Wash. Rev. Code » Title 80 · Chapter 80.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 80.04.380 (2026)

Penalties—Violations by public service companies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every public service company, and all officers, agents and employees of any public service company, shall obey, observe and comply with every order, rule, direction or requirement made by the commission under authority of this title, so long as the same shall be and remain in force. Any public service company which shall violate or fail to comply with any provision of this title, or which fails, omits or neglects to obey, observe or comply with any order, rule, or any direction, demand or requirement of the commission, shall be subject to a penalty of not to exceed the sum of one thousand dollars for each and every offense. Every violation of any such order, direction or requirement of this title shall be a separate and distinct offense, and in case of a continuing violation every day's continuance thereof shall be and be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense.
[ 1961 c 14 s 80.04.380. Prior: 1911 c 117 s 94; RRS s 10443. Formerly RCW 80.04.380, part. FORMER PART OF SECTION: 1911 c 117 s 96 now in RCW 80.04.387.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1996–2003 · leading case: Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 911 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 911 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “[3] When more punitive measures are necessary, RCW 80.04.380 gives the WUTC authority to issue daily fines of $1,000 to public service companies found to have violated a Commission order, rule, direction, or requirement, and RCW 80.”
Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 64 P.3d 606 (Wash. 2003). “3d 342 (citing RCW 80.04.380,.385). The court also concluded that the methods for offsetting loss of terminating access charge revenue do not alter the result; the alternatives for making up lost revenue do "not alter the fact that the rule sets the maximum rate the company may…”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 949 P.2d 1337 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 80.04.380. Although the Commission had not previously entered an order fixing the quality of service it expected of US West, it had the authority to do that pursuant to RCW 80.”
Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 148 Wash. 2d 887 (Wash. 2003). “at 153 -54 (citing RCW 80.04.380, .385). The court also concluded that the methods for offsetting loss of terminating access charge revenue do not alter the result; the alternatives for making up lost revenue do “not alter the fact that the rule sets the maximum rate the company…”
Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 39 P.3d 342 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See RCW 80.04.380, .385. 4 WUTC then argues that the rule is not rate setting because it provides three methods of offsetting the loss of revenue the rule causes: (1) recoup losses by increasing originating access charges; (2) add an additional rate element designated as a…”
US West v. Utils. & Transp. Com'n, 949 P.2d 1337 (Wash. 1998). “36.140. If it had, it could have imposed penalties upon US West, after notice and hearing, for US West's failure, if any, to comply with its prior orders.”
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.