ORS 758.470
Application to cities, municipalities and cooperatives of ORS 758.400 to 758.475


(1)

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) shall not be construed or applied to restrict the powers granted to cities to issue franchises, or to restrict the exercise of the power of condemnation by a municipality; and when a municipality has condemned or otherwise acquired another person’s equipment, plant or facilities for rendering utility service, it shall acquire all of the rights of the person whose property is condemned to serve the territory served by the acquired properties.

(2)

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) shall not be construed to restrict the right of a municipality to provide utility service for street lights, fire alarm systems, airports, buildings and other municipal installations regardless of their location.

(3)

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) shall not be construed to confer upon the Public Utility Commission any regulatory authority over rates, service or financing of cooperatives or municipalities. [Formerly 757.680]

Notes of Decisions

This section necessarily implies that cities may condemn property of public utilities in exclusively allocated territory for purpose of using property to provide services which public utility had provided on property. 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

Power granted to cities to issue franchises to utilities governed by Public Utility Commission territorial allocation is limited to authority conferred by ORS 221.420. Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald People’s Utility District, 339 Or 631, 125 P3d 740 (2005)

§§ 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
May. 15, 2020