469.504
Facility compliance with statewide planning goals; exception; amendment of
local plan and land use regulations; conflicts; technical assistance; rules. (1) A proposed facility shall be
found in compliance with the statewide planning goals under ORS 469.503 (4) if:
(a) The facility
has received local land use approval under the acknowledged comprehensive plan
and land use regulations of the affected local government; or
(b) The Energy
Facility Siting Council determines that:
(A) The facility
complies with applicable substantive criteria from the affected local
government’s acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations that are
required by the statewide planning goals and in effect on the date the
application is submitted, and with any Land Conservation and Development
Commission administrative rules and goals and any land use statutes that apply
directly to the facility under ORS 197.646;
(B) For an energy
facility or a related or supporting facility that must be evaluated against the
applicable substantive criteria pursuant to subsection (5) of this section,
that the proposed facility does not comply with one or more of the applicable
substantive criteria but does otherwise comply with the applicable statewide
planning goals, or that an exception to any applicable statewide planning goal
is justified under subsection (2) of this section; or
(C) For a
facility that the council elects to evaluate against the statewide planning
goals pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, that the proposed facility
complies with the applicable statewide planning goals or that an exception to
any applicable statewide planning goal is justified under subsection (2) of
this section.
(2) The council
may find goal compliance for a facility that does not otherwise comply with one
or more statewide planning goals by taking an exception to the applicable goal.
Notwithstanding the requirements of ORS 197.732, the statewide planning goal pertaining
to the exception process or any rules of the Land Conservation and Development
Commission pertaining to an exception process goal, the council may take an
exception to a goal if the council finds:
(a) The land
subject to the exception is physically developed to the extent that the land is
no longer available for uses allowed by the applicable goal;
(b) The land
subject to the exception is irrevocably committed as described by the rules of
the Land Conservation and Development Commission to uses not allowed by the
applicable goal because existing adjacent uses and other relevant factors make
uses allowed by the applicable goal impracticable; or
(c) The following
standards are met:
(A) Reasons
justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goal should not apply;
(B) The
significant environmental, economic, social and energy consequences anticipated
as a result of the proposed facility have been identified and adverse impacts
will be mitigated in accordance with rules of the council applicable to the
siting of the proposed facility; and
(C) The proposed
facility is compatible with other adjacent uses or will be made compatible
through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts.
(3) If compliance
with applicable substantive local criteria and applicable statutes and state
administrative rules would result in conflicting conditions in the site
certificate or amended site certificate, the council shall resolve the conflict
consistent with the public interest. A resolution may not result in a waiver of
any applicable state statute.
(4) An applicant
for a site certificate shall elect whether to demonstrate compliance with the
statewide planning goals under subsection (1)(a) or (b) of this section. The
applicant shall make the election on or before the date specified by the
council by rule.
(5) Upon request
by the State Department of Energy, the special advisory group established under
ORS 469.480 shall recommend to the council, within the time stated in the
request, the applicable substantive criteria under subsection (1)(b)(A) of this
section. If the special advisory group does not recommend applicable
substantive criteria within the time established in the department’s request,
the council may either determine and apply the applicable substantive criteria
under subsection (1)(b) of this section or determine compliance with the
statewide planning goals under subsection (1)(b)(B) or (C) of this section. If
the special advisory group recommends applicable substantive criteria for an
energy facility described in ORS 469.300 or a related or supporting facility
that does not pass through more than one local government jurisdiction or more
than three zones in any one jurisdiction, the council shall apply the criteria
recommended by the special advisory group. If the special advisory group
recommends applicable substantive criteria for an energy facility as defined in
ORS 469.300 (12)(a)(C) to (E) or a related or supporting facility that passes
through more than one jurisdiction or more than three zones in any one
jurisdiction, the council shall review the recommended criteria and determine
whether to evaluate the proposed facility against the applicable substantive
criteria recommended by the special advisory group, against the statewide
planning goals or against a combination of the applicable substantive criteria
and statewide planning goals. In making its determination, the council shall
consult with the special advisory group and shall consider:
(a) The number of
jurisdictions and zones in question;
(b) The degree to
which the applicable substantive criteria reflect local government
consideration of energy facilities in the planning process; and
(c) The level of
consistency of the applicable substantive criteria from the various zones and
jurisdictions.
(6) The council
is not subject to ORS 197.180 and a state agency may not require an applicant
for a site certificate to comply with any rules or programs adopted under ORS
197.180.
(7) On or before
its next periodic review, each affected local government shall amend its
comprehensive plan and land use regulations as necessary to reflect the
decision of the council pertaining to a site certificate or amended site
certificate.
(8)
Notwithstanding ORS 34.020 or 197.825 or any other provision of law, the
affected local government’s land use approval of a proposed facility under
subsection (1)(a) of this section and the special advisory group’s
recommendation of applicable substantive criteria under subsection (5) of this
section shall be subject to judicial review only as provided in ORS 469.403. If
the applicant elects to comply with subsection (1)(a) of this section, the
provisions of this subsection shall apply only to proposed projects for which
the land use approval of the local government occurs after the date a notice of
intent or an application for expedited processing is submitted to the State
Department of Energy.
(9) The State
Department of Energy, in cooperation with other state agencies, shall provide,
to the extent possible, technical assistance and information about the siting
process to local governments that request such assistance or that anticipate
having a facility proposed in their jurisdiction. [1997 c.428 §5; 1999 c.385 §10;
2001 c.134 §11; 2003 c.186 §79; 2005 c.829 §12; 2024 c.25 §4]
Note: 469.504 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 469
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
Notes of Decisions
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 64× “As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy, 525 P.3d 864 (Or. 2023).
· cites it 3× “In Stop B2H’s view, if the legislature had intended to give EFSC the authority to grant excep- tions and variances from noise regulations, it would have stated that expressly, as it did in ORS 469.504(2) (authoriz- ing EFSC to grant exceptions to statewide planning goals).”
Blue Mountain All. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 300 P.3d 1203 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 53× “In Save Our Rural Oregon, 339 Or at 361 , this court explained the underlying purpose of ORS 469.504: “Oregon’s statewide land use planning goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), set out broad objectives for land use planning in Oregon.”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
· cites it 94× ““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
· cites it 93× “” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(1) — 2 cases
Blue Mountain All. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 300 P.3d 1203 (Or. 2013).
“In Save Our Rural Oregon, 339 Or at 361 , this court explained the underlying purpose of ORS 469.504: “Oregon’s statewide land use planning goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), set out broad objectives for land use planning in Oregon.”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(1)(a) — 3 cases
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
“” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(1)(b) — 3 cases
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
“” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(1)(b)(A) — 4 cases
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
Blue Mountain All. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 300 P.3d 1203 (Or. 2013).
“In Save Our Rural Oregon, 339 Or at 361 , this court explained the underlying purpose of ORS 469.504: “Oregon’s statewide land use planning goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), set out broad objectives for land use planning in Oregon.”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
“” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(1)(b)(B) — 3 cases
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
“” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(1)(b)(C) — 3 cases
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
“” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(2) — 4 cases
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy, 525 P.3d 864 (Or. 2023).
“In Stop B2H’s view, if the legislature had intended to give EFSC the authority to grant excep- tions and variances from noise regulations, it would have stated that expressly, as it did in ORS 469.504(2) (authoriz- ing EFSC to grant exceptions to statewide planning goals).”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
“” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(2)(c) — 1 case
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(2)(c)(A) — 1 case
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(2)(c)(B) — 1 case
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(2)(c)(C) — 1 case
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(3) — 1 case
Blue Mountain All. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 300 P.3d 1203 (Or. 2013).
“In Save Our Rural Oregon, 339 Or at 361 , this court explained the underlying purpose of ORS 469.504: “Oregon’s statewide land use planning goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), set out broad objectives for land use planning in Oregon.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(4) — 3 cases
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
“” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(5) — 3 cases
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
“” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(6) — 2 cases
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
“” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(7) — 2 cases
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
““(2) * * * * * [8] “(3) Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance and except for those statutes and rules for which the decision on compliance has been delegated by the federal government to a state agency other than the council, the facility complies with all…”
Umatilla Cnty. v. Dept. of Energy (Or. 2024).
“” ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(A); see also OAR 345-022-0030(3) (providing same definition of “applicable substantive criteria”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(l) — 1 case
Blue Mountain All. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 300 P.3d 1203 (Or. 2013).
“In Save Our Rural Oregon, 339 Or at 361 , this court explained the underlying purpose of ORS 469.504: “Oregon’s statewide land use planning goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), set out broad objectives for land use planning in Oregon.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(l)(b) — 2 cases
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
Blue Mountain All. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 300 P.3d 1203 (Or. 2013).
“In Save Our Rural Oregon, 339 Or at 361 , this court explained the underlying purpose of ORS 469.504: “Oregon’s statewide land use planning goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), set out broad objectives for land use planning in Oregon.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(l)(b)(A) — 1 case
Blue Mountain All. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 300 P.3d 1203 (Or. 2013).
“In Save Our Rural Oregon, 339 Or at 361 , this court explained the underlying purpose of ORS 469.504: “Oregon’s statewide land use planning goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), set out broad objectives for land use planning in Oregon.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.504(l)(b)(B) — 1 case
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005).
“As to the one respect in which the council erred — its interpretation of ORS 469.504, which sets out the procedure for determining a proposed facility’s compliance with land use planning goals — we nevertheless conclude that the council correctly determined that the proposed…”
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.