91ÊÓƵ

Updated: Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 01:30 PM PT

Longview, Wash., became a contentious battle ground on Wednesday, with coal in the middle.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer met with Cowlitz County commissioners and Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire about a proposal for development of a facility at the Port of Longview where Montana coal would be exported to China. But many residents at the public meeting spoke out against the project, saying it would provide little economic benefit to their community and the state.

Millennium Bulk Logistics, a subsidiary of Australian company Ambre Energy, last year took a step toward developing a facility where 5.7 million tons of coal could be received from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. The project would provide 120 construction jobs, 70 permanent positions at the facility and $3.2 million in annual tax revenue for the county and the state, according to Millennium.

But for Montana, the proposed facility represents more than just jobs, according to Bud Clinch, executive director of the Montana Coal Council. It represents a gateway to increased coal business with Pacific Rim countries.

Montana exports 4 million tons of coal annually from a port near Vancouver, British Columbia. But that port is at capacity, Clinch said. If an export facility were approved in Longview, Montana could more than double its coal exports. A ton of Powder River Basin coal was valued at $13.50 in 2009, so Montana could gain approximately $76.9 million more in gross revenue annually.

Increased mining activity would create 120 jobs in Montana, Clinch said, as well as new transportation-related jobs. Without the Longview facility, stakeholders would need to look at exporting coal through another port in British Columbia, at a greater cost.

“The Longview facility would be a benefit to our state,” Clinch said. “There’s a huge opportunity for greater volumes of coal to be exported to Pacific Rim countries. We’d like to see an even larger facility come about.”

Residents testifying at the public meeting, however, were less enthusiastic about the project, according to Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper. He was at the meeting, and said 20 of the 70 attendees testified. They questioned how much the coal facility would contribute to their community’s economy.

The 416-acre site where the coal facility would be built is presently leased to Chinook Ventures, which employs 50 people. If the 70-employee coal facility were approved, Millennium would purchase Chinook’s buildings and assume their lease from Alcoa Inc. That’s a net gain of only 20 jobs, VandenHeuvel said.

“There is tremendous potential for growth on port sites along the Columbia,” VandenHeuvel said. “Other Columbia River ports are doing well with grain and potash. This facility would be a big black eye for Longview, which is trying to attract better family-wage jobs and cleaner industries. The underlying message from residents was: ‘We can do better.’ ”

Washington, meanwhile, continues to rely on coal, most of which comes from the Powder River Basin, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The coal is burned at Washington’s only coal-fired power plant, near a closed coal mine in the southwestern part of the state.

Cowlitz County Commission Chairman George Raiter said citizens concerned about burning coal should use less energy. The commission in November approved a shoreline development permit for the project.

“People overlook the fact that China is currently burning Indonesian coal, which has 10 times the emissions of Montana coal, according to Governor Schweitzer,” Raiter said. “In Washington we continue to drive to work in SUVs and watch big-screen televisions that depend on coal for electricity.”

Washington has implemented goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and switch to renewable power, and those efforts would be hampered if coal were exported through Longview, VandenHeuvel said.

“Montana is sitting on a lot of coal reserves because coal is not selling well in the U.S. right now,” VandenHeuvel said. “If Montana can open up that Asian market and sell coal that’s not acceptable here to China, those companies are going to make a huge profit and Washington will be stuck with the impacts of dirty coal.”

After five environmental groups in December appealed the shoreline development permit, the Washington State Department of Ecology joined the appeal, calling for a broader environmental analysis of the greenhouse gases associated with the project. The Washington Shoreline Hearings Board will hear the case in April. The board must rule on the terminal application before June 14.

Gregoire said she wouldn’t stand in the way of the project, but added that all of the state’s regulatory processes will be followed before any decisions are made, according to Cory Curtis, communications director for the governor.