Portland’s Ticking Time Bomb: The CEI Hub
The Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub is a six-mile stretch of industrial land in northwest Portland along the Willamette River. If you’ve been to the City, you’ve probably seen it: nestled on the Western bank of the Willamette river at the foot of the Forest Park hills, tanks loom against the skyline. Hence its name, it serves as a critical hub – for fossil fuel companies – where they store and distribute 90% of Oregon’s liquid fuel supply.
It’s also a disaster waiting to happen.
As a part of receiving a FEMA grant last year for emergency preparedness, the City of Portland is updating policies and zoning code to regulate bulk fuel facilities in the CEI Hub. The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) has released a draft plan with four alternative options. Only one alternative option even begins to address the real danger, but it needs to be much stronger. The City of Portland is giving us an opportunity to influence how this land is handled.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are non-starters. They allow new fuel storage tanks to be built in this dangerous area, pretending that "renewable" fuel tanks won't spill in an earthquake and fail to offer a future where fuel capacity is reduced. They prioritize industry profits over community safety.
Alternative 4 is the only option that acknowledges the root of the problem: that there is too much fuel in the wrong place. It proposes a drawdown of fuel storage, but it needs to be strengthened. The proposed 17% reduction is far too slow and based on market forecasts, not safety needs.
We need a bold, accelerated drawdown plan, and we need it now. We have an opportunity to tangibly reduce the dangerous health and safety risks of the CEI Hub. The public comment period is open until Friday, October 17.
What’s at stake?
HEALTH
If (more like when) the Cascadia earthquake hits, these tanks, many of which were built before modern seismic standards, will rupture, releasing harmful pollutants like benzene, toluene, and other toxic particles. These chemicals will poison our rivers and blanket our neighborhoods. The healthcare costs of such an event are estimated to be approximately $121 million to $249 million.
SAFETY
The only path toward real safety is to reduce the amount of fuel and toxic materials stored at the CEI hub, and on an urgent, science-based timeline. Corporate lobbyists are already urging for weaker rules, and the proposed alternatives currently on the table either actually increase risks to communities and the environment, or keep the status quo. We need a drawdown schedule that prioritizes our safety – nearby residents, the climate, the Willamette and Columbia Rivers, and Forest Park – over corporate profits and convenience.
CLIMATE
The fossil fuel industry has adopted the term “renewable fuels” to describe fuels that aren’t petroleum based. Unfortunately, calling them “renewable” doesn’t make them safe or sustainable (although it does make them profitable for polluters). They are also often blended with large quantities of fossil fuels, yet still referred to as “renewable.” Call them whatever you want, they all come with some level of climate destruction:
“Sustainable” Aviation Fuels (SAFs): According to the National Farmers Union, SAFs “are not feasible decarbonization solutions, but they are very likely a food-price problem, a soil health problem, a clean energy and green hydrogen demand problem, and a cause of accelerating extinctions and warming.”
“Renewable” naphtha: is a highly volatile product and chemically equivalent to gasoline. Not only is it toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects, exposure to renewable naphtha has numerous detrimental health effects.
Biofuels: Studies have shown that the agricultural activities involved in creating biofuels can actually increase NOx emissions, a potent greenhouse gas that may offset any carbon dioxide reductions. This is especially concerning when carbon intensive feedstocks like corn and soybean oil are used.
The proposed alternative of expanding "green" fuels is a false solution. It encourages building new tanks in a high-risk area instead of mandating a reduction of the existing threat. Building new tanks does not solve the climate problem of emissions from creating and burning fossil and “renewable” fuels.
LEGACY
Oregonians have held the line for our health, safety, and environment before and won. We stopped the Mt. Hood Freeway. We reclaimed the riverfront and created Tom McCall Waterfront Park. We kept our beaches public. This is our next big fight, and the City has not even engaged in meaningful Tribal Consultation on the issue yet. How we handle the CEI Hub will define Portland's commitment to climate action, environmental justice, and community safety for decades to come.
Who gets to decide?
The companies that built this mess and profit from this dangerous status quo can not be allowed to dictate the terms of their own regulation. That decision belongs to all of us.
The cost of a major spill and fire – contamination of the rivers, destruction of ecosystems, and devastation of communities – would be immeasurable. The city's plan must prioritize preventing this disaster, not accommodating industry business plans.
What you can do
As Portland faces a historic choice that will determine our city’s safety and environmental legacy for generations, they need to hear from all of us. Use your voice. Be loud. Be irreverent. Let’s make sure our message comes across loud and clear, and that they listen to community members, not the fossil fuel industry.