For four years, Gov. Jay Inslee has declined to express an opinion about a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver.
Regardless of how creatively the question was asked, Inslee has said only that he needed to see the reports and the recommendation from the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council before rendering a decision. Expressing judgment before seeing the evidence would poorly serve the people of the state and violate his duty as governor — in addition to lending credence to possible legal challenges.
Now that the process is finally grinding toward a conclusion, we trust that Inslee will weigh the evidence and reject the construction of a terminal at the port. On Tuesday, EFSEC finalized its recommendation to the governor that the project not be approved; Inslee has 60 days to render a final decision.
Our confidence that the governor will reject the proposal rests upon several factors:
• The site evaluation council has recommended that permits for the project be denied, largely because of environmental and safety risks. The council noted that many risks cannot be mitigated, regardless of efforts by Andeavor (formerly Tesoro Corp.) and Savage Cos., the corporations that want to build the terminal.
• Inslee often has expressed a desire to be known as “The Green Governor” because of his attention to environmental concerns. Approval of a plan to bring an average of 15 million gallons of crude per day to the Port of Vancouver by train — through the Columbia River Gorge and past densely populated areas — would run counter to this desire.
• Public opinion seems to be sharply against the proposal. In two elections for positions on the port’s board of commissioners since the terminal was approved, anti-terminal candidates have won easy victories.
• One of Inslee’s primary goals as governor is to reduce carbon emissions and lead the state in fighting the effects of climate change. Approving a fossil-fuel project would violate one of the core beliefs that helped him win two elections for the governor’s seat.
Mostly, the terminal is the wrong idea in the wrong place at the wrong time for Clark County. It would turn Vancouver into an oil town, attracting related industries and providing benefits that are outweighed by the costs.
The issue is not one of choosing between environmental concerns and big industry; it is one of embracing industries and jobs that match the culture and ethos of the region. An oil terminal would sit in opposition to that culture and would diminish the region’s strongest selling point — an ability to combine a thriving economy with an environment that is welcoming and attractive.
In one of those long-ago attempts to get Inslee to tip his hand regarding the terminal proposal, The Columbian’s Editorial Board asked: If Inslee lived in Clark County, would he brag to friends about having North America’s largest rail-to-marine oil terminal? Would he suggest that the terminal be included on promotional brochures to lure visitors and businesses to Clark County?
The governor deflected the question, citing the need for impartiality. So allow us to provide an answer: No, an oil terminal would not be a strong selling point for the region. In fact, it would be seen as a negative by many industries and people who are considering moving here.
We trust that Inslee will agree with that assessment — now that he is allowed to weigh in.
