In Response to Questions about Environment Impacts


February 7, 2018

Recently a non-profit environmental organization released a “Discussion Brief” that draws on a number of assumptions and raises questions about our project’s impact on the environment. To be clear, we welcome a robust discussion about our project.  From the beginning, we have encouraged and welcomed public input into this process. We view these opinions as part of that ongoing dialogue.

We believe the ongoing environmental review process is the most appropriate place for further credible analysis of our project. We expect and believe the state-mandated environmental review process to be thorough, unbiased, transparent, and effective in assessing our project’s GHG emissions. And we would suggest the EIS process exists so the public doesn’t have to try to decide whose opinions to believe. We anticipate that many of the critiques identified by the study’s authors will be addressed in the SEIS, which is appropriate. 

From the beginning, we have sought to engage and receive the input of our critics – and we have made improvements to our project to respond to their concerns.  For instance, we agreed to “zero liquid discharge” from our plant in response to concerns about impacts to the Columbia River.  We remain committed to dialogue—with our critics, with our supporters, and with those who wish to ensure a fair, open, accurate, and complete process. Please continue to share your thoughts, opinions and resources.