Wash. Rev. Code » Title 84 · Chapter 84.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 84.12.300 (2026)

Valuation of interstate utility—Apportionment of system value to state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In determining the value of the operating property within this state of any company, the properties of which lie partly within and partly without this state, the department of revenue may, among other things, take into consideration the value of the whole system as a unit, and for such purpose may determine, insofar as the same is reasonably ascertainable, the salvage value, the actual cost new, the cost of reproduction new less depreciation and plus appreciation, the par value, actual value and market value of the company's outstanding stocks and bonds during one or more preceding years, the past, present and prospective gross and net earnings of the whole system as a unit.
In apportioning such system value to the state, the department of revenue shall consider relative costs, relative reproduction cost, relative future prospects and relative track mileage and the distribution of terminal properties within and without the state and such other matters and things as the department may deem pertinent.
The department may also take into consideration the actual cost, cost of reproduction new, and cost of reproduction new less depreciation, earning capacity and future prospects of the property, located within the state and all other matters and things deemed pertinent by the department of revenue.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 278 s 166; 1961 c 15 s 84.12.300. Prior: 1935 c 123 s 9; 1925 ex.s. c 130 s 44; 1907 c 78 s 8; RRS s 11156-9. Formerly RCW 84.12.060.]

Notes:

Construction—Severability—1975 1st ex.s. c 278: See notes following RCW 11.08.160.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1977–2006 · leading case: Burlington N., Inc. v. Johnston, 572 P.2d 1085 (Wash. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burlington N., Inc. v. Johnston, 572 P.2d 1085 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 4× “040); (2) apportioning to Washington that part of the value of each interstate company which represents the value of its property in Washington (RCW 84.12.300 and RCW 84.16.050); (3) apportioning the value of the operating property of each company equitably to the counties in…”
Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. Clark Cnty., 658 P.2d 669 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 7× “See RCW 84.12.300. Finally, once the Washington share of total system value has been determined, the Department must allocate it among the various counties in which Northwest does business.”
Nw. Pipeline Corp. v. Adams Cnty., 131 P.3d 958 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 84.12.300; WAC 458-50-080(2)(B)(i). ¶ 20 Ultimately, appraising the value of a pipeline utility — or any business for that matter — is not an exact science.”
Nw. Pipeline Corp. v. Adams Cnty., 132 Wash. App. 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 84.12.300; WAC 458-50-080(2)(B)(i). ¶20 Ultimately, appraising the value of a pipeline utility — or any business for that matter — is not an exact science.”
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.