Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370

Draft proposed order for hearing; issues raised; final order; expedited processing

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      469.370 Draft proposed order for hearing; issues raised; final order; expedited processing. (1) Based on its review of the application and the comments and recommendations on the application from state agencies and local governments, the State Department of Energy shall prepare and issue a draft proposed order on the application.

      (2) Following issuance of the draft proposed order, the Energy Facility Siting Council shall hold one or more public hearings on the application for a site certificate in the affected area and elsewhere, as the council considers necessary. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed at least 20 days before the hearing. The notice shall, at a minimum:

      (a) Comply with the requirements of ORS 197.797 (2), with respect to the persons notified;

      (b) Include a description of the facility and the facility’s general location;

      (c) Include the name of an agency representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained;

      (d) State that copies of the application and draft proposed order are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at a reasonable cost; and

      (e) State that failure to raise an issue in person or in writing prior to the close of the record of the public hearing with sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes consideration of the issue in a contested case.

      (3) Any issue that may be the basis for a contested case shall be raised not later than the close of the record at or following the final public hearing prior to issuance of the department’s proposed order. Such issues shall be raised with sufficient specificity to afford the council, the department and the applicant an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue. A statement of this requirement shall be made at the commencement of any public hearing on the application.

      (4) After reviewing the application, the draft proposed order and any testimony given at the public hearing and after consulting with other agencies, the department shall issue a proposed order recommending approval or rejection of the application. The department shall issue public notice of the proposed order, that shall include notice of a contested case hearing specifying a deadline for requests to participate as a party or limited party and a date for the prehearing conference.

      (5) Following receipt of the proposed order from the department, the council shall conduct a contested case hearing on the application for a site certificate in accordance with the applicable provisions of ORS chapter 183 and any procedures adopted by the council. The council shall make every effort to conclude the contested case and issue a final order within 12 months from the date of the proposed order. The applicant shall be a party to the contested case. The council may permit any other person to become a party to the contested case in support of or in opposition to the application only if the person appeared in person or in writing at the public hearing on the site certificate application. Issues that may be the basis for a contested case shall be limited to those raised on the record of the public hearing under subsection (3) of this section, unless:

      (a) The department failed to follow the requirements of subsection (2) or (3) of this section; or

      (b) The action recommended in the proposed order, including any recommended conditions of the approval, differs materially from that described in the draft proposed order, in which case only new issues related to such differences may be raised.

      (6) If no person requests party status to challenge the department’s proposed order, the proposed order shall be forwarded to the council and the contested case hearing shall be concluded.

      (7) At the conclusion of the contested case, the council shall issue a final order, either approving or rejecting the application based upon the standards adopted under ORS 469.501 and any additional statutes, rules or local ordinances determined to be applicable to the facility by the project order, as amended. The council shall make its decision by the affirmative vote of at least four members approving or rejecting any application for a site certificate. The council may amend or reject the proposed order, so long as the council provides public notice of its hearing to adopt a final order, and provides an opportunity for the applicant and any party to the contested case to comment on material changes to the proposed order, including material changes to conditions of approval resulting from the council’s review. The council’s order shall be considered a final order for purposes of appeal.

      (8) Rejection or approval of an application, together with any conditions that may be attached to the certificate, shall be subject to judicial review as provided in ORS 469.403.

      (9) The council shall either approve or reject an application for a site certificate:

      (a) Within 24 months after filing an application for a nuclear installation, or for a thermal power plant, other than that described in paragraph (b) of this subsection, with a nameplate rating of more than 200,000 kilowatts;

      (b) Within nine months after filing of an application for a site certificate for a combustion turbine power plant, a geothermal-fueled power plant or an underground storage facility for natural gas;

      (c) Within six months after filing an application for a site certificate for an energy facility, if the application is:

      (A) To expand an existing industrial facility to include an energy facility;

      (B) To expand an existing energy facility to achieve a nominal electric generating capacity of between 25 and 50 megawatts; or

      (C) To add injection or withdrawal capacity to an existing underground gas storage facility; or

      (d) Within 12 months after filing an application for a site certificate for any other energy facility.

      (10) At the request of the applicant, the council shall allow expedited processing of an application for a site certificate for an energy facility with an average electric generating capacity of less than 100 megawatts. No notice of intent shall be required. Following approval of a request for expedited review, the department shall issue a project order, which may be amended at any time. The council shall either approve or reject an application for a site certificate within six months after filing the site certificate application if there are no intervenors in the contested case conducted under subsection (5) of this section. If there are intervenors in the contested case, the council shall either approve or reject an application within nine months after filing the site certificate application. For purposes of this subsection, the generating capacity of a thermal power plant is the nameplate rating of the electrical generator proposed to be installed in the plant.

      (11) Failure of the council to comply with the deadlines set forth in subsection (9) or (10) of this section shall not result in the automatic issuance or denial of a site certificate.

      (12) The council shall specify in the site certificate a date by which construction of the facility must begin. The earliest date that the council may require construction of a facility to begin is six years from the date the council issues the site certificate.

      (13) For a facility that is subject to and has been or will be reviewed by a federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the council shall conduct its site certificate review, to the maximum extent feasible, in a manner that is consistent with and does not duplicate the federal agency review. Such coordination shall include, but need not be limited to:

      (a) Elimination of duplicative application, study and reporting requirements;

      (b) Council use of information generated and documents prepared for the federal agency review;

      (c) Development with the federal agency and reliance on a joint record to address applicable council standards;

      (d) Whenever feasible, joint hearings and issuance of a site certificate decision in a time frame consistent with the federal agency review; and

      (e) To the extent consistent with applicable state standards, establishment of conditions in any site certificate that are consistent with the conditions established by the federal agency. [Formerly 453.365; 1977 c.296 §14; 1977 c.794 §11; 1977 c.895 §1; 1985 c.569 §17; 1993 c.544 §4; 1993 c.569 §8; 1995 c.79 §288; 1995 c.505 §11; 1997 c.428 §2; 2001 c.134 §6; 2025 c.305 §1]

 

      469.371 [1985 c.569 §5; 1991 c.480 §6; repealed by 1993 c.544 §9]

 

      469.372 [1985 c.569 §14; 1985 c.673 §196; repealed by 1993 c.544 §9]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy (2023) or · cites it 18× “350(4); ORS 469.370. EFSC then conducts a contested case on issues raised during the public comment period in accordance with ORS chapter 183 and any procedures adopted by EFSC.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or · cites it 8× “ORS 469.370(1). After the council holds a public hearing on the application, staff issues its final proposed order recommending approval or rejection of the application.”
Utsey v. Coos County (2001) orctapp · cites it 4× “310(6)(c), which permits an agency to allow any person to be a party to a contested case when the agency determines that the person has an interest in the case "or represents a public interest" in the result, and ORS 469.”
Application of Portland General Elec. Co. (1977) or · cites it 4× “470(2), and action on applications for certification of a specific site, ORS 469.370, 469.470(4). Proceedings on a specific application result either in a rejection of the application or in a recommendation to the Governor to grant the certificate.”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2005) or · cites it 5× “ORS 469.370(1). The council then holds one or more public hearings regarding the ASC and the draft proposed order in the area affected by the ASC and elsewhere, as the council considers necessary.”
Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Northwest Natural Gas Co. (2003) or · cites it 5× “ORS 469.370(1). After the OOE issues its draft, the council must hold one or more public hearings on the application in areas that the proposed facility will affect and elsewhere, when the council considers it necessary.”
Wyers v. Dressler (1979) orctapp “320, which states, " * * * no energy facility shall be constructed or *806 expanded unless a site certificate has been issued for the site thereof * * and with ORS 469.370, which requires the holding of public hearings " * * * on the application for a site certificate,” to…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun. (2021) or · cites it 4× “ORS 469.370(1); OAR 345- 027-0365. The council then conducts a public hearing on the draft proposed order.”
Fremont Lumber Co. v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2001) or “360 (requiring EFSC to evaluate site applications); ORS 469.370 (requiring EFSC to hold public hearings regarding site applications).”
Teledyne Wah Chang Albany v. Energy Facility Siting Council (1985) or · cites it 2× “ORS 469.370(1) provides that “[a]t the conclusion of its hearings the council shall either approve or reject the application.”
Blue Mountain Alliance v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2013) or · cites it 2× “ORS 469.370(7). Under that statute, the council must base its approval on identified, council-adopted standards adopted under ORS 469.”
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy (2024) or · cites it 5× “350(4) (requiring DOE to notify applicant when application is complete); ORS 469.370(1), (2) (requir- ing DOE to prepare a draft proposed order and the coun- cil to hold one or more public hearings as necessary).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(1) — 7 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the council holds a public hearing on the application, staff issues its final proposed order recommending approval or rejection of the application.”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2005) or “ORS 469.370(1). The council then holds one or more public hearings regarding the ASC and the draft proposed order in the area affected by the ASC and elsewhere, as the council considers necessary.”
Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Northwest Natural Gas Co. (2003) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the OOE issues its draft, the council must hold one or more public hearings on the application in areas that the proposed facility will affect and elsewhere, when the council considers it necessary.”
Teledyne Wah Chang Albany v. Energy Facility Siting Council (1985) or “ORS 469.370(1) provides that “[a]t the conclusion of its hearings the council shall either approve or reject the application.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun. (2021) or “ORS 469.370(1); OAR 345- 027-0365. The council then conducts a public hearing on the draft proposed order.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(10) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the council holds a public hearing on the application, staff issues its final proposed order recommending approval or rejection of the application.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(13) — 1 case
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy (2023) or “350(4); ORS 469.370. EFSC then conducts a contested case on issues raised during the public comment period in accordance with ORS chapter 183 and any procedures adopted by EFSC.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(13)(e) — 1 case
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy (2023) or “350(4); ORS 469.370. EFSC then conducts a contested case on issues raised during the public comment period in accordance with ORS chapter 183 and any procedures adopted by EFSC.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(2) — 4 cases
Application of Portland General Elec. Co. (1977) or “470(2), and action on applications for certification of a specific site, ORS 469.370, 469.470(4). Proceedings on a specific application result either in a rejection of the application or in a recommendation to the Governor to grant the certificate.”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2005) or “ORS 469.370(1). The council then holds one or more public hearings regarding the ASC and the draft proposed order in the area affected by the ASC and elsewhere, as the council considers necessary.”
Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Northwest Natural Gas Co. (2003) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the OOE issues its draft, the council must hold one or more public hearings on the application in areas that the proposed facility will affect and elsewhere, when the council considers it necessary.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun. (2021) or “ORS 469.370(1); OAR 345- 027-0365. The council then conducts a public hearing on the draft proposed order.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(3) — 3 cases
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy (2023) or “350(4); ORS 469.370. EFSC then conducts a contested case on issues raised during the public comment period in accordance with ORS chapter 183 and any procedures adopted by EFSC.”
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy (2024) or “350(4) (requiring DOE to notify applicant when application is complete); ORS 469.370(1), (2) (requir- ing DOE to prepare a draft proposed order and the coun- cil to hold one or more public hearings as necessary).”
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy (2024) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(4) — 6 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the council holds a public hearing on the application, staff issues its final proposed order recommending approval or rejection of the application.”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2005) or “ORS 469.370(1). The council then holds one or more public hearings regarding the ASC and the draft proposed order in the area affected by the ASC and elsewhere, as the council considers necessary.”
Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Northwest Natural Gas Co. (2003) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the OOE issues its draft, the council must hold one or more public hearings on the application in areas that the proposed facility will affect and elsewhere, when the council considers it necessary.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun. (2021) or “ORS 469.370(1); OAR 345- 027-0365. The council then conducts a public hearing on the draft proposed order.”
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy (2024) or “350(4) (requiring DOE to notify applicant when application is complete); ORS 469.370(1), (2) (requir- ing DOE to prepare a draft proposed order and the coun- cil to hold one or more public hearings as necessary).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(5) — 9 cases
Utsey v. Coos County (2001) orctapp “310(6)(c), which permits an agency to allow any person to be a party to a contested case when the agency determines that the person has an interest in the case "or represents a public interest" in the result, and ORS 469.”
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy (2023) or “350(4); ORS 469.370. EFSC then conducts a contested case on issues raised during the public comment period in accordance with ORS chapter 183 and any procedures adopted by EFSC.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the council holds a public hearing on the application, staff issues its final proposed order recommending approval or rejection of the application.”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2005) or “ORS 469.370(1). The council then holds one or more public hearings regarding the ASC and the draft proposed order in the area affected by the ASC and elsewhere, as the council considers necessary.”
Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Northwest Natural Gas Co. (2003) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the OOE issues its draft, the council must hold one or more public hearings on the application in areas that the proposed facility will affect and elsewhere, when the council considers it necessary.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(6) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the council holds a public hearing on the application, staff issues its final proposed order recommending approval or rejection of the application.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(7) — 7 cases
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy (2023) or “350(4); ORS 469.370. EFSC then conducts a contested case on issues raised during the public comment period in accordance with ORS chapter 183 and any procedures adopted by EFSC.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the council holds a public hearing on the application, staff issues its final proposed order recommending approval or rejection of the application.”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2005) or “ORS 469.370(1). The council then holds one or more public hearings regarding the ASC and the draft proposed order in the area affected by the ASC and elsewhere, as the council considers necessary.”
Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Northwest Natural Gas Co. (2003) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the OOE issues its draft, the council must hold one or more public hearings on the application in areas that the proposed facility will affect and elsewhere, when the council considers it necessary.”
Blue Mountain Alliance v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2013) or “ORS 469.370(7). Under that statute, the council must base its approval on identified, council-adopted standards adopted under ORS 469.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.370(8) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or “ORS 469.370(1). After the council holds a public hearing on the application, staff issues its final proposed order recommending approval or rejection of the application.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.