Portland’s Climate Resilience and Land Use Committee heard an informational briefing Oct. 9 on a discussion draft of a Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub policy that would change land-use rules for the bulk fuel terminals along the Willamette River and Highway 30.

Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Director Eric Engstrom told the committee the CEI Hub project grew from a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant and city-funded work and that staff "have been trying to spend the federal grant money first before we touch any money that the council has given us." The draft presents four regulatory alternatives for managing future development at the hub, which staff said serves roughly 70% of fuel consumed in the Willamette Valley and stores more than 350 million gallons in about 600 tanks across 11 bulk fuel terminals.

Why it matters: the hub concentrates liquid fuel storage in a liquefaction-prone area that staff and partners say is at high risk in a Cascadia subduction-zone earthquake. Tom Armstrong, supervising planner with BPS, said that risk underlies the project’s twin goals: reduce spill-and-fire risk from those facilities and coordinate emergency‑management readiness across city, county and state agencies.

What staff presented: the draft contains four progressively stricter regulatory approaches. Under staff’s characterization: Alternative 1 would prohibit new fossil-fuel transloading infrastructure, require any new tanks to meet the highest seismic safety standard (industry “risk category 4”), and keep exceptions for aviation and some renewable fuels but add conditional‑use review; Alternative 2 keeps the limits on fossil transloading and would cap per‑terminal expansions (example figure in the draft: a 5% capacity allowance) and require facility‑wide containment before new capacity; Alternative 3 would prohibit most expansions, allowing terminals to reconfigure existing capacity but not increase total capacity; and Alternative 4 would prohibit expansions and require an explicit drawdown of storage capacity (a staff example: 17% decline by 2035 tied to federal Pacific‑region demand projections and to align with Oregon DEQ seismic mitigation investment planning).

Staff stressed that the proposed draft will likely mix elements from these four alternatives rather than selecting one wholesale. BPS reported about 140 comments received via an online map app and six public events so far, and it is accepting written comments on the discussion draft through Oct. 17. Staff said they aim to publish a proposed draft by Nov. 10, present it to the Planning Commission for public hearings Dec. 16, and expect Planning Commission deliberations in January before returning a recommendation to council next spring.

Regulatory limits and coordination: presenters said zoning code changes are best suited to limit future development rather than force immediate removal of existing operational tanks; seismic upgrades required by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) are already being reviewed and terminals will submit 10‑year seismic mitigation investment plans that will come to the city for building permits. BPS staff noted interstate pipelines such as the Olympic pipeline are federally regulated and largely outside city land‑use authority.

Stakeholder concerns: industry and labor asked for an economic‑impact analysis and flexibility during a transition to renewable fuels, particularly sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Community groups sought stronger limits and asked planners to consider a broader set of hazardous materials and downstream distributors. Council members pressed staff about the tradeoffs between limiting expansion (Alternatives 3 and 4) and allowing capacity for near‑term renewable fuel transitions (Alternatives 1 and 2).

Emergency management and staffing: Richard Bridal, chief assistant officer at the Portland Bureau of Emergency Management, said PBEM and BPS are coordinating on emergency‑management planning for the hub and that a PBEM planner position approved in the city budget is intended to support hub planning; the position was in the hiring process at the time of the briefing.

No decision: the committee did not vote; the item was informational and staff asked the public to direct comments to the discussion draft. Chair Murillo told viewers, "written comments are due October 17," and staff reiterated that the proposed draft will be informed by public comment and further interagency coordination. The Planning Commission and later city council will hold public hearings and may amend any proposed code changes before adoption.

What remains unresolved: staff and councilors discussed how to set a drawdown target beyond 2035, how to monitor and enforce capacity reductions, how to balance regional fuel needs and local risk, and how to coordinate DEQ seismic mitigation requirements with city permitting and conditional‑use review. Industry, labor and community groups all asked for further economic and safety analyses before the city adopts any binding limits.