PORTLAND — A large crowd cheered Wednesday night as the Portland City Council voted 4-0 to approve a resolution opposing projects that would increase the number of oil trains traveling through Portland and Vancouver.
The resolution calls for using existing laws to address environmental impacts of oil trains, and to ask railroad companies to share their plans and address safety concerns. But it can’t stop oil trains from coming through Portland because the city doesn’t have jurisdiction over railways.
Nonetheless, Portland City Commissioner Nick Fish said the vote expressed the council’s support for safety and clean energy. “While this action is largely symbolic because federal law preempts us from interfering with railroads and so much of the constitutional law goes against us, part of our job as a city council is to be explicit about our values, even if our authority is limited,” he said.
Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who proposed the resolution, said it’s “not just symbolic.”
“This is about the future, and we do need to start taking specific steps,” she said. The council delayed action on a second resolution that opposes the expansion of infrastructure for transporting or storing fossil fuels in Portland and nearby waterways. That resolution also directs city staff to propose city code changes that would prevent new fossil fuel developments.
The vote followed hours of public testimony, most of which was in support of both resolutions. More than 100 supporters gathered outside City Hall for a rally before the vote.
The resolutions are a response to the rapid expansion of fossil fuel development nationwide and numerous oil train accidents in recent years.
The Port of Vancouver is currently considering a proposal for an oil-by-rail terminal by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Cos., operating as Vancouver Energy. If approved by regulators and completed, it would be the nation’s largest oil-by-rail terminal and could ship 360,000 barrels of oil daily from the Port of Vancouver to refineries along the West Coast.
Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, which opposes the Vancouver oil terminal, said Portland’s resolution combined with terminal critic Eric LaBrant’s election to the Port of Vancouver commission make for a tough week for terminal backers.
“Tesoro’s dangerous oil proposal is getting the scrutiny it deserves,” VandenHeuvel said in a statement to The Columbian. “Voters chose a new vision for the Port of Vancouver, and the City of Portland joined Vancouver, as well as firefighters, labor, and businesses, to oppose the Tesoro oil trains and terminal.”
On Wednesday, Portland Mayor Charlie Hales said the resolutions will help protect the health and safety of Portland residents from train accidents and pollution associated with the transportation and storage of fossil fuels. He also said they are a chance for Portland to affect climate policy.
Not everyone supported the resolutions. Joe Esmond of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 48 said he was disappointed that the city hadn’t brought low-income advocacy groups into the conversation to discuss the effect on jobs and wages. “I wish the people in this room had the same passion for income inequality as they have for fossil fuels,” he said.
Rob Mathers of Kinder Morgan, which owns and operates fossil fuel infrastructure in the region, accused the city of “declaring war on the working harbor and the use of all fossil fuels.” “These are polarizing policies that divide our community,” he said. “I urge the council to vote no but at least take some time before finalizing and signing the death warrants.”
Earlier this year, the city council declined to consider a zoning change needed to build the Pembina propane export terminal on the Columbia River.
