AUDUBON VIRTUAL ADVOCACY DAY
We want our legislators to the start the 2021 Legislative session with Audubon’s bird-friendly priorities in mind. Since we won’t be able to meet with our legislators in person, we will be meeting over Zoom.
If you live in the 49th Legislative District, join us for our Virtual Advocacy Day with Senator Annette Cleveland and Representative Sharon Wylie on December 9 by signing up at this link.
We will be discussing Audubon’s legislative priorities for the 2021 session:
1. Funding Conservation – Since state government is facing a budget shortfall due to COVID, the Legislature will be looking for places to cut spending. We will ask our legislators to protect conservation funding in the state’s operating budget, particularly for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We will ask for the Legislature to invest $140 million in the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, which funds outdoor projects all across the state, from urban parks to working farms to mountain trails.
2. Reducing Transportation Emissions – A Clean Fuels Standard failed to pass the Legislature last year, so we will be asking them to take it up again. A Clean Fuels Standard will require oil refineries and distributors to ensure that Washington’s fuel supply gets cleaner over time, reducing carbon pollution from gasoline and diesel by 10% over 10 years. Producing local, low-carbon fuels will create jobs in Washington, give consumers more choice at the pump and ensure healthier air now and for future generations. Washington is now the last West Coast jurisdiction without a clean fuels standard, and it’s time we catch up with California, Oregon and British Columbia.
3. Climate Resilience – We will support legislative action to update the Growth Management Act to address climate change, housing affordability and environmental justice. By making our urban areas affordable and accessible to all through affordable housing policy, preventing disproportionate impacts of local pollution on communities of color, and ensuring that cities and counties are planning for climate change, we have the opportunity to transform the lives of Washingtonians and the natural environment around us. Washington has a brief window to make big changes to the GMA before our cities and counties embark on their next comprehensive plan updates, which will lock in policy for the next decade.
by Susan Saul
GOLDENDALE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT THREATENS WILDLIFE AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Rye Development wants to build a massive pumped storage hydroelectric project along the Columbia River in Klickitat County near the John Day Dam. The Goldendale Energy Storage Hydroelectric Project would be the largest of its kind in the Pacific Northwest.
Rye’s plan would excavate two reservoirs: the hilltop reservoir would span 60 acres and the lower reservoir would cover 63 acres. Pumped storage would generate hydroelectricity for peak periods of demand. When electricity on the grid is abundant, Rye would pump water from the lower reservoir into the higher one. Then, when there is demand for electricity, Rye would release water in the upper reservoir through turbines and back into the lower reservoir. The energy-generating capacity: 1200 megawatts. Rye claims the $2 billion project would be complete by 2028.
The Yakama Nation is opposed to this project. It would impact at least nine culturally significant sites including archaeological, ceremonial, burial petroglyph, monumental and ancestral use sites. The Yakama Nation explains that the Columbia River was dammed over the last century, impacting many of their rights, interests and resources, including fishing sites, villages and burial sites. This project is another example of energy development that comes at a cost to native people.
The proposed project would use a lot of water. Initial fill for the reservoirs would use 2.93 million gallons from the Columbia River. Rye would also use roughly 1.2 million gallons of water per year from the Columbia for “periodic makeup” to offset losses from evaporation and leakage. Rye also wants to be able to refill the reservoirs if they need to be emptied for repair. Rye calls the project “closed-loop,” a misleading description due to its plans to use Columbia River water to sustain the reservoirs.
The project also would have serious impacts on birds. The introduction of two large water surfaces would attract many more birds to the area, which is located near a large wind energy project. Wildlife biologists have raised concerns that the reservoirs would increase wind-turbine bird kills, particularly for Bald and Golden Eagles and Prairie Falcons that nest in the area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly noted that the history of mortalities shows a landscape already compromised by wind power infrastructure. Golden Eagles, in particular, appear to have difficulty navigating the wind currents affected by existing wind towers. The project would further alter the wind currents potentially resulting in higher bird mortalities. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife also has raised wildlife habitat concerns about the project.
Pumped storage requires significant upfront capital investment and lengthy permitting processes. Experts question the financial viability of this project. Rocky Mountain Econometrics (RME) developed a model of market forces and financial viability of the project. RME concluded:
“It is possible that the Goldendale Pump Storage Project is being proposed with full knowledge that it will fail. Further, bankruptcy may be an unstated but integral part of the Goldendale business plan as a means of shedding sufficient debt to survive in the current wholesale power market. These results, as detailed in the report’s Appendix Alternative Debt Structures, give us pause as to whether any adverse impacts to public values such as water quality, water quantity, flow regime, fish and wildlife, tribal and cultural resources, surrounding communities, and/or recreation are worth the risk of generated energy storage.” Bottom line: Rye Development would cause the loss of irreplaceable cultural resources and significant environmental damage for speculative benefits.
Rye already has secured water rights for the project from the Klickitat County Public Utility District. It needs a hydropower license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and a Clean Water Act 401 water quality certification from the Washington Department of Ecology. The project will also undergo federal National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act reviews. Rye estimates FERC will release a draft Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement in summer 2021. After the FERC process, the developer will need to apply to the Bonneville Power Administration for transmission interconnect approval.
You can oppose this project by signing Columbia Riverkeeper’s petition asking Governor Inslee and Senators Murry and Cantwell to stand in solidarity with the Yakama Nation.
by Susan Saul and Columbia Riverkeeper
Oppose the Massive Fracked Gas Refinery at Kalama
Comment Period extended to Oct 9
The fracked gas industry wants to build the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery in Kalama. The proposed refinery would consume a staggering amount of fracked gas, more than all of Washington’s gas-fired power plants combined. The project would convert the fracked gas to methanol, which would be shipped overseas to be burned as fuel or used as feedstock to make plastics.
The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has released a new Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to address the climate impacts of the proposed plant. The SEIS explains that the refinery would cause a staggering 4.6 million tons of climate pollution every year for 40 years. It would contribute to a significant global increase in greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions would undercut Washington’s efforts to move towards a clean energy economy.
The SEIS reveals what the project’s backers have long denied: that the refinery would cause more methanol to be burned as fuel in China and result in significant methane pollution from fracking. The methanol refinery would quickly become Washington’s largest climate polluter by 2025. It would use more fracked gas than all of Washington’s gas-fired power plants combined. In addition, up to 6 tankers per month would transport methanol to China, adding to the total greenhouse gas emissions of this facility.
The Kalama project will drive fracking and methane pollution. Because of its enormous demand for fracked gas, the proposed refinery would be responsible for increased fracking and the methane pollution that fracking causes. Because methane escapes during the fracking process, this “upstream” pollution will exceed one million tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, using even the most conservative estimates of methane leakage.
Combustion of methanol from the Kalama project will lead to a large “downstream” source of greenhouse gas pollution. Although the proponents tried for years to claim that no one would ever burn the methanol produced in Kalama, the SEIS shows that the Kalama methanol refinery would lead to more methanol being burned as fuel in China.
Unfortunately, the SEIS also relies on speculative mitigation and an unenforceable market analysis to prop up this dirty, climate-wrecking proposal. The SEIS does not offer any proof for its theory that the Kalama plant will displace worse sources of pollution in China.
By Susan Saul
Federal Judge Rules Administration’s Bird-Killing Policy is Illegal
After Victory, Our Work Is Not Yet Done
In a major victory for the National Audubon Society and other conservation groups, a federal judge has overturned the Trump administration’s unprecedented attack on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and restored its longstanding protections for birds. The court ruled that the MBTA does protect birds from industrial hazards, also known as “incidental take,” upholding the most effective bird protection law of our time.
U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni ruled on August 11, 2020, that the legal opinion which serves as the basis for the Trump administration rollback of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not align with the intent and language of the 100-year-old law. In her ruling, Judge Caproni found that the policy “runs counter to the purpose of the MBTA to protect migratory bird populations” and is “contrary to the plain meaning of the MBTA”.
But our work is not yet done.
Also, the administration is nearing the end of a regulatory process to make the legal opinion ruled on by Judge Caproni permanent in the form of regulation. If the administration can finalize a rule codifying its interpretation prior to the election or a change in administrations, it may have a greater and more lasting effect than the court’s decision in this case.
As definitive as the court’s opinion is, the practical effect in the short term may be minimal. The question of how broadly the MBTA will be applied is far from resolved. It remains highly unlikely that the Trump Administration, even if unsuccessful in reversing the decision on appeal, would commence enforcement of incidental take of migratory birds that occurred indirectly or even as a foreseeable result of legitimate business activity.
“While we are very encouraged by the unambiguous district court decision, which validates our argument that the administration’s policy is in clear violation of the MBTA, the government could still appeal the decision. If they do so, we will continue to strongly defend the MBTA in court. At the same time, they could still move forward with a proposed regulation that would essentially reinstate this unlawful and harmful policy,” said Sarah Greenberger, Interim Chief Conservation Officer for the National Audubon Society.
Congress must pass the Migratory Bird Protection Act (MBPA) which would reverse the rollback of the MBTA and reinstate bird protections. There is still time for the House to vote on the MBPA this year.
You can help.
· Complete this Audubon Action Alert to let Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler know you support the MBPA.
· Share the Audubon Action Alert with family and friends.
· Share on social media. Please use #ProtectTheBirds in any tweets or Instagram posts around the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or Migratory Bird Protection Act.Tweet
By Susan Saul
City of Vancouver puts six-month hold on new bulk fossil fuel facilities
The construction of any new large-scale fossil fuel infrastructure businesses in the city of Vancouver has been halted, at least temporarily.
That decision was preceded by nearly two hours of public testimony, during which only one citizen spoke out in opposition to the temporary ban. Vancouver Audubon Society submitted written comments and verbal testimony in favor of the ban.
The moratorium was initially approved on June 8, by emergency ordinance, which required the council to hold a public hearing and a full vote within 60 days in order to uphold the ban.
That ordinance was introduced by Councilor Laurie Lebowsky, who said she wanted to give city staff time to craft a cohesive resilience plan without any new companies trying to obtain permits for a bulk fossil fuel business ahead of any changes.
“I want to do what we can to support a resiliency plan to promote safety and livability of our city,” said Lebowsky, “and focusing economic development on safe and renewable energy sources and green businesses.”
Under the moratorium, fossil fuels are defined as petroleum or petroleum-based products, as well as natural gases such as propane, methane, and butane. It would exempt byproducts such as fertilizer, paint, asphalt, plastics, and denatured ethanol.
A “large-scale” fossil fuel facility is defined as those engaged in the wholesale distribution, extraction, refinement or processing of fossil fuels, the bulk movement of fossil fuels, coal storage, coal power plants, natural gas processing facilities, storage and handling of natural gas, or bulk storage of more than two million gallons of any combination of fossil fuels.
Direct-to-consumer fossil fuel businesses, such as gas stations and propane refueling are exempt from the moratorium.
The city of Portland and the Port of Vancouver have already passed their own bans on new bulk fossil fuel terminals, and the city of Vancouver has taken a stance against increasing shipments of bulk crude on trains that run along the waterfront and through the west side of the city.
By Susan Saul