Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.403

Final order approving or rejecting application for site certificate or amendment; rehearing; appeal; judicial review vested in Supreme Court; stay of order

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

      469.403 Final order approving or rejecting application for site certificate or amendment; rehearing; appeal; judicial review vested in Supreme Court; stay of order. (1) The Energy Facility Siting Council shall include in all of the council’s final orders approving or rejecting an application for a site certificate or amended site certificate any decisions related to or arising from a contested case on the application. Any party or limited party to a contested case proceeding may apply for rehearing within 30 days from the date the approval or rejection is served. The date of service shall be the date on which the council delivered or mailed its approval or rejection in accordance with ORS 183.470. The application for rehearing shall set forth specifically the ground upon which the application is based. No objection to the council’s approval or rejection of an application for a site certificate or a site certificate amendment shall be considered on rehearing without good cause shown unless the basis for the objection is urged with reasonable specificity before the council in the site certificate or amended site certificate process. Upon such application, the council shall have the power to grant or deny rehearing or to abrogate or modify its order without further hearing. Unless the council acts upon the application for rehearing within 30 days after the application is filed, the application shall be considered denied. The filing of an application for rehearing shall not, unless specifically ordered by the council, operate as a stay of the site certificate or amended site certificate for the facility.

      (2) Any party or limited party to a contested case proceeding on a site certificate or amended site certificate application may appeal a final order issued by the council under ORS 469.300 to 469.563, 469.590 to 469.619, 469.930 and 469.992, including the council’s approval or rejection of the site certificate or amended site certificate application. Issues on appeal shall be limited to those raised by the parties or limited parties to the contested case proceeding before the council. To appeal a final order, a petitioner shall establish individual or associational standing by demonstrating an injury to the petitioner or petitioner’s members resulting from the final order.

      (3) Notwithstanding ORS 183.482 and 183.484, jurisdiction for judicial review of the council’s approval or rejection of an application for a site certificate or amended site certificate, including decisions related to or arising from a contested case on an application for a site certificate or amended site certificate, is conferred upon the Supreme Court. Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the Supreme Court. The petition shall be filed within 60 days after the date of service of the council’s final order approving or rejecting a site certificate or amended site certificate or within 30 days after the date the petition for rehearing is denied or deemed denied. Date of service shall be the date on which the council delivered or mailed its order in accordance with ORS 183.470.

      (4) The filing of a petition for judicial review may not stay the order approving or rejecting a site certificate or amended site certificate, except that a party or limited party to the contested case, or any other person seeking judicial review of a decision related to or arising from a contested case, may apply to the Supreme Court for a stay upon a showing that there is a colorable claim of error and that:

      (a) The petitioner will suffer irreparable injury; or

      (b) Construction of the energy facility will result in irreparable harm to resources protected by applicable council standards or applicable agency or local government standards.

      (5) If the Supreme Court grants a stay pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, the court:

      (a) Shall require the petitioner requesting the stay to give an undertaking in the amount of $5,000.

      (b) May grant a stay in whole or in part.

      (c) May impose other reasonable conditions on the stay.

      (6) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 469.320 and this section, the review by the Supreme Court shall be the same as the review by the Court of Appeals described in ORS 183.482. The Supreme Court shall give priority on its docket to such a petition for review and shall render a decision within six months of the filing of the petition for review.

      (7) The following periods of delay shall be excluded from the six-month period within which the court must render a decision under subsection (6) of this section:

      (a) Any period of delay resulting from a motion properly before the court; or

      (b) Any reasonable period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court on the court’s own motion or at the request of one of the parties, if the court granted the continuance on the basis of findings that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the other parties in having a decision within six months.

      (8) No period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the Supreme Court under subsection (7)(b) of this section shall be excluded from the six-month period unless the court sets forth, in the record, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the other parties in having a decision within six months. The factors the court shall consider in determining whether to grant a continuance under subsection (7)(b) of this section are:

      (a) Whether the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of the proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of justice; or

      (b) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of parties involved or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate consideration of the issues within the six-month period.

      (9) No continuance under subsection (7)(b) of this section shall be granted because of general congestion of the court calendar or lack of diligent preparation or attention to the case by any member of the court or any party. [1993 c.569 §12 (469.401 and 469.403 enacted in lieu of 469.400); 1995 c.505 §13; 1999 c.385 §4; 2001 c.683 §12; 2025 c.305 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting Council
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting Council (1994) or · cites it 8× “NOTES [1] ORS 469.403(3) requires this court to exercise direct review of challenges to such orders.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or · cites it 8× “Standards for judicial review are contained in ORS 469.403. For some proposed facilities, the applicant may request expedited processing of a site certificate application.”
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy (2023) or · cites it 4× “ORS 469.403(2), (3). ORS 469.501(1) authorizes EFSC to adopt standards for the siting, construction, and operation of an energy facil- ity.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun. (2020) or · cites it 2× “The council maintained that contested cases are usually more complicated than noncontested cases. So, according to the council, it would not make sense to limit the avail- ability of review in complicated contested cases, but not also limit the availability of review in less…”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2005) or · cites it 3× “ORS 469.403(3) (providing for direct review by this comb in such cases).”
Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Northwest Natural Gas Co. (2003) or “ORS 469.403(6); ORS 183.482(8)(a). In the cases before us, the parties raise issues that require review for legal error and substantial evidence only.”
Gilbert /March v. Dept. of Energy (2025) or · cites it 8× “Energy Facility Siting, 339 Or 353, 377 , 121 P3d 1141 (2005), we concluded that, although ORS 469.403 did not allow petitioners to “directly challenge [EFSC’s] denial of their request for rulemaking in this proceeding,” that statute gave this court jurisdiction to consider…”
Emerald Peoples Utility District v. Energy Facility Siting Council (1995) or · cites it 11× “The EFSC and Portland General Electric (PGE) 1 assert as an initial matter that this court does not have jurisdiction under ORS 469.403(3) (1993) to hear petitioners’ appeal.”
Blue Mountain Alliance v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2013) or · cites it 3× “405(1) additionally provides that judicial review of an amended site certificate shall be as provided in ORS 469.403. 2 In 2011, the county had adopted a similar ordinance, which was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun. (2021) orctapp · cites it 3× “” 4 We note that ORS 469.403(3) provides that “[j]urisdiction for judicial review of the council’s approval or rejection of an application for a site certificate or amended site certificate is conferred upon the Supreme Court.”
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy (2024) or · cites it 3× “ORS 469.403(2), (3). Cite as 372 Or 194 (2024) 199 C.”
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy (2024) or · cites it 3× “ORS 469.403(2), (3). Cite as 372 Or 194 (2024) 199 C.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.403(1) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or “Standards for judicial review are contained in ORS 469.403. For some proposed facilities, the applicant may request expedited processing of a site certificate application.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.403(2) — 5 cases
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy (2023) or “ORS 469.403(2), (3). ORS 469.501(1) authorizes EFSC to adopt standards for the siting, construction, and operation of an energy facil- ity.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun. (2020) or “The council maintained that contested cases are usually more complicated than noncontested cases. So, according to the council, it would not make sense to limit the avail- ability of review in complicated contested cases, but not also limit the availability of review in less…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or “Standards for judicial review are contained in ORS 469.403. For some proposed facilities, the applicant may request expedited processing of a site certificate application.”
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy (2024) or “ORS 469.403(2), (3). Cite as 372 Or 194 (2024) 199 C.”
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy (2024) or “ORS 469.403(2), (3). Cite as 372 Or 194 (2024) 199 C.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.403(3) — 9 cases
Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting Council (1994) or “NOTES [1] ORS 469.403(3) requires this court to exercise direct review of challenges to such orders.”
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy (2023) or “ORS 469.403(2), (3). ORS 469.501(1) authorizes EFSC to adopt standards for the siting, construction, and operation of an energy facil- ity.”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2005) or “ORS 469.403(3) (providing for direct review by this comb in such cases).”
Emerald Peoples Utility District v. Energy Facility Siting Council (1995) or “The EFSC and Portland General Electric (PGE) 1 assert as an initial matter that this court does not have jurisdiction under ORS 469.403(3) (1993) to hear petitioners’ appeal.”
Gilbert /March v. Dept. of Energy (2025) or “Energy Facility Siting, 339 Or 353, 377 , 121 P3d 1141 (2005), we concluded that, although ORS 469.403 did not allow petitioners to “directly challenge [EFSC’s] denial of their request for rulemaking in this proceeding,” that statute gave this court jurisdiction to consider…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.403(5) — 1 case
Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting Council (1994) or “NOTES [1] ORS 469.403(3) requires this court to exercise direct review of challenges to such orders.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.403(6) — 10 cases
Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting Council (1994) or “NOTES [1] ORS 469.403(3) requires this court to exercise direct review of challenges to such orders.”
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy (2023) or “ORS 469.403(2), (3). ORS 469.501(1) authorizes EFSC to adopt standards for the siting, construction, and operation of an energy facil- ity.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun. (2020) or “The council maintained that contested cases are usually more complicated than noncontested cases. So, according to the council, it would not make sense to limit the avail- ability of review in complicated contested cases, but not also limit the availability of review in less…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2019) or “Standards for judicial review are contained in ORS 469.403. For some proposed facilities, the applicant may request expedited processing of a site certificate application.”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council (2005) or “ORS 469.403(3) (providing for direct review by this comb in such cases).”
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.