Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Regulation of just and reasonable rates discussed in "Corporation Commission Practice," John E. Davis, 37 J.B.A.K. 87 (1968).

Public utility late charges, 26 K.L.R. 595 (1978).

"Allocating the Cost of Constructing Excess Capacity: Who Will Have to Pay for It All?" Robert L. Glicksman, 33 K.L.R. 429, 431 (1985).

"Wolf Creek and The Rate-Making Process," Brian J. Moline, 33 K.L.R. 509 (1985).

"Comments on the Proposed Kansas Groundwater Conservation Act from the Electric Utility Industry Viewpoint," L. Earl Watkins, Jr., 35 K.L.R. 395, 396 (1987).

"Retail Electric Competition in Kansas: A Utility Perspective," Sonnet C. Edmonds, 37 W.L.J. 603 (1998).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Public utilities; powers of KCC over municipal franchises and ordinances. 84-54.

Public utilities; rate making; legislative discretion. 94-76.

KCC; powers; rules and regulations; gas or electric public utilities; nonregulated private enterprises. 95-65.

Electric public utilities; legislative intervention into private utility contracts; authority of corporation commission. 97-47.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Act requires each utility to establish just and reasonable rates. City of Emporia v. Telephone Co., 90 Kan. 118, 126, 133 P. 858.

2. Railroad entitled to fair profit on each commodity transported; "reasonable" rates considered; "unreasonable, unjust, oppressive and unlawful" not synonymous with "confiscatory." Railroad Co. v. Utilities Commission, 95 Kan. 604, 611, 148 P. 667.

3. Power to regulate and control location of telegraph stations; may require reasonably efficient and sufficient service. The State, ex rel., v. Postal Telegraph Co., 96 Kan. 298, 301, 304, 150 P. 544.

4. Privilege of unloading en route, etc.; contract preferential and discriminatory. Mollohan v. Railway Co., 97 Kan. 51, 55, 154 P. 248.

5. Discrimination and preferences in rates forbidden by utilities act. Milling Co. v. Postal Telegraph Co., 101 Kan. 307, 309, 166 P. 493.

6. Electric franchise expired; removal of poles and wires; commission's consent. City of Wilson v. Electric Light Co., 101 Kan. 425, 427, 166 P. 512.

7. Commission empowered to require reasonable, efficient and sufficient service. City of Parsons v. Water Supply and Power Co., 104 Kan. 294, 299, 178 P. 438.

8. Authority of commission over past overcharges considered. Great Western Portland Cement Co. v. Public Service Comm., 121 Kan. 531, 534, 247 P. 881.

9. Courts may enjoin noncompensatory or excessive rates. City of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson Gas Co., 125 Kan. 346, 355, 264 P. 68.

10. Voluntary rates established by railroad proper basis for fixing reasonable rates. Thompson v. State Corporation Commission, 173 Kan. 357, 362, 246 P.2d 257.

11. Commission cannot by approval limit liability of telegraph company for error in intrastate message. McNally Pittsburg Mfg. Corp. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 186 Kan. 709, 713, 717, 353 P.2d 199.

12. Commission's order authorizing railroad to dualize station agencies held lawful and reasonable. Community of Woodston v. State Corporation Comm., 186 Kan. 747, 752, 353 P.2d 206.

13. Action to recover intrastate railroad-car rental charges; charges legal under commission's order. Keeler Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co., 187 Kan. 125, 128, 354 P.2d 368.

14. Invalid preliminary orders of commission cannot be enjoined. State Corporation Comm. v. Wichita Gas Co., 290 U.S. 561, 54 S. Ct. 321, 322, 324, 78 L.Ed. 500.

15. Corporation commission may order reinstatement of services in future if changed conditions require it. Missouri Pacific Rld. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 575, 580, 389 P.2d 813.

16. Application to replace railway station agency by establishment of mobile agency routes denied. Missouri Pacific Rld. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 205 Kan. 610, 625, 470 P.2d 767.

17. Limitation of liability to customers provision by telephone company held reasonable; liability arises only for willful and wanton conduct. Holman v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 358 F. Supp. 727, 728.

18. Mentioned; class action against gas utility contesting legality of late charge assessments made by utility. Tennyson v. Gas Service Company, 367 F. Supp. 102, 103.

19. Customers of utility companies had remedy in state courts and could not bring action in federal court; action challenging legality of late assessment charges. Tennyson v. Gas Service Co., 506 F.2d 1135, 1136.

20. Commission findings supported by evidence; court could not substitute its judgment for that of commission on appeal. Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 217 Kan. 604, 615, 538 P.2d 702.

21. Action under antitrust laws for damages and injunctive relief; compliance with section noted; under facts, doctrine of primary jurisdiction not applicable; jurisdictional appeal. Litton Systems, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 539 F.2d 418, 419.

22. Rates established not unreasonable except as to the imposition of a uniform late penalty. Jones v. Kansas Gas and Electric Co., 222 Kan. 390, 392, 399, 565 P.2d 597.

23. Cited; subsequent order fixing future effective date for a previously authorized rate increase found reasonable and lawful. Sunflower Pipeline Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 3 Kan App. 2d 683, 685, 600 P.2d 794.

24. Presumption of reasonableness under K.S.A. 66-115 does not mean rates cannot be changed unless costs change; other factors may warrant change. Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 5 Kan App. 2d 653, 659, 661, 663, 623 P.2d 924.

25. Utility required to establish just and reasonable rates. Sunflower Pipeline Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 5 Kan App. 2d 715, 718, 624 P.2d 466.

26. Rate established by commission was not unlawful and unreasonable; commission did not have to establish "lifeline rate." Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 8 Kan App. 2d 128, 129, 650 P.2d 747 (1982).

27. Rates exacted by public utility must be just and reasonable, not unreasonably discriminatory or unduly preferential. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 233 Kan. 375, 377, 664 P.2d 798 (1983).

28. Legislative grant of authority to KCC includes control over rates and tariffs. In re Application of Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 9 Kan App. 2d 525, 533, 534, 685 P.2d 304 (1984).

29. Ordinary negligence standard of care applied to wrongful termination of service. DeGraeve v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 9 Kan App. 2d 753, 755, 687 P.2d 1380 (1984).

30. Cited; power and authority of KCC to fix public utility rates analyzed in re Wolf Creek nuclear facility. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 239 Kan. 483, 491, 720 P.2d 1063 (1986).

31. Statutory authorization empowering KCC to establish and maintain just and reasonable rates not limited to increasing rates. Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 24 Kan App. 2d 172, 180, 943 P.2d 470 (1997).

32. Recovery for sales of natural gas in plaintiff's certificated service area would not constitute retroactive rate making. United Cities Gas Co. v. Brock Exploration Co., 995 F. Supp. 1284, 1293 (1998).