The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) recently finalized rules clarifying its contested case procedures for energy project siting. These updates aim to improve clarity, align procedures with broader administrative rules, and address participation criteria for stakeholders. A contested case hearing resembles an administrative trial and is a culminating step in EFSC’s certification process.

UPDATE 10/30/2024 An update to this post is available here.
The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council recently finalized rule changes clarifying contested case procedures for large-scale energy project approvals. Key updates include more specific requirements for public participation—such as detailing objections in comments and petitions—and expanding opportunities for issue-raising in contested cases. Additionally, the

On June 30, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 205 (“AB 205”), which, among various other things, expands the siting jurisdiction of the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) to include non-thermal generating facilities, such as solar and wind projects, with a capacity of 50 megawatts (MW) or more.  The CEC’s siting jurisdiction was previously

On January 29, 2019, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, the state’s land use agency, filed temporary rules amending the standards for siting solar PV facilities on agricultural lands.  Although the Land Conservation and Development Commission stopped short of making the changes permanent in order to further consider stakeholder interests at its May

On June 21, 2018, the United States District Court, District of Minnesota issued an order and memorandum rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 216B.246 and granting defendants’ motions to dismiss. The statute, which was enacted after FERC Order 1000 (and eliminating the federal right of first refusal or “ROFR”), provides incumbent

Stoel Rives’ Energy Team has been monitoring and providing summaries of key energy-related bills introduced by California legislators since the beginning of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Legislators have been busy moving bills through the legislative process since reconvening from the Summer Recess. For any bill not identified as a two-year bill, the deadline for each house to pass the bill and present it to the Governor for signature or veto was September 15, 2017. Below is a summary and status of bills we have been following.

An enrolled bill is one that has been through the proof-reading process and is sent to the Governor to take action. A two-year bill is a bill taken out of consideration during the first year of a regular legislative session, with the intent of taking it up again during the second half of the session.

  • Of particular note here is SB 100, California’s pitch for 100 percent renewable energy, failed to move to the next stage of the process and is kicked to next year.
  • Our next blog post, after October 15, will provide an update on whether those bills sent to Governor Brown were signed or vetoed.

Continue Reading Updates to Energy Related Bills in the 2017-2018 California Legislative Session

Stoel Rives’ Energy Team has been monitoring and providing summaries of key energy-related bills introduced by California legislators since the beginning of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. June 2, 2017 was the deadline by which the legislature was required to pass bills out of the house of origin.  Failing to meet that deadline does not automatically prevent a bill from proceeding through the legislative process; however, such failure will prevent the bill from being considered by the full legislature or the Governor during the first half of the Legislative Session.  Below is a summary of bills we have been following that have most recently changed.  We will continue to monitor and update these energy-related bills as the legislative session proceeds.

Assembly Bills

AB 79 (Levine, D): Electrical generation: hourly greenhouse gas emissions: electricity from unspecified sources.
STATUS: Ordered to Senate June 1, 2017.

  • Initially introduced as a bill to decrease the amount energy consumed from coal-fired generation resources, AB 79 was revamped to require, by January 1, 2019, the State Air Resources Board (CARB), in consultation with the Independent System Operator (ISO), to regularly update its methodology for the calculation of emissions of greenhouse gases associated with electricity from unspecified sources. The bill would require the CPUC and the CEC to incorporate the methodology into programs addressing the disclosure of the emissions of greenhouse gases and the procurement of electricity by entities under the respective jurisdiction of each.

Continue Reading Updates to Energy Related Bills in the 2017-2018 California Legislative Session

Over 40 percent of the lands in Malheur County have been designated as core habitat for sage grouse by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW"). Other counties in southeastern Oregon are also heavily affected. ODFW’s approach was to simply recommend against any development in core habitat, without consideration whether off-site mitigation could result

We’re very pleased to report on a significant energy siting victory achieved by our client SDS Lumber Co. and its subsidiary, Whistling Ridge Energy LLC, at the Washington Supreme Court yesterday. We believe the decision sets an important precedent for energy facility siting in Washington. The case is Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save our Scenic Area vs. State Energy Facility Siting Council and Governor Gregoire, et. al., No. 88089-1.

At issue was the approval of a wind energy project to be sited near the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Then-Washington Governor Christine Gregoire had approved the project in March 2012 following recommendation by the State of Washington’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). Two environmental groups, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save our Scenic Area, then sued in an attempt to get the site approval overturned.

On August 29, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled there was "no basis" to reverse the EFSEC’s recommendation or the Governor’s approval, and dismissed the appeal. In so doing, the Court gave an unequivocal affirmation for an objective, criteria-based process for the approval of energy projects. The Court confirmed that it will defer to EFSEC and the Governor when the siting decision demonstrates consideration of the entire record and sound application of regulatory standards.

Stoel Rives represented Whistling Ridge Energy, LLC, throughout the three-year approval process, and prevailed in demonstrating the project’s compliance with a host of federal, state and local regulatory standards. As the Court noted (quoting EFSEC), the comprehensive approval process "set a record for length, volume, and number of issues addressed." We subsequently represented Whistling Ridge throughout the trial and appeals process.Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Establishes Important Energy Siting Precedent