Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 80.04.250 (2026)
Valuation of public service property—Authority of commission
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The provisions of this section are necessary to ensure that the commission has sufficient flexible authority to determine the value of utility property for rate making purposes and to implement the requirements and full intent of chapter 288, Laws of 2019.
(2) The commission has power upon complaint or upon its own motion to ascertain and determine the fair value for rate making purposes of the property of any public service company used and useful for service in this state by or during the rate effective period and shall exercise such power whenever it deems such valuation or determination necessary or proper under any of the provisions of this title. The valuation may include consideration of any property of the public service company acquired or constructed by or during the rate effective period, including the reasonable costs of construction work in progress, to the extent that the commission finds that such an inclusion is in the public interest and will yield fair, just, reasonable, and sufficient rates.
(3) The commission may provide changes to rates under this section for up to forty-eight months after the rate effective date using any standard, formula, method, or theory of valuation reasonably calculated to arrive at fair, just, reasonable, and sufficient rates. The commission must establish an appropriate process to identify, review, and approve public service company property that becomes used and useful for service in this state after the rate effective date.
(4) The commission has the power to make revaluations of the property of any public service company from time to time.
(5) The commission shall, before any hearing is had, notify the complainants and the public service company concerned of the time and place of such hearing by giving at least thirty days' written notice thereof, specifying that at the time and place designated a hearing will be held for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the company's property, used and useful as aforesaid, which notice must be sufficient to authorize the commission to inquire into and pass upon the matters designated in this section.
(6) Nothing in this section limits the commission's authority to consider and implement performance and incentive-based regulation, multiyear rate plans, and other flexible regulatory mechanisms.
[ 2019 c 288 s 20; 2011 c 214 s 9; 1991 c 122 s 2; 1961 c 14 s 80.04.250. Prior: 1933 c 165 s 4; 1913 c 182 s 1; 1911 c 117 s 92; RRS s 10441.]
Notes:
Findings—Purpose—Limitation of chapter—Effective date—2011 c 214: See notes following RCW 80.04.010.
Findings—1991 c 122: "The legislature finds that the state is facing an energy shortage as growth occurs and that inadequate supplies of energy will cause harmful impacts on the entire range of state citizens. The legislature further finds that energy efficiency improvement is the single most effective near term measure to lessen the risk of energy shortage. In the area of electricity, the legislature additionally finds that the Northwest power planning council has made several recommendations, including an update of the commercial building energy code and granting flexible ratemaking alternatives for utility commissions to encourage prudent acquisition of new electric resources." [ 1991 c 122 s 1.]
Severability—1991 c 122: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1991 c 122 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1984–2018 · leading case: Power v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 679 P.2d 922 (Wash. 1984).
Power v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 679 P.2d 922 (Wash. 1984). “We reverse on the ground that RCW 80.04.250 precludes inclusion of CWIP in rate base.”
Power v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 711 P.2d 319 (Wash. 1985). “Instead, the WUTC permitted only those costs, which in the WUTC's judgment had been prudently incurred on the abandoned project, to be recovered by Puget Power over a 10-year period during which the unamortized costs would earn nothing for Puget Power or its investors.”
Attorney Gen.'s Pub. Couns. Unit, V Wa Utils. & Transp. Comm, 423 P.3d 861 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “We conclude that the WUTC’s use of an attrition adjustment to calculate Avista’s rate base violated RCW 80.04.250. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the WUTC for recalculation of Avista’s electric and natural gas rates.”
PacifiCorp v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 376 P.3d 389 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “¶6 The Commission rejected the proposed Revised Protocol, finding that “the resources [PacifiCorp] attempted to assign as costs to Washington were not in fact proven to be used and useful for service in Washington, as required by RCW 80.04.250.” Admin. Record (AR) at 857 (Wash.”
People's Org. for Washington Energy Resources v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 711 P.2d 319 (1985). “Instead, the WUTC permitted only those costs, which in the WUTC's judgment had been prudently incurred on the abandoned project, to be recovered by Puget Power over a 10-year period during which the unamortized costs would earn nothing for Puget Power or its investors.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.04.250(1) — 1 case
Attorney Gen.'s Pub. Couns. Unit, V Wa Utils. & Transp. Comm, 423 P.3d 861 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “We conclude that the WUTC’s use of an attrition adjustment to calculate Avista’s rate base violated RCW 80.04.250. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the WUTC for recalculation of Avista’s electric and natural gas rates.”
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.