Chapter 758

      758.010

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      This section deals only with control over precise locations of utility lines, but does not limit class of persons or corporations who may place lines under streets. Sunset Lake v. Remington, 45 Or App 973, 609 P2d 896 (1980)

      County ordinance providing for imposition of permit fees for construction within right-of-way alongside county roads is invalid because it conflicts with this section. Pacific N.W. Bell v. Multnomah County, 68 Or App 375, 681 P2d 797 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

      Monetary cost to utility of complying with permit condition not imposing fee or price does not make condition equivalent of “charge.” U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Jackson County, 130 Or App 316, 881 P2d 164 (1994)

      Administration of relocation of utility facilities by Department of Transportation in connection with road projects is permissible use of highway funds. Oregon Telecommunications Assn. v. ODOT, 341 Or 418, 144 P3d 935 (2006)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: State Lands Division recovery of administrative costs for preparing and recording utility and railroad easements over submerged and submersible lands, (1978) Vol 39, p 417

      758.015

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Municipalities are subject to exclusive territorial allocation statutes and, although cities have certain authority to regulate public utilities, they may not compete with exclusive provider in allocated territory by reason of their regulatory authority. Pacificorp v. City of Ashland, 88 Or App 15, 744 P2d 257 (1987), as modified by 89 Or App 366, 749 P2d 1189 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

      758.400 to 758.475

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Municipalities are subject to exclusive territorial allocation statutes and, although cities have certain authority to regulate public utilities, they may not compete with exclusive provider in allocated territory by reason of their regulatory authority. Pacificorp v. City of Ashland, 88 Or App 15, 744 P2d 257 (1987), as modified by 89 Or App 366, 749 P2d 1189 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

      City may provide utility services in territory allocated to another provider pursuant to these sections if it exercises authority under ORS 221.420 to exclude or eject provider from territory, however, city’s mere placement of utility facilities and provision of services in territory is not exercise of that authority and is violation of allocation statutes in absence of formal action by city to eject or exclude provider. PacifiCorp v. City of Ashland, 89 Or App 366, 749 P2d 1189 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

      Order of Public Utility Commission issued in conjunction with agreement between electric companies to exchange electric facilities within certain defined areas did not authorize monopolization of service. Pacificorp v. Portland General Electric Co., 770 F Supp 562 (1991)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Constitutionality of allocation statutes as applied to people’s utility districts, (1987) Vol 45, p 209

      758.410

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Public Utility Commission approved allocation of exclusive service area is entitled to state-action immunity from federal antitrust law. Columbia River PUD v. Portland General Electric, 40 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Or. 1999)

      758.435

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Public Utility Commission allocation of exclusive service area is entitled to state-action immunity from federal antitrust law. Columbia River PUD v. Portland General Electric, 40 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Or. 1999)

      758.470

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      This section necessarily implies that cities may condemn property of public utilities in exclusively allocated territory for purpose of using property to provide services which public utility had provided on property. PacifiCorp v. City of Ashland, 88 Or App 15, 744 P2d 257 (1987), as modified by 89 Or App 366, 749 P2d 1189 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

      Power granted to cities to issue franchises to utilities governed by Public Utility Commission territorial allocation is limited to authority conferred by ORS 221.420. Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald People’s Utility District, 339 Or 631, 125 P3d 740 (2005)

      758.505

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Under state statutory provisions and federal statute, regulated utility may contract to purchase power from qualifying facility on terms different from those provided by statute. Water Power Company, Inc. v. Pacificorp, 99 Or App 125, 781 P2d 860 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

      758.525

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Utility’s “legal obligation to purchase the energy” is incurred when qualifying facility obligates itself to deliver energy. Snow Mt. Pine Company v. Maudlin, 84 Or App 590, 734 P2d 1366 (1987), Sup Ct review denied