Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 345 - DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCIL
Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 345 – Department of Energy, Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC)
Overview
The Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) is a regulatory body within the Oregon Department of Energy charged with the responsibility to license and oversee the siting, construction, and operation of large energy facilities in Oregon. The Council's mission is to balance energy development needs with environmental protection, public safety, and community interests.
OAR Chapter 345 contains the detailed administrative rules governing EFSC’s procedures, standards, application processes, and enforcement actions.
Statutory and Legal Framework
EFSC derives its authority primarily from ORS Chapter 469, the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Act, which:
Establishes EFSC’s jurisdiction over large energy facilities such as power plants, transmission lines, and related infrastructure.
Requires developers to obtain a site certificate before constructing or operating a qualifying energy facility.
Sets standards for environmental protection, public involvement, and land use compatibility.
OAR Chapter 345 implements and elaborates on these statutory requirements by detailing application procedures, public hearing protocols, and compliance obligations.
Key Areas Covered by OAR Chapter 345
1. Jurisdiction and Applicability
Defines what constitutes a large energy facility subject to EFSC jurisdiction (typically those above certain size thresholds or with significant environmental impacts).
Specifies exemptions, such as smaller facilities regulated by local authorities.
2. Site Certificate Application Process
Sets the detailed process for submitting a site certificate application (SCA), including required technical studies, environmental impact analyses, and proposed mitigation measures.
Application content requirements include descriptions of the facility, location, design, and potential environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Requires a detailed public involvement plan to solicit community feedback.
3. Public Participation and Hearings
Procedures for public notice, comment periods, and public hearings.
Requirements for Council to consider public input when making siting decisions.
Hearings are typically quasi-judicial, with parties allowed to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
4. Criteria for Approval
EFSC must find that the proposed facility:
Complies with all applicable laws and regulations.
Minimizes adverse environmental and social impacts.
Is compatible with local land use plans.
Provides adequate mitigation for any unavoidable impacts.
EFSC can impose conditions on the site certificate to ensure compliance and protection of public interests.
5. Compliance and Enforcement
Monitoring requirements for site certificate holders.
Procedures for reporting, inspections, and responding to violations.
Enforcement actions include fines, suspension, or revocation of certificates.
6. Amendments and Transfer of Site Certificates
Procedures for modifying an existing site certificate.
Rules governing transfer or assignment of certificates to new owners/operators.
Relevant Case Law and Legal Principles
Several Oregon cases have addressed EFSC’s authority, procedural requirements, and substantive standards, providing important guidance on the application of OAR Chapter 345.
1. Friends of Yamhill County v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 73 Or. App. 369 (1985)
Issue: Whether EFSC properly considered environmental impacts in issuing a site certificate.
Holding: The court held EFSC must engage in thorough environmental review consistent with statutory mandates.
Significance: Emphasized EFSC’s duty to rigorously evaluate environmental impacts under ORS 469 and OAR 345.
2. Portland General Electric v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 300 Or. 195 (1986)
Issue: Whether EFSC’s site certificate conditions exceeded its statutory authority.
Holding: The Oregon Supreme Court held EFSC’s conditions must be reasonably related to mitigating impacts caused by the facility.
Significance: Defined limits on EFSC’s authority to impose conditions, requiring nexus and proportionality.
3. Friends of Oregon v. EFSC, 190 Or. App. 176 (2003)
Issue: Adequacy of public participation and notice under OAR 345.
Holding: The court affirmed that EFSC must provide meaningful opportunities for public involvement consistent with administrative fairness.
Significance: Reinforced procedural safeguards in OAR Chapter 345 related to public hearings and notice.
4. Oregon Dept. of Energy v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 142 Or. App. 29 (1996)
Issue: Enforcement of compliance with site certificate conditions.
Holding: EFSC has authority to monitor and enforce conditions and to impose sanctions for violations.
Significance: Supports OAR 345 provisions on monitoring and enforcement.
Practical Application of OAR Chapter 345
Energy developers must thoroughly prepare site certificate applications meeting OAR 345 requirements, including environmental analyses and public outreach.
Communities and stakeholders have opportunities to participate in siting decisions through public comment and hearings.
EFSC balances energy needs with environmental and social concerns, imposing conditions to minimize negative impacts.
Compliance monitoring ensures ongoing protection during facility operation.
Summary Table
| Topic | Key OAR 345 Provisions | Case Law Example |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Definition of large energy facilities | Friends of Yamhill County v. EFSC (1985) |
| Application Process | Site certificate requirements and content | Portland General Electric v. EFSC (1986) |
| Public Participation | Notice, hearings, public comment | Friends of Oregon v. EFSC (2003) |
| Approval Criteria | Environmental, land use, mitigation standards | Portland General Electric v. EFSC (1986) |
| Enforcement | Monitoring, reporting, penalties | Oregon Dept. of Energy v. EFSC (1996) |
Conclusion
OAR Chapter 345 comprehensively governs the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council’s licensing and oversight of large energy facilities. It ensures a structured, transparent process that requires thorough environmental review, meaningful public participation, and rigorous enforcement of conditions. Oregon courts have upheld EFSC’s authority while requiring adherence to procedural fairness and statutory limits on regulatory power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments