applies to cities, and that the tariff, having the “force and effect of law”, trumps the general rule requiring utilities to bear expenses for relocation. There is some degree of merit to the plaintiffs’ argument that “[cjities — not the WUTC — regulate U S West’s use of City streets and rights-of-way.” Plaintiffs’ Op position to Motion for SJ at 10. To say that a well-recognized legal principle, like the allocation of expenses to utilities for the cost of equipment relocation in public right of way, may be abrogated by the general tariff enunciation that relocation expenses would be borne “by others” requesting relocation, would be to render state law unduly precarious. The reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court in U S West v. City of Longmont, 948 P.2d 509 (Colo.1997)(en banc) (<HOLDING>) is persuasive. U S West relies heavily upon
holding that a preexisting tariff did not preempt municipal ordinance requiring undergrounding of utility lines holding that a municipal ordinance that contravenes state law as here is invalid for that reason alone holding that municipal ordinance was preempted by frsa and void under supremacy clause holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim holding the frsa preemption exception did not cover regulation by municipal ordinance