GoGreenNation news

All candidates for mayor and Portland City Council were asked questions related to clean energy.Candidates for mayor were asked the following question: Do you support the decision to use millions from the Portland Clean Energy Fund to backfill budget holes in various city bureaus? Would you seek to continue, expand or halt that practice?Here are their responses:MayorSaadiq Ali: This fund should be dedicated to its original purpose: supporting clean energy projects and climate resilience. I would seek to halt this practice and ensure the fund’s resources are used as intended while exploring alternative funding solutions for budget shortfalls.Shei’Meka (BeUtee) As-Salaam: No. Halt.James Atkinson IV: Did not respondDurrell Kinsey Bey: The Portland Clean Energy Fund is poised to be a national top-tier program. In my opinion, its funds should be dedicated exclusively to program operations and community leadership development.Rene Gonzalez: The corporate surcharge that funds PCEF is producing seven times its original projections. We must evaluate on an ongoing basis how to most strategically deploy this source of revenue. Stabilizing funding for city bureaus is a legitimate use of those funds and should be done openly and transparently.Michael Hayes: Did not respondYao Jun He: Did not respondJosh Leake: I don’t support using Clean Energy Fund money for unintended purposes. These funds were designated for specific environmental and community initiatives, and we must honor voter intent and legal obligations. I’ll work to find alternative solutions for budget shortfalls while ensuring the fund fulfills its purpose of advancing sustainability goals.James Macdonald: This is a good project with good goals but if we borrow from it that should be only temporary.Mingus Mapps: I believe the Portland Clean Energy Fund should be used for its intended purpose — investing in climate solutions. I would halt its use for backfilling budget holes, as it compromises the fund’s mission.Sharon Nasset: No. Maybe a few emergency services.Michael Necula: Did not respondAlexander Landry Neely: I do not have enough information to make an educated judgment call on this. I would consult advisors as well as other leaders, and then make a decision that works best for the people and the environment.Michael O’Callaghan: I would not disturb a one-time backfill to bring us closer to meeting needs. Beyond that, we need to use the money as voters intended. Halt the practice by the next fiscal year.Liv Østhus: I do not support this. Portlanders overwhelmingly voted for these measures to prepare for and combat climate emergencies. We could throw ten times the amount at the problem and still need more. Use the funds to hatch an actionable plan to move and improve the (Critical Energy Infrastructure) hub.Carmen Rubio: I support funding city climate programs that meet PCEF criteria. The Mayor and the PCEF committee agreed this year for a one-time redirect of interest earned on the funds – I am committed to holding the line moving forward. I made sure the fund itself and Climate Investment Plan were protected.Martin Ward: I plan on cutting the Portland Clean Energy Fund completely. I have an initiative filed with the state to move Oregon to 100% renewable energy that uses a better tax system and more efficiently uses the funds. I have plenty of budget cuts to solve the city’s revenue issues.Keith Wilson: City leadership has siphoned away millions from the Portland Clean Energy Fund without a clearly articulated goal or financial accountability. I strongly oppose diverting PCEF funds to any purpose other than originally intended by Portland voters. We must return this critical program to effective renewable energy projects and jobs.Dustin Witherspoon: No. I would pull any and all funding for anything involving wind or solar. I would seek to buy back PGE. The rate increases are outrageous. I would then demand at least one 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor be built along the Oregon, Washington border around Pendleton. Safe from any earthquakes, floods.Candidates for City Council were asked the following question: Do you support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot? What, if any changes, would you support?Here are their responses:District 1Joe Allen: Yes, I support the Clean Energy Fund measure, but I would not vote for its renewal without a thorough review and rebuild of its oversight, accountability and transparency processes to ensure funds are used effectively and to achieve the program’s intended climate justice goals.Candace Avalos: No. Voters spoke decisively when they approved PCEF in 2018. Portland voters overwhelmingly agreed on the need and the approach, and we’ve seen successful outcomes since. We need to safeguard these funds and ensure their efficiency.Doug Clove: I’m all for putting issues on the ballot. That’s the essence of democracy, right? My opinion doesn’t really matter; it’s all about what my constituents think.Jamie Dunphy: No, I don’t support putting it back on the ballot, I believe that it should be protected. We should use PCEF to reframe how we spend general fund dollars to maximize the benefits of this program. It cannot be treated as a slush fund or a general purpose sales tax.Timur Ender: The Portland Clean Energy Fund is an important program for meeting goals around shared prosperity, electrification and a just transition to a clean energy future. The projects it has funded have been consistent with promises made to voters. I don’t see a need to put it back on the ballot.Noah Ernst: Because the Clean Energy fund tax has raised more money than anticipated, I would not object referring a measure to the ballot that would ask taxpayers to decide how to spend that money or weather to reduce the tax burden on business.Joe Furi: Did not respondTerrence Hayes: The main problem with PCEF is that the funding has taken too long to get out the door, and black and brown communities have suffered because of this. I support fixing the program so that money is not sitting unused when there are so many things it is needed for.David Linn: I do not believe in overturning the will of the voters without an emergency, and the program doing better than expected is not an emergency. I would support working with PCEF to identify alignment with community visioning and putting funding together for those projects.Peggy Sue Owens: Did not respondSteph Routh: I do not support putting the Clean Energy Fund back on the ballot.Deian Salazar: I support transparency, audits, and potential reforms but support it being rolled into a Green New Deal and net-zero investments by 2030. A ballot measure should only be considered if absolutely necessary for these purposes.Michael (Mike) Sands: I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the Clean Energy Fund to answer this question.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: No, I do not support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot because we already have a dedicated amount of money and we can change the existing language by putting it to a vote on the City Council.Cayle Tern: Portland has a reputation of pivoting away from policies prematurely. My preference is not to revisit finished business. We need to utilize our auditors and oversight authority to ensure that we are using the funds appropriately and timely. I would not put it on the ballot at this time.District 2James Armstrong: I support investments in reducing the effects of climate change and restorative justice for communities disproportionately affected. I agree with Commissioner Rubio’s approach of using PCEF funds towards certain city initiatives that meet those criteria. If that remains an option, I do not support placing PCEF back on the ballot.Reuben Berlin: I’m open to revisiting the measure, but only after recent reforms have time to take effect. Any revisions should maintain the fund’s core mission of equitable climate action while addressing deep concerns about accountability. Potential changes could include clearer performance metrics and limits on using interest for non-climate purposes.Michelle DePass: No, I don’t support putting the initiative back on the ballot. Voters approved the Clean Energy Fund in 2018 to fund infrastructure investments in our clean energy future, which is desperately needed if we care about the future of Portland, and want to meet our city’s climate goals.Marnie Glickman: No. We are fortunate to have PCEF because climate resilience costs are rising. Most of our public schools lack air conditioning and just closed during record September heat, and I support PCEF funding to add AC. PCEF is working better and better and shouldn’t be raided to fund other needs.Mariah Hudson: No. I support maintaining the current tax level on large corporations. The current council has made many of the administrative changes needed and the PCEF advisory structure ensures funds directed to projects that meet program goals.Sameer Kanal: No. Climate change is an existential threat we must face with the focus and urgency that it deserves. PCEF is a vital and successful revenue stream that must be protected, which includes using PCEF only as the voters authorized, on climate-related projects.Debbie Kitchin: I would not support putting the Clean Energy Fund back on the ballot. There are always opportunities to improve access and outcomes. The climate crisis will continue to impact our community, especially the most vulnerable residents. We need a program that intentionally addresses these disparities in innovative ways.Michael (Mike) Marshall: Yes. Given the threat of climate change it is critical the city maintains a fund to mitigate its rapidly increasing effects. However, I believe the allocation of tax revenue should be decided by elected officials who are accountable for their decisions, not by appointed volunteers.Will Mespelt: Yes, voters should have a say if we are going to renew this program. I think we should require more concrete and measurable results from grant projects and tie them to our goals as a city more clearly.Chris Olson: Yes, I support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot with an increase in the PCEF tax to 2% for large corporations. This change ensures greater investment in renewable energy, green jobs, and economic justice, funded by those most able to contribute.Jennifer Park: Yes, I support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot with an increase in the PCEF tax to 2% for large corporations. This change ensures greater investment in renewable energy, green jobs, and economic justice, funded by those most able to contribute.Tiffani Penson: No. The Clean Energy Fund should be reviewed together with other measures to ensure it is having impact. The fund has invested millions into Portland communities and critical climate programs. We must continue to combat climate change by ensuring the funds are spent responsibly toward the identified priority areas.Antonio Jamal PettyJohnBlue: I support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot, with a few changes. I’d advocate for more rigorous accountability measures to ensure funds are used effectively. Additionally, I’d support incorporating community input to ensure the fund addresses local needs and promotes job creation in the green sector.Elana Pirtle-Guiney: No. Let’s use this fund to put Portland on the map as a sustainable, equitable, city that’s investing in the economy of the future. There is a real opportunity to use PCEF, within the parameters voters overwhelmingly supported, to rebuild our economy and remake our reputation.Dan Ryan: Align (the Portland Clean Energy Fund’s) budget with transparent, measurable goals to ensure accountability. This budget cycle showed we can invest in both community initiatives and greener infrastructure. I’ll keep asking, “How do we measure success?” Let’s get it done for the people, not for the pockets of special interests.Sam Sachs: Did not respondBob Simril: I support maintaining the Clean Energy Fund. We can use these funds creatively for air filters, CO2 sensors in underserved communities, and add trees, sunscreens, water features and fresh water stations in parks and public spaces citywide.Laura Streib: No, I think it is too soon to make more sweeping changes. I want to ensure that money generated from this fund actually is used how it was intended to be. It needs to fund environmental projects in historically underinvested spaces in the city. So, let’s do that.Jonathan Tasini: I fully support PCEF as it currently is structured, both in its financing and authority.Liz Taylor: Did not respondNat West: The fund is still too new to overhaul it. $250 million in projects is going out the door next week. That represents a big step forward in getting money into the community. The auditor’s report was insightful and I will encourage the auditor to revisit the program in the future.Nabil Zaghloul: I completely support the Clean Energy Fund and would agree to putting it on the ballot for renewal. Climate change is a real existential crisis that we need to address yesterday. We have to do everything we can to mitigate the damages done and reduce our carbon footprint moving forward.District 3Matthew (Matt) Anderson: Did not respondSandeep Bali: I do not support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot if it means more taxation on Portlanders. PCEF has collected $587 million with limited results. Instead, I propose using funds to enhance city parks with more trees and fountains, and improve cleanliness and maintenance.Melodie Beirwagen: Not at this time. I believe this type of tax can negatively affect businesses, including those deciding whether to locate in Portland. I’d very much like to first see how the city uses this revenue influx and, especially, see how it affects struggling smaller businesses who must pay.Christopher Brummer: Did not respondRex Burkholder: No. The one change I would see helpful is to have the selection process brought directly under the council’s purview.Brian Conley: No. Commissioner Rene Gonzalez wants to cut Portland’s Clean Energy Fund, but we need to increase funding for clean energy. This 1% tax only affects billion dollar corporations and they aren’t hurting from this fund. Portlanders know that the climate crisis is real. We need a city council that listens.Jesse Cornett: While I do not support placing the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot, I am open to discussions on refining its implementation to ensure it better meets Portland’s needs and goals without sacrificing its intent to create a community-led climate action initiative aimed at reducing carbon emissions.Daniel DeMelo: I’m open to asking voters if they still support this program last approved by voters six years ago.Chris Flanary: No. The voters were clear about the Clean Energy Fund and what it is for.Dan Gilk: Yes. I mentioned this earlier but change the revenue stream from a tax on gross receipts to a tax on net profit.Theo Hathaway Saner: I support the Clean Energy Fund but believe it needs greater oversight and efficiency. I’d consider changes to ensure funds are used effectively, targeting projects that offer the most environmental and community impact.Clifford Higgins: Did not respondPatrick Hilton: Did not respondKelly Janes (KJ): 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.Harrison Kass: Yes. PCEF has generated vastly more than expected. We are a City with a budget shortfall and inadequate critical services. PCEF corporate surcharge could and should be used to bolster our critical services, starting with, but not limited to, public safety support.Philippe Knab: I would want to understand the specific reason for putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot—if it’s only because the tax generated more than expected, that alone isn’t enough. However, I’m open to reexamining prior assumptions and ensuring the fund is being used effectively and equitably.Tiffany Koyama Lane: I am troubled by the tendency to instantly try to repeal or reform things that were voted upon before they have had a sufficient chance to succeed. And PCEF has already been enormously successful and should be considered a point of pride for our city.Kenneth (Kent) R Landgraver III: Did not respondAngelita Morillo: No. We need to implement the will of the voters as they originally intended. I will only support changes to the fund where the money will continue to be used to address the effects of climate change that primarily affect communities of color.Steve Novick: No – I would not support that. But PCEF needs to start rigorously evaluating which projects most effectively reduce emissions and help low-income people. Transportation is the biggest source of emissions and a big expense for low-income people, so projects like 82d Avenue Bus Rapid Transit should be a priority.David O’Connor: Did not respondAhlam K Osman: Did not respondCristal Azul Otero: I do not support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot at this time. We risk the public growing tired of additional taxes, jeopardizing critical projects. Instead, the city can better use funds for climate resilience. With improved accountability and metrics, I will support revisiting it.Terry Parker: Not at this time. What I would like to see is how any excessive dollars in the clean energy fund can support existing shortages in bureau budgets while still adhering to the basic purpose of the fund itself.Heart Free Pham: Yes, the PCEF is the only reason the city budget is liquid. The only changes I would make are allocations towards solar energy - solar doesn’t make practical sense in a state like Oregon.Jaclyn Smith-Moore: Did not respond.John Sweeney: I am not up on the details of the Clean Energy Fund. But I would push to put all of our diesel equipment on renewable diesel fuel and our Flex-Fuel vehicles on E-85 Gas and move our gasohol to E-20. This would give us cleaner air as a result.Jonathan (Jon) Walker: I don’t see the need to put it back on the ballot, but I think one change that is necessary is to put control of the fund in the hands of the city council -- squarely with the people elected to decide what is best for Portland and how to spend the public’s money.Kezia Wanner: I support putting the PCEF on the ballot with changes that look at how to expand the allowable uses so that there is greater benefit with a focus on funding public infrastructure, innovations to the transportation system, and to incentivize and offset the costs of building affordable housing more sustainably.Luke Zak: I do not believe that the Clean Energy Fund should go back on the ballot. There are plenty of strategic ways to allocate the money that align with the purpose of the program and will continue to improve equity and climate resilience in the city.District 4Joseph (Joe) Alfone: I worked on two national campaigns for Ralph Nader for President. Clean air and clean water should be safe and clean for all. I lived in Beijing during the airpocalypse of 2012. Steps have been taken to improve conditions in China, we should do the same.Eli Arnold: Yes. I believe there are exciting opportunities to use these funds for programs which are climate related, but we need budget stability and flexibility in the short run. I want to preserve the original projected size of the program and move the excess to the general fund.Bob Callahan: Human caused global warming is real. We must reach our carbon reduction goals by 2050. If the funds are diverted, I would support a return to the ballot to stop any future diversion of funds or interest away from the original goals of renewable energy, energy efficiency and decarbonization projects.Patrick Cashman: Did not respondOlivia Clark: I would broaden its use as far as possible to support essential services before going back to the ballot.Raquel Coyote: Did not respondMike DiNapoli: Did not respondKelly Doyle: Did not respondBrandon Farley: Did not respondLisa Freeman: Portlanders were clear when we passed PCEF with a strong majority. We gave ourselves a gift because there is no shortage of bold action we must take to address our climate emergency. We need PCEF in its current form to build the green future our kids need to survive.John J Goldsmith: Did not respondKevin Goldsmith: Did not respondMitch Green: No. We are now having 1 in 100 year weather events on a frequent basis. That is happening due to climate change. We have a huge climate resiliency investment deficit, and so it’s imprudent to undermine PCEF which makes those investments possible.Chris Henry: With or without a new ballot measure, I support strengthening the Clean Energy Fund’s mandate to encompass key objectives like investing in climate-friendly earthquake readiness, establishing a green public bank, and decommissioning Zenith Energy’s CEI hub before its seismic vulnerability creates a massive oil spill in the Willamette River.Ben Hufford: No. The Clean Energy Fund allows Portland to “act locally,” and needs will only grow. Use of the funds should be more closely examined for efficiency, but projects competing to do the most good is a more successful model than attempting to complete the projects by city staff.Chad Lykins: No, and in general it should not be used to fund bureaus. The only exception is in cases in which a program is only realistically funded by the government and not a community organization (for instance, certain transportation projects).Chloe Mason: The Portland Clean Energy Fund is a community-driven solution that not only promotes clean energy but also prioritizes those who have historically been underserved. By investing in renewable energy projects and energy efficiency upgrades, we can reduce our carbon footprint while creating a more just and sustainable future for all.Tony Morse: Before we talk about the ballot, we need to have a serious conversation about PCEF and the results it’s showing. After multiple rounds of investment, we need to talk about outcomes and potential needs for program modifications. Portland has revenue challenges and a discussion about PCEF revenue allocation is appropriate.Lee Odell: Did not respondStanley Penkin: Voters overwhelmingly approved the fund. After a rocky start there has been pragmatic pivoting to fund city needs. It’s now successfully funding climate related projects, and I believe should continue. It should be periodically evaluated to ensure effective use of the funds and make adjustments if it’s not fulfilling impactful results.L Christopher Regis: Did not respondMoses Ross: No, I do not. I do feel we can apply the project funding requirements of the measure to a broader variety of projects, under the auspices of climate change mitigation and still stay in integrity with the intent of voters.Tony Schwartz: No. I will oppose any new tax or new bond.Sarah Silkie: No, but I would want to examine the evidence of past grants and pass policy to assure every PCEF dollar is being expended strategically.Ciatta R Thompson: I do not support putting the measure back on the ballot, however, if it were back on the ballot, I would add that any small business with 1-50 employees could apply for the PCEF and those funds could be used to revitalize buildings and their HVAC systems.John Toran: Yes. We have the highest inflation I’ve seen in my lifetime; things have changed dramatically since 2018, so I don’t see anything wrong with checking in with voters. Too many people are struggling and paying higher prices for absolutely everything so the effort might not be as appealing in 2025.Michael Trimble: I do not, as it is funding many programs combating climate change.Andra Vltavín: No. It would be a waste of time, effort, and money to put PCEF back on the ballot. The citizens have already approved it. The fund allows underserved zones of the city to make livability and sustainability improvements that positively affect many people.Bob Weinstein: I support PCEF’s goals but believe we need more flexibility with surplus funds. While I don’t advocate putting it back on the ballot, I support allowing council discretion to allocate excess funds to other pressing city needs, while maintaining PCEF’s core mission and funding.Eric Zimmerman: Yes, voters should have another say on the fund. The fund reputation had to be saved by Commissioner Rubio and she laid out a strong plan to broaden the use of it. I think making the case with voters is smart and would help rinse off distrust surrounding the program.Read answers from other Portland City Council and mayoral candidates

Read the candidate’s responses to questions about clean energy.