Dreyer v. Portland General Electric Co. (2006)

In PUC Order No. 93-1117, the PUC declared that “if PGE met certain conditions and could show certain ‘assumed facts’ to be true in a rate case or similar forum, then PGE could set rates to obtain both a ‘return of’ and a ‘return on’ its Trojan investment.” Dreyer, 341 Or at 267 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted) (summarizing PUC Order No. 93-1117).

In PUC Order No. 93-1117, the PUC declared that “if PGE met certain conditions and could show certain ‘assumed facts’ to be true in a rate case or similar forum, then PGE could set rates to obtain both a ‘return of and a ‘return on’ its Trojan investment.” Dreyer, 341 Or at 267 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted) (summarizing PUC Order No. 93-1117).

The rates named therein are the lawful rates until they are changed as provided in ORS 757.210 to 757.220.” See also Dreyer, 341 Or at 279 (holding that ORS 757.225 is “a direction to utilities to charge all their ratepayers the PUC-approved rate and, if a utility is dissatisfied with a rate, to obtain a new PUC-approved rate” through the statutory processes set out in ORS 757.210 to 757.220).

Certainly, if the PUC decides to take that approach to the problem, its special expertise makes it a far superior venue for determining that remedy.” 341 Or at 284-85 (footnotes omitted).

However, “[n]o Oregon court has expressly decided whether Oregon accepts the filed-rate doctrine or the corollary rule against retroactive ratemaking.” Dreyer v. Portland GE, 341 Or. 262, 271, n. 10 , 142 P.3d 1010 (2006).

Cf. Boise Cascade Corp., 325 Or at 193 (explaining that, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, “[t]he court retains jurisdiction over the dispute itself and all other issues raised by the dispute, but it cannot resolve that dispute until the agency has resolved the issue that is in its primary jurisdiction” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or 262, 283, 287 , 142 P3d 1010 (2006) (concluding that court had “legal duty to abate the proceedings” pending…

Cf. Boise Cascade Corp., 325 Or. at 193 , 935 P.2d 411 (explaining that, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, "[t]he court retains jurisdiction over the dispute itself and all other issues raised by the dispute, but it cannot resolve that dispute until the agency has resolved the issue that is in its primary jurisdiction" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or. 262, 283, 287 , 142 P.3d 1010 (2006) (concluding that court had "legal duty to abate the pr…

See, e.g.,Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or 262, 285 , 142 P3d 1010 (2006) (issue raised regarding administrative agency’s authority would not be ripe for decision by an appellate court until the agency acted in that regard).