than those properly filed with the appropriate regulatory authority, nor is the regulated entity being sued on the grounds that the rates charged by the utility are unreasonable. See, e t and receive fair, just and reasonable rates.” KRS 278.030(1). They may not, however, “as to rates or service, give any unreasonable preference or advantage to any person or subject any person to any unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.” KRS 278.170. The PSC has “original jurisdiction over complaints as to rates ... of any utility,” and upon a written complaint “made against any utility by any person that any rate in which the complainant is directly interested is unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory,” the PSC must proceed to make an investigation. KRS 278.260; see also Smith, 104 S.W.2d at 965 (<HOLDING>). Whenever the PSC, on its own motion or upon a
holding that psc had primary jurisdiction to pass upon rates and whether same were reasonable consequently court found it improper to pass upon the reasonableness of the charges complained of by appellant holding that nonresident rates are matter of contract that will not be reviewed for reasonableness holding that primary jurisdiction did not apply where the court had to determine whether defendants all natural claims were misleading holding that primary jurisdiction and authority to fix rates rested exclusively and primarily in the psc holding that once the court of chancery acquired subject matter jurisdiction under the statute authorizing the sale of real property by an estate the court had jurisdiction to pass upon all matters either legal or equitable necessary and proper to a just determination in respect to those matters