By Darcie Meihoff
Portland General Electric’s proposed transmission project through Forest Park, known as the Harborton Reliability Project, still lives.
As a result of a city of Portland and PGE mediation process, PGE recently filed a revised application for Phase 3 of the Harborton Project. Portland Permitting and Development Department has deemed the application incomplete. PGE plans to revise and resubmit.
Though soundly rejected in 2025 by a unanimous City Council vote after strong opposition from the public and conservation groups, the company is pursuing a fast-track path that could result in public meetings as soon as October.
That is according to sources at the Forest Park Conservancy, the nonprofit whose mission is to protect and restore Forest Park.
“The public believes this project was stopped (by the original City Council vote),” said FPC board member Carole Hardy, who attended closed-door negotiations between PGE and the city that led to the city’s promise to support a new application. “There has been little notification that it is back on the table and what the long-term impacts on Forest Park will be.”
Hardy said the latest PGE proposal includes $5.5 million ($3.1 million more than the original proposed amount) for mitigating the damage to the park’s ecology.
PGE announced that the new plan includes site restoration measures based on mediation input that are “reasonable, technically feasible and likely to yield ecological benefits.” The application includes “additional technical information and analysis including information about system reliability, alternatives, environmental considerations and construction methods.” PGE’s project overview can be found at portlandgeneralprojects.com/Harborton
The newly revised PGE application involves payment of $250,000 to the city to hire a third-party consultant prior to pursuing future project phases estimated to consume an additional 15 acres of Forest Park.
According to Hardy, little else about the latest version of the application has changed from PGE’s original proposal. Hardy said viable alternatives avoiding the park have still not been analyzed.
The proposed funding for park restoration is far less than Forest Park advocacy and conservation groups like FPC, Forest Park Neighborhood Association and Bird Alliance of Oregon had asked for, Hardy said. The groups originally requested an additional $5 million from PGE to offset the damage from the project to conserve additional land outside the park, a jointly managed trust for mitigation outside the park and oversight to see that PGE funds would not backfill city budget deficits.
“PGE claims other alternatives will cost too much and they have to pass those costs onto ratepayers,” she added. “PGE’s poor planning has pushed the city to a flawed decision which violates public policy and public trust.”
During mediation, PGE threatened to bring a federal lawsuit against the city if it was not allowed to access their easement, which appeared to shift the city’s position and willingness to negotiate a settlement, Hardy said.
Lack of transparency by city officials and PGE is an issue.
“By cutting conservation groups and public voices out of the final negotiation, the city failed to negotiate to the full extent possible, leaving behind the exploration of alternatives and additional money that could be used for restoration,” Hardy said. “Now PGE is pushing to fast-track the process, minimizing the time the public has to review the revised application and provide input.”
The public voice still matters. PGE will post the application online when it has been deemed complete. A public hearing will then be scheduled, and any decision rendered by the hearing officer may be appealed to the Portland City Council.
Hardy suggests that interested parties contact their City Council representatives and Mayor Keith Wilson.
Darcie Meihoff is a past board president of the Forest Park Conservancy.
The bar was already very low, but the current mayor/city council have to be setting some sort of record for largest amount of gross incompetence/bad decision making in a mere two year’s time. This is why local elections are so important.
No! This behind the door, fast track is so bad. I am very, very disappointed in our city 'leaders'. 20 acres!! No, our management contract says no infringement into Forest Park. I do not understand how this can be pursued. This city council government is so dysfunctional, opaque 'refusal' of accountability of non-profits using our tax funds, stupid severance packages, soft on allowing trash stewing on streets-clean-repeat. This is our city, our taxes!! Sorry to be so upset, however we all should be. The park thing is one breaking point, I hike and hug a tree in FP at least three days a week, if not more. (actually the garbage cyclical cleanup with no end game broke me too). I participated in opposing pge's plan of harming FP (and they had viable alternative route separate from FP) as well as so many others!! Isn't this illegal? So what do we do!?