Portland mayor pulls support for fracked gas terminal amid protests

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/13/portland-oregon-canada-fracking-gas-pembina

Version 0 of 1.

Portland’s mayor has all but killed off a plan to build a $500m terminal to ship fracked gas from Canada in the face of overwhelming popular opposition and fears about damage to the city’s progressive image.

The mayor, Charlie Hales, has cancelled a council hearing scheduled for next month to hear a planning application by a Canadian company, Pembina, to build one of the largest industrial facilities in Portland to deliver propane gas, mostly to Asia.

Hales backed the plan as “great news” when it was announced in September, saying it would create jobs, earn tax revenues to pay for schools and police, and help the environment by reducing dependence in China and other countries on dirtier fuels, such as coal.

Related: Portland torn over $500m terminal: could fracking creep into a 'green' city?

But the mayor turned against the plan in the face of a burgeoning popular campaign which claimed the terminal was in conflict with Portland’s green policies and claims to be an environmentally conscious city.

Environmental groups also challenged the planned terminal as one of a string of proposed new or expanded coal, oil and gas export facilities across the Pacific Northwest – Oregon and Washington state in the US, and British Columbia in Canada – with the capacity to dwarf the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Hales called Pembina to ask it to withdraw the planning application because he said it failed to meet the “environmental and climate values firmly held by Portlanders” and because of safety issues.

The mayor’s spokesman, Dana Haynes, said public opinion was a major factor in his decision.

“Public sentiment is very, very strongly against it, wildly against this thing,” he said. “The mayor called Pembina in Calgary and said: ‘You’re walking into the chopper blades here. I was willing to support you last fall, but you’ve lost my support.’”

Haynes said safety concerns included the delivery of liquefied gas by train, particularly in light of recent derailments and other train accidents. Despite the mayor’s opposition, Pembina – which has also drawn protests because of its separate extraction of oil from the Alberta tar sands – said it was confident of winning support from a majority of the city council, which was scheduled to consider the planning application on 10 June.

But on Tuesday, Hales called off the council meeting and said it will not be rescheduled. The terminal came close to being constructed without any public hearings at all. Most of the project could be built through a simple agreement between Pembina and the Port of Portland, an authority appointed by Oregon’s governor.

But it was discovered that a pipeline to deliver liquid gas from storage tanks to ships on the Columbia river required planning approval, which forced the issue before the city council. Portland’s planning and sustainability commission (PSC) narrowly approved the pipeline last month, but the decision fuelled a growing campaign against the terminal. Opponents focused on the source of the gas, from fracking in Canada, and its impact on climate change.

The Audubon Society of Portland warned that if the terminal ran to capacity, it would contribute to the release of 60m tonnes of carbon dioxide each year – 0.01% of global emissions from a single export facility. Chris Smith, a member of the PSC who voted against the terminal, told last month’s hearing that the city’s reputation was at risk and that “we’re going to get soot on the brand” of Portland.

Backers of the terminal included André Baugh, the PSC chair, who said that propane serves as a “bridge fuel” to lessen dependence in China and elsewhere on coal and wood.

“It concerns me that some people may say, how can you call yourself green when you’re starting to look like Houston with the export of fuels?” he told the Guardian last month.

“We’ve worked very hard to be a green city, to be a leader in a lot of areas around the environment. There is a potential impact of this on our reputation. But there’s a broader perspective. It is hypocrisy for us to stand in the way of other people trying to reduce their greenhouse gases.”

The PSC hearing drew wider attention to the issue and public opinion in Portland swung decisively against the plan. Protesters followed Hales around, denouncing him as he visited environmental events, and hanging posters calling him “fossil fuel Charlie”. “We had 3,000 emails against to three in favour over the past couple of weeks,” said Haynes.

“We really haven’t seen an issue galvanise the community like that.” The Port of Portland’s executive director, Bill Wyatt, said that Hales told him he was concerned about the impact of supporting the terminal on his re-election, according to an email Wyatt sent to port officials last week and obtained by Willamette Week.

“Mayor Hales called me this afternoon to let me know that he was withdrawing his support for the Pembina project. He cited concerns about the level of opposition and how that might affect his re-election as the primary concern,” the email said.

“This is deeply disappointing, obviously, particularly because Pembina insisted on meeting with the Mayor prior to their announcement back in January. He could not have been more supportive, and said so on the front page of the paper, inducing Pembina to spend several million dollars doing the preliminary engineering and safety studies necessary to proceed.”

Haynes said he heard the mayor’s side of the conversation with Wyatt and strongly denied that Hales had said any such thing.

Nick Caleb, a Concordia University professor and former city council candidate who helped organise protests against the terminal, described the campaign as a “huge success”. “Pretty much every group across the board except some industry is opposed to new fossil fuel infrastructure in Portland,” he said.

But Caleb said that environmentalists remain concerned that the Port of Portland could press ahead with some other type of natural gas or propane shipping facility that does not require city council approval. Haynes said “it is really hard” to see how the terminal can go ahead although it is still theoretically possible for one of the five members of the city council to put the application on the agenda. But that would require the unusual step of a member acting outside of his or her portfolio. Even then, it would be unlikely to pass without the mayor’s support.