Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

NW Natural said it was going green. It sells as much fossil fuel as before

News Feed
Friday, September 13, 2024

This story was originally published by ProPublicaSeven years ago, Oregon’s biggest natural gas company set out to convince lawmakers and residents that an abundant new source of green energy was out there, just waiting to be tapped.Renewable natural gas is derived from decomposing organic waste at sites like landfills or dairy farms. It could, in theory, replace fossil natural gas in our pipelines with something far better for the environment.The company, NW Natural, sent a bow-tied lobbyist to the state capital to talk up renewable natural gas, and it helped write a new law promoting development of the new fuel. The company worked with the Oregon Department of Energy to prepare a statewide inventory of potential resources. And, with more than $1 million in customer money, the company targeted those customers with ads, introducing a slogan that highlighted its commitment to lowering carbon emissions: “Less We Can.”These and subsequent efforts became a template for NW Natural’s industry peers — and effectively tamped down a growing push by climate activists to phase out gas use in Oregon homes and electrify everything instead.Seven years on, the utility has not delivered on its clean-energy sales pitch. NW Natural has more retail gas customers than ever. It supplies them little, if any, renewable natural gas. It sells them as much fossil natural gas in an average year as it did before. And it wages steady battles in the courts and in local city halls to keep the gas flowing.Internal industry documents obtained by ProPublica, coupled with an analysis of regulatory filings and testimony before the state Legislature, reveal how NW Natural pursued an approach that perpetuated its core fossil fuel business while the company painted a picture of going green.“The story they’re telling us is simply not possible,” said former state Rep. Phil Barnhart, a Democrat who voted for some of the company’s legislation when in office.“What they’re trying to do,” Barnhart said, “is to prevent being put out of business.”NW Natural, for its part, says that its renewables goals remain attainable and that it firmly believes in them. But “uncertain support from policy makers and regulators along with ongoing barriers demanded by certain climate advocates” have made the company’s path needlessly difficult, spokesperson David Roy wrote in an email. “It’s baffling how a relatively small but loud group of stakeholders have been in opposition to our many efforts to lower system emissions,” he continued. Roy defended the Less We Can campaign as “providing customers with valuable information.”NW Natural operates in a state where residents and their Democratic leaders demand real action on climate change. Unlike many other public utilities, it does not sell electricity in addition to gas; if a home switches from gas ranges and furnaces to electric, the company likely loses that customer.As it navigates the new climate economy, the utility has followed a course that other companies, especially energy companies, have taken in the face of public pressure: a loud embrace of environmental goals; then a complicated, often unproven solution; then a continuation of the status quo if and when that solution falls short. The company’s actions ensured that even as it has failed to hit its targets on renewables, and as the planet has kept heating up, it has faced few consequences.An early ad from the Less We Can campaign suggested that Oregonians — and maybe NW Natural itself — could save the world with little in the way of personal sacrifice. It shows the sun emerging from a cloud. “Renewable Natural Gas is on the way home,” it reads. “Change for the better. Without changing a thing.”Ads from NW Natural’s “Less We Can” campaign, from a 2022 filing with the Oregon Public Utility Commission, obtained by ProPublica.Obtained by ProPublica*The story of NW Natural’s long fight against the movement to phase out gas emerges from a trove of more than 100 insider documents from the Northwest Gas Association, a trade group that includes the company and five of its regional peers. The utility watchdog Energy and Policy Institute obtained the documents — four years’ worth of meeting minutes, strategy papers and PowerPoint presentations from 2017 through 2020 — and recently shared them with ProPublica.The documents capture a moment when the natural gas industry realized it was becoming a target. Barely a decade before, fossil natural gas had been hailed as a bridge to a low-carbon future. The Obama administration promoted it as a cleaner alternative to coal and diesel, an energy source to rely on until more wind and solar could come online. Until 2010, even the Sierra Club supported it.But pipelines carrying natural gas leaked more than was first understood, releasing uncombusted methane, a greenhouse gas more than 28 times as harmful as carbon dioxide. And North America’s fracking boom was making fossil natural gas so plentiful and cheap that environmentalists increasingly worried the world would get stuck on this energy bridge forever. Going all-electric, they argued, was the way forward.The Northwest Gas Association decided it had to confront what internal documents alternately called the “anti-fossil fuel chorus,” “zero fossil fuel paradigm,” “zero carbon threat” or, simply, an “existential challenge.”Board members met to plan their response one June morning in 2017 at Washington state’s Skamania Lodge, where floor-to-ceiling windows frame the Cascade Mountains and Columbia River Gorge, then again for two days in September at another luxury lodge, Cedarbrook, set on 18 acres of gardens and wetlands outside Seattle.The gas executives agreed that climate change needed to be addressed but that climate policies in the Northwest should not penalize natural gas utilities or their customers.They adopted a new strategic plan to push a unified message: Natural gas can be compatible with a low-carbon Northwest economy, thanks in part to emerging concepts like renewable natural gas. (Today, the association and NW Natural say more specifically that policies favoring electric stoves and heat pumps won’t necessarily cut emissions because the region’s strained electrical system relies increasingly on gas-fired power plants.)To sell the idea of continued gas use, the strategic plan said the industry should adopt a more “assertive advocacy style” that borrows insights from psychological research. People first make value judgments “via intuition and emotion,” the strategic plan noted, not facts. So the association would place “greater emphasis on the heart, in the public battle for the ‘hearts and minds.’”NW Natural’s representative at the trade association, an executive named Kim Rush (Kim Heiting, at the time), gave her industry colleagues a look inside Less We Can. It was just the kind of play for the heart the strategic plan envisioned.“It’s a theme line,” Rush’s slideshow, dated July 2017, explained. “A rallying cry. A movement. A coalition with customers. A celebration. A call to action. A clean energy stake-in-the-ground… in 3 words or less.”NW Natural had already road-tested the new slogan across four focus groups, via a consumer survey with 864 respondents and through television-ad concepts shown to 100 customers and 100 noncustomers. It had readied a new website, www.lesswecan.com, which featured cows and green fields and a FAQ about renewable natural gas.One of Rush’s slides contained the campaign’s takeaways. Among them: “NW Natural and natural gas have an important, long-term role to play in our energy future”; “NW Natural has a plan, a goal and a running start”; and “Renewable natural gas is an exciting part of that plan.”The campaign went live in fall 2017. Residents of Portland and other Oregon cities saw Less We Can TV spots, Less We Can YouTube videos, Less We Can newsletters, Less We Can billboards and Less We Can water bottles.“Can a natural gas company be serious when it says it wants us to use less gas?” one video asked before showing a scene of a couple chopping vegetables together in the kitchen. “Can we really raise our families and lower emissions? Can we heat our homes and fight climate change? Can we expand our economy and use less?”“Yes,” a narrator answered, as the video cut to an image of free-range cows and hand-drawn arrows pointing to the words “renewable natural gas.”Stills from a NW Natural Less We Can video ad. Screenshots by ProPublica.ProPublica*At the time the Less We Can campaign was getting off the ground, not a single public utility in the United States regularly piped renewable natural gas to customers’ homes. The market for such organics-based gas was mainly clean fuels programs for vehicle fleets. Residential use would be pioneering, even experimental.But if NW Natural’s ads had gotten ahead of reality, the company was already backing legislation that seemed to portend widespread use of the alternative fuel.It started earlier in 2017 with a bill in the Oregon Legislature that put forward a seemingly straightforward proposition. Oregon would take stock of its every landfill, every dairy farm, every sewage plant and every conceivable pile of woody debris: sites that could emit methane as organic matter broke down. Why not study how much was out there? The bill, a precursor to similar bills in other states, including Washington, sailed through with little opposition.The ensuing inventory was a rigorous, yearlong process led by the Oregon Department of Energy that produced a 110-page report to the Legislature in September 2018 — which NW Natural quickly turned into a valuable talking point.The report’s authors found that Oregon’s “technical potential” for renewable natural gas was significant: nearly 50 billion cubic feet. “That’s equivalent to the total amount of natural gas used by all Oregon residential customers today,” read a NW Natural press release. The company would go on to use variations of this phrase on its website, in annual sustainability reports and in statements to lawmakers.But “technical potential” represents the amount Oregon could produce if money was no obstacle. NW Natural said little about another, more problematic finding: Using currently available technologies and waste streams, the state could produce just 10 billion cubic feet of gas from organic sources.Barnhart, the former state lawmaker, says the utility’s selective interpretation of the study not only overstated the size of the resource, it left out “the real denominator” by ignoring industrial and commercial gas use. Including those and transportation customers in the equation would put total gas demand in Oregon at three times the figure NW Natural cited; the state’s potential renewable natural gas resources, using current technology, could meet less than 7% of that demand.“NW Natural has done a very, very good job of saying true things in a way that is grossly misleading,” Barnhart said.Roy, the company spokesperson, said it was reasonable to call out Oregon’s full theoretical capacity to make the biogas, noting that all renewable energy sources have required innovation to bring them to market. As for focusing on residential use alone, NW Natural said highlighting a single sector was a useful way to “help people understand the magnitude of the resource.”The company leaned on the state’s most optimistic numbers in early 2019 when it returned to lawmakers with a second, far more expansive bill that was the first of its kind in the country.The new bill aimed to address another key barrier to NW Natural’s plans for renewable natural gas. Under existing state rules, utilities had to purchase gas for their customers at the lowest available price, and gas made from biomass could be 10 times more expensive than fossil natural gas. But the bill would allow NW Natural to pursue renewable natural gas and recoup the added cost from its customers. It would be able to spend up to 5% of its annual revenues, some $40 million or more, to secure a dedicated supply.The legislation also set out ambitious but voluntary goals for NW Natural and other large gas utilities: to produce or acquire renewable natural gas equivalent to 5% of deliveries to retail customers by 2024, 10% by 2029 and 30% by 2050.Sources: NW Natural 2023 Annual Renewable Natural Gas Compliance Report; Oregon Senate Bill 98 (2019); 2022 NW Natural Integrated Resource PlanLucas Waldron/ProPublicaThe company sent an executive named Anna Chittum to testify before an Oregon Senate committee, and she cited the inventory almost immediately. “They found about 50 billion cubic feet of potential in the state of Oregon,” she said.Chittum emphasized that this would be a boon not only for the planet but for Oregon businesses.“Renewable natural gas is a local resource, first and foremost,” she continued. “We believe that Oregon entities like wastewater treatment plants and landfills, some of the dairies in our region and other companies, as well as our natural gas customers, will directly benefit.”The bill passed easily and with support from both parties just a day before a partisan meltdown tanked a more controversial piece of climate legislation, an effort to create a California-style carbon cap-and-trade system. The changes called for by cap-and-trade would have been mandatory, unlike those created by the renewable gas legislation. (The company now says it wanted binding targets for renewable gas but “other stakeholders,” whom it declined to name, opposed them.)On social media, the company’s Kim Rush soon cheered the bill’s success, sharing a photo of Oregon Gov. Kate Brown at a September 2019 signing ceremony, flanked by fellow lawmakers, NW Natural CEO David Anderson and at least three other employees of the company.“Proud of our state for leading the nation on renewable natural gas development!” Rush wrote. “A vital step in the path toward decarbonizing our pipeline network. #LessWeCan.”In a post on LinkedIn, Kim Rush of NW Natural shared this photo of a signing ceremony for a landmark 2019 bill allowing her utility to be one of the first in the nation to acquire renewable natural gas for customers. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, center, posed with legislators and numerous NW Natural representatives. Anna Chittum, in pink, led the company’s renewables effort. (Screenshot by ProPublica)ProPublica*Despite the victory lap with Oregon’s chief executive, behind the scenes NW Natural and its allies were preparing to quash measures that activist groups and government officials said were needed to reduce the gas industry’s footprint.For this mission the Northwest Gas Association initially hired Kelly Evans, a public affairs consultant who once ran the successful reelection campaign of Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire. Evans recommended creating a formal coalition with partners outside the gas industry to lobby for continued natural gas use. It would draw in restaurant associations, labor unions, appliance manufacturers, homebuilders and more.The winner of a million-dollar contract to build just such a coalition and launch a pro-gas campaign across the Northwest was the communications firm Quinn Thomas. It had helped Washington business interests win fights against cap-and-trade and a carbon tax in that state in 2015 and 2016. Now the firm pledged to “defeat policies detrimental to the natural gas industry” once again.“When the time comes to ‘turn on’ the coalition to combat a specific proposal,” Quinn Thomas wrote in its bid, “we have extensive experience training and deploying spokespeople for public hearings.”Evans and Quinn Thomas did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.Northwest cities including Bellingham, Washington, and Eugene, Oregon, were beginning to consider natural gas restrictions. Evans had outlined a messaging plan for such fights, one focused on affordability, reliability and resiliency, on solutions like renewable natural gas, and, most of all, on consumer choice: “There are policies being advanced to limit YOUR choice…” and “people want to take it away,” she wrote when describing the plan.After activists in Eugene accused NW Natural of overstating Oregon’s potential for renewable natural gas, Rush prepared a letter in 2021 to the city manager repeating the consultant’s talking points — “affordability, reliability and choice” — almost verbatim.Eugene’s City Council nevertheless passed a partial natural gas ban in early 2023. Three days later, a group formed to collect signatures to revoke the ban, its name another apparent echo of the talking points: “Eugene Residents for Energy Choice.” Belying its grassroots name, the group’s work was bankrolled by $1,014,300 in donations — all but $220 of them from NW Natural. (The council eventually revoked the ban on its own.)Another fight loomed at the state level. With cap-and-trade dead in the Oregon Legislature, Brown had issued an executive order mandating statewide controls on greenhouse gas emissions. For much of 2020 and 2021, the state prepared new rules to put Brown’s order in action.The Oregon Public Utility Commission, which determines which costs NW Natural can pass along to consumers, soon began to question whether renewable natural gas was the most economical way for the company to meet the new climate rules. What if money spent on renewable natural gas went instead to home weatherization or more efficient appliances? What if it wasn’t spent on natural gas at all?NW Natural filed suit against regulations stemming from the governor’s executive order in early 2022, serving as the lead plaintiff. The company noted in a letter to its customers that it was committed to addressing climate change, citing its support for past “landmark” renewable natural gas legislation among other actions. It said its legal challenge to the state’s climate program came only “after exhausting all other options.”NW Natural’s public messaging around renewable natural gas, meanwhile, remained upbeat. Starting in the summer of 2021, its events team visited at least two dozen street fairs and town festivals across Oregon with what it called the Cowthouse (“think cow + outhouse,” the utility explained): a fake toilet with cow legs sticking out below the door.Those who approached the Cowthouse were challenged to a riddle: “What do a cow, a toilet and a banana peel have in common?” The answer, “RNG,” for renewable natural gas, was stamped on sugar cookies the company handed out.*As it pitched Oregonians on renewable natural gas, NW Natural had gone all out in emphasizing the vast amounts of rotting matter their state could use to produce it. In the end, the company opted not to use a bit of homegrown waste. It turned instead to other states, especially Nebraska.Meat and poultry giant Tyson Foods kept two of its biggest beef slaughterhouses there, each week churning through tens of thousands of cows that, in turn, churned out hundreds of thousands of pounds of manure as they awaited their end at the facility.Cattle pens at Tyson Fresh Meats in Dakota City, Nebraska.Google MapsRotting manure lets off methane. Rotting carcasses let off methane. Rotting garbage lets off methane. The gas is so much worse for the climate than carbon dioxide, ounce for ounce, that capturing a farm or landfill’s uncontrolled methane and purifying it to pipeline quality could, under the right circumstances, offset the harm from emissions it creates when burned.NW Natural has described renewable natural gas as “carbon neutral” in corporate reports and a “zero-carbon resource” in news releases. But in more recent filings with Oregon regulators, the company estimates that gas from its project in Dakota City, Nebraska, while cleaner than ordinary natural gas, still packs 25% of the climate impact. At the Tyson slaughterhouse in Lexington, Nebraska, it’s 40%.In an interview, Chittum noted that there is no universal standard to measure how much a renewable natural gas project actually helps the climate. By the standards followed by some state programs, including in California, she said the Tyson projects could possibly be certified as carbon-zero, or even carbon-negative. But it’s expensive to hire someone to do a full accounting, and Oregon doesn’t require NW Natural to prove any benefit — so “we just haven’t spent … the third-party dollars to go calculate all of that,” she said.Methane from the Tyson operations is captured and piped not to Oregon, but to customers mainly near the two plants. NW Natural counts it as a credit against the fossil natural gas its own customers burn.For 2023, NW Natural reported renewable natural gas from the Tyson projects, some dairy digesters in Wisconsin, a sewage treatment plant in New York and a food-waste project in Utah.“It doesn’t matter where the renewable molecule of RNG comes from if reducing emissions is the goal,” NW Natural’s Roy told ProPublica.*NW Natural has notched a series of wins in recent months.For the fourth year in a row, it was named one of the best gas utilities in the West by the survey company J.D. Power. For the third year in a row, it was named one of the world’s most ethical companies by Ethisphere, a for-profit company that rates other companies’ ethics for a fee.In late December, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NW Natural in overturning the state climate program that resulted from Brown’s executive order.In May, NW Natural touted the results of a poll it had commissioned: It said 72% of Oregon voters opposed bans on natural gas in new homes and buildings, a 9-point increase since 2019. “Voters’ attention is more focused on what they believe are pressing concerns, such as homelessness,” a press release said. More than 75% of respondents supported efforts promoting renewable natural gas.But the renewable gas business has not gone as billed.The company’s data for 2023 showed that even as it harnesses the waste streams of one of the world’s biggest meatpackers — at an anticipated cost of $38 million, if two more planned Tyson projects come online — NW Natural is falling far short of the share of its supply it said would come from the alternative fuel.In a document filed in August with the Public Utility Commission, the company said it had slowed its procurement and did not expect to hit the goal of 5% it had set for 2024. It blamed “policy and regulatory uncertainty,” particularly the commission’s skepticism of its renewable natural gas plans.Less We Can is taking on a new meaning.After years of fanfare about renewable natural gas, what’s its share of NW Natural’s gas supply today?Less than 1%.-- McKenzie Funk, ProPublicaProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

NW Natural told Oregonians it had a new source of clean energy: renewable natural gas. Industry documents obtained by ProPublica reveal how the company has, for years, perpetuated its core fossil fuel business while painting a picture of going green.

This story was originally published by ProPublica

Seven years ago, Oregon’s biggest natural gas company set out to convince lawmakers and residents that an abundant new source of green energy was out there, just waiting to be tapped.

Renewable natural gas is derived from decomposing organic waste at sites like landfills or dairy farms. It could, in theory, replace fossil natural gas in our pipelines with something far better for the environment.

The company, NW Natural, sent a bow-tied lobbyist to the state capital to talk up renewable natural gas, and it helped write a new law promoting development of the new fuel. The company worked with the Oregon Department of Energy to prepare a statewide inventory of potential resources. And, with more than $1 million in customer money, the company targeted those customers with ads, introducing a slogan that highlighted its commitment to lowering carbon emissions: “Less We Can.”

These and subsequent efforts became a template for NW Natural’s industry peers — and effectively tamped down a growing push by climate activists to phase out gas use in Oregon homes and electrify everything instead.

Seven years on, the utility has not delivered on its clean-energy sales pitch. NW Natural has more retail gas customers than ever. It supplies them little, if any, renewable natural gas. It sells them as much fossil natural gas in an average year as it did before. And it wages steady battles in the courts and in local city halls to keep the gas flowing.

Internal industry documents obtained by ProPublica, coupled with an analysis of regulatory filings and testimony before the state Legislature, reveal how NW Natural pursued an approach that perpetuated its core fossil fuel business while the company painted a picture of going green.

“The story they’re telling us is simply not possible,” said former state Rep. Phil Barnhart, a Democrat who voted for some of the company’s legislation when in office.

“What they’re trying to do,” Barnhart said, “is to prevent being put out of business.”

NW Natural, for its part, says that its renewables goals remain attainable and that it firmly believes in them. But “uncertain support from policy makers and regulators along with ongoing barriers demanded by certain climate advocates” have made the company’s path needlessly difficult, spokesperson David Roy wrote in an email. “It’s baffling how a relatively small but loud group of stakeholders have been in opposition to our many efforts to lower system emissions,” he continued. Roy defended the Less We Can campaign as “providing customers with valuable information.”

NW Natural operates in a state where residents and their Democratic leaders demand real action on climate change. Unlike many other public utilities, it does not sell electricity in addition to gas; if a home switches from gas ranges and furnaces to electric, the company likely loses that customer.

As it navigates the new climate economy, the utility has followed a course that other companies, especially energy companies, have taken in the face of public pressure: a loud embrace of environmental goals; then a complicated, often unproven solution; then a continuation of the status quo if and when that solution falls short. The company’s actions ensured that even as it has failed to hit its targets on renewables, and as the planet has kept heating up, it has faced few consequences.

An early ad from the Less We Can campaign suggested that Oregonians — and maybe NW Natural itself — could save the world with little in the way of personal sacrifice. It shows the sun emerging from a cloud. “Renewable Natural Gas is on the way home,” it reads. “Change for the better. Without changing a thing.”

A blue, white and green advertisement -- featuring artwork of the sun and clouds -- from NW Natural's "Less We Can" campaign promoting renewable natural gas.

Ads from NW Natural’s “Less We Can” campaign, from a 2022 filing with the Oregon Public Utility Commission, obtained by ProPublica.Obtained by ProPublica

*

The story of NW Natural’s long fight against the movement to phase out gas emerges from a trove of more than 100 insider documents from the Northwest Gas Association, a trade group that includes the company and five of its regional peers. The utility watchdog Energy and Policy Institute obtained the documents — four years’ worth of meeting minutes, strategy papers and PowerPoint presentations from 2017 through 2020 — and recently shared them with ProPublica.

The documents capture a moment when the natural gas industry realized it was becoming a target. Barely a decade before, fossil natural gas had been hailed as a bridge to a low-carbon future. The Obama administration promoted it as a cleaner alternative to coal and diesel, an energy source to rely on until more wind and solar could come online. Until 2010, even the Sierra Club supported it.

But pipelines carrying natural gas leaked more than was first understood, releasing uncombusted methane, a greenhouse gas more than 28 times as harmful as carbon dioxide. And North America’s fracking boom was making fossil natural gas so plentiful and cheap that environmentalists increasingly worried the world would get stuck on this energy bridge forever. Going all-electric, they argued, was the way forward.

The Northwest Gas Association decided it had to confront what internal documents alternately called the “anti-fossil fuel chorus,” “zero fossil fuel paradigm,” “zero carbon threat” or, simply, an “existential challenge.”

Board members met to plan their response one June morning in 2017 at Washington state’s Skamania Lodge, where floor-to-ceiling windows frame the Cascade Mountains and Columbia River Gorge, then again for two days in September at another luxury lodge, Cedarbrook, set on 18 acres of gardens and wetlands outside Seattle.

The gas executives agreed that climate change needed to be addressed but that climate policies in the Northwest should not penalize natural gas utilities or their customers.

They adopted a new strategic plan to push a unified message: Natural gas can be compatible with a low-carbon Northwest economy, thanks in part to emerging concepts like renewable natural gas. (Today, the association and NW Natural say more specifically that policies favoring electric stoves and heat pumps won’t necessarily cut emissions because the region’s strained electrical system relies increasingly on gas-fired power plants.)

To sell the idea of continued gas use, the strategic plan said the industry should adopt a more “assertive advocacy style” that borrows insights from psychological research. People first make value judgments “via intuition and emotion,” the strategic plan noted, not facts. So the association would place “greater emphasis on the heart, in the public battle for the ‘hearts and minds.’”

NW Natural’s representative at the trade association, an executive named Kim Rush (Kim Heiting, at the time), gave her industry colleagues a look inside Less We Can. It was just the kind of play for the heart the strategic plan envisioned.

“It’s a theme line,” Rush’s slideshow, dated July 2017, explained. “A rallying cry. A movement. A coalition with customers. A celebration. A call to action. A clean energy stake-in-the-ground… in 3 words or less.”

NW Natural had already road-tested the new slogan across four focus groups, via a consumer survey with 864 respondents and through television-ad concepts shown to 100 customers and 100 noncustomers. It had readied a new website, www.lesswecan.com, which featured cows and green fields and a FAQ about renewable natural gas.

One of Rush’s slides contained the campaign’s takeaways. Among them: “NW Natural and natural gas have an important, long-term role to play in our energy future”; “NW Natural has a plan, a goal and a running start”; and “Renewable natural gas is an exciting part of that plan.”

The campaign went live in fall 2017. Residents of Portland and other Oregon cities saw Less We Can TV spots, Less We Can YouTube videos, Less We Can newsletters, Less We Can billboards and Less We Can water bottles.

“Can a natural gas company be serious when it says it wants us to use less gas?” one video asked before showing a scene of a couple chopping vegetables together in the kitchen. “Can we really raise our families and lower emissions? Can we heat our homes and fight climate change? Can we expand our economy and use less?”

“Yes,” a narrator answered, as the video cut to an image of free-range cows and hand-drawn arrows pointing to the words “renewable natural gas.”

Four stills show a NW Natural van, a woman at the beach, cows in a green pasture and a family walking amid greenery.

Stills from a NW Natural Less We Can video ad. Screenshots by ProPublica.ProPublica

*

At the time the Less We Can campaign was getting off the ground, not a single public utility in the United States regularly piped renewable natural gas to customers’ homes. The market for such organics-based gas was mainly clean fuels programs for vehicle fleets. Residential use would be pioneering, even experimental.

But if NW Natural’s ads had gotten ahead of reality, the company was already backing legislation that seemed to portend widespread use of the alternative fuel.

It started earlier in 2017 with a bill in the Oregon Legislature that put forward a seemingly straightforward proposition. Oregon would take stock of its every landfill, every dairy farm, every sewage plant and every conceivable pile of woody debris: sites that could emit methane as organic matter broke down. Why not study how much was out there? The bill, a precursor to similar bills in other states, including Washington, sailed through with little opposition.

The ensuing inventory was a rigorous, yearlong process led by the Oregon Department of Energy that produced a 110-page report to the Legislature in September 2018 — which NW Natural quickly turned into a valuable talking point.

The report’s authors found that Oregon’s “technical potential” for renewable natural gas was significant: nearly 50 billion cubic feet. “That’s equivalent to the total amount of natural gas used by all Oregon residential customers today,” read a NW Natural press release. The company would go on to use variations of this phrase on its website, in annual sustainability reports and in statements to lawmakers.

But “technical potential” represents the amount Oregon could produce if money was no obstacle. NW Natural said little about another, more problematic finding: Using currently available technologies and waste streams, the state could produce just 10 billion cubic feet of gas from organic sources.

Barnhart, the former state lawmaker, says the utility’s selective interpretation of the study not only overstated the size of the resource, it left out “the real denominator” by ignoring industrial and commercial gas use. Including those and transportation customers in the equation would put total gas demand in Oregon at three times the figure NW Natural cited; the state’s potential renewable natural gas resources, using current technology, could meet less than 7% of that demand.

“NW Natural has done a very, very good job of saying true things in a way that is grossly misleading,” Barnhart said.

Roy, the company spokesperson, said it was reasonable to call out Oregon’s full theoretical capacity to make the biogas, noting that all renewable energy sources have required innovation to bring them to market. As for focusing on residential use alone, NW Natural said highlighting a single sector was a useful way to “help people understand the magnitude of the resource.”

The company leaned on the state’s most optimistic numbers in early 2019 when it returned to lawmakers with a second, far more expansive bill that was the first of its kind in the country.

The new bill aimed to address another key barrier to NW Natural’s plans for renewable natural gas. Under existing state rules, utilities had to purchase gas for their customers at the lowest available price, and gas made from biomass could be 10 times more expensive than fossil natural gas. But the bill would allow NW Natural to pursue renewable natural gas and recoup the added cost from its customers. It would be able to spend up to 5% of its annual revenues, some $40 million or more, to secure a dedicated supply.

The legislation also set out ambitious but voluntary goals for NW Natural and other large gas utilities: to produce or acquire renewable natural gas equivalent to 5% of deliveries to retail customers by 2024, 10% by 2029 and 30% by 2050.

A slide lists two numbers for comparison, showing how NNW Natural has not hit its target for renewal natural gas.

Sources: NW Natural 2023 Annual Renewable Natural Gas Compliance Report; Oregon Senate Bill 98 (2019); 2022 NW Natural Integrated Resource PlanLucas Waldron/ProPublica

The company sent an executive named Anna Chittum to testify before an Oregon Senate committee, and she cited the inventory almost immediately. “They found about 50 billion cubic feet of potential in the state of Oregon,” she said.

Chittum emphasized that this would be a boon not only for the planet but for Oregon businesses.

“Renewable natural gas is a local resource, first and foremost,” she continued. “We believe that Oregon entities like wastewater treatment plants and landfills, some of the dairies in our region and other companies, as well as our natural gas customers, will directly benefit.”

The bill passed easily and with support from both parties just a day before a partisan meltdown tanked a more controversial piece of climate legislation, an effort to create a California-style carbon cap-and-trade system. The changes called for by cap-and-trade would have been mandatory, unlike those created by the renewable gas legislation. (The company now says it wanted binding targets for renewable gas but “other stakeholders,” whom it declined to name, opposed them.)

On social media, the company’s Kim Rush soon cheered the bill’s success, sharing a photo of Oregon Gov. Kate Brown at a September 2019 signing ceremony, flanked by fellow lawmakers, NW Natural CEO David Anderson and at least three other employees of the company.

“Proud of our state for leading the nation on renewable natural gas development!” Rush wrote. “A vital step in the path toward decarbonizing our pipeline network. #LessWeCan.”

Then-Oregon Gov. Kate Brown smiles as she sits behind a wood desk and holds signed legislation, surrounded by lawmakers and representatives from NW Natural.

In a post on LinkedIn, Kim Rush of NW Natural shared this photo of a signing ceremony for a landmark 2019 bill allowing her utility to be one of the first in the nation to acquire renewable natural gas for customers. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, center, posed with legislators and numerous NW Natural representatives. Anna Chittum, in pink, led the company’s renewables effort. (Screenshot by ProPublica)ProPublica

*

Despite the victory lap with Oregon’s chief executive, behind the scenes NW Natural and its allies were preparing to quash measures that activist groups and government officials said were needed to reduce the gas industry’s footprint.

For this mission the Northwest Gas Association initially hired Kelly Evans, a public affairs consultant who once ran the successful reelection campaign of Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire. Evans recommended creating a formal coalition with partners outside the gas industry to lobby for continued natural gas use. It would draw in restaurant associations, labor unions, appliance manufacturers, homebuilders and more.

The winner of a million-dollar contract to build just such a coalition and launch a pro-gas campaign across the Northwest was the communications firm Quinn Thomas. It had helped Washington business interests win fights against cap-and-trade and a carbon tax in that state in 2015 and 2016. Now the firm pledged to “defeat policies detrimental to the natural gas industry” once again.

“When the time comes to ‘turn on’ the coalition to combat a specific proposal,” Quinn Thomas wrote in its bid, “we have extensive experience training and deploying spokespeople for public hearings.”

Evans and Quinn Thomas did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.

Northwest cities including Bellingham, Washington, and Eugene, Oregon, were beginning to consider natural gas restrictions. Evans had outlined a messaging plan for such fights, one focused on affordability, reliability and resiliency, on solutions like renewable natural gas, and, most of all, on consumer choice: “There are policies being advanced to limit YOUR choice…” and “people want to take it away,” she wrote when describing the plan.

After activists in Eugene accused NW Natural of overstating Oregon’s potential for renewable natural gas, Rush prepared a letter in 2021 to the city manager repeating the consultant’s talking points — “affordability, reliability and choice” — almost verbatim.

Eugene’s City Council nevertheless passed a partial natural gas ban in early 2023. Three days later, a group formed to collect signatures to revoke the ban, its name another apparent echo of the talking points: “Eugene Residents for Energy Choice.” Belying its grassroots name, the group’s work was bankrolled by $1,014,300 in donations — all but $220 of them from NW Natural. (The council eventually revoked the ban on its own.)

Another fight loomed at the state level. With cap-and-trade dead in the Oregon Legislature, Brown had issued an executive order mandating statewide controls on greenhouse gas emissions. For much of 2020 and 2021, the state prepared new rules to put Brown’s order in action.

The Oregon Public Utility Commission, which determines which costs NW Natural can pass along to consumers, soon began to question whether renewable natural gas was the most economical way for the company to meet the new climate rules. What if money spent on renewable natural gas went instead to home weatherization or more efficient appliances? What if it wasn’t spent on natural gas at all?

NW Natural filed suit against regulations stemming from the governor’s executive order in early 2022, serving as the lead plaintiff. The company noted in a letter to its customers that it was committed to addressing climate change, citing its support for past “landmark” renewable natural gas legislation among other actions. It said its legal challenge to the state’s climate program came only “after exhausting all other options.”

NW Natural’s public messaging around renewable natural gas, meanwhile, remained upbeat. Starting in the summer of 2021, its events team visited at least two dozen street fairs and town festivals across Oregon with what it called the Cowthouse (“think cow + outhouse,” the utility explained): a fake toilet with cow legs sticking out below the door.

Those who approached the Cowthouse were challenged to a riddle: “What do a cow, a toilet and a banana peel have in common?” The answer, “RNG,” for renewable natural gas, was stamped on sugar cookies the company handed out.

*

As it pitched Oregonians on renewable natural gas, NW Natural had gone all out in emphasizing the vast amounts of rotting matter their state could use to produce it. In the end, the company opted not to use a bit of homegrown waste. It turned instead to other states, especially Nebraska.

Meat and poultry giant Tyson Foods kept two of its biggest beef slaughterhouses there, each week churning through tens of thousands of cows that, in turn, churned out hundreds of thousands of pounds of manure as they awaited their end at the facility.

An aerial photo shows cattle pens and a parking lot at a factory.

Cattle pens at Tyson Fresh Meats in Dakota City, Nebraska.Google Maps

Rotting manure lets off methane. Rotting carcasses let off methane. Rotting garbage lets off methane. The gas is so much worse for the climate than carbon dioxide, ounce for ounce, that capturing a farm or landfill’s uncontrolled methane and purifying it to pipeline quality could, under the right circumstances, offset the harm from emissions it creates when burned.

NW Natural has described renewable natural gas as “carbon neutral” in corporate reports and a “zero-carbon resource” in news releases. But in more recent filings with Oregon regulators, the company estimates that gas from its project in Dakota City, Nebraska, while cleaner than ordinary natural gas, still packs 25% of the climate impact. At the Tyson slaughterhouse in Lexington, Nebraska, it’s 40%.

In an interview, Chittum noted that there is no universal standard to measure how much a renewable natural gas project actually helps the climate. By the standards followed by some state programs, including in California, she said the Tyson projects could possibly be certified as carbon-zero, or even carbon-negative. But it’s expensive to hire someone to do a full accounting, and Oregon doesn’t require NW Natural to prove any benefit — so “we just haven’t spent … the third-party dollars to go calculate all of that,” she said.

Methane from the Tyson operations is captured and piped not to Oregon, but to customers mainly near the two plants. NW Natural counts it as a credit against the fossil natural gas its own customers burn.

For 2023, NW Natural reported renewable natural gas from the Tyson projects, some dairy digesters in Wisconsin, a sewage treatment plant in New York and a food-waste project in Utah.

“It doesn’t matter where the renewable molecule of RNG comes from if reducing emissions is the goal,” NW Natural’s Roy told ProPublica.

*

NW Natural has notched a series of wins in recent months.

For the fourth year in a row, it was named one of the best gas utilities in the West by the survey company J.D. Power. For the third year in a row, it was named one of the world’s most ethical companies by Ethisphere, a for-profit company that rates other companies’ ethics for a fee.

In late December, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NW Natural in overturning the state climate program that resulted from Brown’s executive order.

In May, NW Natural touted the results of a poll it had commissioned: It said 72% of Oregon voters opposed bans on natural gas in new homes and buildings, a 9-point increase since 2019. “Voters’ attention is more focused on what they believe are pressing concerns, such as homelessness,” a press release said. More than 75% of respondents supported efforts promoting renewable natural gas.

But the renewable gas business has not gone as billed.

The company’s data for 2023 showed that even as it harnesses the waste streams of one of the world’s biggest meatpackers — at an anticipated cost of $38 million, if two more planned Tyson projects come online — NW Natural is falling far short of the share of its supply it said would come from the alternative fuel.

In a document filed in August with the Public Utility Commission, the company said it had slowed its procurement and did not expect to hit the goal of 5% it had set for 2024. It blamed “policy and regulatory uncertainty,” particularly the commission’s skepticism of its renewable natural gas plans.

Less We Can is taking on a new meaning.

After years of fanfare about renewable natural gas, what’s its share of NW Natural’s gas supply today?

Less than 1%.

-- McKenzie Funk, ProPublica

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

A Hungarian Company Is Linked to the Pagers That Exploded in Lebanon and Syria

The company linked to the manufacture of the pagers that exploded in Lebanon and Syria is based in a duplex in a quiet neighborhood of the Hungarian capital

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — In a duplex in a quiet neighborhood of the Hungarian capital is the headquarters of a company that is linked to the manufacture of the pagers that exploded in Lebanon and Syria as part of an apparent Israeli operation against the Hezbollah militant group.BAC Consulting shares the ground floor of the modest building in Budapest with other enterprises. On Wednesday morning, Associated Press journalists saw the names of multiple companies, including BAC, posted on pieces of printer paper and taped in a window.In a corporate registry, the company listed 118 official functions, including sugar and oil production, retail jewelry sales and natural gas extraction.BAC reportedly supplied the thousands of devices that killed at least 12 people, including two children, and wounded about 2,800 on Tuesday in a coordinated attack that Hezbollah and the Lebanese government blamed on Israel.More attacks were reported Wednesday, when walkie-talkies and solar equipment exploded in multiple parts of Lebanon. The second wave of attacks killed at least nine people and wounded more than 300, the Health Ministry said.The Taiwanese company whose brand appears on the pagers, Gold Apollo, said Wednesday that it had authorized the use of its name on the devices.BAC was authorized “to use our brand trademark for product sales in designated regions, but the design and manufacturing of the products are solely the responsibility of BAC,” Gold Apollo said in a statement.A Hungarian government spokesman said the pagers were never in Hungary and that BAC Consultants merely acted as an intermediary.“Authorities have confirmed that the company in question is a trading intermediary, with no manufacturing or operational site in Hungary. It has one manager registered at its declared address, and the referenced devices have never been in Hungary,” Zoltán Kovács posted Wednesday on X.Hungarian national security services were cooperating with international partners, and the matter posed no national security risk to Hungary, he added.BAC Consulting, which was registered as an limited liability company in May 2022, brought in $725,000 in revenue in 2022 and $593,000 in 2023, according to the company registry.Its CEO is Cristiana Bársony-Arcidiacono, who describes herself on LinkedIn as a strategic adviser and business developer with a doctorate.BAC could be an acronym, in the Eastern name order that is used in Hungary, for Bársony-Arcidiacono Cristiana.The AP attempted to reach Bársony-Arcidiacono by email and social media sites but received no response. It was not clear what connection, if any, she or BAC had to the attack.She describes herself as a physicist and a consultant for projects to solve environmental and political issues. She co-authored a paper in 2022 for a UNESCO conference on underground water management.Among other positions, Bársony-Arcidiacono's LinkedIn page said she serves on the board of directors of the Earth Child Institute, a sustainability group. But the group does not list Bársony-Arcidiacono among its board members on its website.She also writes that she is a strategic adviser for major international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and the CARE humanitarian agency, as well as for venture capital firms.The IAEA confirmed that a person named Cristiana Arcidiacino was an intern with the agency for nine months in 2008 and 2009. The other relationships could not be immediately confirmed.In an article featuring her on an online expert site, Bársony-Arcidiacono said: “A good understanding of local issues and a network of collaborators in various areas are important to succeed.”The BAC Consulting website, which became unavailable Wednesday, describes the company's fields of expertise as “environment, development and international affairs.”Phone calls to the number listed for BAC went unanswered. A woman who emerged Wednesday from the Budapest building housing the company's headquarters said the location is used as a service that provides addresses to companies. She would not give her name.Social media accounts indicate Bársony-Arcidiacono studied at the London School of Economics and Political Science and the School of Oriental and African Studies. She has also posted published scientific papers on water ionization, climate change and other topics in the natural sciences.An Instagram account features many of her “photos and sketches from around the world.” “Sicily, Budapest, Paris, Africa, etc.,” it reads.Associated Press Writer Sarah El Deeb in Beirut contributed to this report.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - July 2024

Superyacht and private jet tax could raise £2bn a year, say campaigners

Oxfam says ‘commonsense solution’ would reduce emissions and raise urgently needed climate financeFair taxes on superyachts and private jets in the UK could have brought in £2bn last year to provide vital funds for communities suffering the worst effects of climate breakdown, campaigners say.Private jet use in the UK is soaring. It was home to the second highest number of private flights in Europe last year, behind only France, according to figures from the European Business Aviation Association. Continue reading...

Fair taxes on superyachts and private jets in the UK could have brought in £2bn last year to provide vital funds for communities suffering the worst effects of climate breakdown, campaigners say.Private jet use in the UK is soaring. It was home to the second highest number of private flights in Europe last year, behind only France, according to figures from the European Business Aviation Association.The UK is also home to a 450-strong fleet of superyachts, which contribute to an immense carbon footprint created by the ultra-wealthy far beyond that of the average citizen.Analysis by Oxfam and US researchers of the luxury purchases and financial investments of 12 billionaires revealed recently that they account for almost 17m tons of CO2 and equivalent greenhouse gas emissions annually.This is equivalent to the emissions from powering 2.1m homes or from 4.6 coal-fired power plants over a year, according to conversion data from the US Environmental Protection Agency.Oxfam is calling on the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, to increase taxes on extreme wealth starting with a levy on private jets and superyachts. The charity said this could provide a fairer system to raise money to tackle the climate crisis and avoid the burden falling on lower-income families.Natalie Shortall, a climate justice policy adviser for Oxfam UK, said: “While the super-rich continue to pollute at excessive rates, it is people living in poverty – in the UK and around the world – who have done the least to cause the climate crisis, who are suffering the most from its devastating impacts.“Further steps to better tax extreme wealth are needed to accelerate climate action and fight inequality – increasing taxes on highly polluting luxuries such as private jets and superyachts is an obvious place for the government to start. These are the kind of commonsense solutions that are urgently needed to quickly and fairly reduce emissions and raise crucial climate finance – by making the biggest and richest polluters pay.”Private planes are up to 14 times more polluting, for each passenger, than commercial planes and 50 times more polluting than trains, according to a report by Transport & Environment, a European clean transport campaign organisation.Oxfam’s research suggests up to £830m could have been raised last year by introducing a higher rate of air passenger duty for private jets and introducing a superyacht ownership tax.The research also highlighted up to a further £1.2bn of additional revenue possible from taxing private jet fuel, charging VAT on private aviation, as well as taxing private jet landing and departure slots.A study last year by Green Alliance showed private jets release 10 times more carbon for each passenger on average than commercial flights, but often incur less tax than a car driver making the same journey.The Guardian revealed last year that the richest 1% of the world’s population is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%, with dire consequences for vulnerable communities and global efforts to tackle the climate emergency.A Treasury spokesperson said: “We do not recognise these calculations. The Chancellor has been clear that difficult decisions lie ahead on spending, welfare and tax to fix the foundations of our economy and address the £22 billion hole the government has inherited. Decisions on how to do that will be taken at the Budget in the round.”

Read Portland City Council candidates’ answers on street improvement

Read the candidate’s responses to a question about street improvement.

All candidates for Portland City Council were asked the following question related to street improvement: Which would you prioritize: Creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes or improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes?Here are their responses:District 1Joe Allen: This is a tough one for me, as I love riding my bike throughout the city and support creating more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to encourage sustainable transit. However, our district’s urgent need is for road repairs and paved roads to ensure safety for drivers and residents.Candace Avalos: East Portland has some of the most dangerous streets in Portland and lacks paved roads, never mind bike lanes, sidewalks or bus lanes. It’s not one or the other — we need to look at our transportation system holistically, and we need to center this community’s needs.Doug Clove: Improving our degrading streets. They are long overdue for maintenance. Especially in East Portland. It’s time for the bike people to share the wealth.Jamie Dunphy: In East Portland, I would prioritize fixing potholes in existing streets, paving new sidewalks and unpaved roads, and installing enough street lights to ensure that my daughter and her classmates can walk to school as safely in Parkrose as their counterparts in Laurelhurst or Irvington.Timur Ender: I would support both. I don’t see it as either/or. In some ways, pairing paving with protected bike lanes on a project can achieve multiple wins as it reduces construction costs, provides smooth surface for residents regardless of transportation mode, and improves safety.Noah Ernst: Improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes. That is what I’m hearing voters in District 1 want. I support bike infrastructure but don’t support removing lanes, increasing congestion and making life harder for the vast majority of Portlanders who commute, take their kids to school and go shopping by car.Joe Furi: Did not respondTerrence Hayes: Improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes. This would obviously extend to any existing bike lanes, and we all benefit from better roads. Most of the cyclists I speak to want to see increased traffic enforcement, less potholes, and clean, well-marked bike lanes.David Linn: Portlanders deserve more than a false dichotomy between bikes and potholes. We can and must do both. We cannot let important infrastructure be targeted to just one mode of moving around. Many of our families in East Portland use roads, buses, and bike lanes all in a single day.Peggy Sue Owens: Did not respondSteph Routh: Maintaining and repairing existing infrastructure is a basic level of service for all road users, as is improving dangerous intersections. These can happen at the same time, and often do. The question I wish you would have asked is, “How are we going to fund sidewalks in long-forgotten East Portland?”Deian Salazar: We need to improve the surfacing of degrading driving lanes most. East Portland looks like Youngstown, Ohio -- if I wanted to live with U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan, I’d move there! This is not Portland quality. It’s time to make driving lanes clean and safe again. I still like bike infrastructure.Michael (Mike) Sands: I would prioritize fixing degraded driving lanes; poor lanes cause accidents, resulting in death and/or injuries to drivers and passengers, pedestrians and bicyclists.Thomas Shervey: Climate Change is real, and nowhere feels that change more than the east side. The Clean Energy Fund is well intentioned, but got off to a rocky start. I would argue to continue it and for more oversight to stop waste and corruption.Loretta Smith: East Portland deserves improved surfacing of existing driving lanes and improved sidewalks. In some places in East Portland we do not have sidewalks and it is unsafe for families to walk because of all the unsanctioned camping.Cayle Tern: It is more detrimental for families and community members of East Portland to have a public transportation system that can’t get them where they need to be timely. I support protected bus lanes in streets that can accommodate them. The city manager should have flexibility to determine what that looks like.District 2James Armstrong: My priority for transportation is safety. Protected bike lanes reduce collisions and injuries by 30-50%, including for cars. We also need to pair investments in priority bus lanes with improved transit safety measures to get ridership back up. These investments will also reduce wear and tear on existing driving lanes.Reuben Berlin: Neither option alone offers a long-term solution. I suggest preparing for a mass public driverless system to reduce city traffic, enhance mobility and develop local business centers. This approach focuses on decreasing traffic through public driverless transportation, promoting economic growth and improving urban mobility.Michelle DePass: We need to do both; it’s an equity issue. We need to engage stakeholders and businesses in every district to determine the immediate needs of those communities in an equitable way while ensuring lower income, inaccessible neighborhoods, and areas with high traffic accidents are prioritized to ensure people’s safety.Marnie Glickman: This is not an either/or question. We need to do both. I have a strong, savvy vision to make this city safe for cycling, walking and transiting. I will always be a voice for proper public services that serve everyone, especially my constituents in North and Northeast Portland.Mariah Hudson: As chair of the Portland Bureau of Transportation budget committee I’ve led the committee in recommending the city to maintain current assets before establishing new projects without maintenance plans. As a bike commuter and runner, I know that unsafe pavement endangers cyclists and pedestrians the most.Sameer Kanal: We can and must do both. I am a sworn enemy of potholes, and I will prioritize those not only in driving lanes but across the entire width of the right of way. Neither is very expensive if done efficiently, compared to other parts of the city budget.Debbie Kitchin: Safe streets are a top priority for me. There are places where investments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure make the most sense. There are places where degraded driving lanes are a safety and structural hazard for all modes. I prioritize safety and not all or nothing approaches.Michael (Mike) Marshall: Given the threat of climate change we always need to prioritize alternative forms of transportation over automobiles. It’s painful but necessary. At the same time I also support converting the gasoline from a flat tax to a % of sales tax in order to generate more income for transportation needs.Will Mespelt: Depends on the neighborhood and need. I would prefer protected bike lanes and bus lanes. However, as a bike rider potholes are more dangerous if it forces a rider in the street or a car to swerve.Chris Olson: This is a false dichotomy — we can do both by appropriately taxing corporations. I support creating more protected bike and bus lanes while improving degraded driving lanes, ensuring safe, efficient transportation options for all Portlanders.Jennifer Park: In this binary, I would prioritize protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes. We can still address driving infrastructure through small-scale fixes like more aggressive pothole servicing. When we address full resurfacing, we should be looking into new innovations, like permeable pavement.Tiffani Penson: These efforts can take place at the same time. I want to prioritize maintaining an active, diverse multi-modal transportation systems that is safe, efficient and works for us all.Antonio Jamal PettyJohnBlue: I would prioritize creating more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes. Investing in these will promote sustainable transportation and improve public transit efficiency, addressing long-term city growth and environmental goals. Improved surfacing of existing lanes is also important but can be addressed subsequently with available resources.Elana Pirtle-Guiney: We need safe roads for everyone and resurfacing is about safety. But making biking and transit easier takes cars off the road and lowers resurfacing costs well into the future. A short delay in improved driving lanes lowers costs and creates better conditions for all users, including drivers, for decades.Dan Ryan: I would prioritize repaving streets and fixing potholes while enhancing safety for cyclists with extensive greenways. Regardless of bus or bike lanes, our streets must be repaired to ensure efficient movement of people, goods and services across the city. Let’s make our infrastructure work for everyone.Sam Sachs: Candidate did not respond.Bob Simril: My top priority is safe, clean, secure and accessible transportation for bikers, motorist and pedestrians. I will prioritize community infrastructure needs in underserved communities first, then expand as needed.Laura Streib: Ideally, I would do both. If we improve driving surfaces, cars won’t veer into bike spaces. If we create protected bike areas, we can work towards Vision Zero. It’s a both/and situation to build a strong network of safe multi-modal transportation layers, especially around school zones.Jonathan Tasini: Because of the decline in transportation-related revenues (for example, the rise in the number of electric vehicles which, in turn, reduces gas tax revenue), in order to fully fund our transportation needs, we have to be fully engaged in the 2025 debate in Salem over the long-term transportation packages.Liz Taylor: Candidate did not respond.Nat West: Thankfully this binary choice isn’t a part of our process. I’ll work to increase TriMet’s financial participation in PBOT projects for more bus lanes and propose adjustments to our budget process to work down our maintenance backlog citywide. Last year’s DHM community polling indicates that Portlanders favor maintenance first.Nabil Zaghloul: I would prioritize improved surfacing of existing degraded lanes for all users. We need more bike lanes and priority transit lanes, but the potholes are safety hazards for all users as drivers swerve out of their lanes to avoid them or risk damaging their vehicles leading to repair costs.District 3Matthew (Matt) Anderson: Candidate did not respond.Sandeep Bali: We need balance, but Portland’s Transportation Bureau has overly prioritized bike and bus lanes, aiming for a climate utopia without cars. This is misguided, as most commuters, especially the elderly and disabled, rely on driving. With many lanes underused, fixing potholes and degraded driving lanes should now be the priority.Melodie Beirwagen: I would prioritize the improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes. The lifeline of Portland’s business and workers involves moving goods and services throughout our City. Portland needs much better transportation infrastructure to thrive for all Portlanders.Christopher Brummer: Candidate did not respond.Rex Burkholder: I think this is a false choice. We can and must do both. I would add that the city should also maintain sidewalks as everyone uses these critical transportation facilities yet we deliberately ignore them.Brian Conley: Portland doesn’t have the luxury to choose between the two. Our climate crisis demands that we reduce traffic and cars on the road, yet we must make public transport of all kinds safer and more reliable. I reject the premise of this question. We can improve Portland transit together.Jesse Cornett: These efforts complement each other and are not in competition. In fact, when the time comes to improve existing lanes, cost savings can be found in prioritizing those streets for protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes.Daniel DeMelo: Bike and bus lanes. We need to focus more on upgrading our existing bike infrastructure to better separate and protect cyclists. That said, I’ve put more than 500 miles on my bike over the course of this campaign – I know firsthand that even small potholes pose significant risks to cyclists!Chris Flanary: I would prioritize bike and bus lanes, and protected pedestrian walkways. We have prioritized cars for too long, resulting in unsafe roads, insufficient bike paths and traffic that interferes with reliable public transit. It is time to prioritize people over cars.Dan Gilk: Increased density requires more scalable transit solutions. To that end, we need to focus more on alternative transit like bus lanes, bike paths and pedestrian walks.Theo Hathaway Saner: I‘d prioritize creating more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to promote sustainable transportation, reduce congestion, and improve safety for all road users.Clifford Higgins: Candidate did not respond.Patrick Hilton: Candidate did not respond.Kelly Janes (KJ): Road safety is important for everyone. Resurfacing existing degraded driving lanes is good for bicyclists and buses as well as drivers. I fully support more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes in conjunction with improved surfacing of driving lanes.Harrison Kass: As much as I want more bike/bus lanes, the priority is improved surfacing. PDX is already a premier bike/bus city. Our degraded driving lanes, however, are unacceptable; the cost is diffused amongst our citizens in the form of maintenance/repairs – an indirect increase in our already-too-high cost of living. Also unsafe.Philippe Knab: It can’t be one or the other. We need to invest in maintaining our existing infrastructure while supporting multimodal transportation. I support prioritizing the creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to ensure a balanced, efficient transport system for everyone.Tiffany Koyama Lane: I come from the labor movement and I recognize a false binary when I see one. A functioning city with appropriately funded transportation and road infrastructure does not need to choose between roads and transit; bikes and buses use roads too! I support changing our funding mechanism before insisting on that choice.Kenneth (Kent) R Landgraver III: Candidate did not respond.Angelita Morillo: The creation of priority bus lanes would be my top priority to serve the most people possible. The creation of bike lanes would be my next priority, with surfacing of driving lanes being my lowest priority. Obligate transit users like myself deserve better and safer infrastructure than we currently have.Steve Novick: Respectfully, the question falsely implies that we could repave all the streets – which will cost billions of dollars – by avoiding spending on bus and bike lanes, which are relatively very cheap. A high priority is to keep streets that are in decent shape in good repair, before repairs become prohibitively expensive.David O’Connor: Candidate did not respond.Ahlam K Osman: Candidate did not respond.Cristal Azul Otero: I would prioritize protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes, but I recognize the need for street maintenance, especially where people use wheelchairs and mobility aids. I support creating a dedicated process for residents to request urgent repairs, ensuring timely responses to improve accessibility and safety while advancing sustainable transportation.Terry Parker: Maintaining our roadway surfaces and infrastructure must be the top priority. More congestion, fuel consumption and emissions are being created due to road diets that remove full service traffic lanes and/or have narrowed lanes that can not safely accommodate large trucks and vehicles towing wide trailers.Heart Free Pham: The truth is, biking to work is a privilege of the wealthy; most people that work in Portland don’t even live here! We need to prioritize practicality for the majority over convenience of the few, therefore I’d support the latter in this situation.Jaclyn Smith-Moore: Candidate did not respond.John Sweeney: We have enough bike and bus lanes. It is way past time to fix our streets. Our cars and trucks are taking a real beating, and we are very tired of it.Jonathan (Jon) Walker: I think this is a false choice since when you replace a road you work on the whole project, but I think finally dealing with decades of deferred maintenance which previous city councils have left to only become more expensive needs to be a priority. We need to put our financial house in order.Kezia Wanner: All are vitally important to our city’s health and I support a multi-modal transportation system. But having to choose, it would be improving our streets because they impact people’s lives broadly from bus travel to supporting economic vitality through moving commerce to arterials for emergency vehicles.Luke Zak: We can prioritize expanding multi modal transit while continuing necessary routine maintenance by incorporating infrastructural improvements like traffic separated lanes while existing driving lanes are being resurfaced. It doesn’t need to be a zero-sum game.District 4Joseph (Joe) Alfone: I support bike lanes being converted into pedestrian lanes. Bike lanes are not being used. There are too many cars and too few bikes, in between there are people that walk everywhere like myself that bring life to a city. I propose Tokyo Shibuya Crossing pedestrian changes to the city.Eli Arnold: Bikes and public transit run on roads, and degraded roads are a safety hazard to everyone. Our backlog of Infrastructure maintenance is the largest of these issues and deserves the lion’s share of effort.Bob Callahan: While many of us enjoy riding bikes, there are others of us who, out of choice or necessity, remain vehicle drivers. We all live here together and deserve equal treatment. I favor repair of existing lanes. Delay of road maintenance makes it more costly in the future.Patrick Cashman: Candidate did not respond.Olivia Clark: As a cyclist, I’ve come into direct contact with potholes all over Portland. They are a danger for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. We must stop the deterioration of our streets before they become further damaged and more expensive to repair. I would prioritize maintaining our streets at this time.Raquel Coyote: Candidate did not respond.Mike DiNapoli: Candidate did not respond.Kelly Doyle: Candidate did not respond.Brandon Farley: Candidate did not respond.Lisa Freeman: When we look at world class cities, they are often walkable, Candidate did not respond. and have efficient transit systems. This infrastructure is good for the climate, makes the city more affordable and attracts visitors who want to explore the city, dine and shop. These investments pay for themselves.John J Goldsmith: Candidate did not respond.Kevin Goldsmith: Candidate did not respond.Mitch Green: Portland should prioritize creation of protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes in order to make it it safe and easy to avoid driving. Doing so will reduce traffic and lower ongoing maintenance costs for driving lanes. This is not an exclusionary tradeoff: prioritizing the former funds the latter.Chris Henry: These go hand-in-hand - we need more bus and bike lanes for our climate goals, but what’s the point if their quality is degraded? Road improvement should also include more eco-friendly methods of repairing degraded lanes, like using biochar in asphalt and concrete.Ben Hufford: Portland needs to redouble our efforts to create quality options to the dominance of the single occupant car by pursuing alternative transportation options. Both systems need attention, and we shouldn’t have to choose, but even as a committed cyclist I believe well-functioning roads must still be the priority.Chad Lykins: My priority is safety and cost-effectiveness. Making it safer for cyclists and transit-users leads to fewer automobiles on the road, which leads to less deterioration of driving lanes, which leads to happier people all around.Chloe Mason: Upgrading our deteriorating driving lanes should be a top priority, as it is a longstanding concern of our constituents. The condition of our roads is causing hundreds of dollars in car damage, placing a financial burden on our community. I have personally experienced this.Tony Morse: Improved surfaces of existing degraded driving lanes. The fact is that driving is the most common form of transportation that Portlanders use. Priority bike and bus lanes play an important part of Portland’s transportation systems, but by prioritizing driving lanes, we deliver critical value to more people in need.Lee Odell: Candidate did not respond.Stanley Penkin: I support bike lanes and priority bus lanes; however, I would prioritize filling potholes and improving degraded streets. It’s imperative that we maintain our infrastructure, or it will continue to deteriorate, and we will never catch up. Our $4 billion backlog on road maintenance is an example of that.L Christopher Regis: Candidate did not respond.Moses Ross: We need to fill the potholes! It’s a fundamental city service and this failing (the deference of street maintenance) is the most obvious failing to residents.Tony Schwartz: We need to fix what we already have. Let’s improve surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes particularly in parts of the City that have roads cratered with enormous potholes. It is shameful to live in Portland – a first world city – and see our communities suffer from terrible roads and sidewalks.Sarah Silkie: I will prioritize all modes of transportation over other expenditures. Roads for buses and small business deliveries, separated bike lanes, sidewalks, and curb-ramps. These are an interconnected system.Ciatta R Thompson: I would prioritize protecting bike lanes and priority bus lanes. If Portland wants to be an environmental leader, we need to expand and strengthen our city’s multimodal transportation.John Toran: We need to prioritize improved surfacing. Our city can’t recover unless we have a functioning transportation network, and surfacing affects everyone. Potholes are a regressive stealth tax that causes significant, avoidable financial burdens for Portland’s working class that the city is responsible for preventing.Michael Trimble: I will prioritize the creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to further discourage vehicular usage as we fight to protect our environment.Andra Vltavín: I will prioritize more protected bike lanes and priority bus lines. We need to shift away from being a car-dependent culture, especially as Portland grows. The safer and more enjoyable we make biking and public transit, the more people will use those methods of transportation.Bob Weinstein: My priority would be to first address the existing degraded driving lanes to ensure basic safety and functionality for all road users.Eric Zimmerman: I do not support any more specialized bus lanes. They made our city streets more dangerous for drivers, riders and walkers. I think protected bike lanes are great! Every street should achieve a certain level of pavement maintenance before we do any more special projects in the central city.Read answers from other Portland City Council and mayoral candidates

California's Farm to School program is bringing business and climate-friendly practices to farms: Report

Food producers who have participated in California's state-funded "Farm to School" grant program are benefiting from significant growth in their business revenues, a new progress report has found. About 57 percent of the program's farmers made sales to schools from April to September 2023 — with those sales representing around 33 percent of their total...

Food producers who have participated in California's state-funded "Farm to School" grant program are benefiting from significant growth in their business revenues, a new progress report has found. About 57 percent of the program's farmers made sales to schools from April to September 2023 — with those sales representing around 33 percent of their total farm revenues, on average, according to the report. Meanwhile, schools benefited from an influx of fresh, local and organic fruits and vegetables, meat and dairy products, per the report, an independent publication from researchers at University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, UC Berkeley, Food Insight Group and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The California Farm to School Incubator Grant Program, which receives funding through the state budget, operates with the California Department of Food and Agriculture Office's Farm to Fork division. The program, championed by First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, connects local producers and school food buyers, encourages education about food in classrooms, gardens and on farms and involves students and their schools in the agricultural community. The latest grant round — which awarded $52.8 million for 195 projects, serving 1.65 million students — included funding tracks and opportunities for K-12 school districts, technical assistance providers, early education centers and farmers, according to a recent announcement. The new report focuses on the outcome of the 2023 cultivation season, with a particular look at the farmers who received their grants and how partnerships with schools helped bolster their businesses. Of the 50 producers evaluated in the report, about 42 percent identified as Black, Indigenous or people of color, while 62 percent of businesses were owned by women and 94 percent were small-to-midsize operations. All farmers whose projects received funding from the program confirmed their attention to adopt more efficient agricultural practices throughout the duration of their grant period. Tim Bowles, a coauthor of the report and leader of the program evaluation team, praised the initiative for supporting farmers who expand or adopt environmentally beneficial practices. "It’s essential these farmers have a market for what they grow to see durable environmental benefits,” Bowles, an assistant professor in environmental science, policy and management at UC Berkeley, said in a statement. “We’re also seeing farms actually expand their acreage in order to sell to schools, suggesting this is a desirable market," he continued. About 16 percent of producers reported adopting new climate-smart agricultural innovations within the first six months of receiving their grant, while 24 percent said they expanded existing practices while cultivating crops for schools. Also within that first six-month window, 11 farmers said they added acreage to their properties as a direct result of the program — relying mostly on composting practices instead of pesticides. Despite these successes, the evaluators also flagged certain difficulties, such as years of delays in infrastructure build-out and other complexities associated with improving school food systems. “Decades of research shows the value to children from fresh, locally sourced food," said Gail Feenstra, co-lead on the project and a researcher from UC Agriculture and Natural Resources. "However, what is becoming more clear from this research is that long-term investments in the full farm to school system are crucial," she added. Without the establishment of regional-level infrastructure, staffing, product consolidation and distribution, participants will "have challenges moving the needle," according to Feenstra. Nonetheless, she credited the state's "investments in the entire farm to school supply chain" for beginning to address these challenges.

Kelly Janes (KJ): Portland City Council District 3

Read the candidate’s responses to questions about homelessness, police accountability, Portland’s budget and taxes.

Name: Kelly Janes (KJ)Neighborhood: Foster-PowellRenter/homeowner: HomeownerEducation: U.C. Berkeley, B.A. Anthropology (focus: social anthropology and Native American studies)Occupation: Business owner -- Web design and development agencyHow long you’ve lived in the city of Portland: 8 yearsAge: 50, will turn 51 before Election DayPronouns: she/herPortland is facing an historic election involving a new voting system and an unusually high number of candidates. Journalists at The Oregonian/OregonLive and Oregon Public Broadcasting share a goal of ensuring that Portland voters have the information they need to make informed choices, and we also know candidates’ time is valuable and limited.That’s why the two news organizations teamed up this cycle to solicit Portland City Council candidates’ perspectives on the big issues in this election. Here’s what they had to say:For each of the following questions, we asked candidates to limit their answers to 150 words.Name two existing city policies or budget items you’d make it a priority to change. Why did you select those and how do you plan to line up at least 7 votes on the council to make them happen? Please avoid broad, sweeping statements and instead provide details.Did not answer.What previous accomplishments show that you are the best pick in your district? Please be specific.I first joined the Foster-Powell Neighborhood Association (FPNA) as communications chair to grow our shelter meal volunteer list. Due to our online promotion, our volunteer list grew sufficiently that we have not had to cancel a meal in two years due to low volunteer sign-ups. After being elected as chair/president of FPNA, I guided the program through various iterations due to changing requirements from our neighborhood shelter partners. As chair, I have collaborated with Foster Southeast PDX, our local business association, to promote foot traffic to brick & mortar businesses along Foster Road.I am the President of Benson TechBoosters, the 501(c)(3) fundraising organization for Benson Polytechnic High School. Go Astros!I have owned and operated a small business for fourteen years, moving it across the country from Brooklyn, New York to Portland and certifying the business as a Woman-Owned Emerging Small Business in the state of Oregon.Portland is on track to permit the fewest number of multifamily units in 15 years and remains thousands of units below what’s needed to meet demand. What steps would you take to dramatically and quickly increase the availability of housing?Portland needs to attract investors for multifamily units by lowering costs and improving expected return on investment.To lower costs, I’d streamline the permitting process. There should be an online portal where property owners, developers and contractors can see all permitting requirements for their project. I frequently hear that the current process is complicated and unclear. This portal would enable stakeholders to see the current status of each permit application, along with next steps in the process.Improving expected return on investment is an equation with several parts, including:Ensuring Portland is a safe city to live, work, and play,compassionately sheltering our unhoused population,promoting Portland nationally as a premier destination on the West Coast,supporting restaurants, food carts, and retail businesses from the central business district to the furthest neighborhoods,investing in improved transportation, andaligning city policy with our deserved reputation as a city of nature lovers.The next City Council is going to have to make some very difficult decisions regarding what to fund and how. What essential services must the city provide and how should the city sustainably fund them?The city is required by charter to provide many essential services. Public safety, utilities, and infrastructure maintenance and investment are among these core obligations. The new City Council will need to work creatively and collaboratively to determine what to fund and how.Portlanders have approved many tax measures in the past decade – supporting affordable housing, free preschool programs and green energy initiatives. Are there specific taxes or levies you want eliminated or would choose to not renew? Are there specific taxes or levies you would support creating? Why?If I had to cancel one tax, it would be the Arts Tax. I do support funding arts and art education, but roughly 25% of eligible Portland residents refuse to pay voluntarily, and administrative costs are higher than projected. Intended recipients are not receiving the money expected. This needs to be redone.Do you have any concerns with the changes coming to city elections and city governance? If so, what would you like to see change?I am very excited by the possibility presented by the coming changes to city elections and governance. That said, I do have a few concerns.I am concerned that there has not been sufficient training on ranked-choice voting (our Foster-Powell Neighborhood Association is providing training at our Sept. 9 meeting), and there are many ways a ballot can be invalidated.The first few months of the new city governance structure will be challenging. My primary motivation for running is to help form a successful new government. It is essential that those elected work collectively and collaboratively to determine priorities and then work together to create effective policy in alignment with those priorities. I want to expand communications so that Portlanders are aware of what City Council is doing and have transparent access to provide input and feedback.For the five remaining questions, we asked candidates to answer in 50 words or fewer:Do you favor arresting and jailing people who camp on public property in Portland who refuse repeated offers of shelter, such as the option to sleep in a city-designated tiny home cluster?I do not favor arresting and jailing people who camp on public property in Portland and refuse offers of shelter. I favor providing shelter options that are flexible and address the needs of various sub-populations.Would you vote yes on a proposal to fund hundreds more police officers than the City Council has already authorized? Why or why not? How would the city pay for it?Portland needs more police officers to handle our current call rate. Sheltering unhoused residents and providing deflection options may help reduce the need.Do you support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot? What, if any changes, would you support?PCEF has generated seven times the projected revenue. There is work to do to ensure environmental safety, like creating a risk mitigation plan for potential hazards at the Critical Energy Infrastructure hub. I support expanding financial allocation to include environmental work provided by other city bureaus.Which would you prioritize: Creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes or improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes?Road safety is important for everyone. Resurfacing existing degraded driving lanes is good for bicyclists and buses as well as drivers. I fully support more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes in conjunction with improved surfacing of driving lanes.Have the problems impacting downtown Portland received too much or too little attention from current city leaders? Why?The problems impacting downtown Portland are a key aspect of making Portland a safer, more livable city, which will, in turn, lead to economic growth for the city.Read answers from other Portland City Council and mayoral candidates

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.