1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
83rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2025 Regular Session
HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO
HOUSE BILL 3681
By COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT
April 16
On page 1 of the printed bill, line 2, delete “215.213, 215.283,”.
On page 2, line 15, after “shall” insert “make every effort to”.
On page 3, line 23, after the period insert “The earliest date that the council may require con-
struction of a facility to begin is six years from the date the council issues the site certificate.”.
Delete lines 37 through 45 and delete pages 4 and 5.
On page 6, delete lines 1 through 17 and insert:
“SECTION 2. ORS 469.403 is amended to read:
“469.403. (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 [Energy Fa-
cility Siting] 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 dem-
onstrating 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
LC 2730/HB 3681-5 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
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 con-
tested 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 Su-
preme Court shall give priority on its docket to such a petition for review and shall render a deci-
sion 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 sub-
section (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.
“SECTION 3. ORS 469.405 is amended to read:
“469.405. (1) A site certificate may be amended with the approval of the Energy Facility Siting
Council. The council may establish by rule the type of amendment that [must] may be considered
HA to HB 3681 Page 2 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
in a contested case proceeding. [Judicial review of an amendment to a site certificate shall be as
provided in ORS 469.403.] Notwithstanding ORS 183.482 and 183.484, judicial review of the
council’s approval or rejection of a request for an amendment to a site certificate or decision
related to or arising from a contested case on an amendment, regardless of whether a con-
tested case was held prior to the council’s decision, is conferred solely on the Supreme
Court. If a contested case is not held, only the certificate holder or persons who submitted
comments on the request for an amendment in compliance with council rules may seek ju-
dicial review. A certificate holder or person who seeks judicial review is limited to the issues
the certificate holder or the person raised in their comments.
“(2) Notwithstanding ORS 34.020 or 197.825, or any other provision of law, the land use approval
by an affected local government of a proposed amendment to a facility and the recommendation of
the special advisory group of applicable substantive criteria shall be subject to judicial review only
as provided in ORS 469.403. If the applicant elects to show compliance with the statewide planning
goals by demonstrating that the facility has received local land use approval, the provisions of this
section shall apply only to proposed projects for which the land use approval by the local govern-
ment occurs after the date an application for amendment is submitted to the State Department of
Energy.
“(3) An amendment to a site certificate is not required for a pipeline less than 16 inches in di-
ameter and less than five miles in length that is proposed to be constructed to test or maintain an
underground gas storage reservoir. If the proposed pipeline will connect to a council certified sur-
face facility related to an underground gas storage reservoir or to a council certified gas pipeline,
whether the proposed pipeline is to be located inside or outside the site of a council certified facil-
ity, the certificate holder must obtain, prior to construction, the approval of the department for the
construction, operation and retirement of the proposed pipeline. The department shall approve such
a proposed pipeline if the pipeline meets applicable council substantive standards. Notwithstanding
ORS 469.503 (3), the department may not review the proposed pipeline for compliance with other
state standards. Notwithstanding ORS 469.503 (4), or any council rule addressing compliance with
land use standards, the department shall not review such a proposed pipeline for compliance with
land use requirements.Notwithstanding ORS 469.401 (3), the approval by the department of such
pipeline shall not bind any state or local agency. The council may adopt appropriate procedural
rules for the department review. The department shall issue an order approving or rejecting the
proposed pipeline. Judicial review of a department order under this section shall be as provided in
ORS 469.403.
“(4) Subject to applicable rules adopted by the council, a person who holds a site certif-
icate may request to add area to the approved site boundary without the council requiring
an amendment to the site certificate.”.
On page 8 , delete lines 5 through 45 and delete pages 9 through 23.
On page 24, delete lines 1 through 34.
In line 38, delete “8” and insert “6”.
HA to HB 3681 Page 3