Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 486 P.3d 787

Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) issued permanent rules in January 2020 (Order EFSC 1-2020) revising procedures for site-certificate applications and amendments.
Petitioners challenged three rules: two that limit participation in contested-case proceedings (OAR 345-015-0083(2) and OAR 345-027-0371(10)(a)) and one that lets the Department of Energy authorize site-boundary expansions without a certificate amendment (OAR 345-027-0357(1)).
Under Oregon law, EFSC issues site certificates authorizing construction/expansion of energy facilities; the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) defines "party" and distinguishes full parties (with broad participatory rights) from limited parties (whose scope may be restricted by agency rule).
The challenged participation rules used the term "party" without distinguishing limited parties, and imposed a raise-it-or-waive-it limitation tied to issues raised at the public hearing.
The challenged boundary rule lets the Department approve added site area without an EFSC amendment if the department determines functional amendment criteria are not implicated.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether these rules exceeded EFSC's statutory authority and declared all three invalid; the decision is stayed pending any timely petition for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do OAR 345-015-0083(2) and OAR 345-027-0371(10)(a) lawfully limit participation in contested cases?	Rules unlawfully restrict participation of full parties by limiting them to issues raised at the public hearing, violating APA participatory rights.	Rules apply only to intervenors and, in practice, only to limited parties; EFSC may control whether an intervenor is a full or limited party.	Invalid — rules restrict "parties" generically and therefore improperly limit full-party rights protected by the APA.
Does OAR 345-027-0357(1) permissibly allow the Department to authorize site-boundary expansions without a site-certificate amendment?	Department lacks statutory authority to permit boundary expansions without an EFSC amendment; ORS requires a site certificate for construction/expansion.	Departmental determination procedure merely changes process; substantive authority to allow non-amendment expansions is valid.	Invalid — rule authorizes boundary expansion without council amendment, exceeding EFSC's statutory authority.

Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 365 Or 371 (2019) (discusses EFSC rulemaking and prior invalidation of RFA rules)
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 366 Or 78 (2020) (post-invalidation temporary rules and rulemaking context)
Oil Re-Refining Co. v. Environmental Quality Comm., 361 Or 1 (2017) (framework for judicial deference to agency interpretation of its own rules)