The proposed Gateway Pacific coal terminal could hurt rather than boost the Pacific Northwest economy, potentially undercutting a major argument in favor of the project, according to a study released this afternoon.

Environmental and community groups opposed to increased coal exports from the states of Oregon and Washington have attacked the projects from an environmental and public safety standpoint.

Now those critics are doubling down on claims that the projects, including Gateway Pacific, the largest one proposed, would also do no good for people’s pocketbooks, as boosters have claimed.

“A potential slowing of the local economy in Bellingham [Wash.] could negatively impact City revenues,” said the 42-page document. “The proposed development of GPT may have an impact that affects overall market interest in Bellingham as a place to live that could affect tax revenue.”

Philadelphia-based consultancy the PFM Group prepared the report for Communitywise Bellingham, a group skeptical of coal exports in that Washington community near the Canadian border.

PFM focused its study on the fact that Whatcom County and Bellingham have attracted highly skilled residents despite lower wages and higher property costs. It said the area’s amenities and natural beauty are a significant magnet.

“The development of GPT and the related increase in rail traffic could create risk for future trajectory growth in Bellingham and Whatcom County,” the study said. Communitywise has commissioned similar reports in the past.

“Should GPT negatively alter the real or perceived access to, or enjoyment of, the region’s consumption amenities,” the document said, “then there is a potential that projections for continued in-migration and retention of current residents could be at risk and pose economic challenges for the region.”

SSA Marine, the company developing Gateway Pacific, which could export roughly 50 million tons of coal every year, has said the project would support more than 4,000 jobs during construction and more than 1,000 over the long term.

But PFM expressed doubts about numbers touted by the company and other consultants. The new report said the predictions may be exaggerated, and that population and economic growth in the area has cooled since GPT was announced.

“Additional research is required to provide policy makers and the public with an assessment of whether or not GPT is already impacting the region’s economy and identify ways — expected and unexpected — that it could positively or negatively alter the economic trajectory,” wrote the consultants.

More broadly, environmental groups and other opponents of fossil fuel development have noted the coal and oil industry’s interest in the Pacific Northwest as a portal to Asia. Stopping infrastructure projects there, they figure, can block extraction elsewhere.

Industry responds

Kathryn Stenger, spokeswoman for the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports, a group of interests backing the terminals, said the opponents are exaggerating coal export effects. She said the new study was not objective and failed to rely on the company’s information or previous research.

“The simple fact is, Washington state’s economy is dependent on trade, and the future economic vitality of our region is dependent on growing trade infrastructure,” Stenger said. “The terminal projects are a critical piece of this planned advancement, which will benefit all of the state’s industries, from agriculture to timber.”

The alliance also had a warning for Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who has backed the state’s scrutiny of the terminal, which exceeds the ongoing Army Corps of Engineers review.

“Trade partners and investors will take their dollars elsewhere,” Stenger said. “Practically speaking, if you are against the terminal expansions, you are against trade.”

The alliance has long framed the coal export debate as a free-trade issue. So have Western coal-state governors, who have urged Inslee to back the terminals.

A recently approved resolution by the Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council said “the terminal will be built and operated by union labor and will create thousands of construction jobs as well as hundreds of long-term, family wage jobs not only in Washington but across the nation.”

Mining companies have been keen to highlight union support, coveting the export terminals as a means of boosting demand for their product amid an ongoing domestic slump because of competition from natural gas, increased regulation and other factors.

Adding to their woes, a recent analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration said U.S. EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan would not only hit already-embattled Appalachian production, but also reduce Western and interior mining.

Coal exports from ports around the country hit a high of more than 120 million short tons in 2012. But they have since receded amid a global glut. EIA expects them to go back up by 2040. Environmentalists are optimistic about the fuel’s international outlook as China and other countries pull back use.

As evidence of the coal mining industry’s ongoing woes, former employees of Peabody Energy Corp. and Arch Coal Inc. sued the companies this month in federal court over retirement plan losses stemming from a dramatic drop in their stock values.

Both Peabody and Arch have deals to export coal from proposed Pacific Northwest terminals. Peabody has long been a partner of GPT. Arch is tied to the Millennium Bulk proposal near Longview, Wash.

Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.