PGE project in Forest Park appealed by conservation, neighborhood groups

A proposed utility project in Forest Park has caused a monthslong clash between environmental groups and Portland General Electric. The Harborton Reliability Project would remove roughly 400 mature trees on 5 acres of parkland to make way for new power lines. PGE says the grid upgrade is necessary to meet the region’s growing demand for electricity, but conservationists say it will damage one of Portland’s most important ecological assets.

City permitting staff recommended against the project in January, but a hearings officer determined earlier this month that it should be allowed to proceed. The Forest Park Neighborhood Association and the Forest Park Conservancy have appealed that decision to the City Council.

Randy Franks is a senior project manager for PGE. Scott Fogarty is the executive director of the Forest Park Conservancy. They both join us to share their perspectives on the plan and what it could mean for Portland’s largest park.

Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.

Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. We start today with the fight over a proposed electrical grid project in Portland’s Forest Park. The Harborton Reliability Project would remove about 400 mature trees on a little under 5 acres of parkland to make way for new power lines. PGE says it’s necessary to meet the region’s growing demand for electricity. Conservationists and the local neighborhood group say it will damage one of Portland’s most important ecological assets.

There’s already been a seesaw in the approval process. City permitting staff recommended against the project in January. Earlier this month, a city hearings officer determined that it should be allowed to proceed. Now, the Forest Park Neighborhood Association and the Forest Park Conservancy have appealed that decision to the City Council. We’ll hear from the executive director of that conservancy in a few minutes.

First, Randy Franks joins me. He is a senior project manager for PGE. Welcome to Think Out Loud.

Randy Franks: Thanks, Dave. It’s great to be here.

Miller: Why are you arguing that this Harborton Reliability Project is necessary?

Franks: The project’s necessary to make sure we can continue reliably serving electric loads in the city of Portland into the future. Our experts say that as soon as 2028, there’s the risk of outages when we are trying to serve peak load in increasingly extreme weather.

Miller: I want to give you a chance to respond to some critical comments that we got on Facebook.

Faun Hosey wrote this … and we got other folks who said versions of this: “It’s not about affordable power, it’s about meeting the current and future extreme demands of data centers. That’s why they threaten brownouts. Residential power demand is flat. Data center demand is through the roof, and this 5 acre cut is just a current request. They’ll be back for more.”

Other people, as I said, made similar points, that we don’t want to sacrifice these trees as habitat for data centers. What’s your response?

Franks: PGE is not unique among utilities across the country that are facing the need to improve our transmission infrastructure. Most of what was built in this area was in the 1960s and ‘70s, and so it is aging. And as our energy usage patterns change, we also need to update that grid so it continues to occur reliably. The need for this project was actually identified in 2015, so before the surges and usage that folks are are mentioning in those comments, and it is in fact to serve equipment in Portland, in North and Northeast Portland, that’s at risk of being overloaded in certain reliability scenarios that we can foresee coming as soon as 2028.

Miller: So you’re saying that you would need to do this even if it weren’t for an increase in demand from data centers?

Franks: That’s right.

Miller: In its filing earlier this year, Portland permitting staff said your company failed to fully assess alternatives to cutting through Forest Park. What alternatives did you consider and how fully did you do that?

Franks: We considered over 20 alternatives. There’s a detailed analysis. We actually have all of our application materials that led to the approval by the hearings officer posted on our website, portlandgeneralprojects.com. Those 20 alternatives started at the very highest level. How is the grid configured? How is energy used? How can we encourage different uses? When those were not adequate to solve the bottleneck that exists in Forest Park, we moved to the next level of what sorts of projects could we build to configure the grid differently, to relieve that bottleneck. We found none of these projects actually solved the bottleneck issue, so then we moved in closer to say, what can we build in the vicinity of Forest Park or in Forest Park that resolves it?

And through that process we exhaustively showed that no options except the proposed project are possible. And this is fully in keeping with the Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan, which is a 300-page document that governs how land in Forest Park is used. It was one of the very first things I did when I joined the project, is to read that document cover to cover. And the process of developing this project was really about proving with my team, to ourselves, as residents of Portland, as users of Forest Park, that we would be able to comply with that plan and show that there was no other alternative available.

Miller: A few people on our Facebook page brought up a specific version of an alternative.

Linda Fisk McNeil said, “So it can burn in a fire when winds take out the lines, they need to put it underground.”

John wrote, “Bury the lines to avoid forest fires and reduce tree removal.”

What’s wrong with this idea of burying the lines?

Franks: We hear this a lot in our public meetings and in comments that we received to our project mailbox. I’ve been involved with multiple underground transmission line projects and they are significantly different from what most people will think of when they hear an underground line. In fact, one of these projects I was involved with had to cross habitat where there were federally endangered species and the line transitioned to be an overhead project to reduce the impact on the environment. Underground transmission lines involve more impact because it involves trenching along the entire length and making significant disruptions to the root zones, the soil and the subterranean water flow. That’s in addition to the fact that this is a very steep hillside, so it’s even more complicated and more impactful to the environment than the project that we’ve proposed. And I’ll also note that that underground option is evaluated in our alternatives analysis, if folks want to learn more.

Miller: What is the next best option? You said there were 20 options that you considered and I think the report that I saw was from April of 2024 – so about a year ago, is when it was released. And then of those, there are four or five that merited from your team’s perspective, deeper study. What is the next best one that you said still was not good enough, just so folks have an idea for it?

Franks: Sure. The next best alternative is actually what we proposed in 2022 when we sat down with the city for an early assistance meeting. And that project proposed constructing two 1,400 foot new segments up that hillside, which is an existing utility corridor fully surrounded by utility lines. It’s probably the furthest thing from folks’s minds when they envision Forest Park, when they hear those words. This is an exposed area, it’s wide open. There are expansive views of Mount St. Helens and the Willamette River. It’s not a narrow hiking trail, surrounded by tall trees.

Miller: There are existing BPA lines and one PGE line.

Franks: There are several transmission lines through that corridor, yes. The Bonneville lines predate the existence of Forest Park as far back as the ‘40s. The Portland General lines there have been there since the 1970’s. And the project that we’ve been approved to build here is located entirely within an easement granted by the city of Portland to PGE in the ‘70s.

Miller: What would it mean for this project, for the habitat of the northern red-legged frog, which lives in Forest Park, lays eggs in a nearby wetland area, and is the recipient of a lot of love and attention in the form of something that people call the “frog taxi”?

Franks: This project would result in substantial improvements for the northern red-legged frog habitat, because one component of our substantial and robust mitigation plan is to fund Portland Park’s improving breeding habitats that they’ve identified inside the park. And these are medium quality wetlands that they can improve well outside the project area and establish a way for frogs to breed inside the park, and not need to cross Highway 30 to reach the Willamette River.

Miller: You said that’s one part of the mitigation plan. What are the other parts?

Franks: This would be a great place for folks to check the website and review it, because it is extensive. There’s a number of components to it, but I’ll highlight two in particular. In this location, very unique to Forest Park, there are existing stands of Oregon white oak, which is part of a conservation strategy habitat. We’re proposing to expand that along the outer edges of the new power line corridor.

Miller: So places where it’s more Doug firs or conifers, those would be one tree you’d be cutting down and you’d be putting white oak in its place?

Franks: That’s right. About 400 new white oak trees, another 400 mix of shorter stature trees, and about 8,000 total smaller shrubs and native plants throughout that area.

Miller: And what is the upkeep that you’re committing to?

Franks: Well, I wanted to mention the second item, and I’ll come back to that. The other important element of that mitigation plan that we’re proposing to fund through the Portland Parks is the removal of invasive species and ladder fuels throughout the park. So these are the ivy vines that are growing up trees and causing the potential for fire to spread anywhere in the park. So I think that’s another really important part of that.

Coming back to your question about the upkeep, what we proposed in the plan and what’s been approved is two years of monitoring and annual reporting, and then the project would transition to our routine annual vegetation management processes that take place throughout the PGE service territory every year.

Miller: City staff and environmental groups have also expressed concerns about future phases of this project … and we heard a little bit of that and at the end of one of those Facebook comments I read. You’ve said that they could impact another 15 acres of the park and provide power to data centers in Hillsboro. What can you tell us about the later phases of this project?

Franks: Well, I think the first thing that’s important to know is that those phases are separate projects, that this project stands alone. It does not make those projects more or less likely and it does not predetermine where those projects might be built if those needs are substantiated. The two components there that we’ve identified in our long range planning studies are that we may need to move more power west through Forest Park on the existing lines that are there. They may need to be upgraded with newer, more modern conductors that can carry power.

The other potential future phase is to actually bring significant new capacity from the north, down into the Portland metro area, and that’s a much longer range need. And if those are substantiated, they would go through the same detailed planning process, rigorous alternative evaluation of alternatives, and if they are to be located in Forest Park, they would, as this project has, comply fully with the Forest Park Natural Resources Management plan.

Miller: And just briefly, what’s the time frame for that? When do you think it’s likely that you’d be, say, at the stage you are with this Harborton plan for those future ones?

Franks: I don’t actually have the exact time frames in mind. Yeah, I’m sorry. They are very early in [the] planning stages, so those time frames are well out into the future and I don’t have them with me.

Miller: Randy Franks, thanks very much.

Franks: All right, thank you.

Miller: Randy Franks is a senior project manager for PGE.

The project has received a lot of pushback from the Forest Park Neighborhood Association and the Forest Park Conservancy. Scott Fogarty is the executive director of that conservancy, and he joins us now. It’s good to have you on the show.

Scott Fogarty: Thanks for having me.

Miller: It might be obvious to a lot of listeners, but it’s still worth starting here. What makes Forest Park special?

Fogarty: Well, Forest Park is the largest urban forest in the nation and the community is trying desperately to fight the loss of our urban forest canopy in Portland. For over 125 years, Portland has recognized this area as important to the city. It’s a gem that not only identifies Portland, but identifies the region. It is home to over 125 bird species, 52 mammal species, several Northwest iconic tree species. Thousands and thousands of people utilize the park every year, which is why it’s near and dear to their heart and which is why we’re here today.

Miller: In her ruling earlier this month, the city hearings officer wrote that PGE’s plan is “the best practicable” and “the least environmentally detrimental” option for a project that she says is going to address a real need. Why did your group decide to appeal her decision?

Fogarty: Well, also in her report, she said this project will have a significant impact and we thoroughly believe it will have a significant impact. It will remove 5 acres of trees that are 100-plus years old. It will fill into streams, it will fill into wetlands that have species that are on the decline. And it will potentially open the door, as the tip of the iceberg, if you will, for future expansion by PGE in the park – and we don’t know what that is. We’ve reached out to PGE many times to see what their future plans are and we haven’t really gotten a response …

Miller: Well, you just heard a version of that response now because I did ask some of those questions to Randy Franks, who said two things that really stand out that I want to run by you. One is that the timeline is still too up in the air; the later stage projects are still in the works, in early stages. The second thing he said though, that I want to get your take on, is that the approval or denial of this project doesn’t have a bearing on those other projects. Do you disagree with that?

Fogarty: Well, that is the crux of the issue. We don’t know. And if we knew, then we wouldn’t be as concerned, potentially, as we are now, because they haven’t shared with us that information and because we have requested that information for quite some time. We don’t know what that impact will be. So, going down the road, it could open a slippery slope to them saying, well, we have this easement here so therefore we need this much more power lines coming over, and the options are not feasible so therefore we need to take another 20 acres. We need to take another 40 acres. We need to keep chipping into what is there, what has been there for over 100 years and what Portlanders have come to love.

Miller: It’s possible that the sort of slippery slope argument you’re making here is your answer to this Facebook comment I’m about to read, but I want to read nevertheless because we did get a couple that are along these lines.

This one comes from Hung Wasson who wrote: “5 acres of the 5,200 acre Forest Park getting logged to allow power line placement doesn’t seem all that unreasonable, even when you consider they will ask for more permission to log an additional 10 to 15 acres in the future to allow for other projects.”

So this is the basic numerical take: 5,200 acres versus 5 acres.

Fogarty: Sure, but that’s not the right question to ask. The right question to ask is 5 acres acceptable? Is 20 acres acceptable? I mean, where do we draw the line? We’re talking about an age, an era where climate resilience is on the mind of all Portlanders, of all Northwesterners, quite frankly of all the countries in the world. And if we start to remove big trees, we diminish the value of the habitat, we diminish the value of what those trees’ values to the community bring. If we are going to start facing climate change head on, then we need carbon suckers. We need to protect habitat, we need to enhance those values, those ecological values that the park brings to not just us, but the region.

Miller: But as I know you well know, people who are very focused on climate resilience, on reducing our carbon footprint, say that we need to have a lot more renewable energy in the grid and we need to have a more robust grid. PGE’s basic argument is that broadly, this is one small piece of that, that this all is tied together and if we want a better grid that can handle more electricity for our more electrified future, this is part of that. Something has to give, and in this case, that something is 400-plus mature trees in this beloved park.

How do you think about that argument?

Fogarty: Well, it chips away at our irreplaceable ecosystems. I mean, you can’t replace a 150-year-old tree with a 10-year-old tree and expect the same values to come out of that. We can’t fail to remind people again that this is only phase three. So if we knew what future phases were like, if they would sit down with us and say, “this is the plan going forward,” then I think maybe we could think about that in less of a fear mongering way and more of a realistic, how do we coexist with this kind of need and this kind of demand. Which, by the way, next year they predict only a 2.5% increase in power. So when they say rolling blackouts, I scratch my head and I say, well, we haven’t had rolling blackouts. And if it’s a 2.5% increase, where is that gonna come from?

So if we knew more about what PGE was planning to do, what kind of power lines they want to put in and what the cost of the alternatives are, then I think we could have a more reasoned conversation about this. Between 2023 and 2024, PGE had an $85 million increase in their income. Why not put some of that money into some of the alternatives? They say they’re going to pass that on to the ratepayers, but to me, that’s a significant amount of money and investing in our ecology over taking out mature trees is something that we should do.

Miller: I want to turn to the mitigation plan that I did talk about briefly with Randy Franks. So they’re gonna plant white oak and native shrub plantings, monitor that for two years. They’ll submit maintenance reports to the city that include the account of the number of plants that have died and photographs of their restoration efforts. And then, as you said, they’re going to then be responsible for the ongoing survival of those new oak trees along the places where the then new lines would be. What’s wrong with that plan, that mitigation plan, from your perspective?

Fogarty: Well, he said they were going to monitor for two years is what I heard. That is not enough at all.

Miller: My understanding is monitoring for two years, but then doing their version of standard maintenance for the trees near the lines in perpetuity. I may have that wrong, but that’s my understanding of what he said and what I’ve read.

Fogarty: Sure. And to be honest, I don’t know what that means. And again, if there were more transparency of what that means, that might make it a bit of a difference.

Miller: I assume it means that if one of the new white oaks is getting too close to one of the new power lines, they’ll trim it back.

Fogarty: I see.

Miller: And I think that is sort of standard.

Fogarty: Standard, yeah, OK. So to answer your question, again, trees that are older and larger provide more ecological, environmental and economic value. There’s been studies done across the country on that issue. And if you’re projecting replacing trees that are that old with trees that are 10 to 15 years old, you’re not gonna get those ecological values for another 30 to 35-plus years. Trees are an accruing asset to the city of Portland. The city of Portland has spent millions of dollars in urban forestry to combat heat, to combat runoff from rainwater, etc., and to think that taking out trees in a mature forest is actually going to help with climate change and mitigate climate change with smaller trees, the hubris is overwhelming in our opinion. So, again, in the face of climate change, we feel that this is just a non-starter for us.

Miller: Let me make sure that I understand your position. Earlier you said if they had been a little bit clearer about their future plans … because you said that the question is, what’s wrong with 5 acres? So that’s the wrong question. The question is, is it 20, 50, is it more?

But let’s say they did come to you now saying, OK, our 10-year plan is 20 full acres, that’ll take us to the west side and that’s all we need for the foreseeable future. It seems like you’re saying no trees in Forest Park should be cut for electricity projects, whether it’s 1 acre or 20, or did I misunderstand? And in that sense, it’s not really about the number of acres. You are flat out against this project, just in a much more basic way. Am I putting words in your mouth or is that where you are?

Fogarty: No, it’s yes/and. So yes, we feel like no, there should not be any trees taken out. And I disagree with his assertation that the Forest Park Natural Resources Management plan allows this. It actually does not, because I’ve read it cover to cover, as well, more than once. It does not allow this.

Secondly, I’m looking also at alternatives. You mentioned buried lines – that’s an alternative. There are alternative routes that others have identified, other professionals have identified, and the issue there is the cost. And in the city officers hearings, that was an issue, the cost, and that’s what they argued was it’s too expensive and we have to pass this cost onto our ratepayers.

So I think you can have it both ways, to be honest with you. We’re not against renewable energy. We understand energy, we need energy, right? And our energy use is going to increase. However, these are not contradictory propositions here. It’s a yes/and. We can do both, I think, and I feel like if PGE – I hate to use this phrase – puts their money where their mouth is, that we could probably have a solution that satiates all sides of this and doesn’t disrupt an iconic place for the Northwest.

Miller: Scott Fogarty, thanks very much.

Fogarty: Thank you so much. It’s great to be here. Thanks for having me.

Miller: Scott Fogarty is the executive director of the Forest Park Conservancy.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.