September 18, 2012
Richard Ellmyer
9124 North McKenna Avenue
Portland, OR 97203-2650
Dear Mr. Ellmyer:
Thank you for contacting me about the proposed coal export projects in the Northwest and their impact on our community. I understand your concerns and share many of them. I apologize for my delayed response.
Let me be clear about my position on coal: it is an energy source from our past, not for our future. We must reduce our reliance on coal for generating electricity at home and abroad. I have long been fighting to enforce the Clean Air Act to force antiquated, polluting plants in America to clean up or shut down. I welcomed the closure of two coal fired plants here in the Northwest.
I strongly support clean energy for this century to come, and our priority should be conservation. We still waste too much energy at too high a cost to the environment and the economy.
Next we must redouble our efforts for renewable energy: wind, solar, geothermal and wave technology. The tax incentives, government investment and regulation have laid a foundation for even greater gains in the future.
Finally, there is the abundance of cleaner burning natural gas but we need more “fracking” safeguards.
In the meantime, as we work to get more clean energy on line, we are faced with numerous proposals for coal export facilities in the Northwest. The specter of coal trains a mile long, or more, with blowing coal dust clogging and polluting our cities is unacceptable and I don’t think will happen. The good news for opponents is that like past proposals of both export and import facilities, most of these projects are likely to fall victim to technical, competitive, economic and environmental difficulties.
But we should acknowledge there are definite limitations to our ability to change the situation in the short term. The facts on the ground are that there are 2300 current coals plants around the world with a new one built by China and India every week. We are already breathing air pollution in the Northwest that comes from these Asian plants.
The commerce clause of the Constitution prohibits state and local restriction of exports while treaties enacted long ago make federal action difficult or impossible. These trade provisions are the same that the United States used recently against the Chinese when they restricted vital rare earth minerals critical to our economy.
These are not simple questions with simple answers. Are we better off globally if the Chinese and Indians burn lower sulfur coal (with possibly higher Mercury content) from the United States? I welcome the call for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a broader environmental review. It would help inform the debate for the immediate questions and the longer term issues.
The reason we’re facing this controversy is in large part due to the lack of comprehensive national policies on energy and global warming. There are actions we should take now:
1. The United States should lead by example and enforce the Clean Air Act against older, inefficient plants to make them clean up or shut down.
2. We should enforce the Clean Water Act to restrict or shut down mountain top removal coal mining.
3. When the economy strengthens, we should enact a carbon tax to discourage the production and export of our carbon pollution.
4. Finally, we should fight for international action global greenhouse gas emissions so that the Indians, Chinese, Indonesians and other emerging economies don’t destabilize the global climate.
In the meantime, we should continue to press on the immediate, legitimate local concerns about the impact of the trains and coal dust on Portland, St. Helens, and other small communities.
I’m sorry this is such a long letter but as I said, the issues are important and complex. You can count on me to express your concerns as I fight for the long-term solutions to these larger issues. Please continue to be in touch.
Sincerely,

Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress