Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 278.190 (2026)

Procedure when new schedule of rates filed -- Suspension of new rate

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

schedule -- Burden of proof -- Refunds. (1) Whenever any utility files with the commission any schedule stating new rates, the commission may, upon its own motion, or upon complaint as provided in KRS 278.260, and upon reasonable notice, hold a hearing concerning the reasonableness of the new rates. (2) Pending the hearing and the decision thereon, and after notice to the utility, the commission may, at any time before the schedule becomes effective, suspend the operation of the schedule and defer the use of the rate, charge, classification, or service, but not for a longer period than five (5) months beyond the time when it would otherwise go into effect if an historical test period is used, or longer than six (6) months if a forward-looking test period is used, pursuant to KRS 278.192; and after such hearing, either completed before or after the rate, charge, classification, or service goes into effect, the commission may make those orders with reference thereto as it deems proper in the matter. If the proceeding has not been concluded and an order made at the expiration of five (5) months, or six (6) months, as appropriate, the utility may place the proposed change of rate, charge, classification, or service in effect at the end of that period after notifying the commission, in writing, of its intention so to do. Where increased rates or charges are thus made effective, the commission may, by order, require the interested utility or utilities to maintain their records in a manner as will enable them, or the commission, or any of its customers, to determine the amounts to be refunded and to whom due in the event a refund is ordered, and upon completion of the hearing and decision may, by further order, require such utility or utilities to refund to the persons in whose behalf the amounts were paid that portion of the increased rates or charges as by its decision shall be found unreasonable. Provided, however, if the commission, at any time, during the suspension period, finds that the company's credit or operations will be materially impaired or damaged by the failure to permit the rates to become effective during the period, the commission may, after any hearing or hearings, permit all or a portion of the rates to become effective under terms and conditions as the commission may, by order, prescribe. (3) At any hearing involving the rate or charge sought to be increased, the burden of proof to show that the increased rate or charge is just and reasonable shall be upon the utility, and the commission shall give to the hearing and decision of such questions preference over other questions pending before it and decide the same as speedily as possible, and in any event not later than ten (10) months after the filing of such schedules. (4) If the commission, by order, directs any utility to make a refund, as hereinabove provided, of all or any portion of the increased rates or charges, the utility shall make the refund within sixty (60) days after a final determination of the proceeding by an order of the court or commission with or without interest in the discretion of the commission. If the utility fails to make the refund within sixty (60) days after the final determination, any party entitled to a refund may, after ten (10) days' written demand, bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction of this state, and may recover, in addition to the amount of the refund due, legal interest, court costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. No such action may be maintained unless instituted within one (1) year after the final determination. Any number of persons entitled to refunds may join in as plaintiffs in a single action and the court shall render a judgment severally for each plaintiff as his interest may appear. Effective: July 14, 1992 History: Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 308, sec. 2, effective July 14, 1992. -- Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 111, sec. 123, effective July 13, 1984. -- Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 82, sec. 24, effective July 15, 1982; and ch. 242, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1982. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 379, sec. 26, effective April 1, 1979. -- Amended 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 46, sec. 2, effective March 5, 1952. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 3952-16.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1945–2024 · leading case: Kentucky Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Conway, 324 S.W.3d 373 (Ky. 2010).
Kentucky Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Conway, 324 S.W.3d 373 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 24× “KRS 278.190 covers the subject of "[p]rocedure when new schedule of rates filed.”
Kentucky Indus. Util. Customers, Inc. v. Kentucky Utils. Co., 983 S.W.2d 493 (Ky. 1998). · cites it 3× “A general rate case pursuant to KRS 278.190 is a lengthy procedure in which a new base rate is approved only after thorough examination of all operations and costs by the PSC.”
Daleure v. Kentucky, 119 F. Supp. 2d 683 (W.D. Ky. 2000). · cites it 2× “160 through KRS 278.190. Anyone effected by the filed rates, including callers or recipients of calls, can petition the appropriate regulatory authority for a review of the rates at any time.”
Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear v. Kentucky Utils. Co., 648 S.W.2d 535 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “KRS 278.190(4). The amount of that interest must also be within the sound discretion of the agency.”
Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 271 S.W.2d 361 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 3× “This appeal challenges the correctness of an order of the Public Service Commission of Kentucky, hereinafter referred to as "the commission,” entered on February 29, 1952, prohibiting the Union Light, Heat & Power Company, herein called "the company,” from placing in effect…”
Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Kentucky Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 223 S.W.3d 829 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007). “Finally, with respect to rate changes initiated by a public utility and the authority of the commission to order a refund of sums collected, KRS 278.190 provides, in part, as follows: (1) Whenever any utility files with the commission any schedule stating new rates, the…”
Commonwealth ex rel. Stephens v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 545 S.W.2d 927 (Ky. 1976). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission in KRS 278.190, an order was entered suspending the proposed rates for a period of five (5) months from April 3,1975, and thereafter the Commission undertook an investigation of the proposed rates.”
Sellers v. Iowa Power & Light Co., 372 F. Supp. 1169 (S.D. Iowa 1974). “) ; Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 278.190 (1972) ; Md. Code Ann.”
Kentucky CATV Ass'n v. Volz, 675 S.W.2d 393 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). “KRS 278.190(3). Revenue from pole attachment agreements is a part of the income of the regulated utilities, and it is a natural activity for the Commission to consider these pole rental rates when it considers the overall fairness of rates and services for the consumers.”
Com. Ex Rel. Stephens v. SO. CENT. BELL TEL. CO., 545 S.W.2d 927 (Ky. 1976). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission in KRS 278.190, an order was entered suspending the proposed rates for a period of five (5) months from April 3, 1975, and thereafter the Commission undertook an investigation of the proposed rates.”
South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 420 F. Supp. 376 (E.D. Ky. 1976). “KRS 278.190(2). Ultimately, the Commission approved lower rates and charges than those proposed by plaintiff and ordered a refund of revenues collected in excess of the approved rates.”
City of Lexington v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Ky., 249 S.W.2d 760 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “Pending a determination as to reasonableness, the schedule was put into effect, as of November 21, 1947, upon the company’s filing a refund bond under KRS 278.190. Protests against the new rates were entered by the Cities of Lexington, Midway and Versailles, and after hearings…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 278.190(1) — 2 cases
Kentucky Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Conway, 324 S.W.3d 373 (Ky. 2010). “KRS 278.190 covers the subject of "[p]rocedure when new schedule of rates filed.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 278.190(2) — 4 cases
South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 420 F. Supp. 376 (E.D. Ky. 1976). “KRS 278.190(2). Ultimately, the Commission approved lower rates and charges than those proposed by plaintiff and ordered a refund of revenues collected in excess of the approved rates.”
Commonwealth ex rel. Stephens v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 545 S.W.2d 927 (Ky. 1976). “Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission in KRS 278.190, an order was entered suspending the proposed rates for a period of five (5) months from April 3,1975, and thereafter the Commission undertook an investigation of the proposed rates.”
Com. Ex Rel. Stephens v. SO. CENT. BELL TEL. CO., 545 S.W.2d 927 (Ky. 1976). “Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission in KRS 278.190, an order was entered suspending the proposed rates for a period of five (5) months from April 3, 1975, and thereafter the Commission undertook an investigation of the proposed rates.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 278.190(3) — 2 cases
Kentucky CATV Ass'n v. Volz, 675 S.W.2d 393 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). “KRS 278.190(3). Revenue from pole attachment agreements is a part of the income of the regulated utilities, and it is a natural activity for the Commission to consider these pole rental rates when it considers the overall fairness of rates and services for the consumers.”
Kentucky Am. Water Co. v. Commonwealth, 847 S.W.2d 737 (Ky. 1993).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 278.190(4) — 3 cases
Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear v. Kentucky Utils. Co., 648 S.W.2d 535 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982). “KRS 278.190(4). The amount of that interest must also be within the sound discretion of the agency.”
Commonwealth ex rel. Stephens v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 545 S.W.2d 927 (Ky. 1976). “Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission in KRS 278.190, an order was entered suspending the proposed rates for a period of five (5) months from April 3,1975, and thereafter the Commission undertook an investigation of the proposed rates.”
Com. Ex Rel. Stephens v. SO. CENT. BELL TEL. CO., 545 S.W.2d 927 (Ky. 1976). “Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission in KRS 278.190, an order was entered suspending the proposed rates for a period of five (5) months from April 3, 1975, and thereafter the Commission undertook an investigation of the proposed rates.”
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.