91视频

The city of Portland will fight a legal decision that its 2016 ban on fossil fuel terminals is unconstitutional.

The Portland City Council on Wednesday voted to appeal a July decision of the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) to strike down the city’s ban, which attempted to create a new land use category for fossil fuel terminals and limit their proliferation in Portland.

Commissioner Dan Saltzman said cities must fight harder these days to protect the environment because there’s no leadership on climate change in the White House.

鈥淭his is an appeal that needs to be taken forward,鈥� he said.

The council passed the policy in January 2016, after dozens of interested residents packed City Hall to testify in favor. Then four parties, including the Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council, appealed it to LUBA, which agreed that the city had unfairly affected interstate commerce by preventing petroleum from passing through city limits.

Willy Myers, executive director of the building trades council, is strongly against the city’s position. The law would hurt the entire state, he said in a note to the 91视频, because nearly all fossil fuels consumed in Oregon pass through Portland.

鈥淒isallowing new infrastructure could create an energy bottleneck in meeting the needs of businesses and households across the state, lead to increased costs if supply is constrained and hamper economic growth,鈥� he wrote.

Chief Deputy City Attorney Linly Rees said it’s unusual for the city to appeal a LUBA ruling, but in this case, the city attorney’s office believes there’s a reasonable basis for asking the Oregon Court of Appeals to reconsider. That’s partly because, in this case, two of three LUBA members recused themselves, leaving only one to issue the ruling.

At this point in Rees’ testimony to the City Council on Wednesday, Mayor Ted Wheeler cut in.

鈥淚 would like to add the hilarious footnote that that was referred to in the press as a 鈥榰nanimous decision,’鈥� he said, indicating air quotes. 鈥淭hey could have said 鈥榰nilateral.’鈥�

The council’s vote was unanimous, 5-0.

Commissioners were concerned the ruling could set a precedent impacting other ambitious policies intended to address climate change.

鈥淚t’s certainly possible that all three members of LUBA could get it wrong, from our point of view,鈥� Commissioner Nick Fish said. 鈥淏ut I do think that what makes this case unique is that we’re talking about a fundamental constitutional question decided by a single member of LUBA which could in the future significantly limit our ability to move forward with climate-related legislation.鈥�