Utility Rights of Way and Territory Allocation

ORS 758.400
Definitions for ORS 758.015 and 758.400 to 758.475


As used in 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) unless the context requires otherwise:

(1)

“Allocated territory” means an area with boundaries established by a contract between persons furnishing a similar utility service and approved by the Public Utility Commission or established by an order of the commission approving an application for the allocation of territory.

(2)

“Person” includes individuals, firms, partnerships, corporations, associations, cooperatives and municipalities, or their agent, lessee, trustee or referee.

(3)

“Utility service” means service provided by any equipment, plant or facility for the distribution of electricity to users or the distribution of natural or manufactured gas to consumers through a connected and interrelated distribution system. “Utility service” does not include service provided through or by the use of any equipment, plant or facilities for the production or transmission of electricity or gas which pass through or over but are not used to provide service in or do not terminate in an area allocated to another person providing a similar utility service. [Formerly 757.605; 1979 c.62 §2; 1985 c.550 §8; 1987 c.447 §101; 1999 c.59 §232]
§§ 758.400 to 758.475

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 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


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021