Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 758.405 (2026)

Purpose of ORS 758.400 to 758.475

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      758.405 Purpose of ORS 758.400 to 758.475. The elimination and future prevention of duplication of utility facilities is a matter of statewide concern; and in order to promote the efficient and economic use and development and the safety of operation of utility services while providing adequate and reasonable service to all territories and customers affected thereby, it is necessary to regulate in the manner provided in ORS 758.400 to 758.475 all persons and entities providing utility services. [Formerly 757.610]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1987–2005 · leading case: Springfield Util. Bd. v. Emerald Pud, 125 P.3d 740 (Or. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Springfield Util. Bd. v. Emerald Pud, 125 P.3d 740 (Or. 2005). · cites it 2× “Specifically, in a legislative policy statement now codified at ORS 758.405, the legislature explained: "The elimination and future prevention of duplication of utility facilities is a matter of state-wide concern; and in order to promote the efficient and economic use and…”
Springfield Util. Bd. v. Emerald People's Util. Dist., 84 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “405 provides: “The elimination and future prevention of duplication of utility facilities is a matter of statewide concern; and in order to promote the efficient and economic use and development and the safety of operation of utility services while providing adequate and…”
Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 99 P.3d 292 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” The PUC therefore concluded that the arrangement did not violate the purposes of ORS 758.405 because it did not constitute the wasteful duplication of utility facilities.”
Pacificorp v. City of Ashland, 744 P.2d 257 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “Both the conditions which must exist for there to be an exclusive territorial allocation, see ORS 758.405; 758.415; 758.440(2), and the fact that an exclusive provider was serving the territory before the taking, may make the continuation of service by the successor to the…”
Columbia River People's Util. Dist. v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Or. 1999). “The elimination and future prevention of duplication of utility facilities is a matter of statewide concern; and in order to promote the efficient and economic use and development and the safety of operation of utility services while providing adequate and reasonable service to…”
Springfield Util. Bd. v. Emerald People's Util. Dist., 125 P.3d 740 (Or. 2005). · cites it 2× “Specifically, in a legislative policy statement now codified at ORS 758.405, the legislature explained: “The elimination and future prevention of duplication of utility facilities is a matter of state-wide concern; and in order to promote the efficient and economic use and…”
Cyrus v. Deschutes Cnty., 96 P.3d 858 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “669, and ORS 758.405, 2 which prescribe duties and obligations of public utilities, and he concluded that those statutes “impose on regulated utilities such as [CEC] a legal duty to provide safe, reliable and adequate electrical service to their customers.”
Douglas Elec. Coop. v. Cent. Lincoln People's Util. Dist., 991 P.2d 1060 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “]” ORS 758.405. District admits that the statutes apply to it and, on appeal, it has abandoned any constitutional challenge to the application of those statutes to a people’s utility district.”
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.