Oregon Statutes 758.017 – Appeal of grant or denial of certificate of public convenience and necessity for transmission lines subject to Energy Facility Siting Council approval; review vested in Supreme Court
(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.
Terms Used In Oregon Statutes 758.017
- Appeal: A request made after a trial, asking another court (usually the court of appeals) to decide whether the trial was conducted properly. To make such a request is "to appeal" or "to take an appeal." One who appeals is called the appellant.
- Continuance: Putting off of a hearing ot trial until a later time.
- Docket: A log containing brief entries of court proceedings.
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
(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:
(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. [2013 c.335 § 3]