Chapter 756

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)

756.010

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Public utility company’s providing of repair and replacement activities for gas utility service were within definition of “service” and, as such, subject to regulation. Northwest Climate Conditioning v. Lobdell, 79 Or App 560, 720 P2d 1281 (1986)

756.040

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

756.060

NOTES OF DECISIONS

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 ratepayers, was valid because Commissioner is granted both broad regulatory authority over rates by ORS 756.040 and broad rulemaking authority by this section. Multnomah County v. Davis, 35 Or App 521, 581 P2d 968 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Validity of rule passing on utilities tax to customers within taxing authority, and rule as applying to county and city residents equally, (1972) Vol 36, p 131

756.068

NOTES OF DECISIONS

The statutory notice procedure of Public Utility Commissioner did not violate due process standards. Egge v. Davis, 27 Or App 383, 556 P2d 153 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

756.185

NOTES OF DECISIONS

This section does not require that violations be wilful, wanton, or malicious. Holman Transfer Co. v. Pac. NW Bell Tel. Co., 287 Or 387, 599 P2d 1115 (1979)

Where defendant-telephone company’s erroneous directory listing did not violate “adequate service” requirement of ORS 757.020, plaintiff-physician was not entitled to treble damages under this section. Garrison v. Pacific NW Bell, 45 Or App 523, 608 P2d 1206 (1980)

756.310

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Assessment imposed by this section is not prohibited by Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Public Utility Commission of Oregon, 899 F2d 854 (9th Cir. 1990)

756.500

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Public Utility Commission may hear complaint of public utility affecting rates or service filed against person whose business or activities are not subject to laws regulated by commission. Roats Water System v. Golfside Investments, LLC, 225 Or App 618, 202 P3d 199 (2009)

756.558

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Summarization of witnesses’ statements without statement in commissioner’s order as to what factual conclusions commissioner drew therefrom did not satisfy requirements that commissioner prepare and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law upon evidence received. Bekins Moving & Storage Co. v. Pub. Util. Commr., 19 Or App 762, 529 P2d 413 (1974)

756.580

NOTE: Repealed as of January 1, 2006

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Hearings to determine granting or denial of applications for intra-route authorities envision independent presiding officer accepting evidence and PUC Commissioner may act only after this hearing. Schlegel v. Bebout, 831 F2d 881 (1987)

Proceeding in circuit court to modify, vacate or set aside commission findings or conclusions does not qualify for extended refiling time if dismissed. U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Eachus, 124 Or App 325, 862 P2d 102 (1993)

Party that failed to appear after filing request to intervene was “aggrieved party” where position similar to that of party was presented by other intervenors and agency had full opportunity to consider and rule on issue. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. Eachus, 135 Or App 41, 898 P2d 774 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Parties brought before commission by commission’s own motion are “defendants” for purposes of circuit court jurisdiction. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. Eachus, 320 Or 557, 888 P2d 562 (1995)

Utility initiating rate increase request is “defendant” in proceeding. Coalition for Safe Power v. Public Utility Commission, 325 Or 447, 939 P2d 1167 (1997)

Public Utility Commission decision refusing to change previous final action is not appealable finding of fact, conclusion of law or order. Oregon Energy Co. v. Public Utility Commission, 174 Or App 67, 23 P3d 1018 (2001)

756.594

NOTE: Repealed as of January 1, 2006

NOTES OF DECISIONS

The plaintiff has the burden of proving in court by clear and convincing evidence that the Public Utility Commissioner’s order is unreasonable, unlawful or unsupported by substantial evidence. Dickinson v. Davis, 277 Or 665, 561 P2d 1019 (1977)

756.598

NOTE: Repealed as of January 1, 2006

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where order does not violate federal or state constitution, review is limited to whether order exceeded authority of commissioner and whether decision was supported by substantial evidence. Pac. NW Bell Tel. Co. v. Sabin, 21 Or App 200, 534 P2d 984 (1975)

It was error for court to substitute its judgment for that of commissioner in mitigation order. Dickinson v. Davis, 277 Or 665, 561 P2d 1019 (1977)