Opinion ID: 471002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Public Utilities Statute

Text: 45 Appellants contend that WNG's vent damper marketing activities violated Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 80.28.090. 2 They argue that this statute prohibits WNG from granting preferences to itself. However, the statute does not prohibit every preference to any corporation, only any undue or unnreasonable preference or advantage. Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 80.28.090 (emphasis added). 46 Appellants argue that Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 80.280.090 parallels the prohibition in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2 against monopoly leveraging. To the extent their monopoly leveraging claim fails under the Sherman Act, so does their claim under the Washington Public Utilities Statute. Even if we were to assume that this statute could be violated by conduct that does not rise to the level of a Section 2 violation, the statutory scheme and Washington case law do not support appellants' view that one of WNG's integrated divisions is barred from obtaining any business advantage over a competitor. 47 Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 80.28.090 applies to ensure that utility rates [are] just and reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Earle M. Jorgensen Co. v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 861, 870, 665 P.2d 1328, 1333, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 982, 104 S.Ct. 425, 78 L.Ed.2d 359 (1983). It condemns 'undue or unreasonable preference' between similarly situated customers. Cole v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission, 79 Wash.2d 302, 311, 485 P.2d 71, 76 (1971) (emphasis added). The language of the statute and interpretive case law do not support its application to the facts here. Appellants' attack on WNG's vent damper activities, a benefit of business integration, as a violation of the unreasonable preference prohibition of Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 80.28.090, must fail. 48 The district court did not err in interpreting and applying Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 80.28.090.