rate information “is a deceptive trade practice.” RCW 80.36.510. To that extent, reading RCW 80.36.510 together with RCW 80.36.530, it is clear that providing such services without disclosure, see RCW 80.36.510, “constitutes an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce in violation of. . . the consumer protection act,” RCW 80.36.530. Thus, a total failure to disclose service and rate information to consumers, as alleged in Judd’s com plaint, constitutes a violation of RCW 80.36.510, actionable under the CPA. See RCW 80.36.530. Such an interpretation is not only based on a plain reading of the statute but is also necessary to give meaning to the cross-reference in RCW 80.36.530 to RCW 80.36.510. See City of Seattle v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 136 Wn.2d 693, 698, 965 P.2d 619 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless the majority characterizes RCW
holding that we must give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutes language holding courts must give effect to every provision and word in a statute and avoid any interpretation that may render statutory terms meaningless or superfluous recognizing courts must interpret statutes to give effect to all language used rendering no portion meaningless or superfluous holding that legislative language must not if reasonably avoidable be found to be inoperative superfluous or meaningless holding that statutes must be read so as to give effect to all statutory language