Chapter 757

 

      Chapter 757

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Under regulatory scheme, Public Utility Commissioner has authority to promulgate rule limiting telephone company’s liability for directory listing errors or omissions. Garrison v. Pacific NW Bell, 45 Or App 523, 608 P2d 1206 (1980)

 

      Refund is proper exercise of Public Utility Commission’s general powers if refund (1) is based only on information in existence at time of rate order for which refund is being made; (2) is not based on evaluation of public utility’s actual expenses or revenues; and (3) is not effectuated by offsetting future rates. Gearhart v. Public Utility Commission, 255 Or App 58, 299 P3d 533 (2013), aff’d 356 Or 216, 339 P3d 904 (2014)

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Authority of Governor and Public Utility Commissioner to enter into binding agreements with respect to uniform curtailment plans, (1977) Vol 38, p 861

 

      757.005

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Bonneville Power Administration is not corporation, company, or individual within the meaning paragraph (1)(a) of this section. State v. Cannon, 65 Or App 327, 671 P2d 761 (1983)

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Public Utility Commissioner’s jurisdiction over cable television companies, (1980) Vol 40, p 513

 

      757.020

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Where defendant-telephone company erroneously listed plaintiff-medical doctor as doctor of osteopathy in directory, telephone company error did not violate “adequate service” requirement of this section. Garrison v. Pacific NW Bell, 45 Or App 523, 608 P2d 1206 (1980)

 

      If defendant failed to perform statutory duty to provide “adequate service”, plaintiff may recover under negligence, gross negligence or breach of contract theory. Olson v. Pac. N.W. Bell, 65 Or App 422, 671 P2d 1185 (1983)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 54 OLR 540 (1975)

 

      757.056

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Subsidized low interest loans for weatherization, (1977) Vol 38, p 1156

 

      757.063

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Association that furnishes water to members is subject to regulation by Public Utility Commission only after commission issues order finding that requisite number of members petitioned for regulation. Crooked River Ranch Water Company v. Public Utility Commission, 224 Or App 485, 198 P3d 967 (2008), Sup Ct review denied

 

      757.105

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Presumption that nonrejected budget expenses are just and reasonable does not limit Public Utility Commissioner’s broader power to disallow any type of expense in making rate determination. Pac. NW Bell Tel. Co. v. Sabin, 21 Or App 200, 534 P2d 984 (1975), Sup Ct review denied; Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. Davis, 28 Or App 621, 560 P2d 301 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

 

      757.140

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      “Undepreciated investment” refers to invested principal and does not include foregone profit on investment. Citizens’ Utility Board v. Public Utility Commission, 154 Or App 702, 962 P2d 744 (1998)

 

      757.205 to 757.220

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Public Utility Commissioner’s rule, which passed on utility expenses for payment of county’s net business income tax to county ratepayers only, rather than to all utility ratepayers, was valid because commissioner is granted both broad regulatory authority over rates by ORS 756.040 and broad rulemaking authority by ORS 756.060. Multnomah County v. Davis, 35 Or App 521, 581 P2d 968 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

 

      757.205

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Interconnection agreement between telephone company and land mobile radio service, a miscellaneous communications common carrier, was subject to tariff filing requirements of this section, and was not preempted by federal jurisdiction. Fields v. Davis, 31 Or App 607, 571 P2d 511 (1977) Sup Ct review denied

 

      757.225

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      When public utility charged customer for equipment which was never installed, this section was violated, but no violation was shown when it installed unnecessary trunk lines and line which customer did not know about. Holman Transfer Co. v. Pac. NW Bell Tel. Co., 287 Or 387, 599 P2d 1115 (1979)

 

      Requirement that utility charge, demand, collect or receive amount for service according to printed rate schedule does not conclusively and permanently establish amount charged, demanded, collected or received at printed rate as correct and binding. Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or 262, 142 P3d 1010 (2006)

 

      757.230

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      This provision does not limit Public Utility Commission’s discretionary power to consider manner in which special tariff between public utility and particular customer affects remaining customers of public utility for purposes of ensuring that rates of remaining customers are fair and reasonable. Wah Chang v. Public Utility Commission, 256 Or App 151, 301 P3d 934 (2013)

 

      757.310

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      When public utility charged customer for equipment which was never installed, this section was violated, but no violation was shown when it installed unnecessary trunk lines and line which customer did not know about. Holman Transfer Co. v. Pac. NW Bell Tel. Co., 287 Or 387, 599 P2d 1115 (1979)

 

      757.325

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Public Utility Commissioner has power under this section to determine unwarranted rate discrimination. Am. Can Co. v. Davis, 28 Or App 207, 559 P2d 898 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

 

      757.355

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      “Presently used for providing utility service” refers to current use and therefore excludes both work in progress and retired property. Citizens’ Utility Board v. Public Utility Commission, 154 Or App 702, 962 P2d 744 (1998)

 

      Violation of this section did not occur when utility company obtained recovery of administrative costs of issuing refund to ratepayers because recovery of administrative costs does not constitute profit or return on investment; rather, administrative costs are expenses actually incurred by company. Utility Reform Project v. PUC, 277 Or App 325, 372 P3d 517 (2016)

 

      757.495

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Approval of contract between utility and “affiliated” manufacturer or of utility’s annual budgets that included payments thereunder did not “estop” commissioner from disallowing portion of payments in determining “just and reasonable” rates. Pac. NW Bell Tel. Co. v. Sabin, 21 Or App 200, 534 P2d 984 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

 

      757.750 to 757.760

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Although Public Utility Commissioner’s rule prohibiting termination of residential electrical and natural gas service year around goes further than these sections, it does not conflict with them. Isom v. P.G.E, 67 Or App 97, 677 P2d 59 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

 

      757.805

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Utility company is not required to prove utility was liable to third party in order to recover utility payment of third party damages from person or business entity causing accident. PGE v. Jungwirth Logging, Inc., 151 Or App 789, 951 P2d 1101 (1997), Sup Ct review denied