Portland General Electric (PGE) has the green light from a city hearings officer to go ahead with a plan to build a new utility project in Forest Park. The decision puts Portland’s Hearings Office at odds with several of the city’s bureaus, which strongly opposed the plan because of its environmental impact on a five-acre section of the treasured urban forest. 

At least one group of project critics plans to appeal the decision, which Portland’s Hearings Office announced on March 7. 

PGE says the project, which will require removing nearly 400 trees from a swath of Forest Park near the Willamette River, is necessary to bolster Portland’s electric grid as the city moves toward renewable energy. The company plans to shift an existing power pole in the park, and add two more poles to support 1,400 feet of new transmission lines. The plan represents the third phase of its plan to strengthen electrical transmission in and out of the Harborton substation, located just outside Forest Park. 

A report from Portland’s Hearings Officer Marisha Childs states PGE’s proposal meets approval criteria in the city’s zoning code and the Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan, the blueprint for park conservation and care. Because it “satisfies the applicable approval criteria.” According to Childs, the Hearings Office is obligated to sanction PGE’s proposal—no matter who has spoken up against the plan, or why.

In the decision report, Childs acknowledges the “significant public testimony” her office received, both in support of and against the proposal. Some of the public testimony “offered personal narratives of how beloved and personal Forest Park is to the community,” while other submissions focused on Portland’s increasing energy needs. To Childs, both of these arguments contain valid points. 

“In reviewing the myriad submissions what is evident is that both those in support of and those in opposition to the proposal provide equally valid points for consideration, providing a particularly complex legal quagmire,” Childs wrote. “This land use case however, is about facts, not feelings.” 

Much of the hearings officer’s decision statement focuses on a Portland Permitting and Development (PP&D) staff report released shortly before the January land use hearing for the project. PP&D’s nearly 100-page report expressed staunch opposition to the project and urged the hearings officer to reject granting PGE an environmental review credential. 

Childs’ report rebuts PP&D’s arguments, sometimes quite severely. She called one conclusion from the staff report “confounding,” and disagreed on most points. While PP&D staff were concerned the city’s approval of PGE’s current proposal would make it more likely the utility company will continue building in Forest Park, Childs said this phase should be “evaluated independent of future phases,” recognizing these proposals will also be subject to review.

PP&D staff said PGE doesn’t have an adequate mitigation plan to make up for the biodiversity loss in the area, calling the impacts to flora and fauna potentially “unmitigable.” The hearings officer came to a different conclusion, saying PGE’s mitigation plan is robust and will “support an increase in biodiversity.” PGE argued the same point in its narrative for the project, meeting fierce backlash from conservation advocates. 

Many environmental advocates who testified against PGE’s plan at the January land use hearing said they appreciated the need for a robust electric grid to support the transition to renewable energy. They argued, however, that PGE didn’t do its due diligence in analyzing possible alternative sites for the transmission project. This assessment was echoed in the PP&D staff report. 

But Childs’ decision states “routing through Forest Park is the least environmentally detrimental option” of all potential alternatives, and asserts PGE “met its burden showing credibly, substantially, and persuasively that it has thoroughly considered alternative locations and that design modifications were evaluated.” The hearings officer also agrees with PGE’s argument that the Forest Park management plan “serves to offer guidance but does not prevent development.” 

A statement from Kristen Sheeran, PGE’s vice president of policy and resource planning, says the Hearings Office’s decision “is an example of the process working as it should.” 

“The decision to approve this permit request constitutes the most significant finding of facts about this project coming out of an extraordinarily detailed application process that included extensive public involvement,” the statement continues. 

Others are not so pleased with the outcome. Damon Motz-Storey, president of the Oregon Sierra Club chapter, told the Mercury their organization believes the hearings officer “repeatedly accepted PGE’s analysis without question,” despite “compelling evidence” that shows the project would do "irreparable and unmitigable harm.” 

The Forest Park Neighborhood Association (FPNA), which took a strong stance against PGE’s proposal since it was first announced, will appeal the decision. On March 8, FPNA's secretary, Carol Chesarek, sent an email outlining the neighborhood association’s reactions and next steps. 

“FPNA does not oppose PGE’s expansion of their transmission system, but we believe that this project can and should be built outside of Forest Park,” the email says. 

Chesarek said the neighborhood association will apply for a waiver of the city’s roughly $5,700 appeal fee. Appeals must be submitted by March 21.