Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Land Siting Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let federal NEPA review substitute for state siting review on projects wholly on federal land; supporters and conservation groups urge changes
Summary
Senate Bill 969 would allow projects wholly sited on federal land that complete a NEPA environmental review to avoid duplicate review by Oregon’s Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC); proponents say it will cut time and cost, critics warn federal review could be weakened and call for stronger local involvement and enforcement mechanisms.
Senate Bill 969, presented Feb. 26 to the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, would limit the Energy Facility Siting Council’s jurisdiction over renewable energy facilities or transmission lines sited entirely on federal land if the facility has undergone federal review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Sponsor Sen. David Brock Smith and renewable-development witnesses argued that duplicative state and federal permitting — with EFSC reviews often taking a year and costing roughly a million dollars — has discouraged projects on federally managed lands. Max Yawclick, in-house counsel at New Sun Energy, said the bill would accept the federal process (NEPA EIS/EA and related federal laws) in lieu of a separate EFSC site certificate provided certain state protections and consultation requirements are met.
“Between FLTMA and NEPA, there's a whole host of robust standards and processes that cover all facets of energy facility siting that are equivalent to, if not more extensive than the FSEC process,” Yawclick told the committee.
Concerns and suggested fixes
Conservation groups, hunters and some local-government representatives opposed the bill as drafted, citing three main concerns: federal uncertainty (possible changes to NEPA and federal environmental rules), the lack of a clear state enforcement arbiter, and potential loss of local input and benefits for counties where projects are sited.
Amy Patrick, policy director for the Oregon Hunters Association, said removing state review “in the face of the unpredictable future of NEPA ... is the potential to create an unregulated and unfettered void in that siting process.” Catherine Chetty of the Oregon Conservancy Foundation warned that “it makes sense to retain our state level oversight to provide a permitting process with full public engagement.”
Supporters said those issues are subject to ongoing negotiation and that amendments can preserve state interests while eliminating costly duplication. James Williams, a Lake County commissioner and executive director of the Community Renewable Energy Association, urged the committee to require consultation and to preserve local ordinances and mitigation obligations in any amended language.
What would change
Under the bill’s current draft, projects that have completed NEPA review (an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement) and met listed state protections could proceed without obtaining an EFSC site certificate. Proponents say the change would accelerate development on federal lands and reduce permitting costs. Opponents say it could remove a forum for public input and weaken state enforcement unless a clear state review or verification mechanism is retained.
Closing and next steps
Committee members and witnesses said negotiations are ongoing; supporters pledged to work with counties, conservation groups and agencies (including ODFW) to build enforceable monitoring, mitigation and local‑benefit provisions. No formal committee action was taken during the hearing.
