Yesterday we saw two very different takes on coal exports in a petition filed by environmental groups, and a study released by the National Mining Association.

Several environmental groups filed a petition with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) asking them “to evaluate the cumulative and related impacts of all proposed coal export terminals in Oregon and Washington in a single, comprehensive, area-wide environmental impact statement (“EIS”) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Such a process will allow explicit consideration of the collective impacts of multiple distinct but related decisions.” Their message was clear, we don’t want you to do anything that involves fossil fuels.

The National Mining Association (NMA) released a report prepared by Ernst & Young LLP that explored the economic and jobs benefits of coal exports in 2011. The report estimated the economic value of related coal activity at $16.6 billion in 2011. They also estimated that 25,130 jobs or almost 19 percent of those working at coal mines were directly related to coal exports. The report sent an equally clear message, fossil fuels creates economic activity and jobs.

This petition by the environmental groups is an attempt to slow down the permitting process and to kill these export expansion efforts by delaying permits for years and by requiring huge expenditures by the private and public sectors. Expanding environmental review to include all of the Washington and Oregon proposals and their potential cumulative economic and environmental impacts across the region, the United States and the world, would be a drastic policy shift from current practices that would undermine national goals to boost exports.

A Programmatic EIS for coal export projects in the Pacific Northwest would create a major disincentive for manufacturers to export their products, impacting jobs and economic growth. This is exactly the effect these groups hope to have on these projects, and in fact most any other project that involves fossil fuels.

The NAM sent a letter to the Corps in June of 2012 urging them not to expand its NEPA analysis beyond the individual, project-specific review required under the statute. The NAM believes that by expanding this focus to include the environmental impact of the cargo, and all similar cargo transported through the region, the Corps could be laying the foundation for similar exercises for just about any port or rail expansion to transport any type of cargo. For instance, what if the cargo at issue was not coal but cars, or tractors, or even airplanes? Would the Corps need to perform a Programmatic EIS to determine the lifecycle environmental impact of that cargo? What if the cargo was an agricultural or animal product; should methane emissions be considered? The possibilities are endless and deeply troubling to manufacturers and their employees.

The President and his advisors have repeatedly stressed that they do not believe they have to choose between the environment and the economy. The governors of Oregon and Washington are not making it easy on him; in fact, that’s precisely the choice they’ve asked him to make on exports. In a letter sent today to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, the two governors asked for a boundless, limitless, and to our knowledge unprecedented, life cycle impact analysis of five planned coal export terminals and the cargo being transported through them, all before issuing a permit for the first one.

The kind of review they are asking for is Keystone-on-steroids; they want the President to decide whether we should be exporting coal AT ALL before issuing a permit to expand the terminals. Never mind that the ports will ship other products besides coal. Never mind that thousands of high-paying construction jobs are at stake in a region where construction jobs are at their lowest point in a decade. And never mind that such a radical change in the law could be used to block exports of, well, everything.

This last point has manufacturers very concerned. Virtually every product we export, from cars to turbines to planes to grains, has an environmental impact. The already-too-long permitting process for new projects–a process that takes on average 3.4 years–would become completely unmanageable if the law were expanded to require the type of review the two governors are now seeking.

The NAM was created in 1895 because manufacturers needed to find opportunities to export their products. We will continue to fight efforts to erect unnecessary barriers beyond what is required by law.

Ross Eisenberg is vice president of energy and resources policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

Today marks the last and final scoping meeting in Seattle for the proposed coal export terminals in the Northwest. It is an important chance for community members to stand up for this project before federal and state agencies determine its future.  The meeting will take place at the Washington State Convention Center, Ballroom 6F between 4-7 PM (PST) today.

In Washington State, residents face an 8.5 percent unemployment rate with some of the hardest hit sectors being the local shipping, and construction industries. Residents in the Northwest know they need new jobs opportunities – that is why the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports  is fighting to approve five proposed coal export terminals in the Northwest.

These projects would create thousands of new jobs and generate millions in local tax revenues, adding much-needed funds to state and local budgets for schools and other vital services like emergency responders. This doesn’t include local income tax revenues and other benefits of getting thousands of people back to work in well-paying jobs.

Most Washingtonians are in support of these projects. A public opinion poll released last month by the Brotherhood Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, the United Transportation Union, the Oregon State Building, and Construction Trades Council showed that local residents support the planned export terminal by 2 to 1 margin. These results mirror the poll findings from July by Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) that also showed 2 to 1 support for the terminals. (continue reading…)