Why did the city cave on PGE romp through Forest Park?

Private settlement of highly public issue raises questions about the negotiators

Existing power lines would be extended and additional lines built if city of Portland agreement with PGE is allowed to stand.

How did last year’s decisive defeat of Portland General Electric’s power line project through Forest Park suddenly turn into a shocking victory for the utility company?

It happened at the negotiating table, and it happened in secret. After Portland City Council’s 12-0 rejection of the plan, PGE appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. That led to a private mediation process, and when parties came out of the tunnel this month, PGE had everything it wanted. The city agreed to have staff produce a report favorable to a project that the same staff had so recently torn apart.

Mediation began with all the players at the table, but the environmental, neighborhood and other public interest groups were kicked out of the room for the final deal, which was signed on July 2 by City Administrator Raymond Lee. PGE President Maria Pope had signed a week earlier.

Who was negotiating for the city? There is a rumor that city councilors Mitch Green and Steve Novick were chosen to represent the city. The NW Examiner asked each of them to confirm or deny the rumor, but neither responded in any way.

If they were involved in such a role, it will come out in time. They may soon speak of having gained concessions from PGE or finding further evidence justifying the toppling of more than 370 trees and consumption of five acres in its first phase alone. Later phases are not yet spelled out but are likely to clear 15 additional acres.

During an April 2025 City Council hearing, Green said PGE failed to demonstrate a need for added transmission capacity and ignored alternative routes that would have avoided the 5,200-acre park, thus violating the 1995 Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan.

Everyone is entitled to change their minds or to reconsider past positions in light of new circumstances. But the public is also entitled to know how and why their elected representatives came to see things differently. Did they surrender to superior logic or new information, or did they reverse themselves for less worthy inducements? It’s called transparency, and good government cannot endure without it.

The 2025 council decision was based on reams of information and thorough public discussion, culminating at a five-hour hearing at which everyone was entitled to speak, see and hear. All that was flushed away in private. But the stink will endure.