recognizes that where a legislature has established a ratemaking scheme, the filed rate defines the legal relationship between shipper/customer and carrier/regulated utility. Further, the rights of the ratepayer in regard to the rate it pays are defined by the statutory scheme. See Taffet, 967 F.2d at 1490. Turning to Kentucky’s ratemaking statutes, this Court finds that nothing in them or the cases interpreting them limits the rights ratepayers have against persons or entities who allegedly have harmed their utility. The jurisdiction of the PSC extends to all utilities in Kentucky, and the PSC has “exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of rates and service of utilities.” KRS 278.040(2); see also Smith v. Southern Bell Tel & Tel. Co., 268 Ky. 421, 104 S.W.2d 961, 963 (1937) (<HOLDING>). Utilities must file schedules with the PSC
holding that primary jurisdiction and authority to fix rates rested exclusively and primarily in the psc 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 a carrier has a property interest in telecommunication rates and therefore is entitled to due process in the calculation of said rates holding that commissioners broad statutory authority to fix maximum and minimum rates for taxi industry includes power to adopt order reducing fares for elderly and handicapped holding that although doctrine of primary jurisdiction required trial court to abate claims over which agency had primary jurisdiction trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing temporary injunction to maintain the status quo