2017 ORS 758.455¹
Investigation by commission respecting contracts or applications
  • hearing procedure

(1) The Public Utility Commission may make such investigations respecting a contract or an application for the allocation of territory as the commission deems proper including the physical examinations and evaluations of the facilities and systems of the parties to the contract, estimates of their operating costs and revenues and studies of such other information as the commission deems pertinent.

(2) Insofar as applicable and consistent herewith, the provisions of ORS 756.500 (Complaint) to 756.610 (Judicial review) shall govern the conduct of hearings.

(3) In considering competing applications to serve the same territory, there shall be a disputable presumption that applicants have an equal ability to extend, improve, enlarge, build, operate and maintain existing or proposed facilities. [Formerly 757.655]

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.