Printable Format66-118a. Review proceedings; court of jurisdiction; parties; transfer to proper court. (a) As used in this act:
(1) "Party" means any person, firm, corporation, association, municipality, taxpayer, municipal organization, mercantile, agricultural or manufacturing organization or system, public utility or common carrier interested in any matter pending before the state corporation commission or in proceedings for review of an order or decision of the commission.
(2) "Public utility" means a public utility as defined by K.S.A. 66-104 and amendments thereto.
(b) The court of appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review any agency action of the state corporation commission arising from a rate hearing requested by a public utility or requested by the state corporation commission when a public utility is a necessary party. Proceedings for review of other agency actions of the state corporation commission shall be in accordance with K.S.A. 77-609 and amendments thereto.
(c) In proceedings for review of an agency action of the commission, the state corporation commission and any public utility which participated in the agency proceeding and could be bound by the review shall be parties to the proceedings and shall have all rights and privileges granted by this act to any other party to such proceedings.
(d) A proceeding for review timely filed shall not be dismissed but shall be transferred to the proper court if it is determined to have been improperly filed (A) in the court of appeals for an action not arising from a rate hearing or (B) in the district court in accordance with K.S.A. 77-609 and amendments thereto for an action arising from a rate hearing.
History: L. 1929, ch. 220, § 1; L. 1978, ch. 265, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 115; L. 1995, ch. 5, § 1; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Procedures Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions, K.S.A. 77-601 et seq.," Martha J. Coffman, 76 J.K.B.A. No. 2, 21 (2007).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Notice and hearing prerequisite to stay of commission's order. Union Pac. Rld. Co. v. Missouri Pac. Rld. Co. 135 Kan. 450, 451, 10 P.2d 893.
2. Nature of power delegated and scope of appellate review considered. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co. v. Public Service Comm., 135 Kan. 657, 665, 11 P.2d 985.
3. Appeals to supreme court contemplated by section. Hayward v. State Corporation Comm., 151 Kan. 1008, 1009, 1012, 101 P.2d 1041.
4. Referee's reports not provided for and such reports are nothing more than advisory to district court. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 39, 386 P.2d 515.
5. Mentioned in determining summary judgment not available to interpret certificate of convenience and necessity. Pelican Transfer & Storage v. State Corporation Commission, 195 Kan. 76, 79, 402 P.2d 762.
6. Scope of appellate review considered. Creason v. American Bridge, 384 F.2d 475, 478.
7. A public utility, which was granted leave to intervene in the commission proceedings on allegations that the applicant owns common stock in the intervenor, and expressed desire to effect merger of the companies, does not possess requisite interest to entitle it to judicial review hereunder. Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 205 Kan. 838, 843, 844, 473 P.2d 27.
8. Review and affirmance of state corporation commission's granting of certificate of convenience and necessity as a radio common carrier by district court hereunder affirmed. General Communications System, Inc. v. State Corporation Commission, 216 Kan. 410, 411, 532 P.2d 1341.
9. Mentioned; court did not have authority to substitute its judgment for that of commission in denying rate increase request in part. Central Kansas Power Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 221 Kan. 505, 506, 561 P.2d 779.
10. Cited; KCC was authorized to weigh value of service more heavily than cost of service in establishing new rate schedule; judgment affirmed. Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 3 Kan. App. 2d 376, 378, 595 P.2d 735.
11. Review application hereunder; subsequent order fixing future effective date for previously authorized rate increase found reasonable and lawful. Sunflower Pipeline Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 3 Kan. App. 2d 683, 684, 600 P.2d 794.
12. Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to review KCC orders relating to public utility rates. Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 4 Kan. App. 2d 674, 675, 610, P.2d 121.
13. Rate structure reviewed hereunder. Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 5 Kan. App. 2d 653, 654, 623 P.2d 924.
14. Procedure before corporation commission reviewed; judicial review. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 6 Kan. App. 2d 444, 449, 629 P.2d 1174 (1981).
15. 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).
16. District court not authorized to find order void and then proceed to implement requested rate increase. Oilfield Fluid Motor Carriers v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 234 Kan. 983, 991, 992, 677 P.2d 982 (1984).
17. Where tariff application arose from prior rate hearing, court of appeals has jurisdiction. In re Application of Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 525, 529, 530, 531, 685 P.2d 304 (1984).
18. Where common carrier seeking rate increase also "public utility" under 66-104, it meets jurisdictional test herein. MAPCO Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 10 Kan. App. 2d 527, 529, 704 P.2d 989 (1985).
19. Noted in opinion holding 66-176 grants court in damage action power to award treble damages; KCC cannot award damages. Western Kansas Express, Inc. v. Dugan Truck Lines, Inc., 11 Kan. App. 2d 336, 340, 341, 720 P.2d 1132 (1986).
20. Cited; scope of judicial review on appeal from KCC rate-making order in re Wolf Creek nuclear facility examined. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 239 Kan. 483, 498, 720 P.2d 1063 (1986).
21. Cited; provisions herein mandatory; failure to comply grounds for dismissal of appeal for want of jurisdiction. W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 241 Kan. 744, 749, 740 P.2d 585 (1987).
22. Appellate jurisdiction of Court of Appeals to review KCC action arising from rate hearings examined. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 14 Kan. App. 2d 527, 794 P.2d 1165 (1990).
23. The court of appeals has jurisdiction to review any KCC action resulting from a rate hearing. Kansas Pipeline Partnership v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 22 Kan. App. 2d 410, 413, 916 P.2d 76 (1996).
24. Court has jurisdiction to review 66-2001 et seq. and KCC's implementation thereof for compliance with 1996 federal telecommunications act. Citizens' Utility Ratepayer Bd. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 24 Kan. App. 2d 222, 224, 943 P.2d 494 (1997).
25. KCC's approval of electric utility rate increase affirmed; use of hypothetical equity component within capital structure of utility allowed. Kansas Industrial Consumers v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n., 30 Kan. App. 2d 332, 42 P.3d 110 (2002).
26. KCC's approval of electric utility rate increase approved as findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. Western Resources v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n., 30 Kan. App. 2d 348, 42 P.3d 162 (2002).
27. The court of appeals is not granted an exclusive jurisdiction to review KCC order simply because the order ultimately may impact public utility rates. Bluestem Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 49 Kan. App. 2d 745, 316 P.3d 162 (2013).