Wash. Rev. Code » Title 80 · Chapter 80.28

Wash. Rev. Code § 80.28.090

Unreasonable preference prohibited

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No gas company, electrical company, wastewater company, water company, or thermal energy company may make or grant any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, corporation, or locality, or to any particular description of service in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person, corporation or locality or any particular description of service to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.
[ 2025 c 263 s 15; 2011 c 214 s 18; 1961 c 14 s 80.28.090. Prior: 1911 c 117 s 30; RRS s 10366.]

Notes:

Findings—Purpose—Limitation of chapter—Effective date—2011 c 214: See notes following RCW 80.04.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: Okeson v. City of Seattle
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Okeson v. City of Seattle (2003) wash “RCW 80.28.090, .100. State law also mandates that electricity rates “shall be just, fair, reasonable and sufficient.”
Okeson v. City of Seattle (2003) wash “RCW 80.28.090, .100. State law also mandates that electricity rates "shall be just, fair, reasonable and sufficient.”
Cole v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission (1971) wash · cites it 3× “1 They also suggest that RCW 80.28.090 2 and RCW 80.28.100 3 , which prohibit rate discrimination, are being contravened by the different rates charged to “dry-out” contractors and to existing residential customers for the same basic type of service.”
Earle M. Jorgensen Co. v. City of Seattle (1983) wash · cites it 2× “Furthermore, notice must be provided for public meetings of the City Council under Seattle City Charter, art.”
Arco Products Co. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission (1995) wash · cites it 3× “C Respondents argue that the provisions of RCW 80.28.090 and .100 put a further limitation on the discretion of the Commission to determine the allocation of a FERC refund.”
Housing Authority v. Northeast Lake Washington Sewer & Water District (1990) washctapp “RCW 80.28.090. Unlike RCW Title 80, the statutory scheme applicable to the District, RCW Titles 56 and 57, 1 does not contain express reference to discriminatory rates or preferences.”
Willman v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission (2005) wash · cites it 3× “While it is true RCW 80.28.090 3 prohibits the WUTC from showing any undue prejudice or advantage to any person or group through its actions, the statute does not relate to this case.”
Willman v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission (2004) washctapp · cites it 3× “7 RCW 80.28.090 provides: No gas company, electrical company or water company shall make or grant any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, corporation, or locality, or to any particular description of service in any respect whatsoever, or subject any…”
West Terrace Golf LLC v. City of Spokane (2024) washctapp · cites it 5× “Under RCW 80.28.090 no water company may “make or grant any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage,” or “subject” any person “to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.”
Larry Costello, Et Ano. v. Tanner Electric Cooperative (2016) washctapp “; RCW 80.28.090-. 100. 2 RCW 19.86. 3 RCW 49.”
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.