The city cites progress despite plan’s shortcomings. Skeptics say it needs clearer objectives. by Taylor Griggs It’s been two years since Portland City Council adopted a three-year Climate Emergency Workplan to guide the city’s actions on climate change in accordance with a 2020 climate emergency declaration. The plan lays out 47 action items to reduce emissions from multiple sectors, including transportation, industry, and building construction, and involves 10 city bureaus. So far, only two of the goals have been achieved.  Last week, the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) released this year’s progress report for the work plan, detailing which priorities have been advanced and where the city is facing roadblocks.  In June 2020, Portland City Council declared a climate emergency, citing the dangers of increasing extreme weather events in the Pacific Northwest and the “existential threat” global warming poses to “our community and economy.”   “Combatting [the climate emergency] will require government agencies, businesses, and residents to treat this as the crisis it is by taking bold steps to meet Portland’s carbon reduction goals and building a healthy, resilient city in which everyone can thrive,” the 2020 climate emergency declaration stated.  The climate emergency declaration included a goal to reach net-zero emissions in the city by 2050, with a 50 percent reduction (compared to 1990 levels) by 2030. Right now, the city isn’t on track to meet those goals. While city climate leaders are proud of what they’ve done so far, there’s a lot more work needed if Portland wants to achieve its climate goals.  Two years later, city leaders approved a three-year plan of action for actually accomplishing those goals. The city created a Climate Emergency Workplan that set forth 47 priority actions to “put Portland on a path toward achieving our collective decarbonization and community resilience goals.” The work plan, a multi-bureau effort headed by BPS, includes actions to decarbonize Portland’s transportation system, develop land use plans that encourage walkable neighborhoods, improve the city’s tree canopy, and more. When the work plan was adopted, some climate activists were skeptical. In addition to concerns about some of the specific proposals, critics said the plan was generally too vague and didn’t include clear enough metrics for accomplishing its goals.  For example, the 2024 work plan states the city will achieve its goal to “make freight cleaner” in the upcoming fiscal year, with the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) embarking on its zero-emission delivery zone pilot and planning to pursue future federal funding for the project. But without any specific benchmarks, it’s unclear how the plan defines “cleaner.” Similarly vague language is used for other action items throughout the work plan.  “After reading the work plan, it is clear that providing the funding and people-power needed to protect our future by addressing the climate crisis is still not seen as a priority in Portland,” the Portland Youth Climate Council wrote in public testimony in 2022. “This plan is not deliberate - it does not have deliberate steps, it does not make deliberate investments, and there is nothing in it that will guarantee deliberate policy changes.”  Two years later, skepticism about the plan remains, especially amid the increasingly dire effects of the climate crisis. Meanwhile, climate leaders at the city say while they acknowledge the plan’s shortcomings compared to the scale of the problem, they remain confident about the future of climate action in Portland.  “There is still time to avert the worst impacts of climate change if we take the actions outlined in the work plan, but the window grows ever smaller,” a press release about the recent progress report states. “We have a plan, the necessary technologies, and the time to change the course of events for the Portlanders today and for the future. We simply must keep doing more.”  Progress and setbacks  According to the 2024 progress report on the work plan, city staff didn’t achieve any of the priority actions last year. The report states most of the actions were “ongoing and moving forward” last year, “indicating their duration beyond this plan.” About six of the actions are on track to completion by the end of the next fiscal year. and some actions were delayed. Only two actions have been completed since City Council adopted the work plan in 2022.  The status of the 47 action items. city of portland One action the city says is complete is a plan to replace petroleum diesel at the gas pump with renewable fuels. Two years ago, City Council approved updates to the city’s Renewable Fuel Standard, mandating that every gallon of diesel sold in Portland will be 99 percent renewable by 2030, with more biofuels sold at the pump every year until then.  The renewable fuels initiative was one of the more controversial proposals when the work plan was initially adopted. Many people submitted public testimony urging the city not to rely on renewable fuels, which come with their own environmental problems, instead of decarbonizing the transportation system.  The other action the city has deemed “complete” is the proposal to “make new construction ready for electric vehicle charging.” This was accomplished through the city’s adoption of an EV-ready code update, which requires most new multi-unit residential buildings to include electric car charging capacity in their parking spaces.  Lynn Handlin, a climate activist who was critical of the climate work plan when the city approved it two years ago, said she thinks the two completed actions have limited benefits.  “[The city’s] Renewable Fuel Standard is not the panacea they claim. Some of the metrics they used were flawed,” Handlin told the Mercury in a recent email. “Some of the EV-friendly code changes were helpful. But overall, transportation must move away from single passenger car use, and towards mass transit, biking, and walking. The city has not accomplished much in this area.”  A 2022 PBOT count showed bike ridership in Portland declined by more than 40 percent compared to 2014, when ridership numbers were the highest. Last year’s bike count showed a nearly five percent increase compared to the previous year, but ridership numbers are still lower than transportation activists would like. The climate emergency work plan includes an action item to “make low-carbon travel options safe, accessible, and convenient for all Portlanders,” but without clear benchmarks, it will be difficult to gauge the success of that initiative.  Handlin is also critical of the work plan’s focus on the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) as a major driver of the city’s climate progress. She told the Mercury she believes the city is taking undue credit for PCEF’s accomplishments, especially considering some elected leaders wanted to “raid the PCEF funds to fill in gaps in the city budget.”   Last year, City Council adopted PCEF’s first Climate Investment Plan, which maps out how the program will spend $750 million over five years to advance climate solutions, particularly for Portland’s underserved populations. PCEF will also allocate an additional $380 million to city bureaus for climate-focused programs.  While PCEF spending targets many of the original actions outlined in the work plan, the clean energy fund has gone through a major evolution since the work plan was adopted two years ago. PCEF leaders point out the program is intended to help the city’s most vulnerable communities respond and adapt to climate change, and shouldn’t be expected to be the main source of funding for all of Portland’s work to address the climate crisis.  But the progress report indicates a heavy reliance on PCEF to fund the work plan’s priority actions. City Council has only allocated $2.4 million in one-time general fund dollars to advance the climate work plan’s objectives. The city also touts having acquired $7 million in outside grant funding, mostly from the federal government, for the work plan’s priority actions. In comparison, PCEF plans to allocate roughly $1.2 billion in climate work over the next five years.  “Overall, it seems like a lot of the city's claims of actual successes, not just more studies and delays, were actually PCEF successes,” Handlin said. “Claiming those success stories is seriously flawed.”  The future of the climate action work plan   Considering the broad goals included in the original work plan, and the plan’s tight, three-year timeline, it’s not a surprise the majority of the priority actions are not yet complete. But city climate leaders say their work will continue—and perhaps, thanks to upcoming changes in city government, with more efficiency.  In a memo accompanying the recent work plan progress report, Vivian Satterfield, Portland’s Chief Sustainability Officer, shared some of the project’s next steps.  “This period of transition for the city gives us the opportunity to be clear-eyed about the past to shape the future,” Satterfield wrote. “With my role positioned in the City Administrator's office going forward, I am eager to continue coordination with climate practitioners across service areas.”  Satterfield said the city’s climate team has “incoming support” from the upcoming Sustainability and Climate Commission, which will create Portland’s next climate action plan. She also pointed to the auditor’s office’s pending climate justice performance audit, which will “assuredly further inform the work ahead of us.”  Portland’s new government structure, which will enable city councilors to collaborate across service areas instead of remaining tied to their assigned bureaus, may also provide more room for effective climate action—especially considering how many current City Council candidates have cited climate change as one of their top priorities.  Despite potential new opportunities for action, Satterfield said she acknowledges the need for urgent movement.  “The longer we delay action, we only exacerbate the risks and costs associated with climate change,” Satterfield wrote. “Let this year's Climate Emergency Workplan progress report be a reminder that we have no time to waste. We must not hesitate to initiate the serious changes required to secure a livable future for current and future generations.”