ORS 758.425¹
Order of commission on contract

(1) On the basis of the applicant’s filing or, if there is a hearing, on the record made at the hearing held pursuant to ORS 758.420 (Filing of contract), the Public Utility Commission shall enter an order either approving or disapproving the contract as filed, together with any appropriate findings of the facts supporting such order.

(2) An order of the commission under this section is subject to judicial review as an order in a contested case in the manner provided by ORS 756.610 (Judicial review).

(3) If the commission approves a contract and a petition for judicial review is not filed, the contract shall be deemed to be valid and enforceable for all purposes from the date on which the right to file a petition for judicial review expires. [Formerly 757.630; 1985 c.633 §4; 2005 c.638 §13]

§§ 758.400 (Definitions for ORS 758.015 and 758.400 to 758.475) to 758.475 (Fees)

Notes of Decisions

Municipalities are subject to exclusive territorial alloca­tion statutes and, although cities have certain authority to regulate public utilities, they may not compete with exclusive provider in allocated territory by reason of their regulatory authority. Pacificorp v. City of Ashland, 88 Or App 15, 744 P2d 257 (1987), as modified by 89 Or App 366, 749 P2d 1189 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

City may provide utility services in territory allocated to an­oth­er provider pursuant to these sec­tions if it exercises authority under ORS 221.420 (Municipal regulation of public utilities) to exclude or eject provider from territory, however, city's mere place­ment of utility facilities and pro­vi­sion of services in territory is not exercise of that authority and is viola­tion of alloca­tion statutes in absence of formal ac­tion by city to eject or exclude provider. PacifiCorp v. City of Ashland, 89 Or App 366, 749 P2d 1189 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Order of Public Utility Commission issued in conjunc­tion with agree­ment between electric companies to exchange electric facilities within certain defined areas did not authorize monopoliza­tion of service. Pacificorp v. Portland General Electric Co., 770 F Supp 562 (1991)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Constitu­tionality of alloca­tion statutes as applied to people's utility districts, (1987) Vol 45, p 209

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 758—Utility Rights of Way and Territory Allocation; Cogeneration, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors758.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 758, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­758ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information