Months later, Tacoma moves to restrict fossil fuel use on Tideflats. Some worry about loopholes
Tacoma City Council moved Tuesday to restrict the expansion of fossil-fuel infrastructure on the Tideflats, but there remains debate about whether the new land-use codes go far enough to address the climate emergency the city declared in 2019.
The new code dictates where certain industrial uses can develop on the Tideflats and is a result of a process spanning months and multiple meetings with businesses, environmentalists and other interested parties.
After all that time, no one is entirely satisfied with the result, but elected officials say they worked collaboratively with people on all sides of the issue.
The Tideflats interim regulations were first put in place by City Council in 2017 as the city of Tacoma, in partnership with the city of Fife, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Pierce County and the Port of Tacoma, embarked on a larger subarea plan to determine the future of the Tideflats. The regulations put a temporary ban on all new fossil-fuel refineries and terminals for a year and have been extended six times in the past four years.
Last year, City Council asked the Planning Commission to bring forward a plan to prevent having to renew the regulations every six months and to create more certainty for businesses and the public.
In April 2021 following a public hearing, the proposal was sent to the Infrastructure, Planning and Sustainability (IPS) Committee for further review. The IPS Committee finalized the proposal at the end of August, and City Council had first reading of the regulations on Tuesday. Council will vote after a final reading Nov. 16.
In a presentation Tuesday evening, city staff explained that the non-interim regulations proposal does the following:
Prohibits new petroleum fuel facilities and limits expansion of existing facilities,
Allows new cleaner fuel infrastructure,
Requires conditional-use permits for chemical manufacturing uses,
Limits residential encroachment on the Port of Tacoma Maritime Industrial Center along the Northeast Tacoma slope,
Expands public notice requirements to 2,500 feet for projects within the Tideflats, and
Prohibits certain non-industrial uses in the port, like hospitals, airports or large stadiums that might infringe on industrial lands.
Council members didn’t offer in-depth comments on the regulations at Tuesday’s meeting but spoke to the changes last month.
Council member Lillian Hunter said in a City Council meeting in October that the new regulations aren’t perfect, but that the City Council shouldn’t “let perfect be the enemy of the good.”
“We had many stakeholders who left this process wanting more,” Hunter said. “In fact, I think every stakeholder left this process wanting more, but every stakeholder got a little something here.”
“Is this perfect? No. Is it good work? I believe so,” Council member Conor McCarthy said at the same meeting. “Does it protect our community and help us move forward? Yeah, I believe so. Are we proposing more restrictions on fossil fuel production and expansion in the city than we ever have in the history of the city of Tacoma? Absolutely.”
Council member Chris Beale has been critical of the IPS changes.
“The biggest thing to me, which I consider sort of a snuck-in provision, is the ethanol-blending portion of it. And new facilities and expanded facilities using ethanol blends, essentially is business as usual pumped gas,” Beale said Oct. 12.
Beale was referring to part of the “cleaner fuels” definitions in the new code, which would allow for facilities to blend petroleum with other cleaner fuels.
Much of the contention lies within code’s definition of “cleaner fuels,” which environmental groups in Tacoma say is a loophole allowing fossil fuels to expand.
The code prevents expansion of fossil-fuels facilities currently on the Tideflats but allows a pathway for facilities with existing petroleum tanks to be expanded up to 15 percent for production of “cleaner fuels.”
Communities for a Healthy Bay submitted a letter to City Council on Tuesday urging the city to clarify the “cleaner fuels” definition.
“As is, the ‘Cleaner Fuels’ definition includes Alternative Fuels, which under RCW 19.112 (2) includes ‘liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas, biodiesel fuel, E85 motor fuel... hydrogen fuel… nonhazardous motor fuel, or electricity….’” Communities for a Healthy Bay executive director Melissa Malott and policy and technical program manager Erin Dilworth said in the letter. “We know that natural gas CANNOT be a part of our strategy to reduce GHGs (greenhouse gas emissions) in Tacoma.”
Dozens of other Tacoma residents and advocates echoed the concerns at Tuesday’s meeting.
“Unfortunately, we still see some significant flaws with the policy that really failed to protect unity and safety,” Washington Environmental Council fossil fuel campaign manager Anna Doty said. “We do support having a pathway for existing industries to transition to cleaner fuels, but the inclusion of fossil fuels and other fuel blends with limited emission benefits in the cleaner fuels definition is a serious concern.”
City of Tacoma staff have maintained that the 15 percent expansion is only permitted for existing facilities and only if they demonstrate that that percentage is being used in production of cleaner fuels.
“The definitions (of cleaner fuels) that we incorporated are the definitions in state law,” city attorney Steve Victor told City Council in a presentation Oct. 12. “They do include blends — the state incentivizes blends, which have a great deal of petroleum in them.”
Victor continued that rather than the city attempting to invent its own definitions, they recommended the state definitions. If a new definition is developed, he said, it should be in the context of the subarea plan and with knowledge of the low-carbon fuel standard regulations passed by the state Legislature this year.
Meanwhile, representatives of industrial businesses and the port spoke in support of passing the non-interim regulations Tuesday night, even as they said the some of the regulations are too restrictive.
Andrew Troske, refinery manager and vice president of manufacturing for U.S. Oil, said during public comment Tuesday that U.S. Oil showed up in good faith to compromise on the resolution but “are not happy with the amendments.”
“We took the request of the IPS committee to find a mediated solution to heart, and we knew that we would need to accept regulations to limit petroleum expansion,” Troske said. “These amendments do not allow for any expansion for growth, and that’s unrealistic.”
Matthew Mauer, local government affairs manager for the Port of Tacoma, also spoke Tuesday in support of passing the regulations.
“The port has participated in this process in good faith along with many other stakeholder groups and Tacoma residents, and while there are many aspects of the current proposal that the port is not happy with, we do believe it’s time to move on,” Mauer said. “Unpredictability in the regulatory world is an enemy of preserving and growing family-wage jobs, and we believe that the constant extension of temporary regulations must end.”
Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards said Tuesday that she and City Council member Kristina Walker met with the Puyallup Tribe last week to discuss the non-interim regulations. Woodards said earlier this year she felt it was important to consult with the tribe.
In a letter to City Council on Monday following that meeting, Puyallup tribal chairman Bill Sterud thanked the Council for meeting with the tribe but said the IPS changes led to “loopholes that continue the development of the same fossil fuels — namely natural gas and LNG that the regulations and will of the people intended to prohibit.”
“Our members exercise treaty rights and live near and around the industrial lands of the Tacoma Tideflats, this makes the Puyallup Tribe one of the most disproportionately affected groups of these types of development,” Sterud wrote. “This is an environmental justice issue. Only by addressing it head on can we change the structural systems that have been put in place to disenfranchise us from our lands, clean water, and keeping our people healthy.”
The letter included recommended changes to the proposed non-interim regulations that attempt to close those loopholes.
Woodards said Tuesday the city expects to add some clarifying amendments as a result of the consultation with the tribe, but that they would not be “substantive changes.”
It was not immediately clear Tuesday what exactly the amendments would be. City staff told The News Tribune on Wednesday that those amendments will be publicly shared later this week as part of City Council’s weekly report from city staff.
This story was originally published November 11, 2021 at 5:00 AM.
