Utility Rights of Way and Territory Allocation

ORS 758.475
Fees


Except in cases under ORS 758.430 (Amendment of contract) and 758.460 (Assignment or transfer of rights acquired by allocation) where no hearing is required, to cover the costs of administering 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) the Public Utility Commission is required to receive fees before filing any contract, application, petition, complaint, protest, appearance, motion, answer or other pleading and for holding any hearing. All fees shall be collected in accordance with the following schedule:

(1)

Filing application for allocated territory under ORS 758.435 (Application for allocation of territory) by a person having annual gross revenue derived from within the state for the calendar year 1960:

(a)

In excess of $5 million or more, a fee of two-tenths of one mill of such revenue but in no event shall such fee exceed, $10,000.

(b)

In excess of $100,000 but less than $5 million, $100.

(c)

Less than $100,000, $50.

(2)

Filing a contract or application under ORS 758.015 (Certificate of public convenience and necessity) or 758.420 (Filing of contract), $100.

(3)

Filing petition or complaint, $25.

(4)

Filing protest, appearance, motion, answer or other pleading, $10.

(5)

Filing an application for allocated territory under ORS 758.435 (Application for allocation of territory) subsequent to an original allocation and payment of fee under subsection (1) of this section, $100. [Formerly 757.685; 1983 c.540 §7]
§§ 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