Source: https://elr.info/litigation/%5bfield_article_volume-raw%5d/20372/application-portland-gen-co
Timestamp: 2016-12-10 09:04:19
Document Index: 497169673

Matched Legal Cases: ['§469', '§183', '§183', '§469', '§469', '§183', '§183']

Application of Portland Gen. Co.
No. No. SC No. 24630, 561 P.2d 154/277 Ore. 447, (Or., 03/03/1977) Reversing the Oregon Court of Appeals, 25 Ore. App. 469, 550 P.2d 465, the Oregon Supreme Court holds that a private citizen is entitled to judicial review of a decision of the Energy Facility Siting Council and that the Council did not make proper findings regarding the citing of two nuclear power plants at Pebble Springs in Gillham County.The Energy Facility Siting Act, Ore. Rev. Stat. §§469.300 et seq., prohibits construction of energy facilities without a Council certificate and gubernatorial approval. The Council's responsibilities include selection and certification of sites and ensuring facility safety and security. Site certification is implemented by three procedures: general studies of site selection, designation after hearings of suitable site areas, and actions on specific site applications. The Council must establish standards for applicants to meet in terms of ability to finance, construct, and operate the facility.
Judicial review in this case is governed by the Oregon Administrative Procedure Act, Ore. Rev. Stat. §§183.310-183.500, which provides for judicial review for any party to the agency proceeding or any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the agency order. Ore. Rev. Stat. §183.480. Intervention in agency proceedings is allowed to persons with an interest in the proceedings or who represent a public interest. Ore. Rev. Stat. §469.380. They need not represent an organized interest group nor is the term "public interest" geographically limited. The Council has discretion to determine whether an intervenor will properly represent an element of the overall public interest. An intervenor is not restricted to judicial review of only those issues he raised below. See Hennesey v. SEC, 285 F.2d 511 (3d Cir. 1961). Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply here where agency authority is in question. Sunshine Dairy v. Peterson, 183 Ore. 305, 193 P.2d 543 (1958).
Turning to the merits, the court holds that the Act requires the Council to set standards for site certification by rule, see Ore. Rev. Stat. §§469.470, 469.510, prior to consideration of individual applications. Rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is used to establish general agency policy, while adjudication in contested case hearings is used to apply that policy. Policymaking choices demand procedures open to the assertion of viewpoints beyond those of the applicant and the agency staff. While rulemaking is preferred, this purpose may also be accomplished by allowing participants to intervene in a contested case to assert non-party views.
The Council has adopted "standards," but these are mostly phrased as requests for information. Ore. Admin. R. 345-25-001 to -049. The standards for financial ability are inadequate insofar as they request merely financial information, but are minimally sufficient in requiring an applicant to show access to funds for construction and operation. Moreover, the Council did not make a finding of financial ability as required by statute. Ore. Rev. Stat. §183.470.
Finally, many of the Council's findings are mere recitals of evidence rather than findings of ultimate facts as required by Ore. Rev. Stat. §183.470. See Weight v. Insurance Comm'r, 252 Ore. 283, 449 P.2d 419 (1969).