Energy

Washington State Considers Climate Impact of Major Petrochemical Plant With ‘Pattern of Influence Peddling’

January 14, 2021

In 2014, a company named Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW)Ā proposedĀ building a multi-billion-dollar petrochemical project in Kalama, Washington, a port town roughly 40 miles north of Portland, Oregon. Now, after years of delays and multiple rounds of evaluation, a critical state permit decision is expected imminently for the fossil fuelĀ project.

The facility would process fracked natural gas into methanol, a liquid chemical that can be used as fuel or for manufacturing plastics, and ship the flammable product down the Columbia River for export toĀ Asia.

The facility is highly controversial and would have an enormous greenhouse gas impact, butĀ NWIWĀ has lined up powerful figures in the State of Washington to help make the company’sĀ case.

Totem poles carved by now-deceased Chief Lelooska overlook the Columbia River in Kalama, Washington, which sits on the traditional lands of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde.Totem poles carved by now-deceased Chief Lelooska overlook the Columbia River in Kalama, Washington, which occupies the traditional lands of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. Credit: Nick Cunningham

ClimateĀ Footprint

One of the key issues facing the State of Washington is the greenhouse gas impact of the project. The Kalama methanol project would be one of theĀ largestĀ gas-to-methanol facilities in the world. If built, it would release as much as 4.8 million metric tons ofĀ CO2, roughly equivalent to 5 percent of Washington’s total emissions, according to stateĀ regulators.

Viewed another way, the facility would consume more natural gas than all of the Pacific Northwest’s major cities combined, according to anĀ analysisĀ from the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability thinkĀ tank.

Despite this climate footprint, Washington’s Department of Ecology suggests that the gargantuan methanol facility will result in a net climateĀ benefit.

The agencyĀ finalizedĀ its second supplemental environmental impact statement (SSEIS) in December 2020. It concluded that ifĀ NWIW’s methanol project were not built, then China would end up relying on dirtier facilities that produce methanol from coal instead of natural gas, resulting in even more carbon pollution. Without the Kalama plant, Ecology estimates, emissions from methanol production in China could even be twice asĀ high.

In the coming days, that conclusion could be used to approve or deny a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a critical permit that would move the project into the next phase of permitting. Ecology has until January 20 toĀ decide.

At the heart of Ecology’s greenhouse gas calculation is a key assumption: that China’s methanol demand will rise inexorably and inflexibly for the next 40 years. Under that scenario, more supply will always be needed, and much of it will come from coal. In that way, Kalama methanol could indeed push out dirtierĀ facilities.

If, however, China works towards slashing emissions, critics say the Kalama methanol project will add fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when the world can ill affordĀ it.

ā€œI think that where their argument really falls apart is this assumption that China will never reduce its fossil fuel energy consumption,ā€ said Paul Thiers, associate professor in the School of Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs at Washington State University and a ChinaĀ expert.

In September, China’s President Xi Jinping announced that the country would aim to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060. Thiers says that for a variety of domestic reasons, China wants to reduce air pollution and cut carbonĀ emissions.

In a statement to DeSmog, Ecology spokesperson Jeff Zenk said:

ā€œThe economic assumptions in theĀ SSEISĀ are neither bullish nor bearish. They are the best estimates based on current trends with full acknowledgement of the inherent uncertainties in these type ofĀ analyses.ā€

Instead of basing its calculation on long-term forecasts of market conditions in China, which are riddled with uncertainties, the agency should focus on what it knows, says Eric de Place, director of Thin Green Line at the Sightline Institute.

ā€œAnd what they know — and what is completely indisputable — is that [the project] is going to create market demand for a whole bunch of fracking, it’s going to need a whole bunch of gas, it’s going to refine that gas into a liquid petrochemical and it’s going to be shipped to Asia. All that stuff is known. The other stuff is speculative,ā€ de Place toldĀ DeSmog.

In a SeptemberĀ critiqueĀ of the agency’s environmental impact statement, he wrote that the Department of Ecology ā€œis essentially saying that scientific alarms be damned: we should double-down on climate pollution over the coming decades in the hopes that someone else won’t triple-down onĀ it.ā€

In an emailed statement to DeSmog,Ā NWIWĀ cited Ecology’s assessment as proof that the project is a win for the climate.

ā€œThe Washington State Department of Ecology study has answered the [greenhouse gas] question unequivocally by confirming that building the facility will benefit the planet as much as eliminating the emissions of Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma combined,ā€™ā€ the company wrote in a statement. ā€œOpponents ofĀ NWĀ Innovation Works are using carbon math that is as deceptive as many of the corporations that DeSmog investigates andĀ debunks.ā€

ā€˜Influence Peddling’ in WashingtonĀ State

The proposed methanol facility lost a major political ally when Governor Jay Inslee, citing the urgency needed to tackle global warming, reversed his originalĀ support forĀ the project as a much-needed source of economic growth. In 2019, heĀ came out in oppositionĀ to the Kalama facility, at a time when he was running for president as theĀ climate candidate.

However, other powerful political figures in Washington state, as well as the former Obama administration, have lined up in support.Ā NWIWĀ has enlisted a cadre of heavy-hitters in the Washington political world to make their case inĀ Olympia.

[slide-anything id=’3472166′]

Perhaps most notable is the case of Washington State Representative Richard DeBolt, who did not run for re-election in 2020 and left office in January 2021. For roughly 25 years, he represented a district that includes Kalama, where the project would be constructed. At the same time, since 2016, he has been directly employedĀ byĀ NWIWĀ as theĀ director of external relations, a position that earns him at least $120,000 per year. Such an arrangement is allowed in Washington, so long as Rep. DeBolt did not vote for legislation related to the project and that he didn’t directly lobby stateĀ officials.

However, emailsĀ obtainedĀ by environmental nonprofit Columbia Riverkeeper show that on August 30, 2017 a lawyer forĀ NWIWĀ referred to Rep. DeBolt as their ā€œpoint guy with Ecology on the Kalama matter,ā€ an apparent reference to the crucial permit process currently under review by Washington’s Department of Ecology. Ethics rules bar him from lobbying state officials while simultaneously working for a company that might be affected by his work as a legislator, but ā€œthere is reason to believe that’s exactly what he was doing,ā€ de Place of the Sightline Institute wrote in a December 2020Ā reportĀ detailing multiple political connections to the company. Rep. DeBolt did not respond to questions from DeSmog. Jeff Zenk, a Department of Ecology spokesperson, said in an email: ā€œRichard DeBolt has not lobbied Ecology onĀ NWIW’s shorelineĀ permit.ā€

Meanwhile, the former head of Washington’s Department of Commerce, Brian Bonlender, has also publicly supported the methanol project. As the agency’s director from 2013 to 2019, he courtedĀ NWIW, which involved taking a trip to China as part of a trade delegation, where the company gave him a presentation on the proposed project.Ā NWIWĀ is partially owned by the Chinese Academy of Sciences Holdings, a quasi-government agency of the ChineseĀ government.

In 2019, Bonlender left the state Department of Commerce, and immediately started a lobbying firm. Public disclosure records do not showĀ NWIWĀ as a client, but Bonlender twice appeared atĀ public hearingsĀ testifying in favor of the methanol project and talking up the environmental benefits of the huge petrochemical facility. His Twitter account also shows several tweets promoting theĀ project.

In an emailed statement, Bonlender confirmed thatĀ NWIWĀ has ā€œretainedā€ him for some services related to the project, including helping the company craft a greenhouse gas emissions mitigation plan, as well as analyze trends in China’s plastics industry. State guidelines do not require him to disclose his arrangement withĀ NWIWĀ since his work for the company does not includeĀ lobbying.

In his statement to DeSmog, Bonlender wrote at length about the coal-to-methanol pollution footprint in China, and how the Kalama project could help. ā€œNWIWĀ remains the only answer to curbing the growth in China of the climate-catastrophic coal-to-plastics industry,ā€ BonlenderĀ wrote.

Another powerful political connection is Rick Desimone, a lobbyist who is also the former chief of staff to Washington’sĀ U.S.Ā Senator Patty Murray (D). Desimone hasĀ workedĀ as aĀ Senior AdvisorĀ forĀ NWIW.

The Port of Kalama is seeking tens of millions of dollars in federal grants from theĀ U.S.Ā Department of Transportation to upgrade a dock for loading methanol onto large vessels. And in May 2020, Sen. Murray wrote aĀ letterĀ to the Department of Transportation to support the Port of Kalama’s application. In other words, Sen. Murray has lent her support for a federal grant that would benefit a company where a former staffer of hers now works. Neither Rick Desimone nor Sen. Murray’s office responded to a request forĀ comment.

NWIWĀ also showered the state legislature with political donations. In October 2020, the company putĀ $50,000Ā into Southwest PrioritiesĀ PAC, which then divvied up that money to two Democrats representing Kalama in the state legislature: State Senator Dean Takko and Rep. Brian Blake. Both Democrats supported the project, and Sen. Takko evenĀ sentĀ Governor Inslee an angry letter in 2019 after the Department of Ecology decided to undertake further environmental review on the shoreline permit. Sen. Takko called the delay ā€œa cowardly swipe at our ambition to bring prosperity back to Southwest Washington.ā€Ā NWIW’s financial support ended up not being enough, and both Sen. Takko and Rep. Blake were swept out of office in the 2020Ā election.

In an email exchange, when asked whyĀ NWIWĀ might support the two campaigns, Rep. Blake said: ā€œThey wanted us to be re-elected.ā€ When asked ifĀ NWIWĀ may have funneled that money as a reward for supporting the project, Rep. Blake simply responded: ā€œNo.ā€ Sen. Takko did not respond to a request forĀ comment.

Other influential politicians who have been involved withĀ NWIWĀ include former Washington Governor and Commerce Secretary under President Obama, Gary Locke, whoĀ servedĀ onĀ NWIW’s ā€œGlobal Advisory Board,ā€ which was created to advise the company on the project. When asked about the nature of his work on the board by DeSmog, Gov. Locke did not answer specifically, but said he did not lobby state officials, adding that he has not worked with the board ā€œsinceĀ mid-2017.ā€

Another former board official is David Sandalow, formerĀ U.S.Ā Under Secretary of Energy during the Obama administration. Since 2015,Ā NWIWĀ has beenĀ attemptingĀ to secure aĀ $2 billion loan guaranteeĀ from the Department of Energy for the project. When asked about this possible connection, Sandalow, through a spokesperson at Columbia University, where he now works, said that he has not served on the Advisory Board in over two years and did not lobby or influence theĀ U.S.Ā Department ofĀ Energy.

The Sightline Institute argued that all of these connections reveal a ā€œpattern of influence peddling.ā€ WhileĀ NWIWĀ responded at length to questions about its environmental impact, it declined to answer specific questions regarding its political activities. ā€œWe are proud of our team, proud of our efforts to bring transparency and accountability to our project,ā€ the company said in aĀ statement.

Kalama Methanol at aĀ Crossroads

Building front displaying signs and artwork opposing NWIW's Kalama methanol refinery.Building front displaying signs and artwork opposing NWIW‘s Kalama methanol refinery. Credit: NickĀ Cunningham

The Washington Department of Ecology is expected to decide on the shoreline permit in January. The decision could be pivotal either way: approval would give the methanol project renewed momentum while a rejection would severely damage its chances movingĀ forward.

NWIWĀ won’t have a full greenlight even if the project receives its shoreline permit. In November 2020, a federal judgeĀ tossedĀ out an environmental permit granted by the Army Corps of Engineers, ruling that the Corps did not adequately assess the greenhouse gas impact. The judge ordered the Corps to prepare a full environmental impact statement that accounts for emissions from upstream gas drilling, shipping, and production of plastics from the methanol in Asia. The decision was a major setback for the project, and could result in furtherĀ delays.

Opposition from some community and environmental activists remains fierce, and could create new hurdles. ButĀ NWIWĀ has lined up a lot of political support. If it receives a thumbs-up from the state’s environmental regulator, its path forward becomes considerablyĀ smoother.

ā€œThe permit decision is Washington’s one shot to deny the methanol refinery,ā€ said Miles Johnson, an attorney with Columbia Riverkeeper. ā€œIt’s Governor Inslee’s chance to show whether his words opposing the project were genuine or politicallyĀ convenient.ā€

Main image:Ā Northwest Innovation WorksĀ in Kalama, Washington Credit: NickĀ Cunningham

Nick Cunningham

Nick CunninghamĀ is a Vermont-based writer on energy and environmental issues


Tags: American politics, methane emissions, petrochemicals