Chapter 469
469.160 to 469.180
See annotations under ORS 469B.100 to 469B.118.
469.190 to 469.225
See annotations under ORS 469B.130 to 469B.169.
469.200
See annotations under ORS 469B.142.
469.206
See annotations under ORS 469B.148.
469.300 to 469.570
NOTES OF DECISIONS
The Energy Facility Siting Council failed to adopt sufficient standards concerning financial ability, qualifications to construct and operate, and power needs. Marbet v. Portland General Electric, 277 Or 447, 561 P2d 154 (1977)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Permits, licenses and certificate requirements for “executed site certificate,” (1974) Vol 37, p 103; appointment and reappointment of Council members, (1979) Vol 39, p 619
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 13 WLJ 499 (1977); 57 OLR 334 (1978)
469.300
NOTES OF DECISIONS
“Related or supporting facilities,” as used in this section, did not include all land owned by applicant for energy facility site certificate at applicant’s plant site. Teledyne Wah Chang v. Energy Fac. Siting Council, 298 Or 240, 692 P2d 86 (1984)
Energy Facility Siting Council has option to interpret definition of radioactive waste either through interpretive order or by rulemaking. Forelaws on Board v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 306 Or 205, 760 P2d 212 (1988)
“Application” definitional reference to approval of particular site or sites refers only to initial site certificate applications and not to modifications at existing facility sites. Emerald PUD v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 321 Or 562, 902 P2d 1134 (1995)
469.310
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Exclusive jurisdiction of Federal Power Commission over federal “reserved” lands, (1977) Vol 38, p 1034
469.320 to 469.440
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Site certificate requirement for geothermal pipeline six inches or greater in diameter which will have ultimate length of longer than five miles, (1979) Vol 40, p 186
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 6 EL 898-900 (1976)
469.375
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Standard stated in this section, which focuses on suitability of proposed site, did not permit agency to engage in comparison, but obligated agency to accept or reject proposed site. Teledyne Wah Chang v. Energy Fac. Siting Council, 298 Or 240, 692 P2d 86 (1984)
469.400
(formerly 453.395)
NOTE: Repealed August 2, 1993; ORS 469.401 and 469.403 enacted in lieu
See annotations under ORS 469.401 and 469.403.
469.401
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Phrase “local ordinances and state law and rules of the council” includes local ordinances, state laws and council rules that protect public health and safety. Blue Mountain Alliance v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 353 Or 465, 300 P3d 1203 (2013)
Phrase “local ordinances and state law and rules of the council” does not include local ordinances, state laws or council rules that are land use regulations required by statewide planning goals in effect on date application for proposed facility is submitted. Blue Mountain Alliance v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 353 Or 465, 300 P3d 1203 (2013)
Phrase “local ordinances and state law and rules of the council in effect” refers to local ordinances, state laws and council rules that were determined to apply to facility in course of developing project order under ORS 469.330 or that became effective between project order issuance date and site certificate execution date. Blue Mountain Alliance v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 353 Or 465, 300 P3d 1203 (2013)
“[L]ater adopted laws” includes local ordinances. Blue Mountain Alliance v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 353 Or 465, 300 P3d 1203 (2013)
469.403
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS 469.400)
Energy Facility Siting Council order determining that council lacks authority to require site certificate in particular case is, in effect, “rejection” of application for certificate, and Supreme Court has jurisdiction, under this section, for direct review of order. Forelaws on Board v. Energy Fac. Siting Council, 303 Or 541, 738 P2d 973 (1987)
Petition requesting Energy Facility Siting Council to take actions regarding disposal of allegedly radioactive waste was not tantamount to application for site certificate and, therefore, Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction for direct review of Council’s ruling. Forelaws on Board v. Energy Fac. Siting Council, 311 Or 350, 811 P2d 636 (1991)
In general
Supreme Court authority to review applications for initial site certificates does not extend to site certificate modifications. Emerald PUD v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 321 Or 562, 902 P2d 1134 (1995)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS 469.400)
Permits, licenses and certificate requirements for “executed site certificate,” (1974) Vol 37, p 103; issuance of a site certificate, (1976) Vol 37, p 1438; issuance of permits, etc., to construct transmission line along and over rights-of-way within counties where relevant site certificate has been issued, (1978) Vol 38, p 2185
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS 469.400)
54 OLR 533 (1975); 6 EL 695, 696 (1976)
469.410
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Issuance of a site certificate, (1976) Vol 37, p 1438
469.420
NOTE: Repealed August 21, 1981; ORS 469.421 enacted in lieu
See annotations under ORS 469.421.
469.421
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS 469.420)
Assessments computed on energy-resources-sold basis under this section are tax measured by sale of natural gas and oil, and tax is subject to Art. VIII, section 2(1)(g) and Art. IX, section 3b of Oregon Constitution and therefore dedicated to Common School Fund and not available to Department of Energy. Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Frank, 293 Or 374, 648 P2d 1284 (1982)
469.430
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Scope of federal pre-emption of regulation of radiological matters, (1976) Vol 38, p 478; extent of regulatory authority over radiological materials, (1977) Vol 38, p 999
469.450
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Disclosure of energy-related stockholdings by employer of appointee to Energy Facility Siting Council, (1979) Vol 39, p 752
469.470
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Standards for applicants for certificates may be stated and refined in the course of the proceeding in a manner that allows for public input. Marbet v. Portland General Electric, 277 Or 447, 561 P2d 154 (1977)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Applying later-adopted siting standards to conditional site certificates for additional thermal power plants, (1980) Vol 40, p 401
469.500
NOTE: Repealed August 2, 1993; ORS 469.501, 469.503, 469.505 and 469.507 enacted in lieu
See annotations under ORS 469.501.
469.501
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS 469.500)
Energy Facility Siting Council is directed to exercise its own judgment in setting standards beyond policies stated in statute itself, though consistent with those policies. Marbet v. Portland General Electric, 277 Or 447, 561 P2d 154 (1977)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS 469.510)
Authority over disposition of atomic waste, (1976) Vol 38, p 478
469.504
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Except as expressly provided within statute, Energy Facility Siting Council may not determine facility compliance with statewide planning goals by using combination of different evaluation methods. Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 339 Or 353, 121 P3d 1141 (2005)
Energy Facility Siting Council is not required to compare proposed facility site with other potential sites. Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 339 Or 353, 121 P3d 1141 (2005)
469.510
NOTE: Repealed August 2, 1993; ORS 469.501, 469.503, 469.505 and 469.507 enacted in lieu
See annotations under ORS 469.501.
469.525
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Storage of spent fuel rods at Trojan Nuclear Plant, (1977) Vol 38, p 1630; unlicensed storage or disposal of industrial radioactive wastes, (1978) Vol 38, p 1980
469.553
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to review Energy Facility Siting Council’s decision that site certificate was not required, in light of statute that confers upon Supreme Court judicial review of council’s “approval or rejection of an application for a site certificate.” Forelaws on Board v. Energy Facility Siting Coun., 307 Or 327, 767 P2d 899 (1989)
469.556
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Energy Facility Siting Council may apply ORS 469.375 siting standards to disposal of uranium mine overburden and may prohibit siting within 500-year flood plain of stream or creek. Fremont Lumber Co. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 331 Or 566, 16 P3d 1147 (2001)