A one-line fix restored Oregon's portable cooling device rule
A one-line fix restored Oregon's portable cooling device rule
2026-09-15 · Oregon · Legislation
Oregon's statute voiding planned-community bans on portable cooling devices spent years citing the wrong section for the definition of what a portable cooling device is. House Bill 2464, the Legislative Counsel's annual corrections bill, fixed it — unanimously in both chambers.1
The provision
ORS 94.779(6), as corrected:
“A provision in a planned community's governing document that restricts or prohibits the installation or use of a portable cooling device, as defined in ORS 90.355, is void and unenforceable, unless: (a) The installation or use of the device would: (A) Violate building codes or state or federal law; or (B) Violate the device manufacture's written safety guidelines for the device; or (b) The restrictions are only to require that the device be removed from October 1 through April 30.”2
(“device manufacture's” is how the enacted text reads, and how it appears in the published ORS.)
What was wrong
The subsection previously cited “ORS 90.335 (1)” for the definition. That citation was wrong. The definition lives at ORS 90.355.
House Bill 2464 — “Relating to correction of erroneous material in Oregon law” — changed it, with the bill's own note reading “Corrects citation in (6).” It passed the House 58–0 on February 6, 2025 and the Senate 30–0 on March 6, was signed March 12, 2025 as chapter 2, Oregon Laws 2025, and took effect January 1, 2026.
Why a citation error matters
Because the operative term is defined by reference. A statute voiding a covenant restricting “a portable cooling device, as defined in ORS 90.335 (1)” points at a provision that does not define the term. An owner asserting the right, and a board evaluating it, were both working from a definition the statute did not actually incorporate.
That is the kind of defect that is invisible until someone litigates, and then becomes the whole argument.
The right an Oregon owner actually has
Read the exceptions, because they are narrower than most association rules assume.
A planned-community provision restricting or prohibiting a portable cooling device is void unless one of three things is true:
It would violate building codes or state or federal law. That is a legal-compliance exception, not an aesthetic one.
It would violate the manufacturer's written safety guidelines. Also not aesthetic — and note it is the manufacturer's written guidelines, not the board's judgment about safety.
The restriction only requires removal from October 1 through April 30. This is the seasonal carve-out, and it is the only one that lets a board act on appearance at all. It permits a seasonal-removal rule and nothing more.
What is conspicuously absent is any equivalent of the “reasonable size, placement or aesthetic requirements” carve-out that ORS 94.778 gives boards over solar panels. On cooling devices, an Oregon planned-community board has no aesthetic discretion outside the October-to-April window.
An association rule requiring that a window unit be screened, painted, placed on a particular elevation, or approved by the architectural committee is, on the face of the statute, void — unless it fits one of the three exceptions. Our Oregon architectural review page covers what a committee may require generally.
Where this came from
The substantive right was created by Senate Bill 1536 in 2022, chapter 86, Oregon Laws 2022, after the 2021 heat dome. It sits in the same statute as the drought-irrigation provisions at ORS 94.779(1) and (2), which is why the section gets misread so often — it is a grab bag of narrow overrides on association authority, accumulated over several sessions.
Which is worth saying plainly, because it explains the shape of Oregon association law. There is no general Oregon statute on what an architectural committee may do. There is a growing list of specific things it may not stop:
- solar panels, ORS 94.778 (2017), with an aesthetic carve-out
- electric vehicle charging, ORS 94.762 and ORS 100.627, with a 60-day approval clock
- portable cooling devices, ORS 94.779(6) (2022), with a seasonal-removal carve-out only
- irrigation requirements during drought, ORS 94.779(1) and ORS 100.023 (in force)
- manufactured dwellings and prefabricated structures, ORS 94.776(3) (2025), prospective to documents adopted or amended from January 1, 2026
- density, ADUs and middle housing, ORS 94.776(1), with the date gate deleted operative January 1, 2027
- fire-hardened building materials, chapter 86, Oregon Laws 2026, retroactive, with a 90-day deemed-approval clock
Seven overrides, seven different tests, seven different sets of exceptions, and three different answers on retroactivity. A board cannot reason from one to another.
Two more small enacted items, for completeness
Senate Bill 166 (2025), chapter 32, Oregon Laws 2025, the Oregon State Bar omnibus bill, changed “member” to “licensee” throughout the ORS — including ORS 94.881(1)(a), which governs who may serve as an escrow agent for timeshare funds. It now reads “An attorney who is a licensee of the Oregon State Bar.”
House Bill 2347 (2025), chapter 38, Oregon Laws 2025, changed “single-family dwelling” to “single-unit dwelling” in ORS 93.277. That terminology shift is deliberate Oregon housing-policy drafting, and it is why the source credit for ORS 93.277 carries three separate 2025 amendments.
What to watch next
Nothing on cooling devices specifically. The value in the correction is that the right now works as drafted, and an Oregon owner asserting it in a summer heat event has a statute that points where it says it points.
Related Oregon HOA Topics
Stay on top of Oregon HOA law
Every week: new Oregon legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.