BILLINGS, Mont. - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied a permit on Monday for the massive Gateway Pacific Terminal, a coal-export facility proposed near Bellingham, Wash., that would have shipped coal to Asia from the Powder River Basin.

The Corps heeded complaints from the Lummi Nation that the project would harm tribal fishing rights.

In Montana, clean-energy advocates are holding a series of workshops this week to galvanize opposition to another proposal, the Millenium Bulk Terminal in Longview, Washington, partially owned by Arch Coal.

Les Anderson of Longview, vice president of Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community, is in Montana this week for the workshops.

"It's still a real battle. This is not going to be easy to see this project go away," says Anderson. "No one can think that we're winning this. The coal company has a lot of political influence. In no way do I see this as a 'done deal.'"

The first workshop, organized by the Northern Plains Resource Council, was last night in Missoula.

There are two today in Helena and Livingston, and one on Wednesday in Billings.

The public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement on the Longview terminal opened April 29 and ends on June 13.

Anderson says the people of Montana who live along the rail lines face the same issues that worry many residents of Longview.

"From increased taxpayer costs for the new rail structures, to increased personal health-care costs for railroad neighbors with respiratory problems, this is another classic example of the coal companies making the profits, while the rest of us pay the cost," says Anderson.

The Northern Plains Resource Council says it will record all the public comments gathered in Montana, and enter them into the record at a public hearing being held by the State of Washington in Spokane on May 26.

The group says it also will send a delegation to speak at the hearing.


get more stories like this via email

The Department of Energy is taking a close look at the economic and environmental impacts of liquefied natural gas exports, which some experts argue are driving up household energy costs and worsening climate challenges.

The report comes as LNG export projects rapidly expand, with U.S. demand at record levels and expected to grow as new facilities open.

In Virginia, household natural-gas bills have increased 50% since 2016, far outpacing inflation, said Jeremy Symons, principal at Symons Public Affairs. He attributed the increase to growing LNG exports, which limit domestic supply and drive energy costs.

"A single LNG plant - the controversial CP2 facility that's being proposed for Louisiana - would export twice as much gas every day than Virginia consumes," he said. "That means that, even though it's happening on the other side of the country, it drives up energy prices across the country."

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund has gathered more than 5,000 signatures urging the Biden administration to pause LNG export licenses until a full review is completed.

Supporters of these exports argue that expanding infrastructure bolsters U.S. energy independence and strengthens global energy markets.

Symons encouraged the public to use the 60-day comment period to ensure that affected communities are heard.

Quentin Scott, federal policy director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund, emphasized the environmental risks and called on the Biden administration to act decisively.

"Secretary [Jennifer] Granholm said it in her own words," he said, "that continuing to export LNG at the scale and the trajectory in which the United States has been exporting LNG over the last few years is unsustainable and not good for consumers, not good for businesses, not good for our environmental and climate goals."

As Virginia faces rising costs and environmental pressures, the debate over LNG exports has become more urgent. Scott said he hopes the Department of Energy's findings and public comment period will bring attention to the local and national implications of America's growing liquefied natural-gas industry.

One of New York State's first energy storage deadlines is fast approaching.

A roadmap established earlier this year sets a state goal of developing 6 gigawatts of energy storage but the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act calls for 1,500 megawatts of energy storage by next year. So far, the state has more than 387 megawatts.

Kyle Rabin, large-scale renewables policy analyst at the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, said attitudes about the projects prevent more from moving ahead.

"While we see communities in other states embracing energy storage, we see that some communities across New York State have opposed these projects due to the lack of information about how this technology works, or disinformation that has spread online," Rabin observed.

Some misinformation equates energy storage with fires involving e-bike batteries, though Rabin pointed out energy storage has stricter safety regulations. He added people do not always understand the benefits of energy storage, like redistributing captured renewable energy back to the grid when it is needed. It can also aid public health and increase grid stability.

This year saw the lowest energy storage capacity installed, which could be a setback for New York's many goals. However, capacity is still increasing, and Rabin emphasized bringing more of the projects online increases regional economic benefits.

"Communities across the nation are building the batteries that are powering our electric grid, and we could do the same here in New York State," Rabin contended. "That's part of the reason New York State is pursuing this technology is, it's about complementing renewables and helping to bolster renewable energy."

Earlier this year, Governor Kathy Hochul invested more than $11.5 million in the state's clean energy workforce. The state's Energy Research and Development Authority is also putting resources into developing an energy storage workforce. As of 2023, close to 3,000 people work in energy storage and grid modernization.

Minnesota's clean energy goals are among the more ambitious in the U.S. But industry experts say it can't slow down on the innovation side to see what works and what doesn't.

The future of a program for start-ups hangs in the balance. In 2023, the state Legislature approved $3 million for the Energy Alley initiative.

It's a public-private partnership that connects clean energy entrepreneurs to industry giants and research institutions looking for innovative approaches to decarbonizing the region.

Nina Axelson is the founder of Grid Catalyst, one of the key partners for this effort. She said they're seeing promising returns so far, providing this example.

"NeoCharge, which is a company out of California," said Axelson, "they have software for optimizing your electric vehicle charging, and they're doing a pilot with the University of St. Thomas."

By successfully demonstrating their technology through Minnesota's program, NeoCharge was recognized by the U.S. Energy Department in a separate prize-money pool.

However, funding for Minnesota's Energy Alley was just a one-time expense, and advocates hope for another round this coming session.

But with the state facing projected deficits in a couple years, they're expecting a cautious spending approach.

Clean Energy Economy Minnesota also helps guide Energy Alley.

The organization's Executive Director Gregg Mast said keeping this program alive means the state will continue to be a testing ground for emerging technologies to aid the transition away from fossil fuels.

"We don't want game changing energy talent and ideas leaving our state," said Mast, "and investing in Minnesota Energy Alley is an important signal to our startups that they're supported, welcomed, and encouraged to grow right here in Minnesota."

Grid Catalyst says without that state support, there's a slower process in seeing ideas come to life.

Program backers point to Minnesota's longstanding Medical Alley - and its role in putting the state on the map for healthcare innovation - as proof these investments will pay off.

Initially, some lawmakers questioned whether the energy projects will lead to local manufacturing.

One of the program's participants, Flow Environmental Systems, plans to start producing its specialized heat pumps in Minnesota in 2026.