VANCOUVER, Wash. – Gov. Jay Inslee has delivered the final blow in the long battle over a proposed oil terminal in Vancouver.

On Monday, Inslee agreed with the recommendation of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), which voted unanimously at the end of last year to reject the project. If built, it would have been the largest oil-by-rail terminal on the continent.

In his rejection letter, the governor said there were "potentially catastrophic risks to the public" in the event of an earthquake, and concerns about possible oil spills in the Columbia River. He also noted the risk of a potential fire or explosion at the facility.

"I am so pleased that Gov. Inslee rejected this," said Rebecca Ponzio, campaign director for the Stand Up to Oil Coalition, "and that we do not have to unnecessarily put our emergency responders, our community members and so many other people at risk."

Northwest groups party to the decision – including Columbia Riverkeeper, Friends of the Columbia Gorge and Fruit Valley Neighborhood Association – cheered Inslee's announcement.

The Spokane City Council is also praising the decision, because the project would have resulted in as many as five more oil trains a day passing through that city.

Vancouver Energy has 30 days to appeal the decision to Thurston County Superior Court.

Ponzio notes this is just the latest oil terminal project to be rejected, and that the long battle against the Vancouver Energy project is evidence that people in the Northwest don't have an appetite for more oil.

"We have now stopped eight out of the eight terminals that have been proposed in the Pacific Northwest," she added. "So, in that sense, there's no need for new oil infrastructure in our regions. People want to move off of oil and toward clean energy."

The proposal would have sent 360,000 barrels of oil by rail a day through the Columbia River Gorge. Earlier this month, the Port of Vancouver's Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to end Vancouver Energy's lease for the project if it didn't have the necessary permits and licenses by March 31.


get more stories like this via email

Despite different outcomes - New York's first offshore wind farm came online and New Jersey had one canceled - both states are benefiting from offshore wind. Job creation and economic growth are predicted, as New Jersey's decarbonization efforts could create 20,000 jobs.

The New Jersey Wind Port being developed in Salem County is expected to create up to 1,500 jobs.

Caren Fitzpatrick, former Atlantic County Commissioner, said it's time the area had a viable industry again.

"They used to be known for growing asparagus and harvesting oysters. And due to blight and overfishing, those industries went away. They're starting to come back now, but they're not big enough to support the families that live in this area," Fitzpatrick argued.

After Ocean Wind's cancellation, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities is moving on. This year, it has approved two projects that would power close to 2 million homes, create 27,000 jobs and provide a $3 billion boost to the state's economy.

Beyond job growth and economic development, New Jersey Assemblymember Carol Murphy, D-Cinnaminson, contended public health will also improve as the state shifts to cleaner energy sources.

"The transition from fossil fuel to clean energy power will improve air quality, water quality, reduces cases of medical illness such as asthma, heart disease and cancer, and this will save billions of dollars in healthcare costs," she explained.

Offshore wind projects have faced tough odds to get this far. Misinformation has made the public skeptical. But lawmakers in both states have signed letters voicing their commitment to these projects.

New York Assemblymember Angelo Santabarbara, D-Schenectady, said it's only the beginning.

"Let's continue to push forward for a brighter, cleaner future for all here in New York, but for the entire country as we move forward. Together, we can harness the power of offshore wind to build a better tomorrow, and in Schenectady we're doing it one turbine at a time," Santabarbara said.

With the South Fork Wind Farm online, attention is turning to other projects like Empire Wind 1, the first offshore wind project connected to New York City's grid. In March, the developer's agreement was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Later this month, Indigenous leaders will speak before a United Nations panel about their ongoing concerns with a controversial oil pipeline in the Great Lakes region.

Enbridge Energy's Line 5 operation is likely to come up when the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues convenes in New York.

Back in the Midwest, organizations such as Earthjustice represent the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

The tribe has been contesting Line 5 in Wisconsin as Enbridge seeks to re-route the pipeline.

Earthjustice Senior Attorney Stefanie Tsosie said the proposal isn't an improvement in minimizing the effect on tribal lands.

"The Bad River Band is already at a risk of an oil spill because the pipeline is going directly through their reservation," said Tsosie, "and the re-route, if you look at the map, it's basically hugging the reservation boundaries."

She said her team is preparing for litigation if permits for the re-route are issued.

The tribe has previously filed lawsuits against Line 5 in an effort to shut it down, prompting the latest route plans. Similar cases have been active in Michigan.

Enbridge argues the pipeline is a key source of energy and rejects claims and legal decisions that it's trespassing on tribal lands.

On the Michigan side, opponents say they're worried about Enbridge's latest Line 5 plans to construct an oil tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac, a connecting waterway.

The company says it would be safer than the existing pipeline section, but Native American Rights Fund Senior Staff Attorney Wes Furlong said there's real concern about a worst-case scenario.

"If a leak happened within that tunnel, it would cause a catastrophic failure," said Furlong, "pumping crude oil into the Straits and into the Great Lakes."

He said pushing back against Line 5 aligns with calls to reduce the use of fossil fuels, citing their connection to climate change and the impact on treaty-reserved resources Midwest tribes rely on.

First built in 1953, the pipeline can transport up to 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids per day.




get more stories like this via email

Iowa is accepting bids from people who want an EV charging station on their land. It's part of a nationwide network of infrastructure designed to meet the needs of electric vehicle owners.

The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, or NEVI, will provide funding to build charging stations every 50 miles along U.S. interstate highways - from coast to coast.

In Iowa, that includes I-80, 380, 29 and 35.

The Iowa Environmental Council's Energy Policy Counsel Steve Geyer said businesses, electric utilities, nonprofits, towns - and even private landowners, such as farmers - can apply, as long as their land is within a mile of the freeway and meets other criteria.

"Suppose you are that farmer and you are at one of those locations," said Geyer. "Sure. If you have the availability to raise the capital, that's one of the criteria. You have to be able to demonstrate that you either have ownership of the land or you have the rights to the land."

The deadline to apply for the grants is April 19.

Each location will have four rapid-charging ports, but Geyer said they won't just be bare-bones places to power up the EV.

"Every location has to have some form of not only restroom facilities," said Geyer, "but also - be it a convenience store or vending machines, et cetera - recognizing that it will take some time to charge your car so you need, presumably, something to do during that time."

Applications go through the Iowa Department of Transportation.



get more stories like this via email