757.215
Commission authorized to suspend new rates or order interim rates during
hearings; revenues collected under unapproved rates to be refunded; order after
hearing. (1) The
Public Utility Commission may, pending such investigation and determination,
order the suspension of the rate or schedule of rates for a period of up to 10
months beyond the time when such rate or schedule would otherwise go into
effect.
(2) This section
does not prevent the commission and the utility from entering into a written
stipulation at any time extending any period of suspension.
(3) After full
hearing, whether completed before or after such rate or schedule has gone into
effect, the commission may make such order in reference thereto as would be
proper in a proceeding initiated after such rate or schedule has become
effective.
(4) If the
commission is required to or determines to conduct a hearing on a rate or
schedule of rates filed pursuant to ORS 757.210, but does not order a
suspension thereof, any increased revenue collected by the utility as a result
of such rate or rate schedule becoming effective shall be received subject to
being refunded. If the rate or rate schedule thereafter approved by the
commission is for a lesser increase or for no increase, the utility shall
refund the amount of revenues received that exceeds the amount approved as
nearly as possible to the customers from whom such excess revenues were
collected, by a credit against future bills or otherwise, in such manner as the
commission orders.
(5) The
commission may in a suspension order authorize an interim rate or rate schedule
under which the utility’s revenues will be increased by an amount deemed
reasonable by the commission, not exceeding the amount requested by the
utility. Any such interim increase for a public utility as defined in ORS
757.005 that produces, transmits, delivers or furnishes heat, light or power
shall be effected by rates designed to increase the utility’s revenues without
materially changing the revenue relationships among customer classes or between
the revenues derived from demand charges and from energy charges. An interim
rate or rate schedule shall remain in effect until terminated by the
commission. Upon completion of the hearing and decision, the commission shall
order the utility to refund that portion of the increase in the interim rate or
schedule that the commission finds is not justified. Any refund of an interim
increase under this subsection shall be based upon an analysis of the utility’s
earnings for a period reasonably representative of the period during which the
interim increase was in effect. Refunds shall be made as nearly as possible to
the customers against whom the interim rates were charged, by credits against
future bills or in such other manner as the commission orders.
(6) Refunds
ordered by the commission under subsection (4) or (5) of this section shall
include interest on the amount determined to be subject to refund from the date
such interim rate or rate schedules took effect. [Amended by 1981 c.715 §2;
1991 c.964 §1; 2023 c.53 §1; 2025 c.503 §8]
Notes of Decisions
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 7× “We do not agree with the CAPs, however, that those provisions preclude the PUC from ordering refunds in other circumstances.”
Am. Can Co. v. Davis, 559 P.2d 898 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “On January 18, 1974, pursuant to ORS 757.215, the Commissioner suspended Pacific’s revised tariffs for six months in order to conduct an investigation and hearing, and on July 27, 1974 the suspension was continued for an additional three months.”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “25 During the remand proceedings before the PUC, the CAPs contended that specific grants of statutory authority to the PUC to issue refunds, see ORS 757.215(4); ORS 757.215(5), limited the PUC’s general broad authority to protect ratepayers.”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Katz, 841 P.2d 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “185(4) is substantively identical to ORS 757.215(4). [4] The court stated in its letter opinion that its decision was "predicated upon the factual assertion of [PNB] that the tariff filed by [PNB] and approved by [PUC] was in full force and effect and thus does not permit the…”
Fields v. Davis, 571 P.2d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “210 and ORS 757.215 regarding the implementation of tariffs would be just as appropriately used with regard to special contracts.”
Gearhart v. PUC (Or. 2014).
· cites it 7× “We do not agree with the CAPs, however, that those provisions preclude the PUC from ordering refunds in other circumstances.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 757.215(1) — 1 case
Fields v. Davis, 571 P.2d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“210 and ORS 757.215 regarding the implementation of tariffs would be just as appropriately used with regard to special contracts.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 757.215(3) — 2 cases
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014).
“We do not agree with the CAPs, however, that those provisions preclude the PUC from ordering refunds in other circumstances.”
Gearhart v. PUC (Or. 2014).
“We do not agree with the CAPs, however, that those provisions preclude the PUC from ordering refunds in other circumstances.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 757.215(4) — 4 cases
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Katz, 841 P.2d 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“185(4) is substantively identical to ORS 757.215(4). [4] The court stated in its letter opinion that its decision was "predicated upon the factual assertion of [PNB] that the tariff filed by [PNB] and approved by [PUC] was in full force and effect and thus does not permit the…”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014).
“We do not agree with the CAPs, however, that those provisions preclude the PUC from ordering refunds in other circumstances.”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“25 During the remand proceedings before the PUC, the CAPs contended that specific grants of statutory authority to the PUC to issue refunds, see ORS 757.215(4); ORS 757.215(5), limited the PUC’s general broad authority to protect ratepayers.”
Gearhart v. PUC (Or. 2014).
“We do not agree with the CAPs, however, that those provisions preclude the PUC from ordering refunds in other circumstances.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 757.215(5) — 3 cases
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014).
“We do not agree with the CAPs, however, that those provisions preclude the PUC from ordering refunds in other circumstances.”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“25 During the remand proceedings before the PUC, the CAPs contended that specific grants of statutory authority to the PUC to issue refunds, see ORS 757.215(4); ORS 757.215(5), limited the PUC’s general broad authority to protect ratepayers.”
Gearhart v. PUC (Or. 2014).
“We do not agree with the CAPs, however, that those provisions preclude the PUC from ordering refunds in other circumstances.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 757.215(6) — 2 cases
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014).
“We do not agree with the CAPs, however, that those provisions preclude the PUC from ordering refunds in other circumstances.”
Gearhart v. PUC (Or. 2014).
“We do not agree with the CAPs, however, that those provisions preclude the PUC from ordering refunds in other circumstances.”
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.