Our Voice: Avoid red herrings in coal train debate

The Tri-Cities will be the next hot spot in the heated debate over whether the state should give the green light to the Millennium Bulk coal export terminal proposed in Longview.

If the public hearing Thursday in Pasco ends up anything like the meetings held so far around the state, there is a good chance emotion and hard evidence will collide.

We hope the real issues surrounding the proposed coal shipping facility will be the focus, and not misleading generalizations or red herrings. Two sessions will be held at TRAC in Pasco, from 1 to 4 p.m. and from 5 to 9 p.m.

Among the concerns that opponents continue to bring up is the fear that more coal trains passing through the state will mean clouds of coal dust released into the air. As it happens, the BNSF railway’s Pasco hump yard plays a significant role in countering this fear.

BNSF officials have opened a state-of-the-art respray facility at the Pasco rail yard so that all coal trains traveling through Washington receive a second spray of a nontoxic topping agent. They say it acts like a glue, and significantly reduces the amount of coal dust escaping from open-air cars.

Millions of tons of coal have been hauled through the state for decades, and it is only now, with a proposed additional eight loaded coal trains passing through Washington on a daily basis, that people are bringing the coal dust issue up.

There are a lot of economic benefits to Pasco and to the state if Millennium Bulk Terminals is allowed to operate. The plan would turn an old aluminum smelter into a port facility, and once in full operation, it would employ 135 people with an annual payroll of $16 million.

Considering trade is such a significant part of the state’s economy, there is much to be gained for the state to give the Millennium facility the go-ahead.

Opponents are against it, however, because they don’t like coal.

We get that. Coal is dirty. Coal is a major source of carbon emissions and we should reduce our reliance on it.

But the reality is that other parts of the world, particularly in Asia, use it as a significant energy source. In the aftermath of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima in 2011, Japan is constructing 40 high-efficiency coal plants.

If the United States were to eliminate all its coal mining and shipping operations, other countries would fill the void. And they would do it with dirtier coal than what we can provide from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana.

They likely also wouldn’t handle the shipping of it as carefully as BNSF and the Millennium facility.

Washington state is requiring Millennium officials to submit a plan that pays for 50 percent of all related greenhouse emissions that come from the entire coal process — from mining to burning.

So even though Millennium only plays a small role — it just ships the coal and does not own it, mine it or use it — the company must pay half the mitigation fees. It is incomprehensible that transportation companies are somehow responsible for mitigating the end use of products they ship. This sets a dangerous precedent for any business that has even a partial involvement with carbon emissions. Boeing and its planes come to mind.

Reducing worldwide reliance on coal is going to take time and transition.

In the meantime, and in addition to the economic benefits the project would provide, it would be better to have companies like BNSF and Millennium Bulk Terminals — who must comply with state environmental rules — be involved in the shipping of coal rather than other countries who won’t be as careful.

This story was originally published May 29, 2016 at 5:10 AM with the headline "Our Voice: Avoid red herrings in coal train debate."