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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.020 (2026)

Certificate of authority; application; procedure; criteria; intrastate toll service level; rules

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

      759.020 Certificate of authority; application; procedure; criteria; intrastate toll service level; rules. (1) A person, corporation, company or association of individuals or their lessees, trustees or receivers may not provide intrastate telecommunications service on a for-hire basis without a certificate of authority issued by the Public Utility Commission under this section.

      (2) Applications for certificates of authority must be in a form prescribed by the commission and must describe the telecommunications services the applicant proposes to provide.

      (3)(a) Except as provided in ORS 759.050, a certificate may not authorize any person to provide local exchange telecommunications service within the local exchange telecommunications service area of a telecommunications utility unless the utility consents, is unable to provide the service or fails to protest an application.

      (b) Paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply to any application for a certificate by a provider of shared telecommunications services.

      (4) A hearing need not be held prior to issuance of a certificate of authority except upon the commission’s own motion or unless the application is to authorize a person to provide local exchange telecommunications service in the local exchange telecommunications service area of a telecommunications utility and the utility protests. After hearing, the commission shall issue the certificate only upon a showing that the proposed service is required by the public interest.

      (5) The commission may classify a successful applicant for a certificate as a telecommunications utility or as a competitive telecommunications services provider. If the commission finds that a successful applicant for a certificate has demonstrated that services it offers are subject to competition or that its customers or those proposed to become customers have reasonably available alternatives, the commission shall classify the applicant as a competitive telecommunications services provider. The commission shall conduct the initial classification and any subsequent review of the classification in accordance with procedures the commission may establish by rule, after hearings. The commission may attach reasonable conditions to the classification and may amend or revoke any order as provided in ORS 756.568. For purposes of this section, in determining whether telecommunications services are subject to competition or whether there are reasonably available alternatives, the commission shall consider:

      (a) The extent to which services are available from alternative providers in the relevant market.

      (b) The extent to which the services of alternative providers are functionally equivalent or substitutable at comparable rates, terms and conditions.

      (c) Existing economic or regulatory barriers to entry.

      (d) Any other factors deemed relevant by the commission.

      (6) Any provider of intrastate toll service must inform customers of the service level furnished by that provider, according to rules of the commission. The commission, by rule, shall determine the level of intrastate toll service that is standard. Any provider of intrastate toll service must identify the service level the provider plans to furnish in an annual report to the commission. The commission shall revoke the certification of any provider that does not consistently furnish the service level identified in the provider’s annual report. [Formerly 757.815; 1991 c.326 §1; 1993 c.423 §1; 2022 c.60 §9]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2002 · leading case: Beaver Creek Coop. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 50 P.3d 1231 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beaver Creek Coop. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 50 P.3d 1231 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 53× “Two of those rules, OAR 860-032-0010(4) and (5), require cooperatives seeking to provide local exchange telecommunications service within the boundaries of the local exchanges of other telecommunication services providers to obtain a certificate of authority as “competitive…”
At&T Commc'ns of Pac. Nw., Inc. v. City of Eugene, 35 P.3d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “1 Under ORS 759.020(1), no person may provide telecommunications services on a “for-hire” basis without a certificate of authority from the PUC.”
Beaver Creek Coop. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 50 P.3d 1240 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 25× “To accomplish that goal, in 1996 Beaver Creek sought and obtained a certificate of authority as a competitive provider under ORS 759.020 — not ORS 759.025(2) — to serve portions of the Oregon City exchange already served by US West Communications (US West).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.020(1) — 2 cases
Beaver Creek Coop. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 50 P.3d 1231 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Two of those rules, OAR 860-032-0010(4) and (5), require cooperatives seeking to provide local exchange telecommunications service within the boundaries of the local exchanges of other telecommunication services providers to obtain a certificate of authority as “competitive…”
At&T Commc'ns of Pac. Nw., Inc. v. City of Eugene, 35 P.3d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “1 Under ORS 759.020(1), no person may provide telecommunications services on a “for-hire” basis without a certificate of authority from the PUC.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.020(3) — 1 case
Beaver Creek Coop. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 50 P.3d 1240 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “To accomplish that goal, in 1996 Beaver Creek sought and obtained a certificate of authority as a competitive provider under ORS 759.020 — not ORS 759.025(2) — to serve portions of the Oregon City exchange already served by US West Communications (US West).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.020(4) — 1 case
Beaver Creek Coop. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 50 P.3d 1240 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “To accomplish that goal, in 1996 Beaver Creek sought and obtained a certificate of authority as a competitive provider under ORS 759.020 — not ORS 759.025(2) — to serve portions of the Oregon City exchange already served by US West Communications (US West).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.020(5) — 2 cases
At&T Commc'ns of Pac. Nw., Inc. v. City of Eugene, 35 P.3d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “1 Under ORS 759.020(1), no person may provide telecommunications services on a “for-hire” basis without a certificate of authority from the PUC.”
Beaver Creek Coop. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 50 P.3d 1231 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Two of those rules, OAR 860-032-0010(4) and (5), require cooperatives seeking to provide local exchange telecommunications service within the boundaries of the local exchanges of other telecommunication services providers to obtain a certificate of authority as “competitive…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.020(l) — 1 case
Beaver Creek Coop. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 50 P.3d 1231 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Two of those rules, OAR 860-032-0010(4) and (5), require cooperatives seeking to provide local exchange telecommunications service within the boundaries of the local exchanges of other telecommunication services providers to obtain a certificate of authority as “competitive…”
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.