Four Ways to Get More Power Lines—and Clean Power—for Oregonians

To keep the lights on over the next decade, the western United States needs a lot more poles and wires. More than 12,600 miles of them, in fact.

But it’s exceedingly difficult to build new high-voltage power lines in the Northwest, and Oregon may be the hardest place in the region to get it done. The 271-mile-long Boardman to Hemingway transmission line that will run from northeast Oregon to southwest Idaho, for instance, broke ground in June 2025. That was after 17 years of project planning and state and federal permitting, including eight years awaiting the greenlight from Oregon. Slow transmission line approvals cost electric utility customers money, while jeopardizing the region’s ability to harness cheap power from the sun and wind and stop polluting the air by burning fossil fuels.

Thankfully, policymakers in the Beaver State are starting to take notice. In a November 2025 executive order, Governor Tina Kotek instructed state agencies to identify opportunities to speed siting and permitting of clean energy projects, including transmission lines. Oregon leaders can deliver on this mandate and get more poles in the ground by 1) introducing predictability to the state environmental review process, 2) creating consistent land use rules for power lines statewide, 3) eliminating redundant reviews across agencies, and 4) establishing an expedited approval path for transmission lines that starts with early community consultation.

Together, these steps can save Oregonians money, ensure a reliable and resilient grid, and accelerate the state’s progress in transitioning away from coal and gas.

1. Make environmental review requirements predictable from the get-go

All large transmission lines in Oregon must receive approval from the state’s Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC), a seven-member board that evaluates major energy infrastructure, before a developer or utility can begin construction.¹ EFSC checks projects against 16 standards, including fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, scenic resources, and waste minimization. To do so, EFSC solicits input from up to 13 other state agencies.² Oregon law also requires EFSC to solicit input from Tribal governments that could be affected by the project.

But applicants do not know in advance what studies these agencies will ask for or what project design choices they will require. Agencies will sometimes request additional information multiple times about the same project, adding months to review time, one transmission line developer noted to Sightline off the record. Likely as a result, the process to complete and review an energy infrastructure application takes much longer in Oregon than in other states, according to a 2026 study of large wind and solar projects.

Instead of waiting for an individual project to land on its desk to decide all the information it requires, EFSC could collaborate with state agencies now to pre-identify agency information needs, design recommendations, and study requests common across similar projects. EFSC could then incorporate these into all application requirements, eliminating the need for repeated agency requests and bespoke reviews. (Tribal governments would still be consulted for each project.)

For example, some of the state agency requests about Umatilla Electric Cooperative’s proposed 14-mile Umatilla-Morrow County Connect transmission line are so commonsense that they’d no doubt apply to any future grid projects: the Department of Forestry asked about fire prevention safety shutoff measures, and the Department of State Lands asked that the applicant identify any wetlands within the project boundaries. EFSC could simply require those things from every applicant, rather than waiting for each agency to ask.

EFSC could also work with agencies to map geographic areas that, when a transmission line crosses them, would trigger a special study or condition. In the Umatilla-Morrow County project, for example, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife instructed the developer to survey Washington ground squirrels and raptor nests. The state has already mapped historical places, natural resources, and other sensitive areas to help developers determine ideal locations for siting renewable generation resources. (The map excludes sensitive Tribal cultural resources, instead directing users to contact relevant state agencies that in turn identify affected Tribes the developer should consult. A map for transmission lines could do the same to protect Tribal confidentiality.) The Oregon Department of Energy, which staffs EFSC, could adapt the tool to allow developers to map possible transmission lines.

Finally, EFSC could develop standard measures to minimize a transmission line’s impact on the environment. For example, EFSC’s Fish and Wildlife Habitat standard mandates that applicants list affected species and describe steps taken to “avoid, reduce, or mitigate” impacts. Instead, EFSC could specify upfront what those steps must be, like limiting construction to non-nesting seasons or restricting the use of herbicides in vegetation management. If a project developer adopted established measures, EFSC could consider the relevant standard met, reducing review time and subjectivity. (Washington state’s siting council’s recent programmatic environmental impact statement for large transmission lines could help inform these mitigation criteria.)

EFSC is currently refreshing its standards through a rulemaking lasting until 2029. This rulemaking presents a timely opportunity for EFSC to make these more substantive changes or for the state legislature to step in and require them.

2. Create consistent zoning rules for transmission lines across the state

Oregon boasts a long history of pioneering land use laws, most prominently the 1973 Land Use Act, which established the state’s 19 land use planning goals. These goals indicate state priorities, such as forests, housing, and transportation, that local jurisdictions must reflect in their own plans and zoning rules.

But the state left out the grid from these goals; more than 50 years later, that omission is hindering the state’s ability to quickly approve necessary projects.

Oregon law requires all projects approved by EFSC to comply with the statewide planning goals, either by meeting the goals directly or by satisfying whatever specific local zoning criteria each city or county has adopted (which themselves flow from the statewide planning goals).In practice, most developers prefer to show compliance with local criteria, an EFSC representative told Sightline, to garner goodwill with the local communities where they want to build.³

The challenge, though, is that different jurisdictions impose different land use criteria, even for the same land use type. For example, eight jurisdictions in Oregon identified land use criteria for the proposed 100-mile interstate Cascade Renewable Transmission System.⁴ The line’s route crosses open space districts in both The Dalles and the City of Mosier. The Dalles spells out specific criteria: noise levels, lighting, dust, vibration, and traffic impacts. The City of Mosier’s standard is far vaguer, prohibiting “unacceptable adverse impacts” and major health, safety, or welfare impacts.

One exception to local discretion is that, since 1999, Oregon has allowed transmission lines on Exclusive Farm Use land statewide, subject to certain criteria. Ironically, this state statute makes it more straightforward to site on priority pastures than on other types of land, such as rural industrial zones.⁵ These transmission lines still must comply with local rules, but, unlike for other types of land, those conditions must be “clear and objective.” Clear and objective standards are those based on measurable criteria, such as a height limit, rather than subjective judgements, such as neighborhood character. Requiring localities to approve all power line projects according to clear and objective standards (as Oregon does for housing and a subset of grid upgrades) across all zones would improve on the status quo but would still leave open the possibility of a patchwork of local rules.

The most straightforward solution would be for lawmakers to allow EFSC itself to deem transmission projects consistent with statewide planning goals if they meet certain clear and objective criteria (such as the mitigation measures discussed above) for each land use type. For transmission projects not under EFSC’s jurisdiction, Oregon could again port over reforms it has enacted that make it easier to build housing across the state. Oregon requires cities of a certain size to allow “middle housing” in residential zones, a change Sightline has championed, and the state rules to implement this law that cities and counties must adopt. Legislators could similarly require localities to allow transmission lines in all zones and develop rules for cities and counties to adopt.

None of these changes would require updating Oregon’s statewide land use goals (a lengthy and expensive process), according to multiple land use lawyers Sightline consulted, but doing so would likely increase their chances of success. Legislators could, for example, update Land Use Goal 13, Energy Conservation, reviving and amending a proposed 2019 bill. This change would reflect the importance of grid projects to Oregon’s statewide climate goals and recently adopted state energy strategy.

3. Eliminate duplicative review across agencies

Transmission projects in Oregon face a redundant review process: two separate state agencies often evaluate the same project against essentially the same criteria. EFSC issues the main approval (the site certificate), but the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (OPUC), the state’s utility regulator, also evaluates transmission lines that need to cross private land if the developer cannot come to a negotiated agreement with a landowner (always the first recourse). OPUC issues a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), which deems a project to be in the public interest. Utilities can use the CPCN as evidence in eminent domain proceedings, if these are necessary.

However, both OPUC and EFSC assess projects on the same criteria. OPUC examines the economic and technical need for a project. EFSC considers need through its Need Standard for Nongenerating Facilities. OPUC investigates whether the line is in the public interest and if lines will be constructed and maintained carefully. EFSC evaluates public interest and safety. Both OPUC and EFSC review the line’s route. In 2025 the legislature allowed OPUC to issue a CPCN without waiting for EFSC’s land use approval, thus allowing the two reviews to run in parallel. This change saves up to a year in permitting time, an EFSC representative told Sightline.

But the legislature could go further and eliminate the CPCN requirement entirely, instead relying on EFSC’s site certificate as evidence that a project is in the public interest. Twenty-two states, including Washington, do not require a CPCN for any transmission project. In 2024 Minnesota lawmakers eliminated the CPCN for a subset of transmission projects.⁶ Removing the CPCN requirement would not diminish OPUC’s role in protecting ratepayers from paying for unnecessary transmission lines, nor would it change that utilities must still follow Oregon’s procedures to secure power of eminent domain.

4. Create an approval fast-track that starts with early public input

EFSC already offers an expedited permitting path, but transmission lines do not qualify for it; only some natural gas energy projects and small energy generating facilities do. And the current expedited path may not actually speed approval. It excludes the first steps in the permitting process: filing a notice of intent to apply and holding the first public comment period. This opportunity for early public review and input can prevent delays later in the process.

For example, a 100-mile transmission line in Utah faced 10 months of delays as a result of denied permits and litigation after failing to involve local communities in transmission line site selection. Renewable energy projects that lacked community engagement faced average delays of 11–14 months or even all-out cancelations, according to an Oregon State University study.

EFSC allows, but does not require, applicants to meet with local governments and community groups before submitting any information, though is currently considering a rule that would require earlier consultation with Tribal governments. A new fast-track for transmission lines could keep or expand early engagement opportunities. Oregon can also look to a similar approach Massachusetts recently adopted that mandates engagement before an application is filed.

Oregon’s new expedited process could then exclude a step that does cause unpredictability and delays: the contested case hearing. This formal, trial-like proceeding allows parties to present evidence on unresolved project issues. Many projects ultimately do not have any parties to the contested case and proceed without this step. But the process can be lengthy for projects that do. Actions related to the contested case hearings added more than two years to the Boardman to Hemingway transmission line project.

In 2025, Oregon legislators narrowed who has standing to join in EFSC’s contested case process to those who have participated in one of the three earlier public engagement opportunities. Lawmakers can go further, taking inspiration from Minnesota, where in 2024 lawmakers removed the requirement for its contested case equivalent for some transmission projects.⁷

Oregon could also look to Washington for inspiration, where legislators proposed, but did not adopt, a bill that would have eliminated its equivalent of a contested case hearing for transmission projects that completed the preapplication step with Tribal consultation and have no significant impacts on the environment after mitigation.

An expedited permitting path for transmission lines that prioritizes earlier public input while reducing delays from trial-like hearings would be a win-win for Oregonians eager to enjoy reliable, lower-cost power for their homes and businesses.

From Executive Order to action

Governor Kotek’s executive order last fall signaled that Oregon’s leaders understand what’s at stake: without faster approval of new transmission lines, the state cannot deliver affordable, clean, reliable electricity to Oregonians. Standardizing environmental and land use review, reducing agency redundancy, and front-loading local input to fast-track the process are all opportunities for Oregon lawmakers and regulators to deliver on this mandate.