Topeka ? Westar Energy’s 655,000 customers still could see lower monthly electric bills or even refunds, thanks to decisions by the Kansas Supreme Court.

The high court refused to review a state Court of Appeals ruling that directed state regulators to reconsider rates they set in December 2005. The Supreme Court rejected three petitions from parties involved in the rate-setting process, issuing one-page orders Wednesday without comment.

In July, a three-judge appeals panel rejected parts of a rate-setting order issued by the Kansas Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities. The KCC increased rates $3 million a year, then allowed Westar to pass along millions of dollars more in higher costs to consumers.

The appeals judges invalidated KCC decisions that cost Westar ratepayers from $46 million to $48 million annually, though the panel upheld the decision to allow Westar to pass along some of its rising costs to consumers.

The Supreme Court’s actions were praised Thursday by David Springe, the chief attorney for the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayers Board, a state agency representing residential customers and small businesses.

“The KCC is going to have to adjust Westar rates to the lower level,” Springe said. “Certainly, customers will get some refunds.”

Westar spokeswoman Karla Olsen said it would be inappropriate to speculate on how the Supreme Court’s decisions will affect the company. She said Westar is pleased that parts of the KCC’s order still stand.

“On the other hand, we’re disappointed that the items that were in our petition for review were not reversed,” she said. The company had sought an additional $81 million in annual revenues beyond what the KCC approved.

The Court of Appeals overturned parts of the KCC order determining how it revised Westar’s rates to account for depreciation of its buildings and how much to include in the rates to cover electric transmission costs.

In the case of transmission costs, the appeals panel ruled that the KCC’s order didn’t follow a “clear and unambiguous” law on the subject.

On the depreciation issues, the court said the KCC didn’t cite any hard evidence to justify its decisions and suggested that part of its reasons rested on “unchecked speculation.”