759.185
Suspension of rates pending hearing; time limitation; refund of revenue
collected; interim rates.
(1) The Public Utility Commission may, pending such investigation and
determination, order the suspension of the rate or schedule of rates, provided
the initial period of suspension shall not extend more than six months beyond
the time when such rate or schedule would otherwise go into effect. If the
commission finds that the investigation will not be completed at the expiration
of the initial suspension, the commission may enter an order further suspending
such rate or schedule for not more than three months beyond the last day of the
initial suspension.
(2) This section
does not prevent the commission and the telecommunications 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 759.180, but does not order a
suspension thereof, any increased revenue collected by the telecommunications
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
telecommunications 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 telecommunications utility’s revenues will be
increased by an amount deemed reasonable by the commission, not exceeding the
amount requested by the telecommunications utility. An interim rate or rate
schedule shall remain in effect until terminated by the commission. [1987 c.447
§14]
Notes of Decisions
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Katz, 841 P.2d 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 32× “However, PUC denied a refund, because it concluded that ORS 759.185(4) [3] allows a refund only when an interim increase is involved and this situation did not involve an interim increase.”
Commc'n Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp., 67 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (D. Or. 2014).
· cites it 9× “In Claim Nine Plaintiffs raise a claim under Oregon Revised Statute § 759.185 in which Plaintiffs assert their payment of interim rates higher than the NST-compliant rates triggers a statutory right to mandatory refunds.”
Citizens' Util. Bd. v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 877 P.2d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 7× “180 and ORS 759.185. 7 Additionally, PUC ruled that ratepayers would be adequately protected from significant over collection by the 30-month tracking procedure.”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Eachus, 898 P.2d 774 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “CUB notes that when a telecommunications utility seeks a rate change or increase, *48 PUC has the authority and traditionally grants the utility an interim rate increase subject to refund, pending hearing on the reasonableness of the rate, pursuant to ORS 759.”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Pending litigation, the PUC refused to change the rates to interim rates, as requested by CUB, so that refunds could be issued pursuant to ORS 759.185 if the rates were determined to be excessive.”
Wah Chang v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 301 P.3d 934 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Katz, 116 Or App 302, 310 , 841 P2d 652 (1992), rev den, 316 Or 528 (1993) (rejecting the utility’s argument “that, because the legislature has authorized refunds under a specific statute, ORS 759.185(4), it has limited PUC’s authority to order a refund in any other circumstance.”
Commc'n Mgmt. Serv. v. Qwest Corp. (9th Cir. 2018).
“Claim 9 fails to state a claim for relief because it does not allege the statutory elements required for relief under Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.185 , which “applies only in the context of new or increased rates sought by the utility.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 759.185(4) — 4 cases
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Katz, 841 P.2d 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“However, PUC denied a refund, because it concluded that ORS 759.185(4) [3] allows a refund only when an interim increase is involved and this situation did not involve an interim increase.”
Commc'n Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp., 67 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (D. Or. 2014).
“In Claim Nine Plaintiffs raise a claim under Oregon Revised Statute § 759.185 in which Plaintiffs assert their payment of interim rates higher than the NST-compliant rates triggers a statutory right to mandatory refunds.”
Citizens' Util. Bd. v. Oregon Pub. Util. Comm'n, 877 P.2d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“180 and ORS 759.185. 7 Additionally, PUC ruled that ratepayers would be adequately protected from significant over collection by the 30-month tracking procedure.”
Wah Chang v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 301 P.3d 934 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Katz, 116 Or App 302, 310 , 841 P2d 652 (1992), rev den, 316 Or 528 (1993) (rejecting the utility’s argument “that, because the legislature has authorized refunds under a specific statute, ORS 759.185(4), it has limited PUC’s authority to order a refund in any other circumstance.”
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.