759.180
Hearing on reasonableness of rates; procedures; exceptions. (1)(a) Except as provided in ORS
759.195 and 759.410 and ORS 759.052, 759.054 or 759.056, whenever any
telecommunications utility files with the Public Utility Commission any rate or
schedule of rates stating or establishing a new rate or schedule of rates or
increasing an existing rate or schedule of rates, the commission may, either
upon written complaint or upon the commission’s own initiative, after
reasonable notice, conduct a hearing to determine the propriety and
reasonableness of the rate or schedule. The commission shall conduct the
hearing upon written complaint filed by the telecommunications utility, its
customer or customers, or any other proper party within 60 days of the
telecommunications utility’s filing. A hearing need not be held if the
particular rate change is the result of an automatic adjustment clause. At the
hearing the telecommunications utility shall bear the burden of showing that
the rate or schedule of rates proposed to be established or increased or changed
is just and reasonable.
(b) As used in
this subsection, “automatic adjustment clause” means a provision of a rate
schedule, authorized pursuant to ORS 759.195 (6), that provides for rate
increases, decreases or both, without prior hearing, reflecting increases,
decreases or both in costs incurred by a telecommunications utility and that is
subject to review by the commission at least once every two years.
(2) The
commission and staff may consult at any time with, and provide technical
assistance to, telecommunications utilities, their customers, and other
interested parties on matters relevant to utility rates and charges. If a
hearing is held with respect to a rate change, the decisions of the commission
shall be based on the record made at the hearing. [1987 c.447 §13; 1989 c.5 §16;
2005 c.232 §16]
Notes of Decisions
Citizens' Util. Bd. v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 877 P.2d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 5× “PUC ruled that, because the tariffs had been filed at the direction of PUC and had already been the subject of extensive investigation and hearing, they were not “new” rates subject to the provisions of ORS 759.180 and ORS 759.185. 7 Additionally, PUC ruled that ratepayers would…”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Eachus, 898 P.2d 774 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “185 is directly applicable to this own motion proceeding; it contends, however, by way of analogy, that when PUC brings an own motion proceeding to investigate existing rates, ratepayers are entitled to have the existing rates declared to be interim rates and subject to refund…”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Katz, 841 P.2d 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “ORS 759.180(1). If PUC allows the proposed rate or schedule of rates to become effective on an interim basis while it conducts a hearing, ORS 759.”
Nw. Pub. Commc'ns Council v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 100 P.3d 776 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 759.180(1). In making that determination, the PUC followed the traditional procedure for reviewing a regulated utility's rate schedule.”
Commc'n Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp., 67 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (D. Or. 2014).
· cites it 2× “185(4) provides: If the commission is required to or determines to conduct a hearing on a rate or schedule of rates filed pursuant to ORS 759.180, but does not order a suspension thereof, any increased revenue collected by the telecommunications utility as a result of such rate…”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Eachus, 888 P.2d 562 (Or. 1995).
“210 (current ORS 759.180 (1989)), the statute on which URP’s complaint was based, applied only where a public utility files new or increased rates; it did not apply to the present proceeding, which was initiated *562 pursuant to ORS 756.”
Nw. Pub. Commc'ns Council v. Qwest, 527 P.3d 30 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“” NPCC I, 196 Or App at 96 (citing ORS 759.180(1)). To make that determination, the PUC “followed the traditional pro- cedure for reviewing a regulated utility’s rate schedule.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.180(1) — 4 cases
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Katz, 841 P.2d 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 759.180(1). If PUC allows the proposed rate or schedule of rates to become effective on an interim basis while it conducts a hearing, ORS 759.”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Eachus, 898 P.2d 774 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“185 is directly applicable to this own motion proceeding; it contends, however, by way of analogy, that when PUC brings an own motion proceeding to investigate existing rates, ratepayers are entitled to have the existing rates declared to be interim rates and subject to refund…”
Nw. Pub. Commc'ns Council v. Qwest, 527 P.3d 30 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“” NPCC I, 196 Or App at 96 (citing ORS 759.180(1)). To make that determination, the PUC “followed the traditional pro- cedure for reviewing a regulated utility’s rate schedule.”
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.