Utility Regulation Generally

ORS 757.660
Use of arbitration to resolve disputes relating to valuation of electric company investments

  • rules


In adopting market valuation methodologies under ORS 757.659 (Commission rules) (4), the Public Utility Commission may provide for use of arbitration to resolve disputes relating to valuation of electric company investments.


The commission shall adopt rules for the following purposes:


Establishing the process for selecting an arbitrator under this section.


Establishing the type, scope and subject matter of arbitrations under this section, and the procedure for conducting those arbitrations.


Establishing standards for the decision of an arbitrator under this section.


Governing who may be a party to an arbitration under this section.


(a) An arbitrator selected under rules adopted pursuant to subsection (2) of this section must be experienced in valuing generating resources and may not have any material conflict of interest in the result of the arbitration.


Any party to the arbitration may challenge the selection of an arbitrator by direct petition to the commission. The commission’s review of the selection shall be limited to allegations of bias and lack of qualifications. The commission shall hold a hearing within 10 days after the filing of a petition, and the commission shall issue a final decision within 10 days after the hearing. The commission may require selection of a different arbitrator.


The arbitrator shall control the time, manner and place of the arbitration, subject to any limitations established by commission rule.


An arbitrator acts on behalf of the commission in performing duties and powers under this section and under rules adopted by the commission pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant any rights or privileges to an arbitrator that are otherwise afforded to persons employed by the state.


The commission shall enforce an arbitration decision made pursuant to this section, unless any party to the arbitration files written exceptions with the commission for any of the following causes:


The decision was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means;


There was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrator;


The arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers, or so imperfectly executed the arbitrator’s powers that the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced;


There was an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the description of any thing or property referred to in the decision; or


The decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute, rule or other law.


If, after a hearing on the exceptions filed as provided in subsection (6) of this section, it appears to the commission that the decision should be set aside or modified, the commission may by order refer the decision back to the arbitrator with proper instructions for correction or rehearing.


A commission order or decision under this section may not be appealed until after the commission issues a final order adopting the arbitration decision. [2001 c.134 §1a; 2005 c.22 §507; 2005 c.638 §10]
Note: 757.660 (Use of arbitration to resolve disputes relating to valuation of electric company investments) was added to and made a part of 757.600 (Definitions for ORS 757.600 to 757.689) to 757.689 (Recovery of costs of energy conservation measures in rates of electric company) by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
Chapter 757

Notes of Decisions

Under regulatory scheme, Public Utility Commissioner has authority to promulgate rule limiting telephone company's liability for directory listing errors or omissions. Garrison v. Pacific NW Bell, 45 Or App 523, 608 P2d 1206 (1980)

Refund is proper exercise of Public Utility Commission's general powers if refund (1) is based only on information in existence at time of rate order for which refund is being made; (2) is not based on evaluation of public utility's actual expenses or revenues; and (3) is not effectuated by offsetting future rates. Gearhart v. Public Utility Commission, 255 Or App 58, 299 P3d 533 (2013), aff'd 356 Or 216, 339 P3d 904 (2014)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Authority of Governor and Public Utility Commissioner to enter into binding agreements with respect to uniform curtailment plans, (1977) Vol 38, p 861


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021