ORS 758.475¹

Except in cases under ORS 758.430 (Amendment of contract) and 758.460 (Assignment or transfer of rights acquired by allocation) where no hearing is required, to cover the costs of administering ORS 758.015 (Certificate of public convenience and necessity) and 758.400 (Definitions for ORS 758.015 and 758.400 to 758.475) to 758.475 (Fees) the Public Utility Commission is required to receive fees before filing any contract, application, petition, complaint, protest, appearance, motion, answer or other pleading and for holding any hearing. All fees shall be collected in accordance with the following schedule:

(1) Filing application for allocated territory under ORS 758.435 (Application for allocation of territory) by a person having annual gross revenue derived from within the state for the calendar year 1960:

(a) In excess of $5 million or more, a fee of two-tenths of one mill of such revenue but in no event shall such fee exceed, $10,000.

(b) In excess of $100,000 but less than $5 million, $100.

(c) Less than $100,000, $50.

(2) Filing a contract or application under ORS 758.015 (Certificate of public convenience and necessity) or 758.420 (Filing of contract), $100.

(3) Filing petition or complaint, $25.

(4) Filing protest, appearance, motion, answer or other pleading, $10.

(5) Filing an application for allocated territory under ORS 758.435 (Application for allocation of territory) subsequent to an original allocation and payment of fee under subsection (1) of this section, $100. [Formerly 757.685; 1983 c.540 §7]

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