756.500
Complaint; persons entitled to file; contents; amendments. (1) Any person may file a
complaint before the Public Utility Commission, or the commission may, on the
commission’s own initiative, file such complaint. The complaint shall be
against any person whose business or activities are regulated by some one or
more of the statutes, jurisdiction for the enforcement or regulation of which
is conferred upon the commission. The person filing the complaint shall be
known as the complainant and the person against whom the complaint is filed
shall be known as the defendant.
(2) It is not
necessary that a complainant have a pecuniary interest in the matter in
controversy or in the matter complained of, but the commission shall not grant
any order of reparation to any person not a party to the proceedings in which
such reparation order is made.
(3) The complaint
shall state all grounds of complaint on which the complainant seeks relief or
the violation of any law claimed to have been committed by the defendant, and
the prayer of the complaint shall pray for the relief to which the complainant
claims the complainant is entitled.
(4) The complaint
may, at any time before the completion of taking of evidence, be amended by
order of the commission. However, if a charge not contained in the original
complaint or a prior amended complaint is sought to be made by any such
amendment, the defendant shall be given a reasonable time to investigate the
new charge and answer the amended complaint. The final hearing shall, if
necessary, be continued until some date after the defendant has had a
reasonable time to investigate and be prepared to meet the amended complaint.
(5)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, any public utility or
telecommunications utility may make complaint as to any matter affecting its
own rates or service with like effect as though made by any other person, by
filing an application, petition or complaint with the commission. [Formerly
756.520; 1987 c.447 §91; 1995 c.733 §68]
756.505 [Repealed by 1971 c.655 §250]
756.510 [Amended by 1971 c.655 §40;
renumbered 756.518]
Notes of Decisions
PGE v. Alfalfa Solar I, LLC, 524 P.3d 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 31× “Meanwhile, PGE initi- ated this complaint proceeding under ORS 756.500 before the PUC. The district court stayed the federal proceeding pending resolution of the PUC proceeding, concluding that the PUC, under the plain terms of ORS 756.”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Eachus, 888 P.2d 562 (Or. 1995).
· cites it 19× “The PUC relies on two other parts of Oregon’s statutory scheme, ORS 756.500 and 756.580. A “defendant,” it argues, is one who has been required to respond to a “complaint.”
Dreyer v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 142 P.3d 1010 (Or. 2006).
“A necessary corollary of that interpretation would be that rate changes adopted under any alternative process provided in the statutes, including the ratepayer- or PUC-initiated process set out at ORS 756.500 to 756.515, would not produce a binding change to the “lawful” rate.”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“A necessary corollary of that interpretation would be that rate changes adopted under any alternative process provided in the statutes, including the ratepayer- or PUC-initiated process set out at ORS 756.500 to 756.515, would not produce a binding change to the ‘lawful’ rate.”
Nw. Pub. Commc'ns Council ex rel. Oregon v. Qwest Corp., 877 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Or. 2012).
· cites it 3× “” Moreover, the only Oregon statute that appears to provide any form of a private right of action is Oregon Revised Statute § 756.500 under which “[a]ny person may file a complaint before the Public Utilities Commission .”
Coalition for Safe Power v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 939 P.2d 1167 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 13× “518 provides: “Except as otherwise provided the provisions of ORS 756.500 to 756.610 apply to and govern all hearings upon any matter or issue coming before [the PUC] under any statute administered by [the PUC\, whether instituted on the application, petition or complaint of…”
Nw. & Intermountain Power Producers v. PGE, 480 P.3d 981 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 3× “Cite as 308 Or App 110 (2020) 113 In December 2016, the Northwest and Intermountain Power Producers Coalition, the Community Renewable Energy Association, and the Renewable Energy Coalition (collectively, complainants) initiated this complaint proceed- ing against PGE under ORS…”
Cascade Nat. Gas Corp. v. Davis, 560 P.2d 301 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“530 do not indicate an intention to abrogate the Commissioner’s authority previously expressed in that statute. The committee’s comments contain the following: "ORS 757.”
Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 135 P.3d 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“” Also, ORS 756.500(1) provides that “[a]ny person may file a complaint before the Public Utility Commission, or the commission may, on the commission’s own initiative, file such complaint.”
Coalition for Safe Power v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 911 P.2d 1272 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “The court reasoned, inter alia, that the statutes governing PUC proceedings required similar procedural safeguards for utilities subject to “own motion” proceedings as for those subject to complaints under ORS 756.500. The court concluded that ORS 756.”
Roats Water Sys., Inc. v. Golfside Investments, LLC, 202 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 30× “Petitioner assigns error to, inter alia, the PUC’s determination that, even though petitioner is Roats’s customer, the PUC had jurisdiction to consider Roats’s complaint against petitioner pursuant to ORS 756.500. 1 As amplified below, we conclude that, pursuant to ORS 756.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 756.500(1) — 9 cases
PGE v. Alfalfa Solar I, LLC, 524 P.3d 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Meanwhile, PGE initi- ated this complaint proceeding under ORS 756.500 before the PUC. The district court stayed the federal proceeding pending resolution of the PUC proceeding, concluding that the PUC, under the plain terms of ORS 756.”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Eachus, 888 P.2d 562 (Or. 1995).
“The PUC relies on two other parts of Oregon’s statutory scheme, ORS 756.500 and 756.580. A “defendant,” it argues, is one who has been required to respond to a “complaint.”
Coalition for Safe Power v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 939 P.2d 1167 (Or. 1997).
“518 provides: “Except as otherwise provided the provisions of ORS 756.500 to 756.610 apply to and govern all hearings upon any matter or issue coming before [the PUC] under any statute administered by [the PUC\, whether instituted on the application, petition or complaint of…”
Nw. Pub. Commc'ns Council ex rel. Oregon v. Qwest Corp., 877 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Or. 2012).
“” Moreover, the only Oregon statute that appears to provide any form of a private right of action is Oregon Revised Statute § 756.500 under which “[a]ny person may file a complaint before the Public Utilities Commission .”
Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 135 P.3d 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“” Also, ORS 756.500(1) provides that “[a]ny person may file a complaint before the Public Utility Commission, or the commission may, on the commission’s own initiative, file such complaint.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 756.500(3) — 2 cases
PGE v. Alfalfa Solar I, LLC, 524 P.3d 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Meanwhile, PGE initi- ated this complaint proceeding under ORS 756.500 before the PUC. The district court stayed the federal proceeding pending resolution of the PUC proceeding, concluding that the PUC, under the plain terms of ORS 756.”
Coalition for Safe Power v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 939 P.2d 1167 (Or. 1997).
“518 provides: “Except as otherwise provided the provisions of ORS 756.500 to 756.610 apply to and govern all hearings upon any matter or issue coming before [the PUC] under any statute administered by [the PUC\, whether instituted on the application, petition or complaint of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 756.500(4) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 756.500(5) — 2 cases
PGE v. Alfalfa Solar I, LLC, 524 P.3d 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Meanwhile, PGE initi- ated this complaint proceeding under ORS 756.500 before the PUC. The district court stayed the federal proceeding pending resolution of the PUC proceeding, concluding that the PUC, under the plain terms of ORS 756.”
Roats Water Sys., Inc. v. Golfside Investments, LLC, 202 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“Petitioner assigns error to, inter alia, the PUC’s determination that, even though petitioner is Roats’s customer, the PUC had jurisdiction to consider Roats’s complaint against petitioner pursuant to ORS 756.500. 1 As amplified below, we conclude that, pursuant to ORS 756.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.