(2) Any party to a contested case proceeding on a site certificate or amended site certificate application may appeal the council’s approval or rejection of the site certificate or amended site certificate application. Issues on appeal shall be limited to those raised by the parties to the contested case proceeding before the council.
(3) Jurisdiction for judicial review of the council’s approval or rejection of an application for a site certificate or amended site certificate 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 council’s final order or within 30 days after the date the petition for rehearing is denied or deemed denied. Date of service shall be the date on which the council delivered or mailed its order in accordance with ORS 183.470.
(4) The filing of a petition for judicial review may not stay the order, except that a party to the contested case may apply to the Supreme Court for a stay upon a showing that there is a colorable claim of error and that:
(a) The petitioner will suffer irreparable injury; or
(b) Construction of the energy facility will result in irreparable harm to resources protected by applicable council standards or applicable agency or local government standards.
(5) If the Supreme Court grants a stay pursuant to subsection (4) 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 a stay in whole or in part.
(c) May impose other reasonable conditions on the stay.
(6) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 469.320 and this section, 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 such a petition for review and shall render a decision within six months of the filing of the petition for review.
(7) The following periods of delay shall be excluded from the six-month period within which the court must render a decision under subsection (6) 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.
(8) No period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the Supreme Court under subsection (7)(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, its 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 (7)(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, due to 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.
(9) No continuance under subsection (7)(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. [1993 c.569 §12 (469.401 and 469.403 enacted in lieu of 469.400); 1995 c.505 §13; 1999 c.385 §4; 2001 c.683 §12]