For several years, oil terminal projects have been in the works at the Port of Grays Harbor in Hoquiam—Westway and Imperium. The Imperium project was canceled by the company in 2016, and Westway is now called Contanda.

Yesterday the state Supreme Court issued a ruling that could mean the end of the project. Here’s a brief timeline of events, drawn from the ruling:

• Westway and Imperium applied to expand their existing bulk liquid storage terminals.
• Parts of the expansions would overhang the water of Grays Harbor.
• The two companies applied for substantial shoreline development permits. In 2013, the Department of Ecology and city of Hoquiam issued mitigated determinations of nonsignificance (MDNS) for the projects.
• Quinault Indian Nation, Friends of Grays Harbor, Sierra Club, Grays Harbor Audubon, and Citizens for a Clean Harbor appealed the permits to the Shorelines Hearings Board because Ecology and Hoquiam did not consider the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) or the Ocean Resources Management Act (ORMA).
• The Shorelines Hearings Board found that the MDNS were wrongly issued but that ORMA was not applicable because it regulates activities in the ocean.
• The Court of Appeals then affirmed the Shorelines Hearings Board in 2015.

The Supreme Court instead finds that ORMA applies to the projects. The ruling notes,

ORMA is a balancing tool intended to be used by local governments to weigh the commercial benefits of coastal development against the State’s interest in protecting coastal habitats and conserving fossil fuels.

The Court rejects the arguments of respondents that the projects are on rather than in coastal waters.

The plain language of RCW 43.143.030(1) anticipates respondents’ projects. To hold that the statute does not apply to a storage facility transferring oil products from land transport to sea transport because the project is not literally ‘in’ the ocean would be an overly narrow reading of the text.

According to the Seattle Times, ORMA “had not been tested in the context of a shore-side development proposal, and was originally passed to regulate offshore oil development.”

Kristen Boyles of Earthjustice said, “Today’s decision not only revives state ocean protections, but effectively blocks proposed oil shipping terminals from being built in Grays Harbor.” 

But the Times reports that Contanda still “vowed to build the project.” Also:

Port development advocates were surprised by the ruling

“No one knows what this means yet, except that it will be a lot harder to create jobs,” said Eric Johnson, executive director of the Public Ports Association, based in Olympia.

He sees the possibility of two different approval regimes now, too, one on the coast, where the law applies, and another on the Columbia River, where it doesn’t.

This decision comes amid other delays in the fossil fuel permitting process in Washington. The Department of Ecology has used an expanded SEPA process for some recent projects that has caused the process to drag on for years. We wrote about this in 2014 and 2016. One of the projects subject to the expanded SEPA, Gateway Pacific Terminals, was denied a permit by the Army Corps of Engineers in May. Also, earlier this month, Washington’s public lands commissioner decided not to grant a lease for the Millennium Bulk Terminals’ export project (also subject to the expanded SEPA). Some have said this means the project is dead, but the CEO of MBT disagrees.

Additionally, the Sightline Institute has this idea that the Northwest can be a “thin green line” and stop fossil fuels from getting from U.S. mines to energy markets in Asia. Yesterday Sightline ran an article describing the recent efforts of cities and counties in the Northwest to stop fossil fuel projects, leading with the news that the Portland City Council has voted to ban new fossil fuel infrastructure. The article also mentions the actions of Whatcom County, Hoquiam, Aberdeen, Vancouver, and Spokane. (We wrote about several of these in our 2016 report.) Further:

In the coming years, local governments are likely to play an increasingly critical role in preventing the development of new fossil fuel projects. Reforms to city and county land-use law to prohibit these uses can send a clear signal to big coal, oil, and natural gas that communities don’t want them for neighbors. They can also be the legal teeth that actually prevent the energy industry from building these projects.

While some may not want these projects for neighbors, many others see them as opportunities for good jobs that pay well. See, for example, this Jan. 6 op-ed from Larry Brown of Aerospace Machinists 751 and Matthew Hepner of the Certified Electrical Workers of Washington. (Lew also talked to Brown in a recent podcast episode.)