With state review of a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver finally complete, it is time for Washington lawmakers to adjust the process for evaluating large energy projects.
Consideration of an oil terminal in Vancouver began in 2013, when the Port of Vancouver reached a lease agreement with Tesoro Corp. (now Andeavor) and Savage Cos. State law says the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council has one year to make a recommendation about a proposal to the governor, and the governor then has 60 days to render a decision. Yet it wasn’t until November 2017 that officials provided a recommendation to Gov. Jay Inslee, who last week rejected the proposal.
This was the proper decision for the good of Clark County, the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, and the state as a whole. But the four-year process was frustratingly slow for stakeholders, residents, and the companies involved. Consider officials at the Port of Vancouver, who have had a prime 42-acre parcel tied up since 2013 rather than seeking potential long-term tenants. Or consider local residents who have spent four years debating the project while pondering the future of the region.
“Bottom line, when you must have both SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) and an adjudicators process — and an applicant like Tesoro that screwed up the draft Environmental Impact Statement — it can take a very long time. Couple it with legal delay tactics that can be used by opponents, and it can take forever,” wrote Jim Luce in an email to The Columbian. Luce, a Vancouver resident, was chairman of the site evaluation council from 2001 until 2013.
Upon leaving his post, Luce provided a critique of the process for then-Gov. Chris Gregoire. He summarized, “Where we are today is an increasingly dysfunctional EFSEC Council with very limited jurisdiction and an unnecessarily lengthy and costly decision-making process.”
Created in 1970 by the Legislature, the council was formed with the best of intentions. As the EFSEC website explains, it “centralized the evaluation and oversight of large energy facilities within one state agency” in order to “provide ‘one stop’ siting and permitting.” That remains a worthy goal, but as Luce noted in 2012, the landscape has changed: “State policy guiding energy facility siting is wholly disconnected from reality.”
Embracing reality will require legislative action, yet that is a low priority for lawmakers and Gov. Inslee because of a reduction in applications to EFSEC. After our community’s experience with the process, we encourage the Legislature to recognize the need for improvement and consider a couple measures:
• Adjust requirements that council members participate in the entire siting process. As Luce has said: “This requires member time away from their agency responsibilities, and slows review by requiring significant coordination of schedules. On occasion, it also encourages parties to ‘play to the galleries’ by redundant witness testimony and unnecessary, lengthy cross-examination.”
• Enhance cooperation between local and state agencies in the siting process. “Local government siting of energy facilities is, in many ways, beneficial,” Luce said. “It is local impacts that are most closely associated with such facilities, and local officials are closely attuned to local interests and needs.”
In the end, Washington’s EFSEC process arrived at the appropriate destination regarding a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver. But the journey was far too arduous.
