The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-10-09
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (12,359 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Climate Resilience and Land Use Committee met on Thursday, October 9, 2025, beginning at 9:32 a.m. and closing at 11:00 a.m. After roll call and a statement of conduct, the committee heard a staff briefing from the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability on the Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub Policy Project discussion draft. Public testimony was not taken on this item because the discussion draft was in an open public comment period, running through October 17. Staff described the CEI Hub's location, scale, and seismic risk, background on the federal grant funding the project, and prior 2016/2022 zoning regulations and legal history. Four draft regulatory alternatives were outlined, ranging from limited restrictions with conditional-use review to prohibitions on expansion and a proposed capacity drawdown by 2035, with figures for the drawdown percentage discussed with reference to varying federal, state, and regional forecasts. Discussion covered translonding infrastructure, renewable and aviation fuel exceptions, seismic mitigation coordination with DEQ, emergency management staffing, pipeline regulatory jurisdiction, and economic and climate policy considerations. Members asked clarifying questions on terminology, enforcement mechanisms, and timelines. No votes were recorded in this session. The next meeting was noted for October 23.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
0 Good morning. I call the the meeting of the climate resilience and land use committee to order. It is Thursday, October 9th at 9:32 a.m. Will you please call the roll?
1 Yes.
2 Avalos.
3 Canal here. Ryan Novick here. Are you here?
4 And I believe counselor Avalos will be joining us at around 1015. Christopher, will you please read the statement of conduct?
5 Welcome to the meeting of the climate resilience and land use committee to testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance in the committee agenda at wwe. Agenda. Climate resilience, dash and dash land use dash committee or by calling 311. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting. In person, testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. Public testimony will be taken on an item. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further, disrupt disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Thank you.
6 Thank you christopher. We only have one item on our agenda today, and we're going to have an additional informational briefing on the cei hub policy project and a discussion of the current plan. Will you please read the next item?
7 Item one critical energy infrastructure hub policy project discussion draft.
8 We have staff today from the community and economic development service area to give an informational overview of the c.e.hubb policy project discussion and the draft alternative. So this is not the final stage of the plan. We're still taking feedback on that. And I'll flag that we didn't open this item for discussion or for public testimony in our meeting today, because the discussion draft is currently open in the middle. It's currently in the middle of the public comment period. So we wanted to make sure that people were directing all of their comments to the right space. So members of the public that are tuning in can click on the link on our committee page, or go directly to the map app to submit comments. And you can find it easily by googling c.e.hubb map app. So for now, I would like to invite director Eric engstrom from bts, patricia tom armstrong, and we will go ahead and get started. Thank you so much for being here today.
9 Thank you, councilor, and good morning. I'm Eric engstrom for the record, director of the bureau of planning and sustainability. With me is patricia diefenderfer, chief planner, and tom armstrong, supervising planner. Before I turn it over to them, I did want to address one, one question that's come up a lot to me, which is and thank the council again for for allocating some money in the last budget to this project. One question I've been getting is what happened to that money? Have you hired anyone with that money? And I want to just address that right off the bat. We have been trying to spend the federal grant money first before we touch any money that the council has given us for some reasons. Maybe you can imagine we're nervous about the federal money disappearing, and we want to make sure we move this project forward. So if we successfully spend the federal money, we will pivot to continuing work with the with the money that the council has allocated in furtherance of this, of this work. But I just wanted to address that question before I turn it over, because it's been a common question I've been getting from council offices. So with that, I will pass it to patricia.
10 Good morning, chair, councilors patricia diefenderfer for the record, chief planner, bureau planning and sustainability. Tom's going to provide most of the presentation here today. We're here just to support and answer questions as needed. As you noted, chair Morillo, this is this presentation is to provide an overview of the discussion draft, which has four different alternatives that have been put forward for public review and comment. And that, as you noted, comments should be directed to staff currently on this discussion draft. And I believe the comment period goes through October 17th. So with that, I'll go ahead and turn it over to tom. Thank you.
11 Good morning councilors I'm tom armstrong, I'm a supervising planner with the bureau of planning and sustainability and have been leading our work on this ci hub project. I'm going to share a presentation here. There we go. Okay. So I'm going to start out by giving you some background on the project scope and a little bit of what we heard from our community engagement in the alternatives development phase of the project. And then I'll give you an overview of the four alternatives that are in the discussion draft, and talk a little bit about the next steps for the project. So we are sort of still early in this process. We started back in may to to launch the project. And and through the summer we conducted a number of outreach meetings with community partners to get feedback and help inform how we put together these four alternatives. And then we published a discussion draft back in mid September, and have been doing a number of outreach meetings through September and October to take public comment. That comment comes in to staff, and we use that to inform a single alternative that we will put forward in the proposed draft, and the proposed draft will go to the planning commission, and they will hold additional public hearings and take public public testimony and deliberate and hopefully sometime in the new year, will vote on a recommendation to you that will become the recommended draft, that will come to council, and then council will get to deliberate and take public testimony and make amendments before we reach the final adopted plan. Just for some basic background, the ci hub, the the critical energy infrastructure hub is the area along the Portland harbor between the Willamette river and highway 30, in the northwest industrial zone. It's about a six mile stretch that stretches out beyond the saint johns bridge. These are typically the tank farms that you see along highway 30. There are 11 different bulk fuel terminals. There are over 600 storage tanks with over 350 million gallons of capacity to store in this area. Most of those ten, ten of those bulk fuel terminals are are liquid fuel terminals, petroleum products, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel. There is one. Liquid natural gas facility operated operated by northwest natural, and that is a peak load facility that is used to. Meet peak winter time heating demand. The hub is important. It it is at the confluence of many different connections, if you will. About two thirds of our liquid fuel comes from the puget sound refineries via the olympic pipeline that ends the end of the pipe is here in Portland in in this hub. And and then we also have about another 25% or so of our fuel comes in via barge, and then another 10% or so comes in via rail from that and through that hub, the fuel is distributed throughout Oregon and southwest Washington, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, parts of the panhandle. You know, most of that fuel comes into Portland. There's a smaller pipeline that goes down to eugene. About 70% of the fuel is consumed in the Willamette valley between Portland and eugene. Some of it gets barged upstream, upriver to. To serve eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. And the rest is trucked out to other parts of Oregon. It serves about 90% of the fuel that that is consumed. In Oregon. We get a little bit that other 10% comes from mostly via truck from neighboring states. And or there is another big fuel facility in in pasco, Washington, that has a pipeline connection to refineries in salt lake city that also helps to serve and meet fuel demand in in eastern Oregon. The hub is also at great risk, especially in in terms of earthquake and cascadia subduction zone earthquake. It's at high risk of liquefaction. And and in turn, that represents a high, high risk for wildfires, for spills, for for burning of the spilled fuel product to to create toxic air quality. Back in 2022, we partnered with Multnomah county to do a risk assessment on the potential damages in cascadia subduction earthquake that really showed the amount of damage that could be done with contamination in the river, and the extensive cleanup costs that would be associated with such an event. And I will say, you know, that especially the the information that started to come out in around 2015, around the, the the threats that are posed by cascadia subduction zone earthquake really heightened the urgency to address what goes on in the ci hub. And and then also in terms of of emergency management and preparedness. So to some of the particulars for this particular project, you know, we received a FEMA hazard mitigation grant to build on some previous work that we have done in terms of land use policy and zoning code amendments that I'll talk about in a minute. And and we wanted to build on that work and, and to extend it. And so the purpose of this project was, is to revisit our comprehensive plan policies and, and update them and to to better guide development at these bulk fuel terminals and to explore options and update our regulations, including the zoning code for activities and development that occurs at the existing terminals. And we're also using this opportunity to convene our partner agencies at the regional level, the state level, the federal level, to not only address these regulations, but look at at how can we better coordinate our interagency efforts, especially with respect to emergency management? I want to touch on an issue that comes up when we talk about the hub, and that is the idea of relocating it somewhere else. And it's a very tricky issue, but it's really beyond the scope of this project, primarily because there are no safer locations in Portland. If you think about where our our major industrial districts are, there are there along the Willamette river there, along the columbia corridor, that all really has basically the same high risk of liquefaction in a, in an earthquake. It also especially areas along the columbia corridor, they have rail access, but they don't currently have access to the pipe to the olympic pipeline. There is a smaller pipeline that serves the airport, but there there would need to be new pipeline connections built. And and it also does not have access. You know, the columbia corridor in particular does not have marine access beyond once you get up up in the north, there at the confluence of the Willamette and the columbia and terminal six. So, you know, there's not a really good other place in Portland for this use. I will say the zoning code itself is not really a tool that we have used to require the removal or relocation of existing storage facilities. And then I think, more importantly, looking out beyond Portland, you know, to relocate some of the facilities further down in the Willamette valley that, you know, obviously extends beyond the city's authority, and it becomes a state issue. And that is one area where we have, as a city, participated in state discussions around that. We have lobbied for the state to be more active around that. And there are interests and have been in the past state initiatives, especially in terms of emergency preparedness and and having a better, more resilient distributed access to fuel throughout the Willamette valley. But again, it you know, the idea of relocating this hub is is really outside the scope of of this project. I want to talk a little bit about what we've heard so far and what went into informing the creation of these alternatives. I will start that this this work has really built on work that we've been doing over the last ten years. And and the conversation, the community conversations that have gone on about how we regulate development in the ci hub. But we, you know, really started in earnest and focused on this project in may, and we held a number of community meetings and meetings with subject matter experts and industry representatives through may, June, July to to really explore what, what alternatives might look like. And some of the things that we've heard, in particular from the community was to really prioritize health and safety outcomes. Again, you know, looking at at how can we reduce the risk from the existing facilities and even begin to look at how can we we draw down or reduce the capacity of those facilities over time? We have a lot of discussions about a more holistic approach, you know, being more active in the emergency management coordination. And we are partnering with staff at the Portland bureau of emergency management and consulting with them as we bring these policies forward. And they staff from from pbem have been at our events and and participating in this project. I think, you know, a couple of other things that that we've heard that begin to really get beyond the scope of this project and the time frame that we have under the federal grant is to look at, at how we might regulate a wider range of hazardous materials, not just looking at the liquid fuels, but look at some of the other hazardous chemicals that are handled in this area and and in our industrial areas. And then also look at some of the what goes on at the smaller distributors, not just these 11 large terminals that are really the the gateway facilities, but to look at what, what happens further down the supply chain and how we regulate those activities. And then finally, there's there is a desire to look at what comes next as we sort of reduce the need for for liquid fuels and in turn reduce the need for, for these terminals. You know what? What can we do next? What what could happen with that land? These are very land, extensive uses. And so as they begin to shrink over time, what could come next. And and I think that's just a little bit beyond. Beyond our ability right now. We're not seeing that shrinkage just yet. And so we're really focused on you know, what can we do to regulate development activities at, at these existing terminals from industry and business? What we've really heard is the need for an economic impact analysis. And that really gets at ensuring that we, we and Oregon have the fuel, the liquid fuel that we need for our lifestyle and our economy. We've heard a lot around the uncertainty around the the transition to renewable fuels and the role that that renewable liquid fuel will play as we go through that transition to electrify our, our vehicle fleet and just the need to have some flexibility to manage, especially this short term transition. Before we expect to really free up capacity in the system as as electric vehicles are, are more widely used. There's a lot of interest in, you know, what what our renewable fuels are needed, especially around saf sustainable aviation fuel and what role that can play in reducing our carbon emissions. There's real concern that we are well coordinated and consistent with the deq seismic mitigation requirements. So dic is is right in the middle of a state required seismic upgrade planning process. All of the terminals have submitted seismic risk assessments that are currently undergoing deq review. And then we expect next year that each of the terminals will begin to craft what are called seismic risk mitigation plans, which are are basically investment, ten year investment plans. That shows how they're going to upgrade all of their facilities to the most current seismic safety standards. And they and in turn, all of those improvements are going to have to come to the city for building permits. And so we want to make sure that whatever regulations we put in place are, are going to be complementary and supportive of the the deq seismic mitigation requirements. And then the final group that that we've talked to and, and have been participating in our meetings is is labor and the and their interests really is along interest in this transition to renewables and sustainable aviation fuel, as well as the seismic upgrades and the construction work and activity that is going to be associated, especially with all of that seismic upgrade work. So on on to the discussion draft. So we published it on September 16th. We present four alternatives for for key land use policies and regulations. As patricia mentioned we have public comment open through October 17th. So far, we've hosted six public events both in person and online. And I'll talk a little bit about those later. As was mentioned, we have our map app activated for online comments. So far we've received about 140 comments have come in and that we're going to use all of that feedback, all of those discussions that we have at the public events, all of the online comments that come in to really help inform us on what goes into developing a proposed draft. And I think I will note at at this point that proposed draft is not necessarily just picking one of these alternatives and going with it, but it's it's going to be a mix. We're we're going to, you know, and and it can be an extension of these alternatives where we can take the best elements we can. Listen to, to what people are saying to us, issues, questions that we get, issues that are raised to be able to sort of fine tune into a really consolidated proposed alternative. So I'm going to I'm going to start with the what we call the regulatory alternatives, or really what primarily could go into our zoning code. And this is about regulating future development at these terminals. And these really build on what we have in place today. And so, you know, I'll talk about that as the baseline. And and this really goes back to the the zoning code amendments that council passed back in 2016. We've gone through three rounds of appeals and most recently, council reaffirmed and readopted these regulations back in 2022. I am happy to report that we have sort of cleared a final hurdle this week, and that the one outstanding federal court challenge that we successfully got dismissed has not been appealed. The appeal period expired earlier this week and there were no appeals filed. So it looks like those 2022 regulations are are now in place. And so we're we're really looking to how do we build off of those. And what those regulations currently say is is no new bulk fossil fuel terminals, which we define as terminals with more than 2 million gallons of storage capacity and and some sort of what we call regional connection, that the pipeline connection or a dock or a rail line, something that that allows that fuel to come in from outside the region into the hub. And so what we've said are no new ones, no new ones. And then we limit the existing terminals to the fossil fuel storage capacity that was in place in 2022. So no new fossil fuel storage tanks. But we we did include exceptions. And the most notable exceptions are for aviation fuel and renewable fuel, aviation fuel. Jet fuel continues to be the one sort of component of liquid fuel consumption that continues to be forecasted for increasing demand. But I will also note that aviation fuel makes up a small percentage of of the overall liquid fuel consumption. Today. It's it's somewhere around ten, 10 to 20%, depending on which which measure you're using. So those those exceptions do not have any limits placed on them. So right now terminals can come in for development permits for any amount of expansion for for aviation fuel, for renewable fuels and for a few other fuel types. We also allow for the repair, repair and replacement of existing tanks because we want to support those seismic improvements over time to make whatever remains at at these terminals safer in the in the event of an earthquake, you will see a little graphic there at the bottom, and that this graphic will show up in each of the alternatives that we talk about. We have the tank that represents the storage tank, the little squiggly line going to the truck represents what we call transloading facilities. So think of this as the piping, the dock connections, the rail racks that are that transfer the fuel from the storage tank to the truck or the storage tank to a railcar. And, and so it storage tanks and transloading infrastructure is really what we're looking at regulating. You know, the future development of. So just quickly a broad overview. We have four alternatives. Each of these are sort of progressively more restrictive. So we start off with alternative one limit the transloading capacity for fossil fuels. Alternative two is limit those expansion exceptions that we have, especially for aviation and renewable fuels. Alternative three is prohibit all expansions take those exceptions away, make the the terminals use whatever capacity they have today. And then alternative four is to again prohibit all expansions. And look at how we reduce the capacity of those terminals over time through a regulatory measure. So just to go over the details for each of these four alternatives, again with with alternative one, we start with the baseline regulations. We would prohibit new fossil fuel transloading infrastructure. So new docks for for that fossil fuel transfer, new rail offloading racks. We would require that any new storage tanks would be built to the the higher or highest safety standard. The the the industry phrase is risk category four. It's not always clear that that these types of storage tanks are regulated to that highest level. And so we would look to make it to be city policy that that they do have to comply with with this highest standard. And then we would continue to allow for renewable and aviation fuel expansions, but we would require any expansion proposal to go through a conditional use review process. And that is a more discretionary review. It allows for public notice and public comment. And we would come up with approval criteria such as, you know, demonstrating, you know, a need for the expanded capacity or that the the new tanks are located on the safest part of the site, or that there is a adequate emergency response plan in place. So that is one way that we could begin to put a little bit more of a discretionary review on any expansion proposal. Alternative two again includes the limits on fossil fuel transloading. But we begin to, you know, in instead of a discretionary review process for, for expansion for renewable and aviation fuel, we just put a cap on it. We say each terminal you can have 5% additional capacity. You can, you know, use that additional capacity for whatever you want, whether that's renewable or aviation fuel. They would get to decide. But before they're eligible for that capacity expansion, they would have to have in place what we call facility facility wide containment. And if you go out there to those facilities today, you will see that they are surrounded by berms and walls. The idea is if the tanks fail and the liquid is spilling out onto the ground, that some of that will be contained on site. Unfortunately, right now the current state and federal standard is that they only have to contain the single largest tank on the site, and what we would put in place is a requirement that the whole facility would need to be contained before you could do any sort of expansion. Alternative. Three, you know, as I said, prohibits all new expansion for any type of fuel. And that and all new transloading infrastructure and that what we would expect is that available capacity today or as the demand for, for gasoline for, for example, continues to decline that, that they could repurpose and reconfigure that, that existing fossil fuel capacity to meet the other needs to to convert it to aviation fuel or, or sustainable aviation fuel needs. But that, that basically we have enough capacity in place and that and that we don't need any more and that they can can manage what they have and repurpose it and reuse it in a way that would meet the changing market demands. And then finally, alternative four extends that, that prohibition on new expanded capacity even further and to require a drawdown of storage capacity over time. This alternative has so sort of the two variables there is to require a 17% drawdown by 2035 that those we framed that in that way, 2035 is significant because that aligns with the deq required seismic mitigation investment plans. And so we want the terminals to be on notice that by 2035 you're going to have to be smaller. So don't think you're going to improve, you know, build a new seismically improved tank that you're not going to be able to use in in 2035. And so we want to sort of get alignment with with that. Those investment plans, the 17% drawdown is based on a federal energy information administration forecast for the pacific region, as that shows that, you know, even the federal government is expecting a decline in the demand for liquid fuel over time. We selected the pacific region just in recognition that the hub does serve more than Oregon. It serves Washington, it serves parts of idaho. So we we looked at that that broader market area to to incorporate that 17% drawdown into this alternative. Real quickly. I'll talk a little bit about some of the policy changes that we've put out for comment. Starting with our existing policies. We have one in the comprehensive plan. Right now. We are looking to change that. You know, one is sort of deleting reference to fossil fuel and really focus and recognize that there are lots of different types of fuel handled by these facilities, and that we want to regulate all of those activities. And so we're changing fossil to bulk. And then, you know, either depending on which alternative we go with to have the the policy direction reflect that either continue to limit these facilities or if in the case of alternative four, you know, a what we call a stronger verb, a more directive verb to restrict those facilities. And then I think the other major change to this is the key phrase at the end of the policy to those necessary to serve the regional market. I think back in 2016 when when we initially adopted this policy, there was a lot of concern about ensuring that we have we continue to have enough capacity to provide the liquid fuel that we need for our economy and lifestyle. I think we're, you know, one, I think we are clearly at a point where we see the future demand curves declining. In terms of the demand for liquid fuels. I think more importantly, what we learned from our three rounds of legal appeals is that the the phrase regional market is very difficult to determine. Is it is it Portland? Is it Oregon? Is it all of, you know, parts of southwest Washington? And and that that phrase also introduced challenges, constitutional challenges under what's called the interstate commerce clause. And are we trying to regulate interstate commerce or not? And so we just think it's simple to to delete that reference and, and, and really focus on what's going on in the hub itself. And, and to that end, I will note one, one of the things that we did hear from the community is a desire about, you know, can we have policies that specifically apply to the sci hub itself? And the answer is yes. And we've sort of picked up on that to really come up with a geography for the sci hub and, and really be able to have a set of policies that are more directive about the activities that occur in the hub itself, and to really elevate some of the other values and goals that we have for the area, especially around seismic upgrades and watershed protection. And then, you know, again, sort of prioritizing emergency management coordination and the fostering a transition to a lower carbon economy. Again, here's just, you know, what we've been doing over the last month in terms of different events to explain what's in the discussion draft, listen to comments and questions. Again, we have another week or so for for public comments. And then again, you know what? We are looking to publish a proposed draft by November 10th. That date is primarily to two reasons. One is to meet our obligations under the FEMA grant, and the other is is to recognize the urgency of this work and to keep things moving. We have a planning commission hearing with public testimony scheduled for December 16th, and then the planning commission will will deliberate in in January and then forward a recommendation to you later, later this spring. And then for anyone online, this is the the links to our project website where you can find links to the discussion draft to the map app to submit public comments. And and with that I can will stop my presentation and we're happy to answer your questions.
12 Wonderful. Thank you so much for that presentation. That was really helpful for us to wrap our heads around where that process is at. And I'll just reiterate again, for the public who's watching, written comments are due October 17th, although we'll still have a few months to continue getting comments on the draft proposals as well. I have a few questions and I see councilor Novick also has his hand up. I suspect councilor Kanal will also have some questions as well, so I will go ahead and start us off and then we'll move to councilor, Novick and councilor Kanal of the alternative options that we have. It looks like, you know, from what was stated in the presentation, the only fuels that are increasing in need or for consumption is aviation fuels and other fuels. We're mainly seeing a decrease. Is that correct?
13 Yeah I will with one note I we've heard that there there is a need a a shorter term need for additional capacity for renewable fuels in that the way it's been explained to me is that we have the fossil fuel infrastructure, and they need to begin to set up a parallel system for the renewable fuels, because they need to continue to supply the fossil fuels to sort of get over this transition for the uptake of the renewable fuels, to gain momentum before it really frees up capacity on the fossil fuel side of things that could be repurposed for renewable fuels. I think one way to think about that is we have a lot of large tanks out there, and so it's not a just a linear, linear transition, but that transition is going to happen in big chunks before you can really free up a, you know, million gallon tank that could be repurposed to something else. And so there the industry is saying that they need a little bit of additional capacity to manage this renewable transition as well.
14 Okay. Have they given us a timeline for that transition at all? Any details?
15 No, I think that's where the the uncertainty factor comes in. And, you know, things like the, the expiration of the electric vehicle tax credits at the federal level. And, you know, just it just seems to be an uncertain time, even on the sort of supply side of things and the production of renewables. I think that's where it's just very uncertain at this time.
16 I can certainly appreciate how the federal government is making things very uncertain for us right now. When we're looking at the alternatives that are proposed. So alternatives one and two allow for expansion. And maybe this is more of an opinion than a question, but I think any expansion would increase our risk as far as if there's a spill. And and so it seems like alternative three and four are the only ones that actually limit expansion, correct?
17 Yes.
18 I guess my question is doesn't risk reduction if that's our main goal here for portlanders, doesn't that require that we do storage reduction? Because the first two alternatives seem almost untenable to me to expand at this time?
19 Yeah, it depends on the frame of reference and and risk reduction compared to what is in place today. And and from our perspective, as land use planners, we look at what's allowed under the current zoning code. And right now that is unlimited expansion for aviation fuel and renewable fuel. That represents a huge risk where alternatives one put some limits on that risk. So therefore we have reduced risk. We again through the zoning code have a hard time sort of addressing existing development. For the most part, if it's built and operating there, you get to continue that use. And so, you know, reducing the risk associated with the existing terminals is is very difficult to do through the zoning code. What we're, what we're trying, you know, to do these really regulations would kick in when a new development needs to occur. So such as the rebuilding of the seismically improved tanks. Were you going to.
20 Yeah. Thanks for the record, patricia. I was just going to also point out that each of these alternatives, even alternatives one and two, do come with those sort of requirements that new storage tanks be built to the highest safety seismic safety standards. So just wanting to make sure that that's kind of noted and trying to that is meant to work in conjunction, as tom has said with the deq, seismic mitigation program and basically help to maybe accelerate that to the degree that there is any activity happening at the hub, tying our zoning regulations to those kinds of improvements could potentially help accelerate those plans, which are supposed to happen over, you know, a ten year period.
21 I appreciate that, but I think based on your definitions here that I'm hearing about reducing risk, it sounds like alternatives one through three are more focused on reducing the rate at which things get worse, whereas alternative four reduces the risk that exists today. And I think that that's a pretty important distinction to point out. I think that's all for me. For now, I will pass it off to councilor Kanal or councilor Novick to ask some questions, unless you have anything else to add on that. Okay. Councilor Novick.
22 One question I had is would it be, I think you said you could mix and match among the alternatives. Would it be possible to adopt something that says you have to reduce the overall capacity? But within the context of that reduction, you can increase the amount of renewable and sustainable aviation fuel that you're putting in.
23 Yeah, I think currently in place and and I think within each of these and we could be more explicit at this is, is the idea that the terminals can replace and reconfigure the, the, their current capacity as they see fit and decide which tanks have what types of fuel. And one way to think of that is like, say, they have a million gallon tank out there and they need to do the seismic upgrade to it, replace it. They could replace that with two 500,000 gallon tanks and have one for gasoline and one for sustainable aviation fuel or whatever they decide. We're we're not trying to regulate what goes in the tank. We're just trying to regulate how many, not even how many tanks they have, but how much capacity overall is at these terminals.
24 I have a bunch of, I think what might be sound like random disconnected questions, but like one is that projection by the federal energy information, whatever it was, of declining fossil fuel use? When was that made? And is it informed by the actions of the current administration, such as, as you said, eliminating the tax credit for electric vehicles, stopping the development of any new wind power which will make electrification as a whole, let alone Green electrification impossible, the likelihood that they'll not allow for any investment in transmission capacity to serve electrification, basically is that is, does that projection take into account all of the horrible things the current administration is doing to deliberately increase fossil fuel use?
25 Probably not. They they update these forecasts every year. And so I you know, I think this forecast came out last February or March. So that probably was was, you know, the way that was developed, it was probably under the previous administration and didn't fully account for the policy changes of the current administration. So we would be looking to monitor, I will say, you know, we also include in the discussion draft information about just historic trends. And, you know, the the trend lines continue to be flat or declining over time. And that's, you know, stretching back to the 90s. So, you know, I don't I don't expect a huge swing in in these trends.
26 Yeah. That strikes me as somewhat optimistic. I mean, given that the administration is literally doing everything it can to change those trends. Another question is will they planning commission? And we hear from vivian satterfield's folks about the extent, if any, to which our climate action plan depends on expanding renewable fuel.
27 We can certainly coordinate when this gets to the planning commission with the sustainable sustainability and climate commission, so that there's dialog between the two.
28 And another question I had was about the transloading facilities. Why would you focus? Why would anybody focus on those specifically? I mean, if all they're doing is loading the same stuff, you know, if they're like upgrading those facilities to their more efficient or safer or something, is there a reason to prohibit more transloading infrastructure if that doesn't include the that doesn't actually have the effect of increasing the amount of fuel that's being used?
29 Yeah, that gets to this idea of throughput. So the amount of fuel moving through the system. You know, we we at the city, especially on on, you know, sort of the planning and development side of things aren't really regulating how much liquid is moving through those pipes. But if you think about development, presumably if they came in and wanted to replace a six inch pipe with an 8 or 12 inch pipe and a bigger pump, they could move more fuel through the system. And so our, our they could use their existing storage capacity more efficiently. And so this is just a way of constraining other parts of the system without setting up a whole big regulatory structure of similar to the deq air quality permits, where we're looking at how much fuel volume is moving through in any given month.
30 I think we've also heard that from stakeholders that we don't necessarily want to become a national hub for renewable fuels accidentally just because we've been at the forefront of that. And so that controls a little bit for that too.
31 I would also just add that I believe similar to what we were discussing about the tanks themselves, if they were just improving the, the these transloading facilities, they would be able to do that. And tom, you can correct me if I'm wrong. It's just the increasing of the capacity to move fuels through the system. And so another example that we typically give is the number of railroad rail racks, for example, that are at the terminals where increasing the number of racks could increase the ability to move more fuel through the system and get them on trains faster. So that would be the kind of thing that would be regulated by regulating the transloading facilities.
32 In terms of risk. I mean, dick is trying to address the risk that the tanks explode, and they're theoretically requiring that all of the tanks be able to resist a category nine earthquake. But by 2035, is there also a risk simply of the risk to the economy and the functioning of the city of. Well, I guess my question is, do we expect that even if if there was an earthquake, even if the tanks don't explode, they'll no longer be usable and we won't have access to the fuel?
33 Yeah, it's a very complex system. You know, I think one of the concerns is even access to this area. You know, break in the olympic pipeline, debris in the river that prevents barges from getting upstream bridges, collapsing, landslides that take out chunks of highway 30. But I think you start with, we want these tanks to survive one so they don't spill their contents, and two, that they are here and can eventually function. Part of an emergency management system and support the recovery of the region.
34 Let's see, is there meat? We still have a climate where we have like a newly announced climate protection program at the state level, right. Which is supposed to gradually reduce the amount of fossil fuel emissions, which can only really be achieved by reducing the amount of fossil fuel used.
35 Yes.
36 Okay. So does that it will the planning commission hear discussion of that. And like the, you know, whether what legal challenges there might be to it. Et cetera. Et cetera. In terms of figuring out what's I mean, it seems to me that that in addition to whatever the federal information agency thing said, should sort of inform our thoughts about what capacity will be needed because of the climate protection program is actually going to go ahead and require a 90% reduction of emissions by 2045 or whatever it is, then that would seem to be something that should be taken into account, and figuring out the extent to which you can reduce capacity.
37 Yeah, we part of the research or the data we gathered was the state forecasts as well. So that's information that we have.
38 Yeah, we have all the different forecasts and we those I think that information actually is in the discussion draft. And as tom noted, the use of the federal information was to acknowledge that we you know, this the hub serves beyond just the state.
39 And we look at those different sources. So there's a new Oregon department of energy, energy security plan. Odot issues their gas tax revenue projections, which a little bit more shorter term but and then deq's clean fuels program has their forecasts. And we look at all of those to one to show that, you know, all of the arrows are pointing in the same direction. That gives us a confidence around, you know, we don't need to continue to allow unlimited expansions, exceptions, and that we we can begin to look at all of that information to develop a comfort level on how restrictive we want to be.
40 Final question if a a private citizen, I personally would want to comment before October 17th. Is there any rule against city councilors in their individual capacities for any comments?
41 No.
42 Okay. Thank you.
43 Great question. Councilor Novick. Councilor canal.
44 Thank you. Thank you, everybody for being here for the presentation. I also really appreciate that you explicitly said that you were talking to the broader community, which I know is not exclusively limited to the environmentalists, but also to everybody as well as to industry and to labor. I think that's a start of a of a comprehensive engagement method that should yield good results. I also appreciate that you have basically said that we need to do something. I think that's not as explicit, but I'll put the finer point on it that we're that leaving it exactly the way it is is not really one of the the primary alternatives here. And I appreciate that. I'm going to ask a couple questions. I might come back through into the q so clarifications and I think councilor Novick kind of asked around this, but this I think it might be adjacent in alternatives three and four, are we allowing conversion of what type of fuel is being stored completely as is? Meaning are we allowing taking either an existing tank, draining it and now storing renewables or aviation fuel in it, or dismantling the tank and replacing it with a tank or tanks of equal capacity that would store renewables or aviation fuel. Or is there a regulation associated with that?
45 I think we are not regulating the type of fuel that goes into a tank.
46 Got it. Thanks for alternative number four. A couple questions. Was the 17% you said you got from the federal? Was that for fossil fuels only or all liquid fuels? The 17%?
47 It is all it's all petroleum products. One of the difficulties with the federal data is, is any sort of renewable component, like ethanol is lumped into is lumped with the fossil fuel component at this point.
48 So categorized differently than.
49 So I would term it as as a liquid fuel demand.
50 Okay. What was the Oregon specific percentage you said you used the regional the pacific region was the Oregon one higher or lower?
51 They don't they don't take that forecast and break it out by state. What we do in the discussion draft is basically apply those percentages to to the current Oregon consumption.
52 I think he was asking about there is a separate data point on Oregon only forecast.
53 Not for the forecast.
54 So when when you picked the pacific region and the 17%, what was the other option? What what else could you have picked?
55 Nationwide as commissioner or councilor Novick was saying, we were looking at the the Oregon department of energy energy security study, and one of their scenarios shows that by 2035, we could we could need more like 33% less liquid fuel.
56 In an alternative. Four, would we have further drawdown goals beyond 2035?
57 We can, and I think as part of any sort of program like that, we would continue to monitor and report what that progress is. But we specifically picked 2035 as a as a good medium term. Time frame, but also just again, tying it to that investment program that is coming with deq and their seismic risk mitigation requirements.
58 It also happens to be the the planning year for the entire comprehensive plan right now. So it lines up with that.
59 I will say that the risk of going further out is that is that then the companies can wait. You know, if we pick 20, you know, 50% by 2045, they're going to wait till 2040 or 2042 before they take anything offline.
60 Let me rephrase in. Alternative four, are we saying 17% by 2035 and a higher percentage note and a higher percentage by a later date? Or is it literally just there? It's 17% forever after that.
61 Right now we're just saying 17% till 2035, because that's a near-term milestone that has a little bit more certainty if there's certainty at all in it. I think going beyond that staff's feeling has been that there's less certainty about what happens beyond that. There could be a scenario in which so the proposal as as it's being proposed or the draft as it's being suggested now, would be to just look at 17% by 2035 and to allow the those regulations to be in place for a while to let some of this, you know, these seismic mitigation plans happen and the investment happen and then continue to monitor where the trends are going, and then think about coming back with further kind of reductions and further milestones further down the line, as we have a little more experience with what's what's actually happening with the transition as well.
62 Okay. What happens if the 17% isn't met by 2035? If we were to go with alternative number four?
63 Yeah. So I think that in part this is where we've been having conversations with some of our bureau partners about what, what monitoring and compliance looks like and what, I guess, potentially enforcement would look like if, if the rules were not being met. So I'll just.
64 Yeah, I mean that that is one of the challenges we have in terms of of establishing what that program would look like. And, you know, is it do we have a authority to impose financial penalties? Do we have we typically through the land use process, do not shut down businesses when they're in violation of the zoning code. But we would we're exploring what those options might be and trying to bring forward some alternatives.
65 Sure. And I think you said typically and and also previously said that we can do things that are unique to the cei hub.
66 I would say that as it relates to nonconforming basic principles and land use planning and law, is that nonconforming uses can exist. But it's very I mean, I don't know of any instances where businesses have actually been shut down. There's usually limits on any expansion. There's usually, you know, some way to handle violations. And so there's a process for handling violations that allows people to come into conformance. And so that's typically what is done through land use regulations and zoning code and enforcement of land use regulations.
67 An example of that is like with drive through facilities, the zoning code has restrictions on that. And it's not that we force a draw down there, but there's enough turnover usually that a reduction happens because we have limits on how a grandfathering, if something shuts down, it has to either reopen within a certain number of months or it loses its rights. And that's the way we you could think about it, the way we handle like things like gas stations and drive thrus.
68 Okay, two more. One, I agree with councilor Morillo about alternatives one and two. And the limits there of those. I understand that you use the the anticipated demand reduction as a reason to come up with that number. But my question is why are we talking about reflecting the market demand, as opposed to either being a smaller share of the market or shaping the market through capacity regulation? Why? Why is it that we that if demand doesn't go down, why are we limited by the expected reduction demand as opposed to shaping the reduction demand through reduced capacity?
69 I think? Well, one of the reasons is, is, you know, being sensitive to sort of the overall Oregon economy and the fact that there are not. It's going to be very expensive to sort of replace this capacity elsewhere in the state.
70 Expensive for.
71 Who for the overall region or the overall economy. I mean.
72 Not for the city government, for the industry, for the state.
73 For tax payers as well.
74 For could be for consumers, anyone that that consumes liquid fuel presumably would have to pay a surcharge to, you know, or and I think the other thing to think about is that Portland is still the, the regional connection. Right? We're still the end of the major pipeline. We're still the harbor. You know, the you know, I guess maybe they would build a facility in coos bay and be able to supply a little bit of southern Oregon. But when 70% of the fuel is consumed in the Willamette valley, we're we're where it starts. And, you know, there's that basic challenge there.
75 Okay. And then last question, how are we specifically addressing the risk of fire and ensuring that we have firefighting infrastructure in place on the west side of the river that can handle what may happen? I understand that there are some scenarios that don't require industrial firefighting capacity on the western side of the river, because the bridges are intact in certain types of disaster modeling, but there's a lot of situations that do involve bridge failure that I would like to understand on that.
76 Probably the discussion that's happening with the part of this project that is more about emergency management coordination. It's unlikely that the zoning code would be the tool to or the comprehensive plan policy would be the tool to get.
77 Okay, that's fair, and I'm happy to talk to richard. You know, I see I see him back there. I guess I would love to have to know, because I know we're hearing from from just one piece of it. And I do think we can combine these threads. I will say from the planning perspective and I understand your your point, patricia, about certainty. And from a planning perspective that makes sense from a political perspective, what gives me certainty is knowing who's going to be voting for something right now up here. And I think that we are able to set in place a plan that doesn't require, you know, it can be adjusted by future councils, of course, but that is not dependent on complete ambiguity about what's going to happen in the future. And so I, I am encouraged by the level of creativity and ambition so far, but would love to see more and would love to see the riffing started at alternative three and progressed to a four, five, six as well. But I'll let sorry go for it. Yeah.
78 Yeah, you looked like you had something to say. So if you could introduce yourself to the record and answer, I think councilor Kanal has some emergency management questions. Well.
79 Well, my name for the record. My name is richard norvell, chief resource officer at Portland bureau of emergency management. I am working with bts on the proposals that they're the whole memo that they're working on, specifically on the emergency management section. And I think I've talked about this in previous meetings on how complex in terms of roles and responsibility the emergency management side of things are right now. Where we are is in the in this in this budget session, we got a planner position approved. And my hope is that that planner could help with support. Some of the emergency response planning specific to cei hub.
80 Are they hired yet?
81 No, it's it's the bhr process. We are we're in the process of hiring, but we have not hired yet.
82 Are they subject to the hiring freeze?
83 I can check on that. We were going to request there's an exception process for that.
84 So let me know if I can help okay. We'll do that should not be just because you're not 24 over seven yet when we're trying to get you there. Both councilor Novick and I have talked a lot about this. Doesn't mean you should be subject to a non 24 seven hiring freeze. So if we can help with that box over there, happy to happy to do.
85 It will do.
86 I know that one of the boxes we can check on the hiring freeze question is whether council's specifically asking for it. And we will certainly check that box in this case.
87 I'll stop here, but I might come back in.
88 Yeah, we have plenty of time. So thank you all for your patience and for answering all of our questions today. I definitely want to echo what councilor Kanal said as far as preference for my alternative would be option number four, and I think a question that's still sitting with me from earlier discussion is that you said that we had considered projections that were a little bit more aggressive on the drawdown figure, as high as 30%. So why did we not go with a more aggressive drawdown figure? And did you consider the the modeling that contemplates more aggressive actions, or why was that approach rejected?
89 I think tom touched on it earlier, which is we were trying to pay attention to the statewide economy and and recognizing that that Portland is a regional hub for this in terms of serving other states. And so that was that was why it was sort of bouncing with the economic considerations. But but certainly you could consider other numbers.
90 And we'll certainly spend more time looking at the various data sources and contemplate, you know, what other what other possibilities there might be for that. So we appreciate that that input. And and we've we've heard similar from community. And so that is one of the many pieces of information that we're trying to factor into what will ultimately be a proposed plan.
91 Yeah, I think it's hard when we're talking about the economy overall versus the impact on portlanders, because we know that if anything happens, it's going to be, I think, billions of dollars worth of cleanup of our river. And so the cost to our community and the long term costs are so high that I think it to me, it feels like we don't really have a choice but to push very aggressively on reducing fossil fuels. And I also agree with the point that councilor Kanal made, as far as we have power and influence here, if we have a resource and a space that's needed, then we get to shape what our local economy looks like and industry needs to respond to us and to the needs of our community members, because they're the ones who are incurring the risk of having this in our community. So their needs need to be prioritized. If there are external companies and corporations that are going to be profiting off of our community. And with that, I will pass it to councilor Novick. And then councilor Kanal has his hand up again.
92 I just wanted to observe that in response to the previous discussion about whether we were trying to drive the follow the market or drive the market, the problem is that, I mean, if the jd vance administration outlaws electric cars and we have no and we continue to gut the transit system and people have no choice but to drive gasoline cars than if we say that there can't be any fossil fuel infrastructure, the effect will be that people will either be paying vast amounts of money to drive their cars, or they'll have to, or they'll have to walk, which in some for some people is not feasible. So I mean, just I mean, we have to operate in a context where there's a lot of things that we can't control. And what but also fortunately in the state of Oregon, there's people who are helping us. I mean, dick is going to require that all of these tanks be retrofitted to withstand an earthquake by 2035. The state has enacted or is in the process of reenacting the climate protection program, which should dramatically reduce fossil fuel use, which would mean that there's going to be a drawdown in capacity regardless of what we do. So I just want to note that, I mean, there's we have a we have limited power, b the state is our is ultimately our ally on this. Is more a comment than a question.
93 Yeah. I was going to say councilor Kanal.
94 I appreciate the the comments here and the discussion. I, I have a lot of faith in in dick. I don't have a lot of faith in the state legislature in terms of transportation infrastructure and the things necessary to create that demand reduction. Personally, after this legislative session, that would change if they do better in the next session. So I'll say that I also would say that councilor Novick is right, that if all these terrible things that he just mentioned occur, we would be in a place where our regulations might be too restrictive. I think that that this room has never had a problem loosening regulations on fossil fuels when needed. And I think it's been harder to go the other direction. So when we have the opportunity, we should look at that personally. Never is a strong word. Rarely. So that's sort of the context for it. I'll also say that we could also have described that scenario slightly differently, right? We could look at it as we would be creating a situation where we have to invest at that point in transit, at both a local and a state level. In the event that please don't ever say j.d. Vance administration again, but in the event that those sorts of of federal and possibly state actions affect us in a way that forces us to take that work on, to which I can only only say, don't threaten me with a good time. And I, I want to be more ambitious in that regard, because we can, and also because everything we do is going to shape the market. Right? That 17%, it could be 16, it could be 18. It's not going to be they're never perfect predictions, right. So no matter what we're doing, we're going to shape it in some way. That's a little bit off topic, but I did want to ask. There's the the use of words like limit restrict. There a little bit vague for what I'm hoping to get out of it. How can we get a little bit more clarity? When I first read, I think in it's in the policy list, in the slides, it did not seem like it's one of those those things that unless you're actually looking for a difference in meaning, you might not immediately observe it. I get encourage and require. Those are different. So some of them. But I just wanted to ask like, how are we able to get some more clarity on this?
95 Yeah, I think we can start by saying that it's it's pretty common in comprehensive plan parlance to use these kinds of words. And they have, you know, they do have specific meanings in a sense. And the comp plan actually talks about that. But I think what you're seeing the limit and restrict is, is essentially, you know, alternatives one and two are more in the vein of limiting, right? So because they still allow some some expansion, for example. Whereas that's why we show that if you noticed, you know, we show that the word restrict would probably come into play more when we're talking about alternative four. So we're just recognizing that that verb may change based on which of the regulatory alternatives we pursue. And that's really, you know, the the significance of those words.
96 Okay. I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't think restrict conveys reduce.
97 Okay. We can we can definitely.
98 Think we can. We can go into more depth about the meaning of verbs. There's a there's a long history of litigation and land use about the meaning of verbs.
99 And I recognize on on those sorts of details. You definitely know more than I do. On the legal side of it, I'm trying to speak for how I think it will be interpreted by the public. So to the degree that we can check both of those boxes at the same time, I'd like to.
100 Sure. We'll look at those words and think about what would work best.
101 The last question I had is about the scoping of this project as it relates to the pipelines. So district two, we have two pretty significant pipelines that are going to be. Related to this because they go to the ci hub. We have, you know, in particular the one that runs to the airport. And just wanting to understand is that is the only place that that's affected by this project, the transloading conversation and the question over whether or not pipes can be expanded from, I think you said 6 or 8in to 12in, or are there other places in which the the pipeline conversation is part of this? And I'll also say that's that's also a question for for russia as well. So.
102 So the, the major pipelines are not part of this project. We're really talking about the facility piping and and infrastructure. The olympic pipeline is an interstate pipeline and therefore subject to federal regulation. And we're preempted from regulating that. And that I don't know, maybe you know more, but I believe, again, that the pipeline to the airport is more of a state regulatory function than a city function. But I'd have to dig deeper into that.
103 Yeah, I would have to check on the airport pipeline, too, but I can't speak to the risk. All the pipeline is in is all west of cascadia, the olympic pipeline. So it is in high risk and it is documented under dogami and other risk assessment reports that it will be there will be interruptions or there will be ruptures in those pipelines. So that is documented. Fema has hosted exercise in the last 12 months that talks about or discusses state, local and federal planning on what that fuel disruption could mean for the economy and also islanding that it can create. So there's some conversations that have happened with that risk awareness. But in terms of the regulation authority for port of Portland, I can check and report back on that.
104 Yeah. And I'm I'm really happy that it included economic. Effects. Did it also include health and environmental effects?
105 That particular exercise that I attended did was focused on economic and food security impacts. It did. Obviously health came up, but that wasn't one of the objectives for the exercise that we were testing. But yes, it was brought up and there will be. There's there's documentation that supports that what that would that could.
106 And obviously there's there's the economic food security, that's that's health related directly, not just indirectly. So I appreciate that. I will say, you know, at least in part based on and I haven't gotten a map yet on where the pipeline is, despite having asked a couple times. But I do see those little yellow signs that tell me there's a pipeline under streets that I personally go on in my neighborhoods, and those are city streets. So it's under our right of way. And I do think, at least in the context of the roads, we should have some ability to influence what's running under them.
107 That's correct. The pipelines are are subject to our franchise utility regulations, and they do have franchises with the city to be where they are in the right of way. I think our, our regulation of that is mostly concerned with getting compensation for the, the, the maintenance of the right of way. But and our, our leverage there is probably limited by interstate commerce that we'd have to talk more about that with the attorney. But we do hold utility franchises for the olympic pipeline and the pipeline to the airport.
108 So the pipeline to the airport, where does it leave Oregon?
109 I don't.
110 Think it does.
111 So how is interstate commerce?
112 No.
113 I when I spoke of interstate commerce, I was talking about the olympic pipeline.
114 Okay. I recognize that there may be a vast difference in what we're able to do on one versus the other. Yeah. Thank you.
115 Thank you. Councilor Novick. And then I have a final question as well.
116 I was assuming that when I googled climate protection program, it brings up the current deq rule, as opposed to the one that was tossed out a couple of years ago. I was just being reminded that it places a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuels, which is designed to reduce those emissions 50% by 2035 and 90% by 2050. And I was wondering if in the climate commission, in the planning commission deliberations, we might be inviting people from deq to talk about how they expect that to be achieved, the extent to which they expect it to be achieved by simply reducing fossil fuel use, as opposed to replacing. Current fuels with renewables. And another question is, I mean, although I understand the general concern about uncertainty about the future, given that the climate protection program does anticipate reduction of 90% by 2050, is there an argument for doing what councilor Kanal was saying and saying that we have declining requirements for declining capacity at the cei hub that track what the climate protection program is requiring.
117 I would just start off by saying that I think that's information that we can certainly look into more. As we are developing the proposed plan. We can include information in the proposed plan specifically about that. And I think that just requires a little bit more investigation on our part.
118 Thank you.
119 Thank you. Councilor Novick. So these so some of these companies that are holding the fuel right now, they're not using the full storage capacity. Is that correct?
120 That's my understanding that each of them uses a different level and at different times.
121 So they so these companies according to some of these templates that we've been given with the 17%, are going to reduce their capacity based on the current maximum allowable. Right?
122 Yeah.
123 Yes. I guess I didn't phrase that as a question. I just wanted to have that clarified. But that was the final question that I had. Friends, do we have any more questions for our lovely panel? It's been very patient with us today.
124 Thank you very much.
125 Oh, nope. Councilor Kanal has another one.
126 Just a comment. Just a short comment, a.
127 Short.
128 Comment, a short comment.
129 I'm excited for this. I will just say that that like half the people in this room have been educating people around the risks associated with this facility and all the related infrastructure for a while. And I just wanted to to appreciate them, along with all the others who are not in this room right now. I think maybe five years ago, most people in Portland were not familiar with the term ci hub. But if you paid any attention to the campaign last year, you definitely knew about it. And sure as heck every every candidate did too. So I just wanted to express that appreciation and say that given that level of knowledge and that that level of awareness of the risks associated with it, I want to make sure that we have a just transition that works for industry, for labor, for the environmental and health risks, for sure, but reflects also that increased level of awareness. I know that your processes have been going on for a long time, and asking you to make changes at any stage is going to be hard with all the work that's already been done, but I just wanted to sort of signal that, and I agree with councilor Morillo points about where the alternatives that we prefer might be.
130 Thank you for that. Councilor Kanal. Thank you so much for coming and answering all of our questions. And ditto to everything about all of the advocates who have been educating and organizing for our community for many years on this issue. Our next meeting is going to be on Thursday, October 23rd. And at that meeting, we're anticipating a presentation on the climate investment plan and a preview before our full council work session of that on October 30th. Again, just want to reiterate, for the public watching this, that the comment period is still open for the cei hub, you can go to the cei hub map app and give comments there until October 17th. And then we will have further discussions in other spaces. So this is not the final chance to get a comment in, but one good opportunity. And with that, I will close the climate committee at 11 a.m. Thank you so much.
131 That was fun. Yeah, this is a good group to have that discussion. Yeah. Don't scare me. All body likes us. Yeah. All right. The conversation around pipelines and we can I think there might be some new maps. Yeah, yeah.