General powers
Source:
Section 756.040 — General powers, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors756.html.
Notes of Decisions
Where (1) a utility has purchased the bulk of its necessary equipment and supplies from an “affiliated” manufacturer and (2) due to the affiliated relationship the manufacturer has unique market power rendering a comparison of its prices and profits with those of “peripheral” manufacturers inadequate as a measure of “reasonableness” of the utility’s payments to it, the utility’s failure to provide additional evidence of reasonableness may justify disallowing from the utility’s rate base and operating expenses the portion of the utility’s payments that represent a return to the manufacturer greater than that allowed the utility itself. Pac. NW Bell Tel. Co. v. Sabin, 21 Or App 200, 534 P2d 984 (1975), Sup Ct review denied
Public Utility Commissioner has power under this section to determine unwarranted rate discrimination. American Can Co. v. Davis, 28 Or App 207, 559 P2d 898 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
The Public Utility Commissioner has authority to impose rate design different from that proposed by utility. Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. Davis, 28 Or App 621, 560 P2d 301 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Commissioner has been granted broad legislative authority; consequently commissioner is not obligated to employ any single formula or combination of formulas to determine what are in each case “just and reasonable” rates. Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. Davis, 28 Or App 621, 560 P2d 301 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Where disallowances neither violated specific statutory limits upon commissioner’s otherwise plenary ratemaking power nor resulted in imposition of rates that produce taking of private property without just compensation, they were reasonable and lawful. Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. Davis, 28 Or App 621, 560 P2d 301 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Approval of contract between utility and “affiliated” manufacturer or of utility’s annual budgets that included payments thereunder did not “estop” commissioner from disallowing portion of payments in determining “just and reasonable” rates. Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. Davis, 28 Or App 621, 560 P2d 301 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Public Utility Commissioner’s rule, which passed on utility expenses for payment of county’s net business income tax to county ratepayers only, rather than to all utility ratepayers, was valid because Commissioner is granted both broad regulatory authority over rates by this section and broad rulemaking authority by ORS 756.060. Multnomah County v. Davis, 35 Or App 521, 581 P2d 968 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
This section does not constitute clearly defined statutory grant of authority to Public Utility Commissioner for enactment of “tagline” rule which requires public utilities to tag their advertisements with statement that advertisement is paid for by either customers or stockholders. Pacific Northwest Bell v. Davis, 43 Or App 999, 608 P2d 547 (1979), Sup Ct review denied
Where telecommunications utility retained excess revenue collected under interim rate schedule that was not in compliance with authorized revenue level, PUC did not err in ordering refund. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. Katz, 116 Or App 302, 841 P2d 652 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date