Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 476.5 (2026)

Adherence to schedules

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No public utility subject to rate regulation shall directly or indirectly charge a greater or less compensation for its services than that prescribed in its tariffs, and no such public utility shall make or grant any unreasonable preferences or advantages as to rates or services to any person or subject any person to any unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. [C66, 71, 73, 75, §490A.5; C77, 79, 81, §476.5] 2014 Acts, ch 1099, §5

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1985–2016 · leading case: Iowa S. Utils. Co. v. Iowa State Com. Comm'n, 372 N.W.2d 274 (Iowa 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Iowa S. Utils. Co. v. Iowa State Com. Comm'n, 372 N.W.2d 274 (Iowa 1985). · cites it 38× “Both the commission and the company agree that the legality of that preferential rate turns on the meaning of Iowa Code section 476.5 (1983), which provides: No public utility subject to rate regulation shall directly or indirectly charge a greater or less compensation for its…”

AT&T Corp. v. Aventure Commc'n Tech., LLC, 207 F. Supp. 3d 962 (S.D. Iowa 2016). · cites it 26× “Futurephone’s Iowa Code § 476.5 Counterclaim.. .1029 5.”

Teleconnect Co. v. U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc., 508 N.W.2d 644 (Iowa 1993). · cites it 6× “See Iowa Code § 476.5 (“No public utility subject to rate regulation shall directly or indirectly charge a greater or less compensation for its services than that prescribed in its tariffs.”

Iowa Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Wendling Quarries, Inc., 389 N.W.2d 847 (Iowa 1986). · cites it 6× “2d 147 , 150-51 (1957) (court disallowed public utility customer who was negligently underbilled to raise affirmative defenses of laches, es-toppel, and customer was not able to collect damages due to its reliance on the bills from the utility); see also Iowa Code § 476.5 and…”

Qwest Commc'ns Co. v. Aventure Commc'ns Tech., LLC, 86 F. Supp. 3d 933 (S.D. Iowa 2015). · cites it 4× “Thus, while reasserting its firm belief that the FCSCs were not end-users but functional business partners, Qwest asserts that should the Court find otherwise, the LEC Defendants’ conduct nonetheless constitutes “unreasonable discrimination” and is an unfair and unreasonable…”

Aventure Commc'ns Tech., LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 224 F. Supp. 3d 706 (S.D. Iowa 2015). · cites it 2× “Thus, while reasserting its firm belief that the FCSCs were not end users but functional business partners, Qwest asserts that should the Court find otherwise, the LEC defendants’ conduct nonetheless constitutes “unreasonable discrimination” and is an unfair and unreasonable…”

Aventure Commc'n Tech., L.L.C. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 734 F. Supp. 2d 636 (N.D. Iowa 2010). · cites it 4× “Iowa Code § 476.5 does provide, in pertinent part, as follows: No public utility subject to rate regulation shall directly or indirectly charge a *664 greater or less compensation for its services than that prescribed in its tariffs, and no such public utility shall make or…”

Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. State, Dep't of Com., Utils. Div., 485 N.W.2d 465 (Iowa 1992). · cites it 2× “1990); see Iowa Code § 476.5 . The prohibition ensures the predictability and stability of utility rates and generally prevents utility companies from recovering losses that stem from “past company mismanagement or improper forecasting.”

Interstate Power Co. v. Waukon Manor, Inc., 447 N.W.2d 574 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “Iowa Code section 476.5 provides that a public utility shall not “charge a greater or less compensation for its services than that prescribed in its tariffs” and shall not “subject any person to any unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.”

Iowa Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Iowa State Com. Comm'n, 386 N.W.2d 132 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “t court ruling on a joint motion of other parties had the effect of improperly making a substantive change in rates set by the commission prior to *133 completion of the judicial review process and, in addition, that the ruling was both procedurally improper under various…”

Torch Energy Mktg., Inc. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 280 F. Supp. 2d 632 (S.D. Tex. 2003). “The legislative history of section 453 supports PG & E’s argument that a billing error lacks the willful intent needed to be considered impermissible discrimination.”

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.