “the right people” at the final decision-making point.

That said, Hall states that he doesn’t believe a locally appointed board should decide on what a port trades, as that should remain the responsibility of provincial and federal governments. But who’s represented at the table has to change, he says, as does the mandate that “all cargo is by definition good.”

“There is this presumption the [Canadian Port Authority] in your city or region should say yes to everything because it’s presumed to be in the interests of Canada,” he says. “In that sense, it’s more difficult for local interests of any type to say ‘no, we’d rather not have that.’”

Hall adds the port industry is made up of a series of oligopolies and the current board composition is “not at all good” at dealing with tough environmental and social questions. Rejigging the composition to allow for more regional municipal representation would help.

“In the long run, we shouldn’t worry so much about these very big, financially successful port authorities just being able to get as much business as they can,” he says.

“We should be worrying about their long-term social and environmental commitments because there is capacity to do that. I don’t think we’re in any danger of destroying the golden goose. I think we’re actually much more in danger of a crisis of political legitimacy.”  

Promoter or Regulator of Trade? Both.

Other port authorities have suffered from poor optics over the years: in 2011, the RCMP started investigations into an allegedly corrupt nomination process at Montreal’s port authority that involved the Prime Minister’s Office. Former Conservative cabinet minister Lisa Raitt came under fire in in 2009 for an expense scandal during her time as CEO of the Toronto Port Authority. Halifax’s port authority has faced criticism from a former port chairperson due to its loss of a major container customer. The list goes on.

While UBC’s Harrison agrees there’s an urgent need to reform the nomination process for the board of governors — which would require an Act of Parliament to amend the Canada Marine Act and the issuing of new letters patent to Canadian Port Authorities — she says port authorities also suffer from mixed mandates, in which they serve as both a promoter and regulator of trade. The goal of regulating business, she says, can come into conflict with the port’s reliance on income from projects to fund its operations.

Such a narrow focus on economic benefit, without fully considering environmental and social impacts, also concerns Andrew Gage, staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law.

“If you view coal as a normal and legal commodity, then you can’t understand how someone would limit its export,” he says via e-mail. “If you view coal as a product that, due to its central role in fossil fuel pollution and climate change, plays a crucial role in killing people and destroying property, then your answer may be different.”  

Bill C-43 Allowed Ports to Destroy Documents

Those tensions were exacerbated in 2014 with Bill C-43, the 475-page budget implementation omnibus bill that, among many other things, authorized the sale of federal land to port authorities. Such lands, now leasable to private industry, are no longer covered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Species at Risk Act. In the same section of the bill, port authorities were empowered to establish rules that would allow them to physically destroy documents.

Such an amendment carries extra weight given that the year prior, the Vancouver-based organization Voters Taking Action on Climate Change uncovered documents via an Access to Information request that showed an uncomfortably close relationship between Port Metro Vancouver and National Public Relations, the firm that also represents the Coal Alliance (which Fraser Surrey Docks is a member of).

Throw in the fact Port Metro Vancouver has been facing serious problems with organized crime — a Vancouver Sun investigation published in May 2015 revealed that over two dozen longshoremen are affiliated with the Hells Angels and associates — and Harrison suggests a serious overhaul is needed.

“If there are concerns being raised about organized crime operating in ports as a way to smuggle drugs, that’s not the time to be passing legislation authorizing the destruction of documents and reducing transparency,” she says.  

Lobbying Activity Flies Under the Radar

Topping it all off is that employees of Canada Port Authorities aren’t subject to the federal Lobbying Act, which means the public can’t find out which individuals or businesses are meeting with Port Metro Vancouver board directors. While Harrison doesn’t perceive any nefarious intent behind the omission, it’s yet another sign for her that the governance model hasn’t kept up with the changing times and expectations of transparency.

In 2010, the federal commissioner of lobbying issued an advisory opinion confirming that communication between shared governance organizations — a category that port authorities belong to — and “federal public office holders concerning its mandate, operation, funding and other related matters is not a registrable activity.”

Robyn Crisanti, director of public affairs at Port Metro Vancouver, notes the port authority has met with a number of federal ministers since the beginning of the year and there’s a lot of interest in the port’s activities.

“We’re very aware of what our marching orders are and we follow them,” she says.  

Grappling With the Long-Term Questions

One of the key tasks of the Canada Port Authorities, Crisanti says, is to do long-term planning: “It’s this thing of looking quite far into the future and trying to assess where Canada’s going to go in terms of trade and trade deals and things of that nature.”

For projects such as the G3 Terminal Vancouver — which if approved will annually transport eight million tonnes of grain — this can be a fairly straightforward task. While the economics may vary, there’s no doubt the world will require grain for the foreseeable future.

But it’s a different story when it comes to exports like coal and petroleum products. Canada has signed international agreements, notably the G7 commitment to phase out all fossil fuels by 2100 and the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius, both of which could seriously impact future investments in terminals that export energy products.

According to Gage of West Coast Environmental Law, Port Metro Vancouver “can consider whether fossil fuel specific infrastructure being built on port lands may become ‘stranded assets’ as the world moves away from a fossil fuel economy, as well as any potential liabilities that may be associated with fossil fuel infrastructure.”

This is where it all circles back to the board nomination process and underlying mandate.

Williams of Communities and Coal suggests that it’s currently not beneficial for the port authority to reject a project such as the Fraser Surrey Docks expansion given its modus operandi to facilitate trade, especially given that a majority of governors are commissioned under the “user pay-user say” principle.

However, Williams suggests the experience that Port Metro Vancouver went through with the controversial Fraser Surrey Docks proposal was a good learning opportunity, something Crisanti confirms (the Canada Port Authorities hired external consultants to review the permitting process and launched a new process last July). But there’s much more to be done, Williams says.

“If any change is going to come about, it’s got to be federally mandated,” she concludes. “It has to come from above.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Coal, the fossil fuel that largely sparked the industrial revolution, may be facing the beginning of the end — at least in terms of generating electricity.

There are increasing signs of the demise of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel, from a global oversupply to plummeting prices to China starting to clean up its polluted air.

Last week, the Carbon Tracker Initiative published an analysis — Carbon Supply Cost Curves: Evaluating Financial Risk to Coal Capital Expenditures — identifying major financial risks for investors in coal producers around the world.

Saying the demand for thermal coal in China, the world’s largest emitter of toxic greenhouse gases, could peak as early as 2016, the analysis also highlights $112 billion of future coal mine expansion and development that is excess to requirements under lower demand forecasts.

“In particular it shows that high cost new mines are not economic at today’s prices and are unlikely to generate returns for investors in the future,” said an accompanying media release.

“Companies most exposed to low coal demand are those developing new projects, focused on the export market . . . With new measures to cap coal use and restrict imports of low quality coal in China, it appears the tide is turning against the coal exporters.”

The analysis added that China’s desire to reduce imports will impact prices and asset values for export mines in the U.S., Australia, Indonesia and South Africa.

“King Coal is becoming King Canute, as the industry struggles to turn back the tide of reducing demand, falling prices and lower earnings,” Anthony Hobley, CEO of Carbon Tracker Initiative, said.

A recent article in Mining Weekly also says the coal industry is indeed facing tough times.

The article noted Coal Association of Canada president Ann Marie Hann agreed that about half of the global coal output at current pricing was being produced at a loss.

“Until a global rebalance between demand and supply takes place and the global economy rebounds, the coal industry will unfortunately probably see some more bad news over the coming months,” Hann said.

The story added that the prices for thermal coal, which is used to generate electricity, had fallen in recent years from about $190 per tonne in mid-2008 to $75 per tonne this year, while metallurgical coal (used to make steel) had dropped from a high of more than $300 per tonne in late 2011 to less than $120 per tonne.

To perhaps make matters worse for the coal industry, it is being publicly attacked by the oil and gas sectors, which are trying to position themselves as cleaner fossil fuels.

According to the Responding to Climate Change website, a number of the world’s leading oil and gas companies voiced their concerns about climate change at last week’s UN Climate Summit, arguing they can offer a future coal cannot.

“One of our most important contributions is producing natural gas and replacing coal in electricity production,” Helge Lund, Statoil’s chief executive, was quoted as saying.

Kevin Washbrook, a director for Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, a Vancouver organization that has fought against a proposed new coal export facility at Fraser Surrey Docks, agrees the thermal coal sector is in decline.

“I think coal is in everyone’s sights these days because coal is climate change,” Washbrook told DeSmogBlog. “Coal has to be on the chopping block for sure.”

Washbrook added the UN, the International Energy Agency, big banks and insurance companies are acknowledging that the vast majority of coal must stay in the ground if humankind is to avoid catastrophic, runaway climate change.

“We need to see this current downturn [in the thermal coal sector] for what it really is — our last good opportunity to leave coal behind and start the transition to emission-free energy sources.”

Photo Credit: Arnold Paul, Wikimedia Commons

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada’s largest port has given the green light to a proposed controversial facility on the Fraser River that would unload U.S. coal destined for energy-hungry Asia.

Despite facing significant environmental and health concerns, Port Metro Vancouver said in its decision, released last Thursday, that the proposed coal transfer facility at Fraser Surrey Docks poses no unacceptable risks.

The $15 million project could handle at least four million metric tonnes of coal per year delivered by the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway Company. It will then be loaded onto barges at the Surrey facility and transferred to ocean-going carriers at Texada Island, prior to export.

Referring to environmental studies and mitigation efforts, Jim Crandles, Port Metro Vancouver’s director of planning and development, was quoted as saying “we are confident that the project does not pose a risk to the environment or human health and that the public is protected.”

Disappointed opponents, however, said there are many unanswered questions about local and regional impacts of building and operating the facility.

Those include coal dust and diesel exhaust exposure in local populations, fire risks associated with storing coal in open barges in local communities, noise impacts, emergency vehicle access constraints, and impacts associated with transporting coal in open barges on the ocean.

“If it goes ahead, this decision means more U.S. coal trains travelling through our communities,” Kevin Washbrook, director of Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, told DeSmogBlog in an email Friday. 

“It means more coal being shipped to Asia to be burned, and more emissions into our atmosphere, at a time when we absolutely, positively need to cut back on those emissions. All to run uncovered, football field-length barges of U.S. thermal coal down the world’s richest salmon river.”

Washbrook, who has compared Big Coal to Big Tobacco and its efforts to obscure the risks of smoking in order to keep making huge profits, added the decision will be challenged through the local air quality permitting process, during the coming municipal elections in November and in court.

Simon Fraser University health sciences professor Tim Takaro said the project runs contrary to public health.

“Coal is a fuel of the last century,” Takaro says. “We have to stop using it sometime and here’s a great opportunity to apply society’s ‘brakes,’ join communities in the U.S. that have refused to ship this same product, and think of the future generations who will inherit the messes we make.”

The Port Metro Vancouver decision comes shortly after the Oregon Department of State Lands rejected a proposal to export 8.8 million tons per year of coal to Asia from the Port of Morrow in Boardman.

But as DeSmogBlog noted on Thursday, the Long Beach City Council had just approved a proposal to export coal and petroleum coke, which is a tar sands by-product, to the global market, mainly Asia, to the tune of 1.7 million tons per year.

Last November, the Winnipeg Free Press reported a group of concerned citizens, environmentalists and scientists asked Port Metro Vancouver officials to delay any expansion of coal-exporting facilities, saying public input was required and climate change problems would be increased as a result of the projects.

Among those who signed a letter opposing any coal port expansion were David Suzuki, Naomi Klein and James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the first scientist to warn the U.S. government of the potential dangers of unmitigated climate change and who described coal-fired power plants as “factories of death.” 

Image credit: Coal power plant pollution via Shutterstock.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A new U.S. proposal to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants could result in more thermal coal being shipped to Asia through existing and planned port facilities in Metro Vancouver, people attending Port Metro Vancouver’s annual general meeting were told Tuesday.

“[President Barack] Obama’s administration is changing the game,” Steven Faraher-Amidon said during a question period.

Faraher-Amidon also told the meeting that five schools in Delta and Surrey are within 700 metres of the contentious Fraser Surrey Docks coal handling proposal while medical studies in the U.S. have found that living within five kilometres of coal dust and diesel particulates presents significant health risks. A former Port Metro Vancouver environmental impact assessment that looked at the Fraser Surrey Docks terminal was criticized for being limited in scope and failing to adequately address public health concerns.

The 64-year-old retired Surrey teacher added a proper health impact assessment needs to be done before the Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility — which could eventually handle eight million tonnes annually — can be approved.

Faraher-Amidon’s comments came a day after the Obama administration announced a plan that would result in a 30 per cent drop in coal-fired electricity plant emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. According to an Environmental Protection Agency media release, the reduced emissions will protect public health, move the U.S. toward a cleaner environment and fight climate change.

“Climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks to our health, our economy, and our way of life. EPA is delivering on a vital piece of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan by proposing a Clean Power Plan that will cut harmful carbon pollution from our largest source — power plants,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was quoted as saying.

“By leveraging cleaner energy sources and cutting energy waste, this plan will clean the air we breathe while helping slow climate change so we can leave a safe and healthy future for our kids. We don’t have to choose between a healthy economy and a healthy environment — our action will sharpen America’s competitive edge, spur innovation, and create jobs.”

Location of Fraser Surrey Docks via Google Maps.

Responding to the EPA plan, the Metro Vancouver environmental group Voters Taking Action on Climate Change said Monday some analysts predict that the new rules will eventually lead to the closure of hundreds of coal-fired power plants in the U.S., leading to increased pressure to export American thermal coal from B.C. ports.

In a letter to B.C. Health Minister Terry Lake and the port authority, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union, Unifor, and the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation all called Monday for a full health impact assessment of the Fraser Surrey Docks coal export proposal.

Concerned about health and climate change implications from burning thermal coal, the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada has also asked the port authority to reject the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal.

Currently, no ports in California, Oregon and Washington export thermal coal.

Port Metro Vancouver says it treats materials for export as safely as possible. It also says it is up to the federal government to decide what materials are traded internationally.

In a later interview, Faraher-Amidon said it seems the port is ignoring the new U.S. plans and what they might mean for increased trainloads of thermal coal into B.C. for export to Asia. “We are a natural conduit for where they are going to bring the coal,” he said.

Image Credit: BNSF train by Contemplative Imaging via Flickr 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

When it comes to shipping coal, it looks like the Vancouver Port Authority is taking a page out of the U.S. coal lobby's books. In an effort to combat negative public opinion about coal and the proposed expansion of coal exports through Fraser Surrey Docks, the port authority has hired public relations firm Edelman Vancouver to revamp its image.

Edelman is the largest public relations firm in B.C. and the company has a history of both pushing coal exports and disregarding public opinion. Until recently, the firm represented the pro-coal organization Northwest Alliance for Jobs and Exports, one of the largest groups in Washington state pushing for an increase in coal exports.

Edelman was fired by the Northwest Alliance after Lauri Hennessey, Edelman vice-president and spokesperson for the alliance, was recorded at an industry conference disparaging the people of the Pacific Northwest and calling the opposition “wacky” and “weird.” At the same conference, Hennessey acknowledged climate change in her address, but argued that the coal mined in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming — the source of the coal that would be shipped through Fraser Surrey Docks — wouldn’t have any adverse effects on the climate.

Edelman has now designed an ad campaign called Port Stories on behalf of Port Metro Vancouver. The ads have got it all: hardworking Canadians, poignant family moments and sweeping statements about how the port has shaped Vancouver as a city. There’s only one thing missing: any mention of coal.

Public documents also show that in April of 2012, the Port Authority hired American law firm McKenna Long & Aldrige to lobby on its behalf south of the border. The registration form, which indicates Port Metro Vancouver has been taken on as a client, says McKenna Long & Aldridge will push for “any regulations or inquiry of the U.S. Maritime Commission regarding possible cargo diversion from U.S. ports to Canadian or Mexican ports.” 

Tightening regulations on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. mean coal producers south of the border are looking for the quickest way to get their product to market. With fierce opposition to proposals for new coal shipping facilities in the U.S., producers are turning north to Vancouver.

This means that, while purporting to take public opinion into account when making the final decision on the port expansion, the Vancouver port authority has powerful lobbyists working in Washington to push for the very thing many citizens are opposed to in B.C.

The port of Metro Vancouver is the largest port in Canada, trading more than $53 billion per year in goods. According to a company statement, the port would like to be “embraced as a member of the community,” but its conduct around proposals to ship U.S. coal through Vancouver has proven a thorny matter.

Laura Benson, coal campaigner with the Dogwood Initiative, says that until the conflict of interest between the port’s role as a regulator and its position as a proponent of coal export is resolved, the public is facing an uphill battle.

“If the port were truly a corporation, then it would be fair game for them to be hiring PR companies and the biggest and best lobbyists.”

But because the port is also responsible for deciding on the proposed expansion of the Fraser Surrey Docks, Benson says, the conflict is essentially written into its mandate. She says it doesn’t have to be this way.

“There are all sort of models of ports around the world run in a much more responsible way.”

In order to put a stop to dirty coal use for good, port reform needs to be on the agenda, Benson argues.

Benson also stressed the need to continue to build a cross-border movement to oppose coal exports.

“I do think that we’re looking at a desperate industry,” she said. “Their window of opportunity is closing, and if we are successful in blocking thermal coal out of our port, this could be a turning point.”

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Port Metro Vancouver’s newly released environmental impact assessment of the Fraser Surrey Docks coal export proposal was criticized today for failing to adequately consider public health, the environment and community safety. 

“Unlike our chief medical officers, Port Metro Vancouver has once again refused to fulfill its duties to protect the public interest with this faulty assessment,” said Laura Benson, director of Dogwood’s Beyond Coal campaign.

Last week, the region’s chief medical health officers warned the assessment doesn’t adequately address the health impacts of the proposed coal terminal.

“Having looked at the document, it does not meet what we consider the very basic requirements of a health impacts assessment,” Dr. Patricia Daly, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority chief medical health officer, told the Vancouver Sun.

The health authorities have called for a comprehensive health assessment to address concerns over coal dust, increased diesel emissions and noise since last spring. They offered to have a direct role in the assessment, but were rebuffed in a letter from Port Metro Vancouver.

Four municipal councils, including Surrey, have also expressed environmental and health concerns about the proposal, while five municipal and regional councils have passed resolutions opposing the proposal — including Metro Vancouver and, most recently, Fraser Surrey Docks' home city of Surrey.

Location of Fraser Surrey Docks via Google Maps.

The proposed facility is intended to handle coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The coal would arrive at Fraser Surrey Docks by train, then be loaded onto barges bound for Texada Island before being transferred onto ships destined for Asia. 

Benson says Port Metro Vancouver’s assessment focuses solely on the Fraser Surrey Docks terminal, leaving out impacts associated with increased transport of U.S. coal by rail through White Rock, Surrey and Delta and with transferring coal off barges at Texada Island.

Proposals to build similar coal terminals on the west coast of the U.S. have faced tough opposition in part due to health concerns. Three proposals have been withdrawn.

The U.S. proposals have required public hearings, whereas Port Metro Vancouver has not held public hearings on the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal. Up against a groundswell of opposition, in mid-September the port agreed to conduct the environmental impact assessment, not required under law.

There will now be a public comment period on the environmental impact assessment, but Benson says it is unclear what affect the comments will have on the port’s decision. The port will not be posting a public record of comments received, but several community groups are collaborating to catalogue public comments at RealPortHearings.org. The 30-day comment period will end on December 17.


Image credit: Jeremy Buckingham MLC via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.