Biofuels, created from organic matter like crops, garbage, vegetable oils, and human and animal waste, are often heralded as an ideal form of renewable energy. These energy sources have been touted by industry groups, scientists, and government bodies as a cleaner-burning alternative to fossil fuels, with advantages for air quality and carbon emissions. 

Here in Portland, that premise has formed the basis for some of the city’s climate action framework. Portland was the first city in the US to adopt a renewable fuels standard, requiring local fuel retailers to ensure biodiesel makes up an increasing percentage of their overall diesel sales. The city plans to phase out petroleum diesel sales almost entirely by 2030, as part of its Climate Emergency Workplan. 

But biofuels, including ethanol, biodiesel, and “renewable” natural gas, are not universally accepted as a climate solution—despite industry marketing indicating the contrary. In fact, some experts and climate advocates believe relying on these alternative fuels could do more harm than good.

Some city leaders have begun to push back. 

“There are no easy options left on the table to address the climate crisis, and this issue is more urgent than ever,” City Councilor Angelita Morillo, who co-chairs the Council’s Climate, Resilience, and Land Use Committee, said last month during a committee discussion on biofuels. “[Renewable fuels] have been a central topic area for the city in the past few weeks, as we think of creating a just transition into a new climate era. I would love for us to be a national leader on climate issues. We have to look at the nuances of all the options available to us.” 

The February 27 Committee discussion–dedicated entirely to the subject of biofuels and their potential drawbacks–signaled a shift in the city’s approach to achieving its climate goals. 

The true costs of biofuels 

“Anyone who claims they have the answer and they know the carbon intensity of a biofuel and its actual effect on climate is not understanding the science, or perhaps lying to you,” Richard Plevin, a consultant and retired academic who researched the climate impacts of biofuels, told the Climate, Resilience, and Land Use Committee. 

When determining the true carbon impact of biofuels, Plevin says, it’s not enough just to measure the tail pipe emissions they create. Instead, researchers must take into account the life cycle emissions of creating and using the fuels—a complicated process that is often done at the discretion of individual modelers, leading to “conflict and uncertainty.” 

Most biofuels are sourced from food crops like corn and soybean oil, leading to higher demand for land to grow these products for human consumption and animal feed. In response, crop producers often seek more arable land to grow crops. Clearing that land for cultivation leads to an immediate carbon dioxide release, as plants are burned and soil is plowed to make way for more crops. But, according to Plevin, it’s difficult to know just how much this adds to biofuel’s carbon footprint. 

“It’s the emissions from land use change which, if ignored, can actually undermine the whole biofuel policy. If you include them in your analysis, you’re getting a much better idea of the results of expanding biofuel production,” Plevin said. “However, it’s a very difficult problem, involving global markets and heterogeneous ecosystems. Estimating the amount of carbon in a forest is not a simple problem.” 

Even when accounting for these land use impacts, Plevin says relying on biofuels can create other problems. Biofuel production adds supply to the global fuel markets, reducing prices of all fossil fuels and further incentivizing their use above electric alternatives. According to Plevin, adopting policies based on the supposed benefits of biofuels is, in essence, advocating for the continued use of fossil fuels at the expense of other, more well-regarded solutions. 

“The effects of biofuels are uncertain, and they're going to remain so. Not because modelers are stupid, but because it's a wicked problem,” he said. “It’s become clearer as the years go on that electrification is the solution.” 

Why now?

It’s been nearly 20 years since Portland adopted its renewable fuels standard, and two years since it was updated with stricter requirements, including some meant to combat the land use problems biofuels can create. Why, then, are city councilors talking about this topic now? 

Renewable fuels have been a hot topic in Portland lately because of Zenith Energy, the controversial oil transport and storage company with a terminal in Northwest Portland’s Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub. When the city issued Zenith land use credentials to operate in Portland—both in 2022 and again last month—it did so with the agreement that the company would phase out its crude oil operations in favor of renewable fuels. 

Zenith has touted its renewable fuel transition as key to Portland’s climate goals, and as a measure of the company’s own values. Only recently has Zenith come under the Council’s microscope for the environmental impacts of its fuel transloading business.

Zenith critics accuse the company of using the promise of renewable fuels to “greenwash,” or falsely advertise itself and its products as environmentally friendly to appeal to consumers (in this case, city politicians and bureaucrats). They argue the city has overestimated the environmental benefits of renewable fuels, and is too trusting of the company’s pledge to comply with the mandate. Zenith also has plans to bring a “sustainable aviation fuel” operation to Portland, drawing more scrutiny. 

Morillo is part of the group of council members that introduced a resolution to call for a city investigation into Zenith. The resolution calls on Mayor Keith Wilson to investigate Zenith’s potential violations of its franchise agreement with the city, and the Portland Auditor’s Office to look into the relationship city staff have with the company. On March 10, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted to refer the resolution to the full City Council. 

Kate Murphy, senior community organizer at Columbia Riverkeeper, told the Climate Committee the idea that “transitional fuels,” like biofuels, will help carry society to a low-carbon future has “persisted in energy discourse” for decades. 

“It's a very popular tactic to keep the production and profitability of combustible fuels viable [by] presenting false solutions with no real exit plan,” Murphy said.

Murphy said under city policies and the broad definition of “renewable fuels,” Zenith and other oil companies have leeway when it comes to interpreting their fuel transition requirements. 

 “There's a really wide range of fuels that are considered renewable, and a lot of fuels have the same chemical consistency as fossil fuels. So we face the same risks when it comes to accidents, spills, explosions, harmful emissions,” Murphy said. “With companies like Zenith, it’s very difficult to find out what blend percentage [of renewable to diesel fuels] they’re handling.” 

Zenith has proposed transporting “renewable” naphtha, a fuel made from biomass and waste with highly flammable qualities, instead of crude oil. To Murphy, this is just one example of the risks associated with any fuel transport operation. 

“There are a lot of environmental impacts that we see from combustible fuels, including renewable fuels, [including] the risks all along the transportation route from fuel spills, accidents, explosions,” Murphy said. “I would challenge anyone to point out any place on the transportation route where they’re prepared for the cleanup an accident [would require.]” 

Studies have shown that, depending on the type of biofuel used and the percentage of the blend with petroleum, biodiesel and other “renewable” fuels may be better for local air quality—if not global emissions. This is one potential benefit of Portland’s renewable fuels standard, which aims, in part, to reel in air pollution caused by diesel trucks traveling through the city from jurisdictions outside the city’s control. If truck drivers refuel in Portland, ideally, their emissions will be lower. 

The same benefits can’t be said for a company like Zenith, which largely stores and transports fuels for use elsewhere. If there were an oil spill of renewable fuels, caused by an oil train derailing or an earthquake, the environmental impacts would still be detrimental for human health and the natural environment. 

At the February 27 meeting, Councilor Sameer Kanal pointed out the challenges of weighing local versus global impacts when it comes to renewable fuels. 

“I don’t know if I agree that [it’s the global emissions that matter most],” Kanal said. “I’d prefer not to have liquid fuel laden trains anywhere. But if I had to pick, I’d much rather have them across the world from us…Trains running through District 2, possibly crashing, catching fire, and destroying the air quality in District 2, impacts my constituents more directly and immediately than other places.” 

Outside of Portland, the proposed NEXT refinery in Columbia County is another place where biofuel production hits close to home. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality recently approved a permit for a $2.5 billion biofuel facility in Clatskanie, located on the Columbia River between Portland and Astoria. 

The facility, which would be operated by Houston-based company NXTClean Fuels, has faced pushback from environmental advocates for its local and extended impacts. 

According to Columbia Riverkeeper staff attorney Audrey Leonard, who spoke at the committee meeting, the refinery project would impede Oregon’s ability to meet its climate goals, due to an increase in emissions from operating the facility. Leonard also said the refinery and its transportation requirements would have major impacts on the local farming community and population at large. 

Leonard said, in general, she thinks Oregonians should be concerned about out-of-state companies she says are making “false promises.” 

“Regardless of the role of renewable diesel or renewable fuels in the transition, we need to be wary of actors like Zenith and NEXT who have eroded the public trust,” Leonard said. 

In public testimony at the committee meeting, many environmental advocates said they were grateful City Council members were finally having a public conversation about biofuels and the potential misinformation companies have spread about them. Nick Caleb, climate and energy attorney at Breach Collective, said he believes over the past few years, the city’s focus has “shifted toward partnership with corporations offering solutions.” He hopes to see a change in direction.

“That model is antithetical to a just transition,” he said. “It’s not what Portlanders want.” 

Not everyone agreed with the criticism of biofuels, however. Megan Boutwell, president of the transportation energy consulting firm Stillwater Associates, praised Oregon’s “portfolio approach to decarbonization…using all the tools available to reduce carbon now in the fleet.” 

“The energy transition will be bumpy and expensive and will require everyone's participation. That includes fuel companies that are necessary to produce the energy we need, but in many respects, have lost public trust, and need to be held accountable when they breach that trust,” Boutwell said. “We will need to work with people with whom we don't always agree and accept imperfect solutions whose benefits outweigh their risks. Renewable fuels aren't perfect, but nothing is, and this is what we can use now to decarbonize the fleet we have.” 

After hearing an onslaught of public feedback about the  problems biofuels may present, city leaders are eager to hear proposed alternatives and solutions. Councilor Dan Ryan said he hoped to hear more about the path forward in the future, including about the potential pros and cons of electrification. 

“[The speakers] have broken down very thoroughly why renewable fuels are not what a lot of people thought they were,” Ryan said. “But it’s hard to move forward without solutions.” 

Morillo underscored the importance of deeper dialogue around  renewable fuels, but said she agrees it’s also necessary to discuss solutions. 

“In the future, I would like to bring city staff to present a step-by-step plan of how we will transition away from all the fuels we have, and what other alternative power sources we have, and what the city actually has power to do about that,” Morillo said. 

Portland City Council will hold a work session on the Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub on Monday, March 17.