Central Lincoln People's Utility District v. Oregon Department of Energy

...any failure to comply with ORS 469.421(8)(b)’s “full accounting” requirement in 2014 is different from the error exhibited in the 2016 ESA orders because 2015 legislative action functioned as an intervening event, and required 2016 ESA order to be issued in light of procedural flaws.

Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) appeals a trial court ruling that found ODOE failed to follow statutory procedure laid out in ORS 469.421(8)(b) requiring compliance with a “full accounting” requirement. ODOE contends that the trial court committed three errors. First, the trial court erred in determining that ODOE failed to comply with the ORS 469.421(8)(b) requirement “authorized the . . .  court to set aside the 2016 ESA orders as a remedy”, second, in declaring that “the ESA imposed pursuant to ORS 469.421(8)(b) is a tax” and third, in its award of attorney fees. The Court determined any failure to comply with ORS 469.421(8)(b)’s “full accounting” requirement in 2014 is different from the error exhibited in the 2016 ESA orders because 2015 legislative action functioned as an intervening event, and required 2016 ESA order to be issued in light of procedural flaws. Therefore, the orders are not an outcome of ODOE’s failure to provide “full accounting.” The Court declined to address ODOE’s second assignment of error. ODOE’s third assignment of error, the Court decided that due to the reversal of the trial court’s determination to “set aside the 2016 ESA orders” that the petitioners are not “entitled to attorney’s fees . . . in relation to an issue on which they ultimately did not prevail.” Remanded.