1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 911 P.2d
  5. 911 P.2d 1272 (1996)
 

COALITION FOR SAFE POWER v. PUC

Nos. A8404-02380, A8605-02998, A8804-01802, A8505-3006; CA A81523 (Control), A82488, A82489, A82882.

911 P.2d 1272 (1996)

139 Or. App. 358

COALITION FOR SAFE POWER, Plaintiff, Forelaws on Board, Intervenor-Appellant, Citizens Utility Board of Oregon, Intervenor, v. OREGON PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Respondent, Pacific Power & Light Company, Intervenor-Respondent. UTILITY REFORM PROJECT, Appellant, v. OREGON PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION and Pacific Power & Light Company, Respondents. UTILITY REFORM PROJECT, Appellant, v. OREGON PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION and Pacific Power & Light Company, Respondents. UTILITY REFORM PROJECT, Appellant, v. OREGON PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION and Pacific Power & Light Company, Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided February 28, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

J. Rion Bourgeois, Beaverton, argued the cause and filed the briefs for intervenor-appellant Forelaws on Board.

Daniel W. Meek, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant Utility Reform Project. With him on the brief was Linda K. Williams.

Keith L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent Oregon Public Utility Commission. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General.

Katherine A. McDowell, Portland, argued the cause for intervenor-respondent Pacific Power & Light Company. On the brief were Marcus A. Wood, Stephen S. Walters and Kelly Knivila, and Stoel Rives Boley Jones & Grey.

Before DEITS, P.J., and De MUNIZ and HASELTON, JJ.

DEITS, Presiding Judge.

Forelaws on Board and Utility Reform Project appeal from the trial court's dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of these consolidated cases seeking review of various Public Utility Commission (PUC) orders on rate changes that were sought by respondent Pacific Power & Light Company (PP & L). We affirm.

ORS 756.580(2) provides that suits like those in question

"may be commenced by any party so aggrieved in the Circuit...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases