Every officer, agent, or employee of any
public utility who violates or fails to comply with or who procures, aids, or abets any violation
by any public utility of any provision of the constitution of this state or of articles 1 to 7 of this
title, or who fails to obey, observe, or comply with any order, decision, rule, direction, demand,
or requirement of the commission or any part or provision thereof, except an order for the
payment of money, or who procures, aids, or abets any public utility in its failure to obey,
observe, and comply with any such order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement or
any part or provision thereof in a case in which a penalty has not been provided for such officer,
agent, or employee commits a class 2 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section
18-1.3-501, C.R.S.
Source: L. 13: p. 505, § 62. C.L. § 2971. CSA: C. 137, § 62. CRS 53: § 115-7-6. C.R.S.
1963: § 115-7-6. L. 93: Entire section amended, p. 2068, § 25, effective July 1. L. 2002: Entire
section amended, p. 1558, § 355, effective October 1.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending this
section, see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002.
Notes of Decisions
Cronk v. Intermountain Rural Elec. Ass'n, 765 P.2d 619 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “17) mandates that any public utility employee “who violates or fails to comply with or who procures, aids, or abets any violation by any public utility” of any public utility statute is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
People v. Carter, 402 P.3d 480 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“The CPUC, however, does not have the authority to carry out its own prosecutions for violations of these criminal laws. Instead, that responsibility is specifically tasked to the local district attorney or the state attorney general.”
City of Aspen v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., 143 P.3d 1076 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “2005; and (4) referring the case for criminal prosecution against any utility personnel who violate the law, § 40-7-106, C.R.S.2005. Archibold v. PUC, 58 P.”
Archibold v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 58 P.3d 1031 (Colo. 2002).
“§ 40-7-106,11 C.R.S. (2002). The PUC is not always required to seek a litigation remedy: Certainly the general assembly did not by these [enforcement] sections contemplate that every alleged violation of the terms of a certificate of public convenience and necessity had to be…”
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.