The incentive change is a response, in part, to a pending federal lawsuit filed in 2011 that questions its constitutionality.

Although the legislation eliminates the renewable energy tax incentive, it would double the amount of electricity that rural cooperatives must produce from renewable sources by 2020 from 10 percent to 20 percent.

Washington, D.C., think tank American Tradition Institute filed a lawsuit against the incentive on behalf of a Colorado resident.

The lawsuit alleges that the incentive, which gives electric companies a 25 percent bonus for every megawatt-hour of renewable energy generated in state, violates the interstate commerce clause by favoring companies in Colorado and discriminating against out-of-state electric generators.

Sponsor of the bill and House Speaker Mark Ferrandino (D) said eliminating the incentive would have little impact on the state’s wind and solar power industries. Xcel Energy Inc., the state’s largest energy provider, is already on track to meet the 2020 requirement. But other companies that are scrambling to meet that deadline could be affected.

Energy generation that comes online before 2015 will still be eligible for the bonus (Megan Schrader,Colorado Springs Gazette, May 23).

The projections, released yesterday by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, account for January’s extension of the production tax credit for wind power and subsequent guidance from the Internal Revenue Service giving clear direction to developers on how a project must qualify for the PTC.

That guidance states that developers can qualify for the tax credit of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour so long as they break ground on wind farm projects by the end of 2013, or if they have invested 5 percent of the total project’s cost by year’s end.

That is a marked change from earlier versions of the PTC, which held that projects had to be “in service” by the date the PTC was set to expire.

The EIA, in developing its 2013 Annual Energy Outlook last year, based its reference case projections on a scenario in which the PTC was no longer in effect, said Gwen Bredehoeft, an operations analyst in EIA’s Office of Renewable Energy. As such, the industry was expected to add very little new capacity from 2013 to 2016, she added.

With the PTC extension and new IRS guidance, the EIA now projects the wind energy industry will see growth as much as 34 percent higher than originally estimated between 2013 and 2016, while renewables on the whole will see 9 percent higher growth over the same period.

Pace of growth remains uncertain

“The take-away message is that we’re going to see some short- and medium-term growth in wind capacity that otherwise would not have occurred” without the PTC extension, Bredehoeft said. But the pace at which that growth will occur remains unclear, she said.

The increase in wind energy will also partially displace some other forms of both renewable and traditional generation in the reference case, EIA said, including new solar, biomass, coal and natural gas plants

EIA noted in a “Today in Energy” report published on its website that industry uncertainty over the PTC’s prospects for renewal last year resulted in very little development activity in the first quarter of 2013. Now, “as developers have a chance to react to the new IRS clarification, EIA expects that power purchase agreements and financing activity will resume, and the timing of this resumption likely will affect the timing of building new capacity in the near term,” the agency said.

Renewable energy proponents welcomed the new EIA projections as evidence that wind, solar, biomass and other alternative fuels have gained a firm foothold in the U.S. energy economy and that sound government policies can help stimulate that growth.

“American businesses across the country are eagerly embracing all forms of renewable energy, including wind, solar, bioenergy, hydro, geothermal and waste-to-energy technologies,” said Dennis McGinn, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy. “We believe that the EIA’s projections on wind energy clearly reflect the value of renewable energy tax credits.”

Michael Goggin, a senior electric industry analyst with the American Wind Energy Association, noted that despite wind energy’s unparalleled growth in recent years, the industry “receives only a small fraction of the support that competing energy resources have received and continue to receive.”

“EIA’s projections for wind energy’s continued growth underscore the marketplace’s confidence, and they prove that with a more stable policy landscape, the sky’s the limit for American wind energy,” he added.

“The way I look at it is that this natural gas boom is a boon,” Moniz said during a town hall session yesterday that was posted in a video on his Facebook page.

“The way I look at it is that this natural gas boom is a boon,” Moniz said during a town hall session yesterday that was posted in a video on his Facebook page.

“The key is that buying time is not very useful if you don’t use the time,” he said. “It means pushing hard on those other technologies, on the renewable technologies. This is the time to get those ready for the marketplace on a big scale. So, this is the decade, I believe the crucial decade, for us to accomplish that,” Moniz said.

Natural gas is partially responsible for the recent decrease in carbon dioxide emissions, and “it affords us a little bit more time to develop the technologies, to lower the costs of the alternative technologies, to get the market penetration of these new technologies,” he said.

In particular, Moniz said solar will likely beat expectations for going mainstream. “I’m very bullish on solar,” he said. “I think it’s going to be a lot bigger than most people think sooner than they think, in my view.”

Along with solar and wind, Moniz said he would also be taking a good look at the “forgotten” renewables including engineered geothermal systems and small hydropower, as he noted during his confirmation hearings.

Moniz was sworn into office earlier this week after being confirmed 97-0 by the Senate last week.

Lawmakers gave second-round approval Tuesday to the bill that would extend sales tax exemptions to wind-energy companies. One firm, TradeWind Energy, has expressed interest in developing a wind farm in Dixon County near the Iowa and South Dakota border.

State Sen. Steve Lathrop of Omaha said LB104 is designed to keep Nebraska competitive with other high-wind states in the Plains that have offered tax incentives, allowing companies to reduce their costs. Nebraska currently charges a sales tax on all equipment and materials used in wind-energy projects.

“Clearly, the potential is enormous and the development lagging behind,” Lathrop said.

Some lawmakers questioned whether Nebraska residents would receive enough of the direct benefits and whether the proposal would run afoul of state laws that govern public power. Smith said lawmakers should first study Nebraska’s energy policy, although bill supporters argued that doing so would likely cost the state a possible business deal with TradeWind, of Lenexa, Kan.

Lathrop said the 200-megawatt wind farm would provide lease payments to local landowners of $10,000 to $15,000 per turbine, create 200 construction jobs and 12 to 16 permanent jobs, and generate $700,000 a year in local taxes.

Nebraska ranks as one of the nation’s biggest wind-producing states, but 26th in the energy it could produce with equipment currently installed. It lags behind its neighboring states: Iowa, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado and Kansas.

The vote came as TradeWind Energy considers building a wind farm in northeast Nebraska. In April, Nebraska officially lost a bid to attract a $300 million Facebook data center to Iowa.

LePage won’t support the bill unless it also requires wind developers prove their projects will lower electricity costs in order to receive state approval and raises the 100-megawatt limit energy generation facilities must meet so they can count toward the state’s renewable energy goals, according to Patrick Woodcock, who directs LePage’s energy office.

The bill includes provisions from legislation proposed by LePage and Democratic and Republican legislators. It has elements designed to appeal to LePage, who has emphasized policies that directly reduce energy costs, and Democrats and environmental groups, who have advocated for investments in energy efficiency.

Woodcock said the legislation includes parts that LePage supports. “There’s a lot of consensus once and for all around developing a law that addresses heating costs,” he said.

But the governor objects to other parts of the law, including a provision that would allow the Maine Public Utilities Commission rather than the Legislature to set the system benefit charge that’s added to all electric bills to fund conservation and efficiency programs.

“That is not consistent with the governor’s view of basic government,” Woodcock said. “He has very strong concerns about that provision.”

Republicans on the Energy Committee have suggested setting a cap on the system benefit charge the Public Utilities Commission can levy, but the committee hasn’t reached an accord on that issue.

Woodcock has previously raised concerns about measures in the bill that would let the state purchase capacity in natural gas pipelines that would make it more economically feasible for developers to build pipelines that reach southern New England. If more natural gas can make its way into the regional electric grid, the bill’s proponents say, Maine’s electricity costs could fall.

Since the bill has a chance to attract support from members of both parties, a lack of support from LePage isn’t necessarily an impediment to its passage.

“We will consider any item that the governor has proposed that improves the bill or benefits the people of Maine,” said Sen. John Cleveland, D-Auburn, the Energy Committee’s Senate chairman. “We’re going to produce the best bill we can produce.”

LePage has long advocated for changes to Maine’s Wind Energy Act. Woodcock recently told Energy Committee members that the law should no longer set goals for increasing the state’s wind energy capacity. Instead, he said, the law’s goals should focus on lowering electricity costs.

LePage has also repeatedly called for raising the 100-megawatt limit renewable energy sources must meet in order to count toward the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires at least 40 percent of the state’s energy come from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2017. The change would allow energy from large Canadian hydro projects to count toward the state’s renewable energy requirements.

The Energy Committee bill is the product of work that has involved Cleveland; Rep. Barry Hobbins, D-Saco, the Energy Committee’s House chairman; Republican committee members Sen. Edward Youngblood of Brewer and Rep. Larry Dunphy of Embden; Woodcock; Thomas Welch, the Public Utilities Commission chairman; the Industrial Energy Consumers’ Group, which represents many of the state’s paper mills; the Natural Resources Council of Maine; and others.

The bill incorporates pieces from two bills sponsored by House Republican Leader Rep. Kenneth Fredette of Newport that could lead to the state’s ratepayers partially financing a buildout of pipeline infrastructure in southern New England so more natural gas can make its way from the Marcellus Shale rock formation — which covers much of New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia — to New England.

With more pipeline capacity flowing into New England, Maine could be better insulated from electricity price swings that occur when pipeline capacity is nearly maxed out, Welch, the Public Utilities Commission chairman, has told Energy Committee members.

If the state purchases capacity in a pipeline that’s ultimately built, the Energy Committee bill would let the state enter into energy cost-reduction contracts with natural gas generators by selling capacity in exchange for rates that reduce electricity costs.

Committee members have recently amended the bill to limit the utilities commission’s authority to craft those contracts by requiring the commission hire a consultant to negotiate the contract, working with the state’s public advocate and the governor’s energy office. The governor would have ultimate authority over whether Maine enters into such a contract.

The revised bill also installs a sunset provision that ends the state’s authority to enter into a cost reduction contract in 2019, and it would require the Public Utilities Commission report back to the Legislature in two years on its progress negotiating cost reduction contracts.

“It’s inappropriately putting the state of Maine in the position of investing speculatively in the gas markets,” said Greg Cunningham, a senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation of Maine. “It assumes that natural gas prices remain at low levels. It assumes that there are not other supplies of gas that become available. It assumes that there are not other demands for the gas, such as an international market that might drive the price of that investment up.”

Dylan Voorhees, clean energy project director with the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said his group has signed onto the Energy Committee bill because it proposes additional funding for energy efficiency and conservation projects and it allows Maine to sign onto a reduced cap on carbon emissions for power-generating facilities recently agreed to by the nine northeastern states that belong to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

Those benefits, Voorhees said, outweigh the council’s concerns about the provisions that allow the state to purchase natural gas pipeline capacity to compensate for a marketplace that has been slow to make infrastructure investments that allow more natural gas to flow Maine’s way.

“This bill has a chance of passing in a bipartisan way,” Voorhees said.

The extension of a key tax credit at the beginning of this year will provide a significant boost in renewable energy installations –- especially from wind -– for the next few years, the Energy Information Administration said today.

Congress in January extended the production tax credit through the end of this year and expanded its eligibility requirements for all eligible projects, requiring they must simply begin construction by Dec. 31 rather than requiring them to be complete by the deadline.

The new law means that renewable energy installations will be 9 percent higher than they otherwise would be in 2016, with wind seeing a 34 percent boost, EIA said in an article today, drawing on data from its “Annual Energy Outlook 2013.” The increases are measured against EIA’s reference case, which did not account for the tax credit extension.

A “crucial new feature” of the PTC extension is the expanded eligibility trigger, EIA said. The Internal Revenue Service said earlier this year that companies can demonstrate compliance with the “commence construction” requirement by beginning “physical work of a significant nature” on a wind farm, geothermal plant or other eligible facility, or by spending 5 percent of the project’s projected price tag by the end of this year.

EIA projects wind developers will install about 20,000 megawatts of new capacity over the next four years, although it notes the timing of when those new projects come online remains unclear. Activity in the sector spiked at the end of 2012 –- which saw more than 13,000 MW installed -– but fell sharply over the first few months of this year.

The PTC gives wind, geothermal and closed-loop biomass developers a credit of $23 for every megawatt-hour of electricity they produce for 10 years; other technologies like closed-loop biomass, qualified hydropower and waste-to-energy get $11 per MWh.

While the extension packs a heavy short-term punch, its effects are less dramatic over the long term. According to EIA, by 2040, renewable generation would be 2 percent above base-line levels with wind seeing an increase of 17 percent.

“These results indicate that, while the short-term extension does result in a net increase in wind generating capacity, some construction that otherwise would have occurred later in the projection period is simply completed earlier to take advantage of the extended tax credit,” EIA said. “The increase in wind generation partially displaces other forms of generation in the Reference case, both renewable and nonrenewable, particularly solar, biomass, coal, and natural gas.”

The Wilderness Society’s “blueprint for action,” set to be released today, applauds the work already done by the administration to promote renewables development on federal lands. But the report concludes that “long-term success requires a relentless focus on cementing those gains and tackling remaining challenges.”

Titled “Smart Steps to Establish a Responsible Program for Renewable Energy on Public Lands,” the report outlines seven steps that Interior Secretary Sally Jewell should take to ensure renewable energy projects are properly sited, allowing green energy sources to displace fossil fuels while ensuring sensitive habitat is protected and damaging impacts are properly mitigated.

“The blueprint is really about the opportunities that both the administration and the Interior Department have in going forward and cementing the gains they’ve made and attaining the clean energy future the president has outlined and the public supports,” said Alex Daue, a Wilderness Society renewable energy associate in Denver and one of the report’s three authors.

Most of the recommendations touch on completing goals outlined in March 2009 by then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in his first secretarial order, which made the production and delivery of renewable energy a top priority.

The Wilderness Society report recommends that Interior finalize a rule by the end of 2014 amending the Code of Federal Regulations to include Salazar’s first secretarial order, as well as other rules and orders that were adopted to ensure that renewables development on public land moved forward. Doing so would “significantly reduce uncertainty and agency vulnerability to legal challenge,” according to the report.

The report also calls for expanding on work that’s been done so far, such as fully implementing the strategies outlined in the solar programmatic environmental impact statement, including focusing solar development within the solar energy zones in six Western states that were identified as having low wildlife values.

But the group also calls on Interior to follow through on its stated commitment to develop a Wyoming Wind and Transmission Study this year that would, among other things, “identify areas with sensitive natural or cultural resources that should be excluded from development.” If successful, the same approach should be taken in Oregon and Nevada, which like Wyoming have good wind resources and have been targeted by the industry.

The report also recommends that the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service remain focused on complying with a legal settlement last year with the Wilderness Society, Center for Biological Diversity and others challenging a Bush-era electricity transmission corridor plan covering more than 6,000 acres in 11 Western states. BLM and the Forest Service agreed to revise the corridors to appropriately account for environmental impacts and to better incorporate renewables development in the plan (EnergyWire, July 5, 2012).

BLM is set in July to issue a memorandum of understanding outlining the parameters of corridor review and expected revisions, Daue said.

Most of the recommended actions in the latest report can be achieved through administrative rulemaking or secretarial orders.

Congress, however, would need to authorize a recommendation authorizing BLM to charge a royalty per unit of electricity produced, and to allow it to “reinvest revenue derived from the development of federally-controlled energy resources in conservation programs that help mitigate the adverse impacts that accompany such development,” the report said.

“The past few years have taught us a number of lessons that should help guide actions needed now to establish a program which protects America’s shared lands while moving us into an energy future that takes advantage of our abundant renewable resources,” Daue said.

For its part, the Interior Department says it takes the Wilderness Society report and recommendations seriously.

“We welcome the recommendations and the continuing dialogue on how the Interior Department can continue to grow our domestic energy portfolio through thoughtful, landscape-level planning when it comes to renewable energy on our nation’s public lands,” said Jessica Kershaw, an Interior spokeswoman in Washington, D.C.

The report comes as the Obama administration is making unprecedented efforts to expand development of solar, wind and geothermal power on federal lands across the West.

The administration since 2009 has approved 37 solar, wind and geothermal power projects covering roughly 240,000 acres of federal land with a total capacity, if built, to power nearly 4 million homes.

So successful has the effort been that Interior last year announced it had already met a goal established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to approve roughly 10,000 megawatts of non-hydropower renewable energy projects on federal land by 2015.

The administration now has a chance to ensure that policies and procedures are in place to drive responsible renewables development for years to come, according to the Wilderness Society.

“How the administration responds to these opportunities and challenges will determine whether its remarkable first-term successes can be translated into a lasting, long-term framework for how renewable energy on public lands can be developed in the right ways and in the right places,” Daue said. “Secretary Jewell is bringing a new perspective and fresh ideas to the Interior Department that will build on the foundation laid by former Secretary Salazar.”

Those are the latest findings from the World Wind Energy Association, which advocates for wind energy development from its headquarters in Bonn, Germany.

Overall, global wind energy capacity rose 19 percent in 2012, from about 236,700 megawatts to 282,300 MW installed across 100 countries, according to WWEA’s 2012 annual report, issued last week.

While still robust, that growth rate represents a slowdown from 2009, when global wind energy capacity jumped by 32 percent in one year, from just under 121,000 MW to nearly 160,000 MW. Annual growth in global power wind installations had not dropped below 20 percent for two decades, according to the group.

Yet in total megawatts, the industry has expanded sevenfold over the last 10 years. In 2003, turbines accounted for less than 40,000 MW of generation, with most of the industry concentrated in Western Europe. By comparison, the United States and China installed more than half that amount last year alone, according to the report.

“The contribution of wind power to the energy supply has reached a substantial share even on the global level: All wind turbines installed around the globe by the end of 2011 contribute potentially 580 terawatt-hours to the worldwide electricity supply, more than 3 percent of the global electricity demand,” the group said in its latest annual report.

U.S. and China lead

2012 set a record for new turbine installations at 44,600 MW of capacity, up 12 percent from 2011. The largest share of those new turbines went up in the United States and China, each of which added an estimated 13,000 MW of capacity. In total, 46 countries added wind power to their grids in 2012, according to the report, accounting for $75 billion in spending.

“Without doubt, wind power has become a pillar of the energy systems in many countries and is recognised as a reliable and affordable source of electricity,” the report states.

By 2016 the association projects global wind energy capacity to exceed 500,000 MW, and it says 1 million MW of generation is feasible by 2020 if economic and political conditions remain favorable for wind developers.

While noting the very strong growth in U.S. wind energy installations for 2012, WWEA said, “There are still major regulatory uncertainties in North America,” in particular the possible phaseout of the federal production tax credit for wind developers. The report also noted that Canada’s wind sector cooled considerably in 2012, largely because of opposition to Ontario’s Green Energy Act, which created lucrative incentives to build wind farms.

In Asia, China and India remained the dominant wind energy producers in 2012, followed by Japan, Turkey, South Korea and Pakistan, according to WWEA. China accounts for 75 percent of Asia’s wind energy market, while India has 18 percent. Japan and South Korea both have adopted ambitious offshore wind programs, but they face difficult technical challenges due to deep water, according to the report.

Japan ranked as the world’s 13th largest wind energy producer in 2012, with 2,600 MW of installed capacity, while South Korea ranked 30th at 483 MW.

Future growth likely to come in emerging markets

If current trends hold, much of the industry’s future growth will come in emerging markets such as Latin America, where wind power saw 56 percent year-over-year growth in 2012, led by Argentina (80 percent), Brazil (75 percent), Nicaragua (62 percent) and Mexico (45 percent). Latin America’s recent growth spurt was enough to attract WWEA to host its international conference next month in Havana.

Among Europe’s traditional wind power leaders, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain registered the largest number of new installations in 2012, with a combined 6,700 MW of newly installed capacity, according to WWEA

The world’s fastest-growing wind power sectors for 2012, however, were in Eastern Europe — Romania, Poland and Ukraine.

Romania, which registered only 7 MW of wind energy capacity as recently as 2007, has witnessed a development explosion over the past five years and now claims more than 1,900 MW of wind power, according to WWEA. Poland added 880 MW of wind power to its grid in 2012, while Ukraine added 125 MW of new capacity, reflecting an 83 percent growth rate.

Other countries reporting significant expansions of wind energy in 2012 were Sweden (846 MW), France (757 MW), Turkey (506 MW), Belgium (297 MW), Austria (296 MW) and Denmark (217 MW). Notably absent from the world’s major wind energy sectors was Russia, with estimates of only 16.8 MW of installed capacity nationwide, ranking it 66th in the world.

Other traditionally lagging countries that are expected to see more wind energy development rates over the coming years include Egypt, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia in north Africa as well as Ethiopia and South Africa.

WWEA suggested that new political support systems, such as feed-in tariffs, will be necessary to stimulate wind energy development on the continent, and that “special consideration should be given to small-scaled and hybrid systems for rural electrification so that hundreds of millions of Africans in unserved areas can eventually benefit from modern electricity services.”

A bill (LB104) by Omaha Sen. Steve Lathrop would remove a barrier to the development and export of wind energy in Nebraska.

The measure would provide a sales tax exemption for the purchase of turbines, towers and other wind-farm components — which Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma have used to create a wind-energy boom. Meanwhile, Nebraska has lagged behind, ranking 26th of the 39 states that generate wind energy, despite having the fourth-best wind resources in the country.

Lathrop said Nebraska could gain a $300 million to $400 million project — by TradeWind Energy of Lenexa, Kan., if his bill is passed. The project would fall under the Nebraska Advantage Act, which was passed in 2005 and is meant to encourage companies to expand and create jobs by offering them tax incentives.

To date, some 320 companies have applied for Nebraska Advantage credits and created 20,500 new jobs.

But Heineman said he opposes Lathrop’s measure because the Legislature is preparing to study how best to overhaul Nebraska’s tax system.

“I’ve made it very clear that Nebraskans deserve tax relief first … before you ought to be considering a bill like that, and especially providing special tax breaks for a Kansas company so they can ship Nebraska energy” out of state, Heineman said during a conference call with reporters. “You ought to ask him why that makes sense.”

Nebraska lags in the production of wind energy. Iowa, for example, generates more than 13 times as much wind power as Nebraska — 4,536 megawatts to 337. And Nebraska ranks last among its neighboring states.

Proponents of LB104 said the state needs to act now if it wants to develop its abundant wind resources, because a major wind-energy incentive — a federal production tax credit — is scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

The bill earlier advanced to second-round of debate on a 30-0 vote. Lawmakers are expected to take it up again this week.

TradeWind Energy’s Rattlesnake Creek Wind project would be in Dixon County. Lathrop said the 200-megawatt wind farm would provide lease payments to local landowners of $10,000 to $15,000 per turbine, create 200 construction jobs and 12 to 16 permanent jobs, and pay $700,000 a year in local taxes. With the bill, Nebraska could allow a refund of sales tax to qualifying companies. It was expected that in the next two-year budget, tax refunds could equal about $7.5 million.

TradeWind Energy will decide soon whether it will build in Nebraska or elsewhere.

Lathrop noted that Heineman has been a major proponent of the Advantage Act.

“It is like so many additions to the Advantage Act … which is all about economic development,” Lathrop said. “Most of the Advantage Act … is intended to incent outside businesses to come to Nebraska. So it’s doing exactly what we’ve done a million times, and I think he’s probably supported every one of them.

Another wind energy bill (LB402), by Omaha Sen. Heath Mello, would encourage more local ownership of renewable energy projects. It would allow a sales tax exemption on materials used in the projects, as long as 25 percent of gross revenues go to Nebraska businesses or individuals.

Some groups, like the Nebraska Farmers Union and Center for Rural Affairs, have said they support LB402 because it would create more economic development in rural areas by requiring purchases from Nebraska to qualify for tax breaks. The Sierra Club supports both bills.

Mello has asked that his bill be held over until next year.

But also like the president and the dilemma he faces over the Keystone XL oil pipeline, both chief executives have yet to take a firm stance for or against what environmentalists see as a key threat to global climate — increased coal exports from the United States to energy-hungry markets in Asia.

Eric de Place, policy director for the Seattle-based Sightline Institute, a sustainability research organization, thinks Kitzhaber and Inslee could theoretically put a wrench in plans for three remaining new export terminal projects.

“People are actively debating this question right now,” de Place said in an interview, noting possible political, legal and logistical ramifications.

In Oregon, the Department of State Lands, overseen by the State Lands Board, which includes the governor, is a significant player over projects there.

In Washington, the state’s Department of Ecology is working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on export terminal proposals in the state.

Political commentator and consultant Chris Vance, who lives just south of Seattle, sees the governors talking more about the permitting process than possible policy outcomes, trying to toe the line between two important constituencies — greens and labor.

“This is the kind of issue that drives a Democrat crazy because it splits their coalition,” said Vance, former Washington state Republican chairman. “It puts a governor like Jay Inslee in a same spot as President Obama is in over the Keystone XL pipeline.”

John Mohlis, executive secretary of the Oregon Building and Construction Trades Council, also sees a Keystone XL-coal connection. “Yeah. I think it’s very similar,” he said in an interview.

“We’re in favor of the project because they have pledged to use our members,” he said about Ambre Energy Ltd.’s exports plans in two sites along the Columbia River. “They have pledged to build the barges at two facilities in Portland.”

Mohlis’ group is one of dozens of labor, industry and transport groups that have coalesced under the umbrella the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports.

Other members include the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, Associated General Contractors of Washington, Arch Coal Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp.

“The Northwest, especially its many rural communities, are in dire need of new investment and infrastructure,” Lee Newgent, chief for the Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council, wrote Inslee this year.

“The proposed terminals will mean new spending for railroads and ports which would carry benefits far beyond the terminals themselves,” he wrote.

‘Keystone Principle’

But environmental advocates and other opponents of developing the fossil fuel projects — both Keystone XL and coal exports — question the long-term economic benefits, especially in the face of uncertain coal markets.

And while the XL pipeline has grabbed the national headlines — especially because the White House has the clear, ultimate power over its development — groups like Greenpeace and Sightline have called potential coal exports a comparable or even worse climate threat.

KC Golden, policy director of the group Climate Solutions, with offices in Washington and Oregon, has written about what he calls the “Keystone Principle.”

While fighting climate change will take a long time, Golden doesn’t think regulators should make way for infrastructure that will extend fossil fuel use. “We must not lock in those long-term infrastructure investments,” he said in an interview.

Mohlis counters, “I truly believe that Powder River Basin coal from Wyoming to Montana, it’s going to be mined, it’s going to be shipped, it’s going to be burned.”

“I don’t believe for a minute that if you stop an export project in Oregon that the coal is not going to get burned,” he said, echoing Keystone XL supporters when talking about the oil it would carry.

So far Kitzhaber and Inslee have not done much more than urge the federal government, through a letter to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, to conduct a cumulative review of the potential climate, health and safety ramifications of increased coal exports and mining.

“We are confident that a full and fair and transparent and public disclosure of all the costs and benefits is going to lead all decisionmakers to conclude that this is a bad deal,” Golden said.

Mohlis said of Kitzhaber, “He had made it clear to the state agencies that they were to deal with these proposals straight up. He has told us that consistently. Does that guarantee that he won’t change his mind? He makes those decisions.”

While the governors may not have as much power over whether to approve the projects compared with Obama and Keystone XL, Golden said state agencies will have to begin making key decisions as the process moves forward.

“These are important decisions with some executive influence,” said Golden, “and we are asking and we expect the governors to be fully accountable to protecting the public interest in these decisions.”

Political backlash?

De Place, who focuses more on research than advocacy, thinks the campaign against coal export terminals is well served by the governors staying largely above the fray.

“I would say that it might make sense for the governors to lead from behind,” he said. “The opponents have been very successful in garnering opposition to the proposals. So keep doing that.”

Recent polls by the Pew Research Center and the Woodrow Wilson International Center have found significant public support for the Keystone XL pipeline. Many Democrats in Congress also support it.

Similarly, a survey commissioned by the pro-coal export Alliance for Northwest Jobs & Exports found that almost 55 percent of Oregon voters and almost 57 percent of Washington voters supported the terminals (Greenwire, Nov. 29, 2012).

However, like Keystone XL, where high profile donors and environmentalists have threatened a backlash against Obama if he approves the project, coal export opponents have mobilized thousands of people to protests and public hearings, including residents worried about increased coal train traffic to health workers concerned about dust emissions.

De Place sees any future action from the governors to stop or rally against the projects as being “a lot easier to do when the opposition is well galvanized and muscular.”

But while both sides have aired ads and been outspoken in the media, Vance doesn’t think the advocacy campaigns have been enough to “move the needle” in Washington and Oregon.

He said the rhetoric and spending would have to intensify in order to affect the political prospects of both governors. “They are not doing enough right now to sway public opinion in the major population centers,” Vance said.

Of all the similarities between the coal export and Keystone XL debates, the most important for de Place is that officials have to make decisions about climate change effects on an ad-hoc basis. He wants more action on a uniform climate policy.

“The governors,” de Place said, “are probably more committed to a green economy formation than President Obama is, in my judgment.”