treating nonresidents as a class differently than residents. 4 .We had previously held in Logan City v. Public Utilities Commission, 72 Utah 536, 271 P. 961 (Utah 1928), that a municipally owned water company serving its own residents was not subject to PSC regulation. 5 . This explicit reasonableness requirement may extend to nonresidents receiving sewer services as well. However, no court has addressed the issue, and we make no conclusion regarding it. 6 . This is not to say that the rates charged the two classes of customers must be the same for, as we will later discuss in this opinion, there are many potentially legitimate reasons why higher charges to nonresidents may be justified. 7 . See City of Port Collins v. Park View Pipe Line, 139 Colo. 119, 336 P.2d 716 (1959) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Barr v. City Council of Augusta, 206 Ga. 753,
holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error recognizing a presumption of reasonableness holding that sentences post booker would be reviewed for reasonableness holding that nonresident rates are matter of contract that will not be reviewed for reasonableness holding that a court should allow the contractuallybargained for default rate under section 506b without examining the reasonableness of these rates provided they fall within the range of acceptable rates