With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Taffet v. Southern Co., 967 F.2d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1021, 113 S.Ct. 657, 121 L.Ed.2d 583 (1992) (stating that cases raised question whether a private suit under RICO may be brought against a utility to recover for excessive charges for electrical power). This Court refuses to extend the filed rate doctrine to this case, where the utility and certain of its customers are on the same side of the case. The filed rate show their rates, and no utility may “charge, demand, collect or receive from any person a greater or less compensation for any service rendered or to be rendered than that prescribed in its filed schedules.” KRS 278.160; see also Boone County Sand & Gravel Co. v. Owen County Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 779 S.W.2d 224, 225-26 (Ky.Ct.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). All utilities have the right to “demand,

A: holding that under krs 278160 public utility could not be estopped from collecting undercharges even where the customer was negligently underbilled to hold otherwise would result in underbilled customer receiving rate preference in contravention of statutory scheme
B: holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate
C: holding that a utility can claim no rate as a legal right that is other than the filed rate whether fixed or merely accepted by the commission
D: holding that a district court committed plain error by imposing a sentence in contravention of statutory requirements
A.