<TesoroSavageTestimony.docx> From: “Herman M. Frankel, M.D.” <frankelh@comcast.net> To: TS “EFSEC” public comment website <https://ts.efsec.wa.gov> Cc: Project Manager “Sonia E. Bumpus” <sbumpus@utc.wa.gov> Subject: Proposed Tesoro Savage Vancouver Energy Distribution Terminal Regarding the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council’s (EFSEC’s) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Tesoro Savage Vancouver Energy Distribution Terminal (1), I am grateful for the opportunity to submit these written comments expressing my profound concerns about the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed facility. (1) http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Tesoro%20Savage/SEPA%20-%20DEIS/DEIS%20PAGE.shtml Overview and context I understand the following from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which the EFSEC “developed using submittals from the Applicant and their consultant(s) in combination with additional analysis performed by EFSEC staff, its contractors and independent consultant”:

“The Applicant (Tesoro Savage Petroleum Terminal LLC, also known as Vancouver Energy) has applied for a Site Certification Agreement to construct and operate a new crude oil terminal capable of receiving an average of 360,000 barrels of crude oil per day. At the Proposed Facility, the crude oil will be unloaded from trains, stored on-site, and loaded onto marine vessels at a marine terminal located at the Port of Vancouver in Clark County, WA. Marine vessels would deliver crude oil to refineries primarily located on the US West Coast.”

I understand further that during the time the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council was developing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, oil industry representatives were engaged in an intensive multi-year program of pressuring Congress and the president to end a 40-year ban on crude oil exports; and that the ban on crude oil exports was in fact lifted on December 15, 2015, as part of a rider attached to a Congressional $1.8 trillion tax and spending omnibus bill. (2, 3, and Appendix A) These developments may well lead to a significant increase in the number of tank cars of crude oil transported, unloaded, stored, and then reloaded onto marine vessels daily and thus to greater environmental risks and damage than projected. Further, these developments may well lead to a reduced proportion of shipments being sent to US refineries, and thus to reduced work opportunities for American workers than projected. 2. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Lifting-of-oil-export-ban-opens-news-horizons-to-6718939.php 3. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/us/politics/congress-9-11-emergency-workers-zadroga-act.html

Local environmental risks and damage resulting from rail transport of crude oil. In Section 3.2-8, the authors of the DEIS note the following:

“Integration of the trains delivering crude oil to the proposed Facility into the normal ebb and flow of train volume on the Class 1 rail system does not involve any construction or modification of the rail system.”

Without any construction or modification of the rail system, and based on data regarding the rail system as it currently exists, the US Department of Transportation (4) expects an annual average of ten dangerous wrecks due to oil train derailments in the next two decades, causing at least $4.5 billion in damages over this period. (4) http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20150226-cost-of-derailments-of-oilcarrying-trains-over-the-next-two-decades-4-5-billion Here’s an example (5) of the consequences of one such wreck:

Feb. 16, 2015: A freight train carrying 107 tankers of Bakken crude oil derailed in southern West Virginia near the Kanawha River last Monday, shooting a huge fireball and smoke into the sky. Some 27 rail cars derailed and 19 tankers caught fire or exploded. Part of the derailed train slammed into a home in Fayette County. Hundreds of residents were evacuated while the tanker fires were allowed to burn out. Two water treatment plants were closed due to risk of contamination from oil spills. First responders worked all week to control the fires and contain the spills to prevent oil from getting into the watershed.

Here’s another (5, again):

April, 30, 2014: A train carrying crude oil derailed in Lynchburg, Virginia along the James River. Several tanker cars exploded and caught fire, causing huge flames and thick black smoke. Three tankers leaked oil into the river.

(5) Kate Evans. Train derailments a concern for towns along rail lines. Morgan Messenger (Berkeley Springs, Morgan County, WV) Feb 25, 2015. http://www.morganmessenger.com/news/2015-02-25/Front_Page/Train_derailments_a_concern_for_towns_along_rail_l.html

On July 23, 2014, the US Department of Transportation released this statement: (6)

The volume of crude oil being produced and shipped by rail in North America simply did not exist that long ago. As the facts have changed on the ground so rapidly in the past few years, we must also change how we move this energy.

Noting the July 6, 2013 derailment of a 74-car train carrying Bakken crude in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and forcing thousands from their homes as fire from the derailed train engulf and destroyed most of the town’s downtown core (7), the DOT announced its plan to develop new safety rules. These rules would be designed to enhance tank car standards (by improving the design of tank cars built after October 1, 2015, the most comprehensive of which would require thicker, more puncture-resistant shells, enhanced braking, and rollover protection); to establish new operational requirements for High-Hazard Flammable Trains (HHFTs) (including enhanced braking, speed restrictions, route risk assessments incorporating 27 different factors, and advanced notification of State Emergency Response Commissions); and to put in place a higher standard for classifying and testing mined gases and liquids, observing, for example, that “compared to other crude oils, Bakken crude is on the high end of volatility.” (6, again) (6) https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/proposed-rulemaking-increases-rail-safety-crude-other-flammables (7) http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/12/lac-megantic-derailment-charges-see-accused-plead-not-guilty.html (The [Toronto] Star)

July 6, 2013: A 74-car train carrying Bakken crude derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada, like the US Department of Transportation, has concluded that existing tank car standards and existing operational requirements for oil trains are insufficient to protect “people, property and the environment.”

“In recent years, the growth in the transportation of crude oil and ethanol by rail across North America has increased exponentially. . . The Lac-Mégantic derailment in July 2013, and other recent derailments (in Plaster Rock, New Brunswick; and Clair, Saskatchewan), have demonstrated that there can be significant risk to people, property and the environment when trains carrying large volumes of flammable liquids derail. . . The increase in the transportation of flammable liquids—such as crude oil—by rail across North America has created emerging risks that need to be effectively mitigated . . . Flammable liquids must be shipped in more robust tank cars to reduce the likelihood of a dangerous goods release during accidents . . .” (8)

8. Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Transportation of flammable liquids by rail. http://toplocalplaces.com/united-states/novi/organization/brotherhood-of-maintenance-of-way-employes/290792087644965 Further, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has addressed the question, “Why do the derailments occur?”

Petroleum crude oil unit trains with heavily loaded tank cars will tend to impart higher-than-usual forces to the track infrastructure during their operation. These higher forces expose any weaknesses that may be present in the track structure, making the track more susceptible to failure. (9)

Aerial photo of derailment

Broken rail in joint bars with wheel impact damage on top of joint bar

9. Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Rail Safety Advisory Letter (617– 04/15): Condition of Track Infrastructure on CN Ruel Subdivision. Mar 17, 2015. http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/sur-safe/letter/rail/2015/r15h0021/r15h0021-617-04-15.asp

Ralph Vertabedian (10), national correspondent at the Loa Angeles Times, addressed the same question: Why are so many oil trains crashing? “An alarming pattern across North America helps explain the significant rise of derailments involving oil-hauling trains over the last three years, even as railroads are investing billions of dollars in improving the safety of their networks. . . . About two-thirds of the accidents resulted in spills, fires or explosions, a record that has already prompted regulators to demand stronger tank cars and other safety measures. . . “A review of 31 crashes that have occurred on oil trains since 2013 puts track failure at the heart of the growing safety problem. “Track problems were blamed on 59% of the crashes, more than double the overall rate for freight train accidents, according to a Times analysis of accident reports. Investigators and rail safety experts are looking at how the weight and movements of oil trains may be causing higher than expected track failures. . . Weight, oil sloshing, and cold temperatures are among the issues that might be exacerbating the problem, according to rail safety experts. (11)

10. Ralph Vertabedian: Bio. http://www.latimes.com/la-bio-ralph-vartabedian-staff.html 11. Ralph Vertabedian. Why are so many oil trains crashing? Track problems may be to blame. LA Times Oct. 7, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-crude-train-safety-20151007-story.html On October 9, 2015, the US Federal Railroad Administration announced the results of its investigation of a February 16, 2015 derailment in Mount Carbon, WV that resulted in 27 derailed cars, a fire that ignited immediately and eventually burned for days, and the evacuation of hundreds of local residents. Finding: The cause of the derailment was a broken rail, resulting from a vertical split head rail defect. Actions: FRA will urge closer and more detailed inspections where defects and flaws are suspected, and stronger training for rail inspection vehicle operators; explore the need for rail-head wear standards and potentially require railroads to slow trains or replace a rail when certain conditions pose a safety risk; and require this railroad’s internal rail flaw operators to review previous inspection data alongside real-time data in order to assist in identifying conditions and flaws that have changed or worsened between inspections. (12) 12. Federal Railroad Administration. Federal Railroad Administration Announces Cause of Mount Carbon Derailment, Steps to Prevent Future Accidents (Press Release Number FRA 17-15. Sep 9, 2015 https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17122

Comment: “Sarah Feinberg, chief of the Federal Railroad Administration, said the agency is working hard to improve safety, but preventing accidents that result from defective track involves finding a needle in every haystack along thousands of miles of track.

“ ‘We have been incredibly lucky that the accidents have happened mostly in rural areas,’ she said. ‘Some of them have been very close calls.’ ” (11, again)

Brief summary of material presented regarding Local environmental risks and damage resulting from rail transport of crude oil: Without any construction or modification of the rail system, and based on data regarding the rail system as it currently exists, the US Department of Transportation (4) expects an annual average of ten dangerous wrecks due to oil train derailments in the next two decades, causing at least $4.5 billion in damages over this period. Of the 31 crashes have occurred on oil trains in the US since 2013, about two-thirds resulted in spills, fires, or explosions, The Transportation Safety Board of Canada, like the US Department of Transportation, has concluded that existing tank car standards and existing operational requirements for oil trains are insufficient to protect “people, property and the environment.” A review of 31 crashes that have occurred on oil trains since 2013 puts failure of defective track at the heart of the growing safety problem. Sarah Feinberg, chief of the Federal Railroad Administration, has noted that “preventing accidents that result from defective track involves finding a needle in every haystack along thousands of miles of track.”

What causes the accidents? Petroleum crude oil unit trains with heavily loaded tank cars will tend to impart higher-than-usual forces to the track infrastructure during their operation. These higher forces expose any weaknesses that may be present in the track structure, making the track more susceptible to failure. http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/sur-safe/letter/rail/2015/r15h0021/r15h0021-617-04-15.asp Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Rail Safety Advisory Letter (617– 04/15): Condition of Track Infrastructure on CN Ruel Subdivision. Mar 17, 2015. Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Transportation of flammable liquids by rail. , Apart from the http://toplocalplaces.com/united-states/novi/organization/brotherhood-of-maintenance-of-way-employes/290792087644965 Why are oil trains crashing? Track problems could be to blame. Investigators at Safety Transportation Board Canada, which is investigating the eight accidents that have occurred in that country, are beginning to suspect that the oil trains are causing unusual track damage. “Petroleum crude oil unit trains transporting heavily loaded tank cars will tend to impart higher than usual forces to the track infrastructure during their operation,” the safety board said in a report this year. “These higher forces expose any weaknesses that may be present in the track structure, making the track more susceptible to failure.” Rick Inclima, safety director at the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, also said that oil trains could be creating unique stresses on the track. “You can certainly get some rhythmic forces in ... oil trains that you might not see on a mixed freight train with cars of different sizes, weights and commodities,” he said. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-crude-train-safety-20151007-story.html

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/p/250956/2800666.aspx

Migrants arrive at the Greek island of Lesbos after crossing the Aegean Sea from Turkey. http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2016-1-january-february/grapple/fleeing-angry-climate Dashka Slater. Fleeing an Angry Climate: Governments are not ready for the coming flood of climate migrants. Sierra. January/February 2016, pp. 22-24. http://www.refugeesinternational.org/blog/2015/12/8/paris Refugees International Report from Paris Climate Negotiations. December 8, 2015 So, where does this leave us? How can the Paris agreement prevent climate change-related displacement? First, the international community will need to sufficiently curb emissions to prevent or mitigate the most devastating impacts of climate change.

The Department of Defense calls for reducing the use of fossil fuels and increasing the use of renewable energy, and predicts that further global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions would further increase the risk of uncontrolled wildfires, coastal erosion and inundation, such serious health problems as respiratory illness due to increased ozone levels, and “the destabilization of regions of the world already prone to conflict.” Department of Defense. Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan FY 2012. http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/DoD%20SSPP%20FY12-FINAL.PDF 1. On November 4, 2015, The Portland City Council voted 4-0 to make it city policy to oppose the increase of crude oil-carrying trains in and around the city.

http://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-city-council-fossil-fuel-vote/ Cassandra Profita. Portland City Council Votes To Oppose Oil Trains. OPB, Nov. 4, 2015 (online)

2. On November 12, 2015, the Portland City Council voted 5-0 to pass a landmark resolution opposing all projects that increase the transportation or storage of all fossil fuels in Portland or in its adjacent waterways. This resolution is the most far-reaching of its kind in the country. It encompasses all fossil fuel types; it directs the City to codify the language into law; and it includes strong language around a “just transition” for workers economically dislocated by the city’s change to a clean, sustainable economy.

http://enewspf.com/2015/11/13/portland-or-city-council-passes-resolution-opposing-new-fossil-fuel-infrastructure/ Portland, OR, City Council Passes Resolution Opposing New Fossil Fuel Infrastructure. Enewspf.com, Nov.13, 2015 (online)

<PortlandCityCouncilResolution37168.pdf>

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/incredible-images-of-train-derailment-in-lynchburg-virginia/

July 6, 2013: A 74-car train carrying Bakken crude derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and forcing thousands from their homes as fire from the train engulfed and destroyed most of the town’s downtown core.

announced its plans to propose In commenting on The authors of the DEIS The Central Return - Stampede Pass return route is not addressed for other resource topics because the four empty trains departing the proposed Facility and returning to Williston each day would not result in impacts distinguishable from those associated with existing freight train traffic currently using the route. 3.1-14 Failure-prone soils are commonly improved through a variety of ground improvement engineering techniques. These techniques aid in strengthening soft and loose soils so that they are less prone to liquefaction, capable of withstanding greater seismic motion without failure, and better equipped to support structures. Ground improvements proposed by the Applicant are described in Section 2.3.2.2. The Applicant-proposed ground improvements are designed to increase the strength of the underlying soils. EFSEC’s independent consultant’s review of the Applicant-proposed ground improvements recommends that more extensive application of these ground improvements within site soils should occur beneath the transfer pipelines (Area 500) that connect to the storage tanks (Area 300) and the marine terminal (Area 400) (Section 3.1.5). These additional ground improvements are needed because the Applicant- proposed ground improvements do not uniformly reach the top of the NEHRP Site Class C Troutdale gravel in this area. 3.1-28 In areas where landslides have resulted in service disruptions and other impacts, BNSF would initiate a program to mitigate issues. 3.2-8

1. Integration of the trains delivering crude oil to the proposed Facility into the normal ebb and flow of train volume on the Class 1 rail system does not involve any construction or modification of the rail system.

Page 3.2-25 Rail-Caused Vehicle Delays The addition of eight trains per day would result in an increased delay of approximately 41 minutes per crossing per day he total combined vehicular delay would be 90 hours each day. Vehicles idling while delayed at these crossing locations would temporarily increase emissions. However, the increase in emissions would be anticipated to be less than significant. Rail-Caused Vehicle Delays, The potential for air quality impacts due to increases in vehicle delays near railroad/street crossings that would be obstructed by Project-related unit trains was also considered. The addition of eight trains per day would result in an increased delay of approximately 41 minutes

per crossing per day (Table 3.14-14). When accounting for the number of affected vehicles and the number of trains on the Columbia River and Central Return - Stampede Pass alignments (i.e., four unit trains per day on the Vancouver to Pasco segment, and eight unit trains per day on the Pasco to Washington state line segment), the total combined vehicular delay would be 90 hours each day.

3.3-30 In accordance with Ecology guidance (Ecology 2011b), a proposal would be presumed “not significant” for GHG emissions in the event that emissions exceed 25,000 metric tons per year but mitigation measures reduce such emissions by approximately 11 percent. Washington State

law requires that new fossil-fueled thermal electric generating facilities provide mitigation of CO

2

emissions under

WAC 463-80, requiring a 12 percent reduction of a project’s total CO

2

emissions over 20 years of operation. WAC 463-80-060 specifies mitigation plan options, including an option for payment to a third party. While the legal requirement to comply with WAC 463-80 does not apply to the proposed Facility, the Applicant has voluntarily committed to implementing these mitigation

requirements based on CO

2

e emissions from stationary source operations. The obligation would be met through coordination with Ecology and payment to the Climate Trust at a level commensurate with a 12 percent stationary source reduction.

01/04/16 9:20am PST http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Tesoro%20Savage/SEPA%20-%20DEIS/20151124RevisedNoticeDEIS.pdf Having read the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council’s (EFSEC’s) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Tesoro Savage Vancouver Energy Distribution Terminal (1), I am grateful for the opportunity to submit these written comments expressing my profound concerns. (1) http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Tesoro%20Savage/SEPA%20-%20DEIS/DEIS%20PAGE.shtml 01/06/16 http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4a5096.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+migration&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&imgil=M04m1nSbCtVq1M%253A%253BwDd0aQUaDAu8TM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Ftheverb.org%25252Fdoes-climate-change-cause-migration%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=M04m1nSbCtVq1M%253A%252CwDd0aQUaDAu8TM%252C_&biw=1271&bih=939&usg=__SUzBS_uFAHrfzZd8qIw9SPBR2xg%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjl8dXus5XKAhVS1WMKHQmGDmMQyjcIIg&ei=ySWNVqXpHNKqjwOJjLqYBg#imgrc=e1kl3w1HkJbCVM%3A&usg=__SUzBS_uFAHrfzZd8qIw9SPBR2xg%3D

Appendix A: Repeal of Ban on Export of Crude Oil

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (December 15, 2015) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr2029enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr2029enr.pdf

H.R.2029 Page 746 (of 2009 pages)

DIVISION O–OTHER MATTERS

Title I–OIL EXPORTS, SAFETY VALVE, AND MARITIME SECURITY

SEC. 101. OIL EXPORTS, SAFETY VALVE, AND MARITIME SECURITY (a) REPEAL.–Section 103 of the Energy Policy and Conservtion Act (42 U.S.C.

6212) and the item relating thereto in the tableof contents of that Act are repealed. (b) NATIONAL POLICY ON OIL EXPORT RESTRICTION.–Nowithstanding

any other provision of law, except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), to promote the efficient exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing, and regulation of energy resources, including fossil fuels, no official of the Federal Government shall impose or enforce any restriction on the export of crude oil.

Appendix B: PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION No. 37168 Oppose expansion of infrastructure whose primary purpose is transporting or storing fossil fuels in or through Portland or adjacent waterways (Resolution) WHEREAS, the rapid development of fossil fuel resources in the western US and Canada has resulted in numerous facility and infrastructure projects proposed to transport coal, diluted bitumen, natural gas, propane or other fossil fuels through the West Coast; and WHEREAS, fossil fuels pose risks to safety, health, and livability, including mobility of people, other freight, and other commercial vehicles; and WHEREAS, fossil fuel infrastructure poses considerable risks in the event of a major earthquake; and WHEREAS, the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels are significant sources of greenhouse gas omissions and major contributors to climate change and pollution; and WHEREAS, coal contains toxic heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic and lead, and exposure to these toxic heavy metals is linked to cancer, birth defects and other health problems; and WHEREAS, transportation of coal using open top rail cars results in significant volumes of materials escaping during transit, exposing communities to toxic heavy metals in coal dust particulates at levels potentially harmful to adjacent communities, workers, wildlife and nature; and WHEREAS, crude oil, including oil derived from the Bakken shale reservoir, is known to be volatile, highly flammable and to contain elevated levels of benzene, a potent carcinogen; and WHEREAS, extraction of fossil fuels through fracking and tar sands processing, which has become widespread throughout the western United States and Canada, has damaging impacts to human and environmental health and racking increases the potential for earthquakes; and WHEREAS, transporting crude oil, coal and other fossil fuels into Oregon involves traversing challenging mountain passes areas laced with significant earthquake faults and numerous older unsafe bridges lacking appropriate infrastructure maintenance or upgrades, significantly increasing the risks of serious accidents; and WHEREAS, given the record of crude oil and coal or other fossil fuel transport accidents, such as Lac Mégantic in 2013, the 1999 Bellingham pipeline wreck or a coal train derailment, an event could have catastrophic events if it occurred in any of Oregon’s populated areas; and Portland City Council Resolution 37168 (November 12, 2015) Page 1 of 4

37168

WHEREAS, the risks posed by transportation of fossil fuels through the Columbia Gorge are inconsistent with the Gorge’s designation as a National Scenic Area; and WHEREAS, historically, when environmental accidents occur, litigation over damages is drawn out over years, deflecting blame while undercutting timely assistance to affected communities; and WHEREAS, tribal communities in Oregon and Washington have expressed concerns about the safety risks of fossil fuel infrastructure and the related threats to human health, cultural heritage, and environmental quality; and WHEREAS, economic opportunities presented by expanding fossil fuel infrastructure are modest, with few jobs and little value added when compared to the related environmental costs; and WHEREAS, local, regional and global economies are transitioning to low-carbon energy sources, and West Coast businesses are leaders in providing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies and services; and WHEREAS, the future of the fossil fuel industry is questionable given global action to reduce greenhouse gas omissions; and WHEREAS, climate change, if unchecked, will continue to impact human health, natural systems, and infrastructure, creating new cost for individuals, businesses, and governments; and WHEREAS, the City’s 2015 Climate Action Plan (adopted by Resolution 37135) identifies the need to establish “a fossil fuel export policy that considers lifecycle emissions, safety, economics, neighborhood livability and environmental impacts” (Climate Action Plan, action 3G page 69); and WHEREAS, the City and Multnomah County, working together with many individuals, and community and business partners, have reduced local carbon omissions 14 percent since 1990 while adding population and job; on a per person basis, carbon emissions have decreased 35 percent since 1990; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Climate Action Plan commits the city to continue to advance policies and programs to reduce local fossil use both in the City’s own operations and through community-wide initiatives; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the Council added fossil fuel companies to the City’s corporate securities Do-Not-Buy list committing the City to hold no financial stake in the 200 largest fossil fuel firms (Resolution 37153); and Portland City Council Resolution 37168 (November 12, 2015) Page 2 of 4

37168

WHEREAS, 27 Oregon and Washington communities have passed resolutions addressing fossil fuel transport and export, and hundreds of public officials, including the governors of Oregon and Washington, state and federal agencies, tribes, health organizations, religious leaders and other community leaders, have recognized the harms presented by fossil fuels to the environment and Northwest communities; and WHEREAS, in 2012, the Council expressed opposition to coal trains traveling through Portland until a programmatic, comprehensive and area-wide Environmental Impact Statement and comprehensive Health Impact Assessment are completed (Resolutions 36959 and 36962); and WHEREAS, The city is continuing to work with utilities to reduce coal and other fossil fuels in Portland’s electricity supply; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council will actively oppose expansion of infrastructure whose primary purpose is transporting or storing fossil fuels in Portland or adjacent waterways; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution does not restrict

1. improvements in the safety, or efficiency, size and resilience, or operations of existing infrastructure;

2. the provision of service directly to end users; 3. development of emergency back up capacity; 4. infrastructure that enables recovery or re-processing of used petroleum products; or 5. infrastructure that will accelerate the transition to fossil fuel energy sources; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that City bureaus are directed to examine existing laws, including those related to public health, safety, building, electrical, nuisance, and fire codes, and to develop recommendations to address fossil fuels that strengthen public health and safety; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability is directed to develop proposed code changes for Council consideration to advance the policies set forth in this resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that prior to any further council action, the mayor shall schedule (1) a work session to review any proposed code changes and (2) an executive session to review the legal consideration of any proposed code changes; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability shall undertake an analysis of the economic impacts of any proposed Code changes to advance the policies set forth in this resolution, with a particular focus on potential impacts to local blue-collar jobs; and Portland City Council Resolution 37168 (November 12, 2015) Page 3 of 4

37168 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City and applicable bureaus shall seek and identify opportunities to invest in Portland's ‘human infrastructure’ by supporting programs to retrain our workforce as the city transitions to a clean energy economy; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that City shall consult with its Tribal Government partners, the State of Oregon, local governments, and other key stakeholders including labor, business, environment, neighborhoods and communities of color in advancing this policy; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, notwithstanding anything in this resolution, the Council will exercise its duty as a quasi-judicial land use decision-making body in an impartial manner consistent with City Code and Oregon law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this resolution is binding City policy. Adopted by the Council: NOV 12 2015 Mary Hull Caballero Auditor of the City of Portland Mayor Charles Hales Prepared by: M. Armstrong, BPS Date prepared: October 23, 2015 Portland City Council Resolution 37168 (November 12, 2015) Page 4 of 4 <PortlandCityCouncilResolution37168.docx>