Kayakers on the Kalama River hold a banner stating opposition against a proposed methane-to-methanol facility in Kalama during a protest May 18, 2019.
The proposed $2 billion methanol production facility in Kalama hit a major setback as an application for a key permit was denied by state authorities this month.
On Jan. 19, the Washington State Department of Ecology announced it had denied a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit for the proposed project. In an announcement from Ecology, the department explained its denial was based on increases in greenhouse gas emissions and inconsistencies with the state’s Shoreline Management Act.
“I believe we were left with no other choice than to deny the permit for the Kalama project,” Ecology Director Laura Watson wrote in a statement included in the announcement. “The known and verifiable emissions from the facility would be extremely large and their effects on Washington’s environment would be significant and detrimental.”
Ecology outlined its reasoning in a decision letter to project applicants, the department’s announcement stated. The letter stated that the planned facility, which would take methane and produce methanol, was inconsistent with both state and Cowlitz County’s shoreline planning documents, and the project also had a “failure to demonstrate that the public interest will be protected from detrimental effects from the project.”
Ecology stated that if built, the facility had the potential of preventing Washington from meeting greenhouse gas emission limits set by the state legislature last year, and could use out-of-state offsets for its mitigation plans.
The proposed facility would be tied to 4.8 million tons of carbon emissions annually, according to Ecology’s analysis, most related to activities outside of the plant’s operation itself including extraction of methane to use in the plant’s production, as well as the uses of methanol in Asia. The department noted that though the facility had the potential to have less greenhouse gas emissions than other sources of methanol, “constructing the new facility would not actually decrease emissions.”
First proposed in 2015, the facility has been mired in permitting issues for years, with Ecology most recently conducting the second of two supplementary environmental studies to determine the project’s potential impacts. Following Ecology’s announcement of its denial of a permit, groups opposed to the project proclaimed the development as a win for its yearslong battle against the facility.
"Governor Inslee and Ecology did the right thing; in the middle of a climate emergency, building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery makes no sense," Power Past Fracked Gas Coalition Co-director and Sierra Club Northwest campaign representative Stephanie Hillman said in a joint statement from the opposed organizations. She was joined alongside representatives of Columbia Riverkeeper, the Washington Environmental Council, Washington Conservation Voters, Earthjustice and the Center for Biological Diversity in heralding the denial of the permit as a victory.
“Without the necessary state and federal permits, this climate-wrecking proposal is going nowhere,” Columbia Riverkeeper Executive Director Brett VandenHeuvel stated. “Ecology’s decision is cause for celebration for people across the Northwest who value bold leadership to tackle the climate crisis. We applaud Governor Inslee and Director Wastson’s decision to follow the science and the law.”
In a response to the decision, Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW), the company behind the proposed facility, expressed disappointment and reiterated the efforts they had taken to make the project ecologically-minded.
“The science Ecology developed shows that this project is the cleanest, most climate-friendly way to make products we use every day,” NWIW Chief Development Officer Vee Godley said in a statement following the announcement of the decision.
“This project has been the subject of three independent environmental assessments. All scientific reviews report that the project creates a net environmental benefit for our planet,” said Caputo. “The latest report also points to the value of our voluntary mitigation proposal.”
Godley pointed out in the statement that the year’s worth of review by ecology involved “$600,000 of taxpayer funding,” reiterating the economic benefits project backers believe the facility would provide.
“We want to contribute to post-pandemic solutions,” Godley said in the statement. “To deny this permit ignores the science and comes at the expense of local jobs and regional economic benefits. The unemployment rate in Southwest Washington has more than doubled since this project was initially proposed seven years ago.”
NWIW has the ability to appeal the decision to the state Shoreline Hearings Board, which the company is evaluating its options to do so, NWIW General Counsel Kent Caputo said in the statement, adding “we feel confident that science and reason will prevail.”
Should NWIW decide to appeal, those against the project believe that Ecology had “excellent legal grounds” for the permit’s denial, the joint statement of opponents stated.
