In re Joint Application of Westar Energy and Kansas Gas and Electric Co.
460 P.3d 821
| Kan. | 2020Background
- Westar Energy and Kansas Gas and Electric (Utilities) sought a general rate increase and proposed a new residential distributed generation (RS‑DG) rate applicable to customers who generate some of their own electricity (DG customers).
- Utilities historically used a two‑part residential rate (flat service charge + per‑kWh energy charge) but folded some fixed costs into the variable energy charge; DG customers pay less variable charges and Utilities asserted a "free‑rider" cost‑shift.
- The approved non‑unanimous settlement imposed a three‑part RS‑DG design (basic service fee, kWh charge, and a demand charge) applied to DG customers; Sierra Club and Vote Solar (Renewable Energy Advocates) objected and appealed.
- Relevant statutes: K.S.A. 66‑117d (1980) prohibits utilities from charging higher rates or disadvantaging customers for using non‑nuclear renewable energy; K.S.A. 66‑1265(e) (post‑2014) allows utilities to propose alternative rate structures for customer‑generators who began operating after July 1, 2014.
- The Court of Appeals held the later, specific statute (66‑1265(e)) conflicted with and displaced 66‑117d; the Kansas Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation and statutory‑conflict doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 66‑1265(e) conflicts with and repeals K.S.A. 66‑117d | Sierra Club: 66‑117d prohibits higher prices for renewable users; 66‑1265(e) cannot authorize discrimination | Utilities: 66‑1265(e) (later, specific) authorizes alternative structures that may raise DG prices, thus overriding 66‑117d | No conflict; statutes address different things (price vs. structure); both can be given effect—66‑1265(e) does not repeal or permit price discrimination under 66‑117d |
| Whether the RS‑DG rate design violates K.S.A. 66‑117d | Sierra Club: RS‑DG imposes higher charges on DG customers for the same goods/services, violating nondiscrimination | Utilities: RS‑DG corrects cost‑shifts and is authorized by 66‑1265(e) as an alternative rate structure | RS‑DG is unlawful price discrimination; Commission erred in approving it because it charges DG customers more for the same service in violation of 66‑117d |
| Proper interpretive rule when statutes appear in tension | Sierra Club: read statutes harmoniously; avoid implied repeal | Utilities: later, specific statute should control | Repeal by implication disfavored; courts must attempt to give both statutes effect; 66‑1265(e) permits structure changes but not price discrimination contrary to 66‑117d |
Key Cases Cited
- FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1982) (describing PURPA's objectives and FERC rulemaking re: small power producers)
- Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 238 Kan. 842 (Kan. 1986) (discussing state implementation of PURPA and conservation objectives)
- In re City of Wichita, 274 Kan. 915 (Kan. 2002) (stating repeal by implication is disfavored)
- State v. Holcomb, 93 Kan. 424 (Kan. 1914) (presumption against implied repeal where legislature does not act expressly)
- Stanley v. Sullivan, 300 Kan. 1015 (Kan. 2014) (statutes should be read consistently so both can have effect)