Title: Blue Mountain Alliance v. Energy Facility Siting

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Filed:  April 18, 2013 
1 
 
2 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 
3 
 
4 
In the Matter of the Request for Amendment #2 
5 
of the Site Certificate for the Helix Wind Power Facility. 
6 
 
7 
THE BLUE MOUNTAIN ALLIANCE; 
8 
NORM KRALMAN; RICHARD JOLLY; 
9 
DAVE PRICE; ROBIN SEVERE; and 
10 
CINDY SEVERE, 
11 
Petitioners, 
12 
 
13 
v. 
14 
 
15 
ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCIL; 
16 
and SITE CERTIFICATE HOLDER HELIX 
17 
WINDPOWER FACILITY, LLC, 
18 
Respondents. 
19 
 
20 
(S060803) 
21 
 
22 
 
En Banc 
23 
 
24 
 
On judicial review from an order of the Energy Facility Siting Council.* 
25 
 
26 
 
Argued and submitted January 7, 2013. 
27 
 
28 
 
Daniel Kearns, Reeve Kearns PC, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for 
29 
petitioners. 
30 
 
31 
 
Michael Casper, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for 
32 
respondent Energy Facility Siting Council.  Denise G. Fjordbeck, Attorney-in-Charge, 
33 
Salem, filed the brief for respondent Energy Facility Siting Council.  With her on the 
34 
brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General. 
35 
 
36 
 
James N. Westwood, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, filed the brief for respondent 
37 
Helix Wind Power Facility LLP.  With him on the brief were David E. Filippi and Elaine 
38 
R. Albrich. 
39 
 
40 
 
Dina M. Dubson, Renewable Northwest Project, Portland, filed the brief for amici 
41 
curiae Renewable Northwest Project and American Wind Energy Association.  With her 
42 
on the brief was Megan W. Decker. 
43 
 
 
1 
 
BALDWIN, J. 
2 
 
3 
 
The Final Order Denying a Contested Case Proceeding and Approving 
4 
Amendment #2 of the Energy Facility Siting Council is affirmed. 
5 
 
6 
 
*Appeal from a Final Order of the Energy Facility Siting Council dated August 
7 
24, 2012, W. Bryan Wolfe, Chair. 
8 
 
9 
1 
BALDWIN, J. 
1 
 
 
This case challenges a final order of the Energy Facility Siting Council 
2 
(council) approving an amended site certificate for construction of a wind energy 
3 
facility.1  The central question on review is whether, in approving the amended site 
4 
certificate, the council correctly declined to require compliance with a recently adopted 
5 
county ordinance requiring a two-mile setback between wind turbines and rural 
6 
residences pursuant to ORS 469.401(2).  For the reasons set out in this opinion, we 
7 
conclude that the council did not err in not requiring compliance with the ordinance.  We 
8 
further conclude that the council did not err in denying petitioners' requests for a 
9 
contested case proceeding.  We therefore affirm the council's final order approving the 
10 
amended site certificate. 
11 
I.  FACTS AND BACKGROUND 
12 
The following facts are taken from the council's Final Order Denying a 
13 
Contested Case Proceeding and Approving Amendment #2.  In July 2009, the council 
14 
issued a site certificate for the Helix Wind Power Facility, permitting up to 60 wind 
15 
turbines covering 7,586 acres on private land in Umatilla County, northwest of Helix, 
16 
Oregon.  The site certificate holder is Helix Wind Power Facility LLC (Helix), also a 
17 
respondent in this proceeding.  The certificate included conditions to begin construction 
18 
within three years and then complete construction within three years.  The statutory 
19 
                                                 
 
1   
ORS 469.403(3) grants this court jurisdiction for judicial review of the 
council's approval or rejection of a site certificate application or amendment; ORS 
469.405(1) additionally provides that judicial review of an amended site certificate shall 
be as provided in ORS 469.403. 
2 
process under which the council issued the original site certificate is generally described 
1 
in Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting, 339 Or 353, 356-57, 121 P3d 1141 
2 
(2005).  In June 2011, the council issued a final order approving Amendment #1, 
3 
expanding the size of the facility to include 134 turbines, covering 20,613 acres. 
4 
On February 3, 2012, Helix applied for Amendment #2, seeking to extend 
5 
the construction start and completion dates by two years.  In response, the Oregon 
6 
Department of Energy (ODOE) posted public notice of the amendment request and sent 
7 
notice to various other persons and entities, including a list of residential owners within 
8 
two miles of the site boundary and a special advisory group consisting of the Umatilla 
9 
County Board of Commissioners (board).  The council received multiple comments, and 
10 
Helix responded to those comments.  Following internal analysis, ODOE issued a 
11 
proposed order, together with public notice setting a deadline for public comments and 
12 
requests for a contested case proceeding. 
13 
In May 2012, the council held a listening session and received public 
14 
comments.  The council also received multiple written public comments and several 
15 
requests for a contested case proceeding.  Among other issues, public testimony and 
16 
comments highlighted a Umatilla County ordinance -- Ordinance 2012-04, adopted 
17 
February 28, 2012 -- that required a two-mile setback between wind turbines and rural 
18 
residences.  Petitioners contended that the ordinance had been adopted as a public health 
19 
and safety measure and submitted materials intended to show that noise implications 
20 
from turbines posed a "significant threat" to public health and safety and that a setback of 
21 
less than two miles would not adequately protect against turbine noise.  Petitioners 
22 
3 
requested that the council require the facility to comply with the ordinance.2 
1 
In August 2012, ODOE staff presented a recommendation on Amendment 
2 
#2 to the council ("ODOE staff report" or "report").  ODOE staff recommended that the 
3 
council not incorporate Ordinance 2012-04 in its analysis whether the facility, with 
4 
Amendment #2, complied with statewide planning goals under ORS 469.504(1) and also 
5 
not require compliance with the ordinance in Amendment #2 under ORS 469.401(2).  
6 
The report specifically treated Ordinance 2012-04 as a "land use regulation[]" to be 
7 
evaluated under ORS 469.504(1), instead of as a "public health and safety" measure to be 
8 
evaluated under ORS 469.401(2).  The report additionally cited the council's earlier 
9 
approval of a smaller, 1/4-mile setback between wind turbines and residences in another, 
10 
unrelated proceeding and an applicable noise-related "public health setback" with a 
11 
distance that may exceed 1/4-mile, as adopted by the Oregon Department of 
12 
Environmental Quality (ODEQ).3  The report also observed that the council previously 
13 
had determined that the facility complied with ODEQ noise regulations and that the time 
14 
extension request did not implicate that finding.  Finally, the report recommended that the 
15 
council deny petitioners' requests for a contested case proceeding under OAR 345-027-
16 
                                                 
 
2 
In 2011, the county had adopted a similar ordinance, which was appealed to 
the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).  LUBA remanded, and the county then updated 
the wording consistently with LUBA's decision and adopted it as Ordinance 2012-04 in 
February 2012.  Later in this opinion, we discuss the specific provisions of the original 
version of Ordinance 2012-04 and a revised, codified version dated August 16, 2012.  For 
ease of reference throughout this opinion, we refer to "Ordinance 2012-04," not to its 
codification. 
 
3  
See OAR 340-035-0035(1)(b)(B)(i) to (iii) (noise restrictions as to new 
industrial or commercial noise source generally and as to wind energy facilities). 
4 
0070(7). 
1 
 
 
On August 24, 2012, the council issued its final order approving 
2 
Amendment #2 and incorporating the ODOE staff recommendations.  Among other 
3 
things, the final order (1) stated that the council had considered all public and reviewing 
4 
agency comments and requests for a contested case proceeding; (2) determined that 
5 
Ordinance 2012-04 did not apply to the council's determination whether the facility 
6 
complied with statewide planning goals under ORS 469.504(1); (3) applied ODEQ noise 
7 
control regulations as part of determining that the facility complied with administrative 
8 
rules identified in the original project order; (4) adopted an ODOE staff recommendation 
9 
to not require compliance with Ordinance 2012-04 under ORS 469.401(2); (5) denied 
10 
petitioners' requests for a contested case proceeding because they had raised no 
11 
significant issues of fact or law under OAR 345-027-0070(7); and (6) ultimately 
12 
concluded that the facility complied with applicable siting statutes, council standards, and 
13 
other applicable state statutes and administrative rules.  The final order granted Helix's 
14 
time-extension request, subject to revisions set out in the order that are not at issue in this 
15 
proceeding.  Petitioners filed a petition for judicial review in this court.  See ORS 
16 
469.405(1), ORS 469.403(3) (providing for such review). 
17 
II.  PARTIES' ARGUMENTS 
18 
 
 
To frame the parties' arguments, we first set out the statutes at issue.  In 
19 
deciding whether to issue a site certificate or an amended site certificate, the council must 
20 
make a series of determinations as to whether a preponderance of the evidence supports 
21 
several conclusions.  See ORS 469.503 (so providing).  One such determination is 
22 
5 
whether the facility complies with statewide planning goals under ORS 469.503(4).  ORS 
1 
469.504(1), in turn, establishes alternative means for the council to make that 
2 
determination.  See Save Our Rural Oregon, 339 Or at 366-69 (so explaining).  The 
3 
applicable alternative in this proceeding, set out in ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A), provides: 
4 
 
"(1) A proposed facility shall be found in compliance with the 
5 
statewide planning goals under ORS 469.503(4) if:  
6 
 
"* * * *  
7 
* 
8 
 
"(b) The Energy Facility Siting Council determines that:  
9 
 
"(A) The facility complies with applicable substantive criteria from 
10 
the affected local government’s acknowledged comprehensive plan and 
11 
land use regulations that are required by the statewide planning goals and 
12 
in effect on the date the application is submitted, and with any Land 
13 
Conservation and Development Commission administrative rules and goals 
14 
and any land use statutes that apply directly to the facility under ORS 
15 
197.646[.]" 
16 
(Emphasis added.)  That same analysis, including the "application submission date" 
17 
requirement, applies to amended site certificates, OAR 345-027-0070(10).   Thus, the 
18 
statute and the administrative rule establish a "goal-post" rule for consideration of criteria 
19 
derived from the local government's comprehensive plan and land use regulations in 
20 
relation to compliance with statewide planning goals.  That "goal-post" rule is based on 
21 
the application date of the facility site certificate or an amended site certificate.  Here, 
22 
Ordinance 2012-04 was adopted 25 days after the Amendment #2 application date. 
23 
 
 
The other statute at issue, ORS 469.401(2), sets out the required contents 
24 
for a site certificate or an amended site certificate, once the council decides to issue it.  
25 
That statute provides, in part: 
26 
6 
 
"The site certificate or amended site certificate shall contain 
1 
conditions for the protection of the public health and safety, for the time for 
2 
completion of construction, and to ensure compliance with the standards, 
3 
statutes and rules described in ORS 469.501 and 469.503.  The site 
4 
certificate or amended site certificate shall require both parties to abide by 
5 
local ordinances and state law and the rules of the council in effect on the 
6 
date the site certificate or amended site certificate is executed, except that 
7 
upon a clear showing of a significant threat to the public health, safety or 
8 
the environment that requires application of later-adopted laws or rules, 
9 
the council may require compliance with such later-adopted laws or rules." 
10 
(Emphasis added.)  Under that statute, the council must require compliance with certain 
11 
"local ordinances and state law and [council] rules" in effect on the date that the 
12 
certificate is executed, and the council may require compliance with "later-adopted laws 
13 
or rules" upon a clear showing of a "significant threat to the public health, safety or the 
14 
environment" that requires application of the later-adopted law or rule.  Here, Ordinance 
15 
2012-04 was adopted about six months before the council issued its final order approving 
16 
Amendment #2; the amended site certificate has not yet been executed, pending this 
17 
judicial review proceeding. 
18 
 
 
The parties' dispute requires that we construe the second statute, ORS 
19 
469.401(2) -- specifically the two independent clauses in the second sentence4 -- and 
20 
determine whether the council erred in not requiring compliance with Ordinance 2012-04 
21 
in Amendment #2.  Petitioners contend that, notwithstanding ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A), 
22 
Ordinance 2012-04 qualifies as a noise ordinance, bringing it within the "public health 
23 
and safety" concepts generally set out in ORS 469.401(2).  Petitioners specifically argue 
24 
                                                 
 
4  
For ease of reference in this opinion, we refer to the first clause of the 
second sentence of ORS 469.401(2) as the "abide by local ordinances" clause and to the 
second clause as the "later-adopted laws" clause. 
7 
that Ordinance 2012-04 falls within the scope of the "abide by local ordinances" clause 
1 
and that the council therefore erred when it did not require compliance with the ordinance 
2 
in Amendment #2.  Alternatively, petitioners argue that Ordinance 2012-04 falls within 
3 
the scope of the "later-adopted laws" clause, petitioners satisfied the "significant threat" 
4 
threshold, and the council should have required compliance with the ordinance in the 
5 
exercise of its discretion.  Finally, petitioners contend that the council erred in denying 
6 
their requests for a contested case proceeding, regarding the opportunity to demonstrate 
7 
that the ordinance qualified as a public health and safety measure and that a setback of 
8 
less than two miles posed a significant threat to public health and safety. 
9 
 
 
The council and Helix instead begin the analysis with ORS 
10 
469.504(1)(b)(A), contending that Ordinance 2012-04 is a "land use regulation[]" under 
11 
that statute.  Because Ordinance 2012-04 was adopted after the Amendment #2 
12 
application date, the council and Helix assert that the council correctly concluded that the 
13 
ordinance did not apply to the council's evaluation of applicable substantive criteria under 
14 
ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A), in determining facility compliance with statewide planning goals.  
15 
Next, the council and Helix contend that any ordinance that qualifies as a "land use 
16 
regulation[]" under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) cannot also be considered an ordinance to 
17 
which the "abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 469.401(2) applies.  Helix adds 
18 
that, if ORS 469.401(2) were construed to require Helix to comply with an ordinance that 
19 
qualifies as a land use regulation that became effective after the application date, that 
20 
result would conflict with ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A), which only requires consideration of 
21 
land use regulations in effect as of the application date.  The council and Helix further 
22 
8 
contend that the council did not err in declining to require compliance with Ordinance 
1 
2012-04 in Amendment #2 under the "later-adopted laws" clause of ORS 469.401(2) or 
2 
in denying petitioners' requests for a contested case proceeding. 
3 
II.  FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: 
4 
ORS 469.401(2) -- REQUIRED COMPLIANCE  
5 
WITH LOCAL ORDINANCES IN EFFECT  
6 
ON SITE CERTIFICATE EXECUTION DATE  
7 
A. 
Construction of "Abide by Local Ordinances" Clause of ORS 469.401(2) 
8 
 
 
Before construing ORS 469.401(2), it is important to explain the operation 
9 
of ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A).  Again, that statute provides as follows: 
10 
 
"(1) A proposed facility shall be found in compliance with the 
11 
statewide planning goals under ORS 469.503(4) if:  
12 
 
"* * * * * 
13 
 
"(b) The Energy Facility Siting Council determines that:  
14 
 
"(A) The facility complies with applicable substantive criteria from 
15 
the affected local government’s acknowledged comprehensive plan and 
16 
land use regulations that are required by the statewide planning goals and 
17 
in effect on the date the application is submitted, and with any Land 
18 
Conservation and Development Commission administrative rules and goals 
19 
and any land use statutes that apply directly to the facility under ORS 
20 
197.646[.]" 
21 
(Emphasis added.)  As noted earlier, the same process applies to amended site 
22 
certificates, OAR 345-027-0070(10).  In Save Our Rural Oregon, 339 Or at 361, this 
23 
court explained the underlying purpose of ORS 469.504: 
24 
 
"Oregon's statewide land use planning goals, adopted by the Land 
25 
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), set out broad 
26 
objectives for land use planning in Oregon.  Local governments implement 
27 
those objectives in local comprehensive plans.  ORS 197.225 to 197.250.  
28 
ORS 469.503(4) provides that the council may not issue a site certificate 
29 
approving [a site certificate application] unless the proposed facility 
30 
9 
complies with the statewide planning goals.  ORS 469.504, in turn, 
1 
provides the guidelines for determining whether the [site certificate 
2 
application] complies with those goals." 
3 
 
 
Under the first part of ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A), the council must determine 
4 
that the facility complies with substantive criteria -- derived from the local government's 
5 
"acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations" --  that are (1) required by 
6 
statewide planning goals; and (2) "in effect" on the certificate or amendment application 
7 
date.  In its final order, the council determined that the two-mile setback embodied in 
8 
Ordinance 2012-04 was a "land use regulation[]" that should be evaluated under the 
9 
"applicable substantive criteria" provision of ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A).  However, the 
10 
council further determined that the ordinance was not "in effect" on the Amendment #2 
11 
application date and therefore should not be included in the "applicable substantive 
12 
criteria" used to determine whether the facility complied with the statewide planning 
13 
goals.  We agree with the council and Helix that the council was not required to consider 
14 
the ordinance in its determination whether the facility complied with statewide planning 
15 
goals because the ordinance was not "in effect" on the Amendment #2 application date.  
16 
Petitioners do not appear to dispute that conclusion; instead, they principally rely on ORS 
17 
469.401(2), to which we now turn. 
18 
 
 
Again, ORS 469.401(2) provides, in part: 
19 
 
"The site certificate or amended site certificate shall contain 
20 
conditions for the protection of the public health and safety, for the time for 
21 
completion of construction, and to ensure compliance with the standards, 
22 
statutes and rules described in ORS 469.501 and 469.503.  The site 
23 
certificate or amended site certificate shall require both parties to abide by 
24 
local ordinances and state law and the rules of the council in effect on the 
25 
date the site certificate or amended site certificate is executed, except that 
26 
10 
upon a clear showing of a significant threat to the public health, safety or 
1 
the environment that requires application of later-adopted laws or rules, 
2 
the council may require compliance with such later-adopted laws or rules." 
3 
(Emphasis added.)  As noted earlier, petitioners rely on both clauses in the second 
4 
sentence.  Under the "abide by local ordinances" clause, they emphasize that Ordinance 
5 
2012-04 is a local ordinance that was "in effect" on the Amendment #2 execution date 
6 
and the council therefore erred in not requiring compliance with that ordinance; 
7 
alternatively, under the "later-adopted laws" clause, the ordinance should be considered a 
8 
"later-adopted law[]" and the council, in its discretion, should have required compliance 
9 
with the ordinance. 
10 
 
 
We review for error of law.  See ORS 183.482(8)(a) (court must determine 
11 
whether agency "has erroneously interpreted a provision of law"); ORS 469.403(6) (ORS 
12 
183.482 applies to petition for judicial review of council's approval or rejection of site 
13 
certificate or amended site certificate application); see also Save Our Rural Oregon, 339 
14 
Or at 360 (identifying statutory construction question as legal issue).  To address 
15 
petitioners' contentions, we employ our method of statutory construction set out in State 
16 
v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009), to ascertain the legislature's intent.  
17 
See also State v. Klein, 352 Or 302, 309, 283 P3d 350 (2012) (when construing statutes, 
18 
court reviews statutory text and context, including related statutes). 
19 
 
 
We begin with the text of the "abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 
20 
469.401(2), which provides: 
21 
"The site certificate or amended site certificate shall require both parties to 
22 
abide by local ordinances and state law and the rules of the council in effect 
23 
on the date the site certificate or amended site certificate is executed[.]" 
24 
11 
That clause contains a timing trigger for requiring party compliance with local 
1 
ordinances, state laws, and council rules:  the site certificate must require compliance 
2 
with ordinances "in effect" on the certificate execution date (with exceptions identified in 
3 
the "later-adopted laws" clause), and Ordinance 2012-04 is presently "in effect" within 
4 
that statutory meaning.  See ORS 469.401(1) (after council approves site certificate or 
5 
amended site certificate, council chairperson and applicant shall execute certificate with 
6 
prescribed conditions; here, the site certificate with Amendment #2 has not yet executed, 
7 
pending this judicial review proceeding). What is less clear, however, is the intended 
8 
scope of the unmodified phrase, "local ordinances and state law and the rules of the 
9 
council."  That is, although petitioners infer that the clause refers to ordinances, laws, and 
10 
rules that pertain to "public health and safety" in effect on the execution date -- and 
11 
although other parts of the statute also use those same modifying words -- the clause 
12 
contains no wording to that effect.  The council and Helix do not dispute that the phrase 
13 
"local ordinances" in the clause may include ordinances relating to public health and 
14 
safety; they contend, however, that any "local ordinance" that is a "land use regulation[]" 
15 
under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) is excluded from the intended scope of the "abide by local 
16 
ordinances" clause.  Simply stated, although the clause appears unambiguous on its face, 
17 
the parties point to contextual clues to support their conflicting constructions. 
18 
 
 
We first agree with the parties that, in referring to "local ordinances," the 
19 
legislature intended the "abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 469.401(2) to 
20 
generally extend to local ordinances that serve to protect public health and safety.  By 
21 
way of context, the next clause of that same sentence -- which is more narrowly drawn 
22 
12 
than the first -- provides a "later-adopted" exception for "laws or rules" that pose a 
1 
significant threat "to the public health, safety," or the environment.  By setting out a 
2 
subcategory of significant threat "to the public health [or] safety" that may justify 
3 
application of "later-adopted" laws or rules, contrasted against laws or rules "in effect" 
4 
on the certificate execution date, the "later-adopted laws" clause textually presumes that 
5 
the preceding "abide by local ordinances" clause also extends to local ordinances, state 
6 
law, and council rules that serve to protect public health and safety.  A related statute, 
7 
ORS 469.310, supports that construction, affirmatively stating as public policy that "the 
8 
siting, construction and operation of energy facilities shall be accomplished in a manner 
9 
consistent with protection of the public health and safety," among other considerations.  
10 
That is not to say that the phrase "abide by local ordinances and state law and the rules of 
11 
the council" in ORS 469.401(2) is limited to local ordinances, state laws, and council 
12 
rules that protect public health and safety; the context indisputably shows, however, that 
13 
the legislature intended the scope of that phrase to extend to ordinances that protect 
14 
public health and safety. 
15 
 
 
Having construed the "abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 
16 
469.401(2) as including -- but not necessarily limited to -- local ordinances, state laws, 
17 
and council rules that protect public health and safety, we turn to other parts of ORS 
18 
chapter 469 to assist our understanding of the scope of the term "local ordinances" in that 
19 
clause.  As explained below, several chapter components describing the site certificate 
20 
application and approval process clarify the legislature's intended meaning of that term as 
21 
pertinent to our inquiry. 
22 
13 
 
 
As to the initial site certificate application process, ORS 469.330(1) 
1 
requires an applicant to submit to the council a notice of intent to file a site certificate 
2 
application.  Following review of the notice and a public comment period, ODOE must 
3 
issue a project order that establishes the "statutes, administrative rules, council standards, 
4 
local ordinances, application requirements and study requirements for the site certificate 
5 
application."  ORS 469.330(3) (emphasis added).  After the applicant files the initial site 
6 
certificate application and at the conclusion of a mandatory contested case proceeding, 
7 
the council must issue a final order approving or rejecting the application.  ORS 
8 
469.370(7).  Under that statute, the council must base its approval on identified, council-
9 
adopted standards adopted under ORS 469.501 "and any additional statutes, rules or local 
10 
ordinances determined to be applicable to the facility by the project order, as amended."  
11 
(Emphasis added.)  See also generally ORS 469.503(3) (before issuing certificate, 
12 
council must determine whether facility complies with state statutes and administrative 
13 
rules identified in project order as applicable to site certificate issuance). 
14 
 
 
Thus, the statutory scheme establishes that the process of drafting a project 
15 
order and issuing a final order approving the site certificate application involves 
16 
determining the "local ordinances" (and other provisions) that apply to the facility and 
17 
with which an applicant must comply to obtain approval of its application.  As part of 
18 
that construct, ORS 469.401(2) logically is intended to require in the site certificate that 
19 
the applicant comply with those same ordinances.  Stated differently, given the statutory 
20 
scheme, the reference in ORS 469.401(2) to "local ordinances and state law and the rules 
21 
of the council in effect" on the certificate execution date logically refers to the 
22 
14 
ordinances, state law, and council rules that previously were determined to apply to the 
1 
facility in the course of developing the project order under ORS 469.330(3).  See also 
2 
ORS 469.401(2) (first sentence; site certificate must contain conditions to "ensure 
3 
compliance with" statutes and rules described in ORS 469.503).  Additionally, the phrase 
4 
includes applicable ordinances, laws, and rules that may have become effective between 
5 
the project order issuance date and the site certificate execution date -- that is, provisions 
6 
that, had they been in effect at the time that the project order issued, would have been 
7 
included in that order under ORS 469.330(3).  As previously discussed, those local 
8 
ordinances, state laws, and rules may include -- but are not limited to -- public health and 
9 
safety protections. 
10 
 
 
The council and Helix urge that ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) provides necessary 
11 
context for the proper construction of the "abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 
12 
469.401(2) -- specifically, the intended scope of any local ordinance subject to a 
13 
compliance requirement in the site certificate.  As discussed earlier, ORS 
14 
469.504(1)(b)(A) refers to applicable substantive criteria -- derived from the local 
15 
government's acknowledged comprehensive plan and "land use regulations" (emphasis 
16 
added) in effect on the application date -- that the council must consider in determining 
17 
whether a facility complies with statewide planning goals.  Essentially, the council and 
18 
Helix argue that, because all applicable "land use regulations" fall within the scope of the 
19 
council's determination of goal compliance under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A), they cannot 
20 
simultaneously fall within the scope of the "abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 
21 
469.401(2), relating to certificate requirements.  That is, the council's consideration of 
22 
15 
applicable "land use regulations" occurs at the point in time when the council determines 
1 
whether a facility complies with statewide planning goals.  By contrast, the council's 
2 
consideration of other, non-land use laws, rules, and ordinances extends to other points in 
3 
the siting process.  The legislature intended the two concepts to remain separate, the 
4 
council and Helix argue, in large part because of their different "trigger" dates -- the 
5 
application date in ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) for land use regulations, and the certificate 
6 
execution date in ORS 469.401(2) for other local ordinances, state laws and council rules.  
7 
Otherwise, the council could require compliance in a site certificate with a local "land use 
8 
regulation[]" that was not in effect on the application date and that the council therefore 
9 
had been precluded from considering for statewide planning goal compliance purposes 
10 
under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A). 
11 
 
 
We have explained that ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) and ORS 469.401(2) serve 
12 
different purposes and apply at different stages of the site certificate application process, 
13 
which arguably undercuts the council's and Helix's contention that the statutes must 
14 
operate in harmony, particularly as to their trigger dates.  At the same time, however, 
15 
those varying purposes and applications provide some helpful statutory context.  Notably, 
16 
ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) applies to the central determination whether an application for a 
17 
site certificate or amendment should be approved or rejected.  Only after the council has 
18 
decided to approve the application does it determine the required contents of the 
19 
certificate under ORS 469.401(2).  The subordinate nature of the council's determination 
20 
of certificate contents under ORS 469.401(2), in relation to its central determination of 
21 
application approval under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A), suggests that the legislature intended 
22 
16 
ORS 469.401(2) to operate consistently with -- and not to circumvent -- ORS 
1 
469.504(1)(b)(A).  See generally Davis v. Wasco IED, 286 Or 261, 272, 593 P2d 1152 
2 
(1979) ("whenever possible the court should construe together statutes on the same 
3 
subject as consistent with and in harmony with each other").  That, in turn, supports the 
4 
council's and Helix's contention that the "abide by local ordinances" clause in ORS 
5 
469.401(2) excludes ordinances that qualify as "land use regulations" under ORS 
6 
469.504(1)(b)(A). 
7 
 
 
Another part of ORS chapter 469 further supports that construction of ORS 
8 
469.401(2).  ORS 469.503 requires that, in determining whether to issue a site certificate, 
9 
the council must make a number of determinations about the facility.  One such 
10 
determination, as previously discussed, is whether the facility complies with statewide 
11 
planning goals, ORS 469.503(4), pursuant to the alternative means provided in ORS 
12 
469.504(1).  Another compliance determination is set out in subsection (3) of ORS 
13 
469.503, as follows: 
14 
 
"In order to issue a site certificate, the * * * [c]ouncil shall determine 
15 
that the preponderance of the evidence on the record supports the following 
16 
conclusions: 
17 
 
"* * * * * 
18 
 
"(3)  Except as provided in ORS 469.504 for land use compliance 
19 
* * *, the facility complies with all other Oregon statutes and administrative 
20 
rules identified in the project order, as amended, as applicable to the 
21 
issuance of a site certificate for the proposed facility. * * *" 
22 
(Emphasis added.)  That statute requires the council to determine that the facility 
23 
complies with state statutes and rules previously determined to apply to the facility and 
24 
17 
therefore identified in the project order under ORS 469.330(3).  As previously discussed, 
1 
the reference in the "abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 469.401(2) to "local 
2 
ordinances and state law and the rules of the council" in effect on the certificate 
3 
execution date means those provisions previously identified in the project order under 
4 
ORS 469.330(3), together with other applicable provisions that may have become 
5 
effective between the project order issuance and certificate execution dates.  That is, the 
6 
same state statutes and rules identified in the project order under ORS 469.330(3) and 
7 
therefore subject to certificate compliance requirements in ORS 469.401(2) also are 
8 
subject to a facility compliance determination under ORS 469.503(3). 
9 
 
 
Significantly, in setting out that compliance determination requirement, 
10 
ORS 469.503(3) expressly distinguishes state statutes and rules that pertain to "land use 
11 
compliance" based on the application date under ORS 469.504 from "all other Oregon 
12 
statutes and administrative rules" previously identified in the project order.  (Emphasis 
13 
added.)  Indeed, ORS 469.503(3) characterizes ORS 469.504 -- the statute that requires a 
14 
compliance determination as to statewide planning goals that may include evaluation of 
15 
the local government's comprehensive plan and "land use regulations" -- as a "land use 
16 
compliance" statute.  That characterization demonstrates a legislative intention that the 
17 
council evaluate a provision of law or rule that qualifies as a "land use regulation[]" only 
18 
under ORS 469.504(1), as part of the council's statewide planning goal determination 
19 
under ORS 469.503(4).5  By contrast, the legislature identified a separate category of 
20 
                                                 
 
5  
In Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting, 339 Or 353, 368, 121 
P3d 1141 (2005), this court explained that "the statewide land use planning goals 
18 
"other" applicable provisions "identified in the project order" under ORS 469.330(3) that 
1 
must be part of a separate compliance determination under ORS 469.503(3).  And, as 
2 
previously noted, the "abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 469.401(2) in turn 
3 
provides a mechanism for requiring compliance with such provisions (and similar 
4 
provisions adopted after the project order but before execution of the site certificate) in 
5 
the site certificate.6  No aspect of the statutory context supports petitioners' competing 
6 
construction. 
7 
 
 
In light of the statutory context, we conclude that the requirement in ORS 
8 
469.401(2) that a site certificate or amended site certificate must require compliance with 
9 
"local ordinances and state law and the rules of the council in effect on the date the site 
10 
_______________________ 
establish broad policy objectives, while the applicable substantive criteria provide 
specific ways of implementing those objectives through local regulation."  (Internal 
quotations omitted.)  Those "applicable substantive criteria," in turn, are derived from the 
affected local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations, 
ORS 469.504(1)(b). 
 
6  
We recognize that, in contrasting a "land use compliance" determination 
under ORS 469.504 against "other" facility compliance determinations, ORS 469.503(3) 
does not refer to any "local ordinance" determined in the project order to apply to the 
facility.  Compare ORS 469.330(3) (project order must establish "the statutes, 
administrative rules, council standards, local ordinances, application requirements and 
study requirements for the site certificate application" (emphasis added)); ORS 
469.370(7) (council determination whether to issue final order must be based on 
standards adopted under ORS 469.501 "and any additional statutes, rules or local 
ordinances determined to be applicable to the facility by the project order, as amended" 
(emphasis added); ORS 469.401(2) (certificate must require compliance with "local 
ordinances and state law and the rules of the council" (emphasis added)).  That lack of 
reference to local ordinances in ORS 469.503(3), however, does not diminish the import 
of that statute's characterization of ORS 469.504 as a "land use compliance" statute -- as 
opposed to a category of "other," non-land use statutes, rules, and ordinances -- for 
purposes of our analysis. 
19 
certificate or amended site certificate is executed" does not include any ordinance, law, 
1 
or rule that is a "land use regulation[]"for purposes of ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A).   
2 
B. 
Ordinance 2012-04 -- "Land Use Regulation[]" or "Public Health and Safety" 
3 
Ordinance 
4 
 
 
We turn to whether the council properly characterized the two-mile setback 
5 
contained in Ordinance 2012-04 as a "land use regulation[]" subject to analysis under 
6 
ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) or whether it should have treated the ordinance as a non-land use 
7 
ordinance requiring compliance under the "abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 
8 
469.401(2).  We review the council's determination for any error of law.  See Rubalcaba 
9 
v. Nagaki Farms, Inc., 333 Or 614, 619, 43 P3d 1106 (2002) (agency determination 
10 
whether subject of applicable legal standard qualifies under that standard is conclusion of 
11 
law, not finding of fact); Woody v. Waibel, 276 Or 189, 192 n 3, 554 P2d 492 (1976) 
12 
(same; distinguishing when assessing question of law may involve predicate question of 
13 
fact). 
14 
 
 
Ordinance 2012-04 was adopted as an amendment to the Umatilla County 
15 
Code of Ordinances, as a new provision in the Development Code (UCDC, chapters 150-
16 
153 of the Umatilla County Code of Ordinances), UCDC section 152.616(HHH)(6)(a).  
17 
That ordinance, as adopted on February 28, 2012, provided:  
18 
"§ 152.616 
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USES 
19 
AND LAND USE DECISIONS. 
20 
"(HHH) Commercial Wind Power Generation Facility. 
21 
"(6)  Standards/Criteria of Approval  The following requirements and 
22 
restrictions apply to the siting of a Wind Power Generation Facility: 
23 
 
[(a)] Setbacks.  The minimum setback shall be a distance of not less 
24 
20 
than the following: 
1 
 
"(1)  From a turbine tower to a city urban growth boundary (UGB) 
2 
shall be two miles.  The measurement of the setback is from the centerline 
3 
of a turbine tower to the edge of the UGB that was adopted by the city as of 
4 
the date the application was deemed complete. 
5 
 
"(2)  From a turbine tower to land zoned Unincorporated 
6 
Community (UC) shall be 1 mile. 
7 
 
"(3)  From a turbine tower to a rural residence shall be 2 miles.  For 
8 
purposes of this section, a 'rural residence' is defined as a legal, conforming 
9 
dwelling existing on the parcel at the time an application is deemed 
10 
complete.  The measurement of the setback is from the centerline of the 
11 
turbine tower to the centerpoint of the residence." 
12 
See Ordinance No 2012-04, http://www.co.umatilla.or.us/planning/ordinances/Ordinance 
13 
_2012-04.pdf (last accessed April 9, 2013) (italics in original).  A revised version of the 
14 
UCDC dated August 16, 2012 -- eight days before the council issued the final order at 
15 
issue in this case -- contains an expanded version of Ordinance 2012-04, still codified as 
16 
UCDC section 152.616(HHH)(6)(a).7  The expanded version includes the provisions set 
17 
out above, with revised and additional text in subsection (6)(a)(3) that does not affect our 
18 
analysis here.  The revised version contains additional subsections to section (6)(a) that 
19 
provide, in part: 
20 
 
"(4) A Wind Power Generation Facility applicant may apply for and 
21 
receive an adjustment for a reduced distance between a turbine tower and a 
22 
rural residence under the following approval criteria.  The adjustment 
23 
application shall be submitted on a form provided by the County and signed 
24 
by the rural residence landowner. 
25 
                                                 
 
7  
We take judicial notice of the undisputed contents of the revised version of 
Ordinance 2012-04 dated August 16, 2012, as well as other aspects of the Code of 
Umatilla County.  Only the original version of Ordinance 2012-04 and an interim, revised 
version dated March 13, 2012, are contained in the record of this proceeding. 
21 
 
"(i) The adjustment will not significantly detract from the livability 
1 
of the subject rural residence.  This standard is satisfied if applicable 
2 
[O]DEQ noise standards are satisfied, there is no significant adverse 
3 
impact to property access and traffic conditions, and other evidence 
4 
demonstrates that the residence remains suitable for peaceful enjoyment or, 
5 
such impacts to the livability of the rural residence resulting from the 
6 
adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical; and 
7 
 
"(ii) All other requirements of the Wind Power Generation Facility 
8 
application remain satisfied. 
9 
 
"(5) An adjustment application under this section shall be processed 
10 
as a Land Use Decision concurrently with the Wind Power Generation 
11 
Facility application.  For applications subject to Energy Facility Siting 
12 
Council * * * jurisdiction, an adjustment application shall be included as 
13 
the applicable substantive criteria evaluated by [the council] when granting 
14 
or denying an application for a Site Certificate. 
15 
 
"* * * * * 
16 
 
"(9) The turbine/towers shall be of a size and design to help reduce 
17 
noise or other detrimental effects.  At a minimum, the Wind Power 
18 
Generation Facility shall be designed and operated within the limits of 
19 
noise standard(s) established by the State of Oregon.  A credible noise 
20 
study may be required to verify that noise impacts in all wind directions are 
21 
in compliance with the State noise standard." 
22 
See http://www.co.umatilla.or.us/planning/pdf/Umatilla_County_Development_Code. 
23 
pdf, 310-11 (last accessed April 9, 2013) (emphases added). 
24 
 
 
In text and context, Ordinance 2012-04 bears the characteristics of a "land 
25 
use regulation[]," consistently with the legislature's use of that term in ORS 
26 
469.504(1)(b)(A).  The ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the county's 
27 
Development Code, maintained by the county's Department of Land Use Planning.  As 
28 
written, the ordinance operates as a "siting" restriction.  Revised subsection (6)(a)(4) 
29 
permits a setback of less than two miles if approved through an adjustment application 
30 
process; significantly, revised subsection (6)(a)(5) provides that such an adjustment 
31 
22 
application shall be processed as a "Land Use Decision" and that such applications "shall 
1 
be included as the applicable substantive criteria" that the council evaluates in 
2 
determining whether the facility complies with statewide planning goals under ORS 
3 
469.504(1).  By contrast, subsection (6)(a)(4)(i) designates ODEQ noise regulations as 
4 
providing applicable "noise standards" by which to measure an approved adjustment 
5 
application, and subsection (6)(a)(9) establishes a "minimum" noise standard for wind 
6 
energy facilities consistently with statewide noise standards -- that is, those adopted by 
7 
ODEQ.  Ordinance 2012-04 does not itself establish any noise standard that may justify 
8 
treating the ordinance as a "public health and safety" measure, as opposed to a "land use 
9 
regulation[]."8  In sum, the foregoing evaluation supports the council's conclusion that the 
10 
ordinance is a "land use regulation[]" for purposes of ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A). 
11 
 
 
In arguing to the contrary, petitioners rely, in part, on the "purpose" 
12 
statement in Chapter 152 of the UCDC, which expressly refers to the promotion of public 
13 
health and safety.  That statement, codified as UCDC § 152.002,  provides: 
14 
 
"The intent of purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, 
15 
safety and general welfare and to carry out the County Comprehensive 
16 
Plan, the provisions of ORS Chapters 92 and 215 and the Statewide 
17 
Planning Goals adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197.  This chapter is to 
18 
establish use zones and regulations governing the development and use of 
19 
land within portions of the county; to provide regulations governing non-
20 
conforming uses and structures; to establish and provide for the collection 
21 
of fees; to provide to the administration of this chapter and for the officials 
22 
whose duty it shall be to enforce the provisions thereof; to provide penalties 
23 
                                                 
 
8  
Compare Code of Umatilla County, Chapter 96 ("Noise Control 
Ordinance," Ordinance 99-07) (setting out, among other things, restrictions on noise 
levels), see http://www.co.umatilla.or.us/deptwebs/codes/96.pdf (last accessed April 9, 
2013)). 
23 
for the violations of this chapter; to provide for conflicts with other 
1 
ordinances or regulations; and provide classifications and uniform 
2 
standards for the division of land and the installation of related 
3 
improvements in portions of the unincorporated area of the county." 
4 
See http://www.co.umatilla.or.us/planning/pdf/Umatilla_County_Development_Code. 
5 
pdf, 12 (last accessed April 9, 2013).  As can be seen, the statement identifies several 
6 
purposes of chapter 152, not just the promotion of public health, safety, and general 
7 
welfare -- which, arguably, is an inextricable component of most land use regulations.  
8 
Notably, the identified purposes include carrying out the county's comprehensive plan, 
9 
state law pertaining to subdivisions and partitions (ORS chapter 92), state law pertaining 
10 
to county planning, zoning, and housing codes (ORS chapter 215), and the statewide 
11 
planning goals adopted pursuant to ORS chapter 197.  Further, the statement primarily 
12 
describes the contents of Chapter 152 by using wording that can be characterized as 
13 
relating to "land use" and not to "public health and safety."  Indeed, in its original final 
14 
order approving the initial site certificate, the council drew the "applicable substantive 
15 
criteria from the affected local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan and land 
16 
use regulations" under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) largely from various sections of UCDC 
17 
Chapter 152.  In short, the "purpose" statement cuts against petitioners' contention that 
18 
Ordinance 2012-04 is a "public health and safety" measure subject to the "abide by local 
19 
ordinances" clause of ORS 469.401(2), rather than a "land use regulation[]" as the 
20 
legislature intended that term to apply in ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A). 
21 
 
 
Petitioners are correct that one effect of Ordinance 2012-04 may be a 
22 
positive impact on public health and safety, given that an increased distance between 
23 
24 
wind turbines and rural residences potentially lessens any health or safety hazards that 
1 
arguably may flow from turbine installation.  The same could be said, however, for any 
2 
number of land use restrictions -- for example, a  restriction that prohibits development in 
3 
a flood plain may bear the characteristics of a "land use regulation[]," while at the same 
4 
time having the effect of protecting public health and safety.9  The fact that such a 
5 
restriction may operate to benefit public health and safety, however, does not diminish its 
6 
qualification under the legislature's express category of "land use regulations[]" for 
7 
purposes of ORS chapter 469.  That same logic applies to Ordinance 2012-04:  As is 
8 
clear from the text of the ordinance, the context of its adoption as part of the county's 
9 
Development Code, and the UCDC purpose statement, the ordinance qualifies -- under 
10 
the legislative category of "land use regulations" identified in ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) -- as 
11 
a "land use regulation[]" pertaining to the siting of wind turbines.10 
12 
                                                 
 
9  
We also acknowledge that the legislature has determined, in other statutory 
contexts, that a "land use" regulation simultaneously may relate to "public health and 
safety." See, e.g., ORS 197.723(5)(a) (statute establishing process for designating 
regionally significant industrial areas; one particular subsection does not apply to any 
"land use regulation that is necessary * * * [t]o protect public health or safety").  Indeed, 
as noted earlier, ORS 469.310 requires that "the siting, construction and operation of 
energy facilities shall be accomplished in a manner consistent with protection of the 
public health and safety," which demonstrates that the legislature intended that public 
health and safety considerations be part of the siting decision for an energy facility. 
 
10  
Petitioners also cite Oregon statutes and administrative rules that pertain to 
noise regulations, specifically, ORS 467.010 (declared policy that state has interest in 
controlling noise emission pollution and that protection program should be initiated) and 
OAR 340-035-0005 (ODEQ rule; state public policy to provide coordinated statewide 
noise control program, to facilitate cooperation among state and local governmental units 
in that regard, and to develop progressive and cooperative noise-control program).  In 
petitioners' view, in linking noise prevention with public health, those provisions support 
construing Ordinance 2012-04 as a "public health and safety" ordinance subject to the 
25 
C. 
Council's Application of ORS 469.504(1)(b(A) and "Abide by Local Ordinances" 
1 
Clause of ORS 469.401(2) in its Final Order 
2 
 
 
We turn to the council's application of the statutes at issue in its final order 
3 
approving Amendment #2.  First, the council applied ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) and 
4 
determined that it was precluded from including Ordinance 12-04 as part of the 
5 
"applicable substantive criteria" to consider in making a land-use compliance 
6 
determination, because the ordinance was not "in effect" on the Amendment #2 
7 
application date.  As previously explained, we agree with the council that (1) Ordinance 
8 
2012-04 qualifies as a "land use regulation[]" within the meaning of ORS 
9 
469.504(1)(b)(A); and, (2) because the ordinance was not "in effect" on the Amendment 
10 
#2 application date, it should not be considered as part of the substantive criteria 
11 
assessment set out under that statute.  The council did not err in applying ORS 
12 
469.504(1)(b)(A) in that manner. 
13 
 
 
Next, the council made a series of compliance determinations applying 
14 
various public health and safety council-adopted standards, state statutes, and 
15 
administrative rules to Amendment #2.  For example, the council determined that, under 
16 
ORS 469.503(1), the facility complied with council-adopted standards identified in ORS 
17 
469.501, including standards for the design, construction, and operation of the wind 
18 
turbines, to avoid endangering public safety and to include adequate safety devices and 
19 
_______________________ 
"abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 469.401(2).  The existence of those express 
public policies, however, do not support characterizing Ordinance 2012-04 -- which, by 
its terms, was written and adopted as a land-use regulation and therefore subject to 
consideration under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) -- as a public health and safety measure in the 
manner that petitioners contend. 
26 
testing procedures.  The council noted in that regard that several related site certificate 
1 
conditions, expressly included in the original final order approving the initial site 
2 
certificate, were necessary to "ensure public safety."  See ORS 469.503(1) (before issuing 
3 
site certificate, council must determine that preponderance of evidence supports 
4 
conclusion that facility complies with council-adopted standards under ORS 469.501); 
5 
ORS 469.501(1) (council shall adopt standards for energy facility siting, construction, 
6 
operation, and retirement, including standards addressing structural, financial, 
7 
environmental, and public health and safety concerns; council has adopted those 
8 
standards as administrative rules); ORS 469.401(2) (site certificate shall contain 
9 
conditions for, among other things, "protection of the public health and safety").  The 
10 
council further determined under ORS 469.503(3) that the facility, with Amendment #2, 
11 
would comply with "all other Oregon statutes and administrative rules identified in the 
12 
project order," including ODEQ noise regulations, subject to site certificate conditions 
13 
already identified in the original final order.  Then, as to the requirement in ORS 469.310 
14 
that the council ensure that the siting, construction, and operation of energy facilities "be 
15 
accomplished in a manner consistent with protection of the public health and safety," the 
16 
council identified previously imposed "public health and safety" conditions addressing 
17 
fire protection, magnetic fields, and coordination with the Public Utilities Commission 
18 
regarding electrical transmission line design.  As to all those described components, the 
19 
council determined that nothing in Amendment #2 would alter the earlier compliance 
20 
findings from its original final order approving the initial site certificate, so long as 
21 
previously imposed conditions continued to apply.  We set out the foregoing 
22 
27 
determinations -- which petitioners do not dispute -- as an illustration of the council's 
1 
assessment and application of various "public health and safety" standards, rules, and site 
2 
certificate conditions to Amendment #2. 
3 
 
 
We turn to the council's application of the "abide by local ordinances" 
4 
clause of ORS 469.401(2).  The council expressly stated that "the site certificate holder is 
5 
subject to all applicable conditions and requirements contained in the rules of the Council 
6 
and in local ordinances and state law in effect on the date the amended site certificate is 
7 
executed."  (Emphasis added.)  In that part of its final order, the council did not mention 
8 
Ordinance 2012-04; however, the council previously had considered and rejected 
9 
application of the ordinance in determining whether the facility complied with statewide 
10 
planning goals under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) and had incorporated an ODOE staff 
11 
recommendation that it not apply the ordinance under the "abide by local ordinances" 
12 
clause of ORS 469.401(2).  As do the parties, we infer that the council concluded that the 
13 
proper characterization of Ordinance 2012-04 as a "land-use regulation[]" subject to 
14 
evaluation under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) precluded its application under the "abide by 
15 
local ordinances" clause of ORS 469.401(2). 
16 
 
 
In light of our statutory analysis and review of the council's legal evaluation 
17 
of Ordinance 2012-04, we conclude that the council did not err in its application of the 
18 
"abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 469.401(2).  As discussed, the council 
19 
correctly characterized Ordinance 2012-04 as a "land use regulation[]" under ORS 
20 
469.504(1)(b)(A) and correctly concluded that the effective date of the ordinance 
21 
precluded its consideration under that statute.  Because the council accurately 
22 
28 
characterized Ordinance 2012-04 as a "land use regulation[]," it also correctly concluded 
1 
that the ordinance did not fall within the scope of the "abide by local ordinances" clause 
2 
of ORS 469.401(2). 
3 
IV.  SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:   
4 
ORS 469.401(2) -- "LATER-ADOPTED" LAWS OR RULES 
5 
 
 
We turn to petitioners' second assignment of error, under the "later-adopted 
6 
laws" clause of ORS 469.401(2), which provides: 
7 
"The site certificate or amended site certificate shall require both parties to 
8 
abide by local ordinances and state law and the rules of the council in effect 
9 
on the date the site certificate or amended site certificate is executed, except 
10 
that upon a clear showing of a significant threat to the public health, safety 
11 
or the environment that requires application of later-adopted laws or rules, 
12 
the council may require compliance with such later-adopted laws or rules." 
13 
(Emphasis added.)  Relying on the ODOE staff report, the council in its final order 
14 
declined to require compliance with Ordinance 2012-04 as a "later-adopted law[]"under 
15 
ORS 469.401(2).  Petitioners assert that the ordinance qualifies as a "later-adopted 
16 
law[]," that they presented substantial evidence to satisfy the "significant threat" 
17 
requirement, and that the council abused its discretion when it failed to require 
18 
compliance with the ordinance in Amendment #2. 
19 
 
 
Before turning to the merits, we address three preliminary considerations.  
20 
First, the parties do not appear to dispute that the words "later-adopted laws or rules" in 
21 
ORS 469.401(2) mean laws or rules adopted after the execution date of either the site 
22 
certificate or an amended site certificate, as applicable.11  Here, the county adopted 
23 
                                                 
 
11  
By contrast, the preceding "abide by local ordinances" clause of ORS 
469.401(2) unequivocally applies to local ordinances, state law, and council rules in 
29 
Ordinance 2012-04 before the council issued its final order approving Amendment #2 
1 
and before the execution date for Amendment #2 -- indeed, that amended site certificate 
2 
has not yet been executed, pending the outcome of this proceeding.  In the context of this 
3 
assignment of error, then, petitioners appear to treat the execution date for either the 
4 
initial site certificate or for Amendment #1 -- which both predated adoption of Ordinance 
5 
2012-04 -- as the operative trigger date that justifies treatment of the ordinance as a 
6 
"later-adopted law[]."  That is, unlike their first assignment of error -- which exclusively 
7 
focuses on the statutorily required contents of Amendment #2 -- this assignment 
8 
alternatively contends that Amendment #2 should address the changed circumstance of 
9 
the county's adoption of Ordinance 2012-04 after the execution date for either the original 
10 
site certificate or Amendment #1. 
11 
 
 
Second, we note that OAR 345-027-0090 provides a process for requesting 
12 
that the council require facility compliance with later-adopted laws or rules under the 
13 
"significant threat" requirement set out in ORS 469.401(2).  Such a process was not 
14 
initiated here; instead, petitioners raised (and continue to raise) their "later-adopted" 
15 
contentions in the context of challenging Helix's Amendment #2 application.  Although 
16 
the council and Helix disagree with petitioners on the merits, they do not argue that 
17 
petitioners should have raised this challenge through the process established in OAR 345-
18 
027-0090. 
19 
 
 
Third, in disagreeing with petitioners on the merits, the council and Helix 
20 
_______________________ 
effect on the execution date. 
30 
do not appear to dispute petitioners' assumption that a local ordinance may qualify under 
1 
the "later-adopted laws or rules" clause of ORS 469.401(2) (emphasis added).  As a 
2 
matter of statutory interpretation, we agree with that construction.  At first blush, the 
3 
more precise wording of the preceding "abide by local ordinances" clause -- which 
4 
requires inclusion in the site certificate of compliance conditions as to "local ordinances 
5 
and state law and the rules of the council" in effect on the execution date (emphasis 
6 
added) -- coupled with the lack of reference to "local ordinances" in the "later-adopted 
7 
laws" clause, could be read to suggest that "later-adopted" laws include state laws but 
8 
exclude local ordinances.  However, other aspects of the statutory scheme suggest that 
9 
"later-adopted laws" include local ordinances.  For example, subsection (3) of ORS 
10 
469.401 provides, in part: 
11 
 
"(3) * * * After the site certificate or amended site certificate is 
12 
issued, the only issue to be decided in an administrative or judicial review 
13 
of a state agency or local government permit for which compliance with 
14 
governing law was considered and determined in the site certificate or 
15 
amended site certificate proceeding shall be whether the permit is 
16 
consistent with the terms of the site certificate or amended site certificate. 
17 
* * *" 
18 
That subsection of ORS 469.401 uses the words "governing law" to refer to the collective 
19 
body of ordinances, state law, and rules that are subject to site certificate compliance 
20 
requirement terms under subsection (2).  That reference in turn suggests that the similarly 
21 
broad "later-adopted laws" clause of subsection (2) incorporates local ordinances, as well.  
22 
By contrast, ORS chapter 469 consistently refers to categories of applicable state law as 
23 
"statutes" or "state laws," instead of using the broader term, "laws."  See ORS 469.503(3) 
24 
(in determining facility compliance with "Oregon statutes and administrative rules 
25 
31 
identified in the project order," if council identifies related conflicting certificate 
1 
conditions, council may resolve conflict but may not waive "any applicable state statute" 
2 
(emphases added)); ORS 469.504(3) (similar waiver provision; refers to "applicable 
3 
statutes and state administrative rules" (emphasis added)); ORS 469.401(2) (refers to 
4 
compliance with future-adopted "applicable state and federal laws" to extent required 
5 
under state agency statutes and rules (emphasis added)).  In light of that statutory context, 
6 
we agree with all parties that "later-adopted laws" referred to in ORS 469.401(2) may 
7 
include local ordinances. 
8 
 
 
We turn to petitioners' contention on the merits.  As noted, under ORS 
9 
469.401(2), the council "may" require compliance with a "later-adopted law[]" upon a 
10 
clear showing of a significant threat to the public health, safety, or the environment that 
11 
requires application of such a law.  Because the council's determination under that clause 
12 
is discretionary, we review the council's decision to not require compliance with 
13 
Ordinance 2012-04 as a "later-adopted law[]" for abuse of discretion.  See ORS 
14 
183.482(8)(b)(A) (court shall remand if it finds agency's exercise of discretion to be 
15 
outside range of discretion delegated to agency by law). 
16 
 
 
In its final order approving Amendment #2, the council incorporated by 
17 
reference factual findings from both the original final order approving the initial site 
18 
certificate and the final order approving Amendment #1 that the facility would comply 
19 
with ODEQ noise regulations, subject to identified site certificate conditions.  The 
20 
council further concluded that, subject to those same site certificate conditions, the 
21 
facility would comply with applicable ODEQ regulations under Amendment #2.  The 
22 
32 
council did not specifically analyze petitioners' contentions under the "later-adopted 
1 
laws" clause of ORS 469.401(2) in its final order; instead, the order incorporated the 
2 
ODOE staff report analysis by reference. 
3 
 
 
The ODOE staff report recommended that the council decline to find that a 
4 
setback of less than two miles posed a significant threat to public health and safety.  First, 
5 
the report explained that the council previously had determined -- in an unrelated 
6 
proceeding -- that a 1/4 mile setback was sufficient and that the council since had applied 
7 
that smaller setback to other wind energy facilities.  Second, the report explained that 
8 
ODEQ noise regulations established a "public health setback" that may exceed 1/4 mile 
9 
depending on certain circumstances and that the council applied those regulations to all 
10 
energy facilities.  The report therefore recommended that the council follow its own 
11 
previously established 1/4-mile setback or a setback that otherwise complied with ODEQ 
12 
regulations, whichever was greater.  The report further noted that the council expressly 
13 
had declined to adopt a two-mile setback when the same question had been raised in 
14 
proceedings challenging Amendment #1 the previous year; as noted, both the original 
15 
final order and the final order approving Amendment #1 had concluded that (with 
16 
identified conditions in place) the facility would comply with ODEQ noise regulations.  
17 
By incorporating the ODOE staff report by reference, the council implicitly declined to 
18 
require compliance with Ordinance 2012-04 in Amendment #2 as a "later-adopted law[]." 
19 
 
 
In challenging that decision, petitioners argue that the council discounted 
20 
their supporting documentation demonstrating the adverse public health effects of wind 
21 
turbine noise and that the council failed to evaluate whether petitioners had made a 
22 
33 
sufficient "significant threat" showing, so as to justify requiring compliance with 
1 
Ordinance 2012-04 as a "later-adopted law[] under ORS 469.401(2).  Petitioners are 
2 
correct that, in its assessment of the "significant threat" question, the council expressly 
3 
focused on its own precedent and, in particular, the applicable ODEQ regulations, rather 
4 
than on petitioners' arguments and documentation.  However, after viewing the relevant 
5 
final order components as a whole, we understand the council to have declined to require 
6 
compliance with Ordinance 2012-04 because the applicable ODEQ regulations and 
7 
council precedent countered petitioners' proffered "significant threat" showing. 
8 
 
 
We conclude that the council did not abuse its discretion in declining to 
9 
require compliance with Ordinance 2012-04 in Amendment #2 as a "later-adopted law[]" 
10 
under ORS 469.401(2).  As part of issuing both its original final order and its final order 
11 
approving Amendment #1, the council previously had determined that the facility was 
12 
subject to the ODEQ noise regulations and that the facility would comply with those 
13 
regulations.  In succinctly addressing petitioners' contentions in this Amendment #2 
14 
proceeding, the council continued to apply its earlier analysis from the Amendment #1 
15 
proceeding and determined that its own precedent, facility compliance with ODEQ 
16 
regulations, and previously imposed site certificate conditions effectively negated 
17 
petitioners' "significant threat" contentions.  The council's reliance on the ODEQ 
18 
regulations as part of assessing petitioners' "significant threat" contention fell within its 
19 
statutory authority under ORS 469.401(2).12  It follows that its ultimate determination 
20 
                                                 
 
12  
And, even if the council had determined that petitioners had established a 
"significant threat," it nonetheless had discretion under ORS 469.401(2) whether to treat 
34 
that the "later-adopted laws" clause of that statute did not require compliance with 
1 
Ordinance 2012-04 also fell within its authority. 
2 
V.  THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: 
3 
OAR 345-027-0070(7) -- CONTESTED CASE PROCEEDING 
4 
 
 
Petitioners' final assignment of error is that the council erred in denying 
5 
their requests for a contested case proceeding.  They rely on OAR 345-027-0070(7), 
6 
which provides, in part: 
7 
"To determine that an issue justifies a contested case proceeding under 
8 
section (8),[13] the Council must find that the request raises a significant 
9 
issue of fact or law that may affect the Council’s determination that the 
10 
facility, with the change proposed by the amendment, meets an applicable 
11 
standard.  If the Council finds that the request would not affect the 
12 
Council’s determination if the alleged facts were found to be true but that 
13 
those facts could affect a site certificate condition, the Council may deny 
14 
the request and may adopt appropriate conditions. * * *" 
15 
(Emphasis added.)  Petitioners focus on the "significant issue of fact or law" component, 
16 
arguing that their legal and factual submissions to the council as to the proper application 
17 
of ORS 469.401(2) and Ordinance 2012-04, and the noise impact of wind turbines on 
18 
public health and safety, satisfied that component.  Petitioners additionally contend that a 
19 
contested case proceeding would have provided them the opportunity to further develop 
20 
their legal analysis and more persuasively establish that a setback of less than two miles 
21 
would create a "significant threat" to public health and safety under the second clause of 
22 
_______________________ 
Ordinance 2012-04 as a "later-adopted law[]." 
 
13  
OAR 345-027-0070(8) provides, in part, that the council "shall determine 
whether any issue identified in a request for a contested case proceeding justifies a 
contested case proceeding[.]"  See also OAR 345-027-0070(6) (any person may ask 
council to hold contested case proceeding on proposed order; written request must 
include description of contested issues and statement of facts believed to be at issue). 
35 
the second sentence of ORS 469.401(2).   As to the "applicable standard" component of 
1 
OAR 345-027-0070(7), petitioners characterize the alternative 1/4-mile setback and 
2 
ODEQ regulations as insufficient alternative "standards" to the two-mile setback required 
3 
in Ordinance 2012-04; they also characterize their proffered construction of ORS 
4 
469.401(2) as a "standard" that applied to the council's determination under OAR 345-
5 
027-0070(7).   
6 
 
 
OAR 345-027-0070(7) requires that petitioners raise "a significant issue of 
7 
fact or law" and also that the issue must be one that may affect the council's 
8 
determination that the facility, with the proposed amendment, would "meet[] an 
9 
applicable standard."  (Emphasis added.)  In the context of OAR chapter 345, the phrase 
10 
"meets an applicable standard" in OAR 345-027-0070(7) has a particular meaning.  ORS 
11 
469.501 requires the council to adopt "standards for the siting, construction, operation 
12 
and retirement of [energy] facilities," and the council has done so.14  As part of the site 
13 
certificate application process, the council must determine that the facility complies with 
14 
those council-adopted standards, ORS 469.503(1), just as it also must determine whether 
15 
the facility complies with statewide planning goals, ORS 469.503(4), and whether it 
16 
complies with other state statutes and rules identified in the project order, ORS 
17 
                                                 
 
14   
See OAR 345-022-0010 - 345-022-0120 (setting out standards relating to 
applicant's organizational expertise; facility structure; soil protection; land use (including 
compliance with statewide planning goals); protected areas; retirement and financial 
assurance; fish and wildlife habitat; threatened and endangered species; scenic resources; 
historic, cultural, and archaeological resources; recreation; public services; and waste 
minimization); OAR 345-024-0010 - 345-024-0720 (setting out specific standards for 
siting facilities, including wind facilities, transmission lines, and facilities that emit 
carbon dioxide). 
36 
469.503(3).  Thus, the question under OAR 345-027-0070(7) is whether the council erred 
1 
in determining that petitioners raised no significant issue of fact or law that may have 
2 
affected the council's determination under ORS 469.503(1) that the facility, with 
3 
Amendment #2, would meet an applicable council-adopted standard arising under ORS 
4 
469.501. 
5 
 
 
Here, the council's determination under OAR 345-27-0070(7) was 
6 
summary in nature but incorporated by reference extensive discussion from the ODOE 
7 
staff report.  That report analyzed petitioners' contentions under the second sentence of 
8 
ORS 469.401(2) and recommended that the council reach the same determinations that 
9 
we now have affirmed:  (1) Ordinance 2012-04 qualifies as a "land use regulation[]" 
10 
under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A) and therefore should not be considered under the "abide by 
11 
local ordinances" clause of ORS 469.401(2); and (2) in light of applicable council 
12 
precedent, the ODEQ noise regulations, and the related procedural background as to this 
13 
site certificate, the council should decline to require compliance with Ordinance 2012-04 
14 
as a "later-adopted law[]"under ORS 469.401(2).  Significantly, the report also reiterated 
15 
that the final order approving Amendment #1 had determined that the two-mile setback 
16 
did not apply to any of the council's "compliance" determinations under ORS 469.503 -- 
17 
including compliance with council-adopted standards under ORS 469.503(1) -- and that 
18 
Amendment #2 raised no new facts or circumstances that justified altering the council's 
19 
earlier ORS 469.503 compliance determinations.  The report expressly recommended that 
20 
the council find that petitioners had not satisfied the threshold requirements under OAR 
21 
345-027-0070(7).  By incorporating the ODOE staff report by reference, the council 
22 
37 
adopted the staff analysis and made the recommended determination. 
1 
 
 
We conclude that the council did not err in rejecting petitioners' requests for 
2 
a contested case proceeding.  The council determined that petitioners' legal and factual 
3 
claims -- even to the extent that they may have raised "significant issue[s] of fact or law" 
4 
in the abstract -- did not raise any significant issue or fact or law that may have affected 
5 
the council's determination under ORS 469.503(1) that the facility "meets an applicable 
6 
standard" under OAR 345-27-0070(7); instead, petitioners focused on the council's 
7 
application of the second sentence of ORS 469.401(2), regarding amended site certificate 
8 
contents.  The council's determination was permissible, given the narrow wording of 
9 
OAR 345-27-0070(7).  See Don't Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 
10 
132, 142, 881 P2d 119 (1994) (where council's plausible interpretation of own rule 
11 
cannot be shown to be inconsistent with wording of rule, context, or any other source of 
12 
law, no basis exists for this court to conclude that council interpreted rule "erroneously"). 
13 
VI.  CONCLUSION 
14 
 
 
To summarize, we conclude that (1) the council correctly characterized 
15 
Ordinance 2012-04 as a "land use regulation[]" subject to consideration under ORS 
16 
469.504(1)(b)(A) and properly declined to consider the ordinance under that statute 
17 
because it was not "in effect" on the Amendment #2 application date; (2) because the 
18 
ordinance qualified as a "land use regulation[]" under ORS 469.504(1)(b)(A), the council 
19 
correctly declined to require compliance with the ordinance under the "abide by local 
20 
ordinances" clause of ORS 469.401(2); (3) the council did not abuse its discretion in 
21 
declining to require compliance with the ordinance as a "later-adopted law[]"; and (4) the 
22 
38 
council did not err in denying petitioners' requests for a contested case proceeding.  We 
1 
therefore affirm the council's final order approving Amendment #2. 
2 
 
 
The Final Order Denying a Contested Case Proceeding and Approving 
3 
Amendment #2 of the Energy Facility Siting Council is affirmed. 
4