Port of Vancouver commissioners should proceed with caution in considering a ban on future fossil-fuel terminals at the port. With a strategic plan adopted in late 2018, the port appears well-positioned for the future without a blanket policy regarding such facilities.
Undoubtedly, the people of Clark County — and The Columbian’s Editorial Board — have stood in opposition to fossil-fuel projects at the port. There was staunch resistance to an oil terminal that was proposed in 2013 and eventually rejected by Gov. Jay Inslee in 2018. And anti-terminal candidates won two port commission elections held while the project was under consideration.
Having demonstrated an understanding that the economy is moving away from fossil fuels, that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change, and that the community is unlikely to embrace fossil fuel projects, port commissioners appear unlikely to seek or approve such projects. Oil and coal terminals at the Port of Vancouver would not fit into a broader plan for making the region a leader in the promotion of clean energy.
But adopting a policy that bans the courting of fossil-fuel terminals would be a strident position that could have unintended consequences for current port tenants. Because of that, each future proposal should be weighed on its own merits.
As Commissioner Eric LaBrant told The Columbian following a meeting last week: “We still have to make sure we are protecting the port’s interests. We have to make sure we are following the law, and sometimes that is a complicated question. I would rather do it right than right now.”
Doing it right must include consideration of concerns voiced by some stakeholders. In a letter to the commissioners, Identity Clark County representatives wrote: “We do not believe additional policies and resolutions are necessary or beneficial to advancing the port’s objectives. Indeed, they may invite confusion that weakens the port’s competitiveness and work counter to adoption of cleaner and more renewable energy solutions by the port, its tenants and clients, and our community.”
A letter from the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce echoed similar concerns, as did input from several port operators throughout the Northwest. Jim Luce, a Vancouver resident and former chair of the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, added: “Outright bans are counterproductive and easy, too-frequently-politically-correct responses to real-life issues. They solve nothing.”
To be fair, it must be pointed out that many local residents have spoken in favor of a ban. The issue is not clear-cut, and compelling arguments have been posited on both sides.
Meanwhile, the proposed policy does not answer questions about conceivable proposals for terminals that would handle liquefied natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas. Commissioner Don Orange, who was elected in 2017, said: “I’d like to get this thing addressed. It feels like we have been talking about this for as long as I have been on the commission.”
There is nothing wrong with employing caution when considering a policy that could impact existing tenants, ports upstream in the Columbian-Snake river system, and businesses in our community.
Port commissioners have embraced the priorities of the community and have demonstrated an understanding of the global need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. We trust that they shall continue to do so, with or without a blanket rejection of fossil-fuel facilities at the port.
