Bill Text: OR SB230 | 2013 | Regular Session | Enrolled
Bill Title: Relating to critical infrastructure development.
Sponsorship: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2)
Status: (Passed) 2013-06-13 - Effective date, January 1, 2014. [SB230 Detail]
Download: Oregon-2013-SB230-Enrolled.html
77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2013 Regular Session
Enrolled
Senate Bill 230
Sponsored by Senator HASS, Representative READ (Presession
filed.)
CHAPTER ................
AN ACT
Relating to critical infrastructure development; creating new
provisions; and amending ORS 756.610 and 758.015.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORS 758.015 is amended to read:
758.015. (1) When any person, as defined in ORS 758.400,
providing electric utility service, as defined in ORS 758.400, or
any transmission company, proposes to construct an overhead
transmission line which will necessitate a condemnation of land
or an interest therein, it shall petition the Public Utility
Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
setting forth a detailed description and the purpose of the
proposed transmission line, the estimated cost, the route to be
followed, the availability of alternate routes, a description of
other transmission lines connecting the same areas, and such
other information in such form as the commission may reasonably
require in determining the public convenience and necessity.
(2) The commission shall give notice and hold a public hearing
on such petition. The commission, in addition to considering
facts presented at such hearing, shall make the commission's own
investigation to determine the necessity, safety, practicability
and justification in the public interest for the proposed
transmission line and shall enter an order accordingly. { +
Except for petitions for a proposed transmission line for which
the petitioner also seeks approval from the Energy Facility
Siting Council for the same transmission line, + } the order
shall be subject to review as in other cases. { + Orders on
petitions for a proposed transmission line for which the
petitioner also seeks approval from the Energy Facility Siting
Council for the same transmission line are subject to judicial
review in the same manner as an order in a contested case as set
forth in section 3 of this 2013 Act. + } In any proceeding for
condemnation, a certified copy of such order shall be conclusive
evidence that the transmission line for which the land is
required is a public use and necessary for public convenience.
(3) This section shall not apply to construction of
transmission lines in connection with a project for which a
permit or license is otherwise obtained pursuant to state or
federal law.
(4) As used in this section and ORS 758.020, 'transmission
company' means a person or entity that owns or operates high
voltage transmission lines and is subject to the jurisdiction of
Enrolled Senate Bill 230 (SB 230-A) Page 1
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 'Transmission company '
does not include a cooperative organized under ORS chapter 62.
SECTION 2. { + Section 3 of this 2013 Act is added to and made
a part of ORS chapter 758. + }
SECTION 3. { + (1) Any party to a contested case hearing
related to the application for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity under ORS 758.015 for a proposed
transmission line for which the petitioner also seeks approval
from the Energy Facility Siting Council for the same transmission
line may appeal the Public Utility Commission's grant or denial
of the application. Issues on appeal shall be limited to those
raised by the parties to the contested case hearing before the
commission.
(2) Jurisdiction for judicial review of the commission's
approval or rejection of an application for a certificate of
public convenience and necessity under subsection (1) of this
section 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 after the date
of service of the commission's final order. Date of service shall
be the date on which the commission delivered or mailed the final
order in accordance with ORS 183.470.
(3) The filing of a petition for judicial review may not stay
the order, except that a party to the contested case hearing may
apply to the Supreme Court for a stay upon a showing that there
is a colorable claim of error and that the petitioner will suffer
irreparable injury.
(4) If the Supreme Court grants a stay pursuant to subsection
(3) 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 the stay in whole or in part.
(c) May impose other reasonable conditions on the stay.
(5) The review by the Supreme Court shall be the same as the
review by the Court of Appeals described in ORS 183.482. The
Supreme Court shall give priority on its docket to a petition for
review under this section and render a decision within six months
of the filing of the petition for review.
(6) The following periods of delay shall be excluded from the
six-month period within which the court must render a decision
under subsection (5) 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.
(7) No period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by
the Supreme Court under subsection (6)(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, the court's
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 (6)(b) of this section are:
Enrolled Senate Bill 230 (SB 230-A) Page 2
(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, because of
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.
(8) No continuance under subsection (6)(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 4. ORS 756.610 is amended to read:
756.610. (1) Except as provided in { - subsection (2) - }
{ + subsections (2) and (3) + } of this section, final orders
of the Public Utility Commission are subject to judicial review
as orders in contested cases under the provisions of ORS 183.480
to 183.497.
(2) ORS 183.482 (3) does not apply to judicial review of an
order of the Public Utility Commission. At any time after filing
a petition for judicial review of a final order of the
commission, the petitioner may apply to the Court of Appeals for
a stay of the order until the final disposition of the appeal.
The court may grant a stay for cause shown. As a condition of
granting a stay, the court may require a bond or other security,
or impose such other conditions as the court deems appropriate. A
stay may be granted only after notice to the commission and
opportunity for hearing. Any bond required by the court must be
executed in favor of the commission for the benefit of interested
persons, and may be enforced by the commission or by any
interested person.
{ + (3) An order of the Public Utility Commission related to
the petition for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under ORS 758.015, where the petitioner also seeks
approval from the Energy Facility Siting Council for the proposed
transmission line, is subject to judicial review as provided in
section 3 of this 2013 Act. + }
SECTION 5. { + Section 3 of this 2013 Act and the amendments
to ORS 756.610 and 758.015 by sections 1 and 4 of this 2013 Act
apply to petitions filed with the Public Utility Commission under
ORS 758.015 on or after the effective date of this 2013 Act. + }
----------
Passed by Senate April 22, 2013
.............................................................
Robert Taylor, Secretary of Senate
.............................................................
Peter Courtney, President of Senate
Passed by House May 29, 2013
.............................................................
Tina Kotek, Speaker of House
Enrolled Senate Bill 230 (SB 230-A) Page 3
Received by Governor:
......M.,............., 2013
Approved:
......M.,............., 2013
.............................................................
John Kitzhaber, Governor
Filed in Office of Secretary of State:
......M.,............., 2013
.............................................................
Kate Brown, Secretary of State
Enrolled Senate Bill 230 (SB 230-A) Page 4
