(On June 10, Tom Armstrong, supervising planner from the City of Portland’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS), presented the latest draft of the plan for the drawdown of fuels at the Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub for public comment. The plan does too little to reduce risks and emissions, and would be implemented too late. Diana Meisenhelter, who has been bird-dogging this danger to the city and region since 2018, reports. – Ed.)
Five Reasons to Demand a Better Drawdown Plan
- Waiting for 10 years for a minimal drawdown is totally unacceptable. Basing it on tank capacity could actually not even be a drawdown at all, but would lead to fuel increases and not truly reduce risk. All City policy should clearly result in no expansion of liquid fuels or other flammable, toxic materials. No expansions should be permitted during the process of deliberation on the drawdown.
- The City Council must require that BPS demand data from corporations with tanks in the CEI Hub for BOTH the current in-service capacity by fuel type and tanks, AND the annual average individual volume tank daily fill by month for the previous 3 years. More data should be required, showing the average annual fill level by facility, product type and annual maximum individual tank daily fill, by month for the prior 3 years.
- Drawdown should then be based on real data numbers of actual tank volumes. There should be a significant original drawdown in 2027 of around 20% (this may vary once data is reviewed) and then a phased drawdown every five years in line with the Oregon climate goals for 2050. This is still not what global climate scientists and local seismic experts say is needed to avoid the unthinkable. Assuming the 2027 drawdown amount is similar to what BPS proposed, the phased drawdowns would be in the realm of around 5-6% every five years. As an added measure, there could be a risk assessment review of actual state fuel demand and needs as part of this process. The idea is not to just trail the declining fuel needs, but to actually help shape this decline so a balance will need to be struck in this analysis. The City and Oregon as a whole should be working towards: public transit efficiency and affordability; electrification of transportation; creating safer pedestrian and biking transportation options; incentives for alternative transportation modes for low-income families; and more. These changes could be part of a long-term transportation approach to reduce emissions and pollution (which have their own costs, escalating with accelerating climate and health crises).
- Natural gas and aviation fuel should not be exempted from the drawdown. Being a publicly regulated utility should not allow Northwest Natural to shirk their responsibilities for public health and safety. Both “natural” gas (mostly methane, a powerful greenhouse gas) and jet fuel should be subject to drawdown unless a full discretionary review process has been completed. Similarly, decisions to cease operations should allow product but NOT CAPACITIES to be transferred or sold to other oil or gas entities, but not be exempted from the drawdown.
- The human and economic costs for ALL will be very high if we don’t rapidly reduce emissions and transition to cleaner energy and ensure that flammable, toxics and liquid fuels are not stored in a liquefaction zone. Both are ticking timebombs heading towards disaster.
