2017 ORS 758.435¹
Application for allocation of territory
  • hearing
  • notice

(1) Any person providing a utility service in a territory that is not served by another person providing a similar utility service may make application to the Public Utility Commission for an order allocating such territory to it. The application may include any adjacent area that it is more economical and feasible to serve by an extension of the applicant’s existing facilities than by an extension of the facilities of another person.

(2) The commission shall within 30 days after the filing of such application give notice of the filing. If the commission chooses, or if a customer requests a hearing on the matter within 30 days of the notice, the commission shall hold a hearing by telephone or in person. The commission shall give notice of the hearing within 30 days of the request which notice shall set the date and place of hearing. The hearing shall be held at a place within or conveniently accessible to the territory covered by the application. Notice of the filing shall be by publication in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in the territory covered by the application and shall be published at least once weekly for two successive weeks. Written notice of the filing shall be given to providers of similar utility service in adjacent territory.

(3) Territory within the limits of a city, as fixed on May 31, 1961, shall not be deemed to be served exclusively by any person, if such city is, on such date, served by more than one person having necessary municipal or franchise authority to serve within the entire city. [Formerly 757.640; 1985 c.633 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Public Utility Commission alloca­tion of exclusive service area is entitled to state-ac­tion immunity from federal antitrust law. Columbia River PUD v. Portland General Electric, 40 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Or. 1999)

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/­ors/­ors758.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 758, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano758.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.