Coal Exporting Terminals

Transcription

1 Coal Exporting Terminals Richard M. McAllister (MS, Mineral & Energy Economics, Colorado School of Mines) Economist/Policy Analyst, Western Interstate Energy Board 1

2 2

3 Outline Why are coal exporting terminals being considered? What/where are the proposed coal exporting terminals? How are coal exporting terminals regulated? What are the potential environmental impacts of coal exporting terminals? For more information 3

4 Why are coal exporting terminals possible? Decreasing U.S. coal consumption (energy sector): see Fig. 1 increasing compliance costs for coal-fired electrical power generation relatively low natural gas prices for gas-fired generation Increasing non-oecd Asian country coal consumption: see Fig. 2 on absolute basis; China, India 4

5 Fig. 1 - Coal- v. Natural Gas-Fired Electrical Power Generation 5

6 Fig. 2 - Coal Consumption in Asian Countries 6

7 Coal Exports to Asian Countries 2009 (Fig. 3) v projections Indonesia, top exporter in 2009; Australia, top exporter in 2035 Exporting countries have in mining, coal exporting terminal capacity planned; railway transportation, mine terminal, may be limiting U.S. role dependent on: railway infrastructure for other countries Panama Canal expansion v. production in other countries West Coast coal exporting terminal development 7

8 Fig. 3 - Coal Exporting Countries (2009) 8

9 Cost Comparison Cost Powder River Hunter Valley Mine mouth price $8.50 $83.00 Railway transport Sea shipping Total $45.18 $

10 What/where are the proposed coal exporting terminals? British Columbia; Washington, Oregon 10

11 Fig. 4 - Proposed Coal Exporting Terminals 11

12 Proposed Terminals in Washington Gateway Pacific Terminal: Cherry Point (Bellingham) capacity=59.5m tons/year; Peabody Coal, 26.5M tons/year draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) expected in 2013 Millennium Bulk Terminals: Columbia River (Longview ) capacity=48.5m tons/year; Arch Coal site contaminated; Millennium, Alcoa resp. for cleanup Port of Grays Marine Terminal: Grays Harbor (Hoquiam) will not proceed in development 12

13 Proposed Terminals in Oregon Port of St. Helen s: Columbia River (Clatskanie ) capacity=30m tons/year nearby PGE gas-fired power generation issue Port of Morrow/Port of St. Helen s: Boardman Clatskanie by barge capacity=9m tons/year draft EIS preparation initiated; Env. Quality permit issue Port of Coos Bay: Coos Bay capacity=10m tons/year Coos Bay Rail Link issues; State Lands dredging permit 13

14 Regulation of Exporting Terminals (Federal I) Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972: 404; wetlands permit program administered by Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); supplementary role for Environmental Protection Agency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969: EISs currently being prepared by Corps for Gateway Pacific Terminal, Port of Morrow projects possibility of scope of EISs being connected (all 6 projects) or cumulative actions (see Potential Environmental Impacts) Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973: Sierra Club alleges 12 species affected by Gateway project 14

15 Regulation of Exporting Terminals (Federal II) Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Termination Act of 1995 Surface Transportation Board (STB): STB is successor to ICC primarily economic regulatory agency; Office of Environmental Analysis ensures compliance with NEPA of 1969: construction of connecting track water carrier licensing (barges/port of Morrow Port of St. Helen s) 15

16 Regulation of Exporting Terminals (State and Local Levels ) State-level regulation: Oregon Departments of Environmental Quality and State Lands have required air quality (Port of Morrow project), dredging (Port of Coos Bay project) permits, respectively Local-level regulation: parallels with hydraulic fracturing in Colorado (e.g., Bellingham)? 16

17 Potential Environmental Impacts (Water) Water quality: coal export terminal construction increased barge traffic (Port of Morrow project) Aquatic habitat/fish species: affected listed species: 12, Gateway Pacific Terminal project; 16, Port of Morrow project herring chinook salmon orca whale Mitigation via: CWA of 1972 ( 404)/Corps permit ESA of 1973 ( 9, 10) ICC Termination Act of 1995 (STB) 17

18 Potential Environmental Impacts (Air) Railway transport of coal, Powder River basin West Coast: coal dust emissions from diesel fuel combustion: criteria air pollutants (e.g., NO x ) air toxics (e.g., benzene) Combustion of coal in Asian countries: emissions (criteria air pollutants, etc) global nature of certain emissions (e.g., CO 2 ) climate change impacts on West Coast (e.g., rise in sea level) possibility of cumulative impacts for scope of EIS? 18

19 Other Impacts Impacts on railway traffic: Billings, MT Spokane, WA Impacts on vehicular traffic Impacts on train derailments: coal dust exacerbates (i.e., water drainage impaired) primarily at loading sites 19

20 Summary U.S. coal consumption / Asian consumption U.S. is minor player in exported coal market;??? Powder River basin coal 5 proposed coal exporting terminals in WA, OR Coal exporting terminals primarily regulated by federal law (Corps); state-level regulation also relevant Potential environmental impacts: water, air, climate change; impacts on rail and vehicular traffic also possible 20

21 For More Information The Sierra Club: video with Oregon-specific issues Grist: CO 2 emissions from exported coal U.S. map TVW (public affairs, Washington): 21

22 References Doremus H, AC Lin, RH Rosenberg, and TJ Schoenbaum. Environmental Policy Law. New York: Thomson/Foundation Press, 2008; , , Energy Information Administration. International Energy Outlook 2011 [DOE/EIA-0484 (2011)], Environmental Protection Agency. f Sierra Club. px Western Organization of Resource Councils. Heavy Traffic Ahead: Rail Impacts of Powder River Basin Coal to Asia by Way of Pacific Northwest Terminals,