SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING
Mr. JUSTICE BOYLEdelivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff herein originally filed a petition for a certificate of public convenience and necessity with the Commission. At the hearings before the Commission, the plaintiff expended a considerable amount of time and energy attempting to justify the charging and collection of the availability charges which became the core of this controversy. That the Commission accepted and apparently considered this testimony is evident because it placed a provision in its order granting the certificate of public convenience and necessity that prohibited the plaintiff from either charging or collecting the availability charges. The plaintiff petitioned the Commission for a rehearing. At the rehearing, the plaintiff presented more testimony to justify the collection of the availability charges. The Commission heard and considered this additional testimony but made no change in its order. The plaintiff next sought judicial review of the Commission’s order in the circuit court of Ogle County. The circuit court affirmed that portion of the Commission’s order granting the certificate of public convenience and necessity but struck that portion of the Commission’s order prohibiting the collection of the availability charges, and the Commission appealed.
At no time has the Commission suggested that the plaintiff is not entitled to a certificate of public convenience and necessity — which is why the plaintiff petitioned the Commission in the first place. Everyone concerned seems to agree that the plaintiff is entitled to such a certificate. The only issues on review — both before the Commission and the courts— have concerned the peripheral issue of the availability charges. We held in our original opinion that the circuit court had the power to excise that portion of the Commission’s order prohibiting the collection of the availability charges on the ground that the Commission lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the matter on a petition for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
In its petition for rehearing, the Commission suggests we alter the reasoning of our holding to say that the circuit court had the power to strike that portion of the Commission’s order prohibiting the collection of the availability charges because it was mere surplusage. We find the Commission’s suggestion to have merit. A public utility may not provide or perform any service until and unless it has filed a schedule of its proposed rates and charges with the Commission. (Section 35 of the Public Utilities Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 111 2/3, par. 35).) The sewer and water lines the plaintiff proposes to install would fall within the statute’s broad definition of “service” (section 10—15 of the Public Utilities Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 111 2/3, par. 10.15)). As of yet, the plaintiff has not filed a proposed schedule of rates as required by section 33 of the Public Utilities Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. Ill 2/3, par. 33). Once the plaintiff does file such a proposed rate schedule, the Commission has the power to hold hearings on it (section 36 of the Public Utilities Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. Ill 2/3, par. 36)), and if the Commission finds the proposed rates to be unreasonable, the Commission has the power to set reasonable rates under section 41 of the Public Utilities Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 111 2/3, par. 41). Therefore, it appears that the plaintiff may not charge or collect the proposed availability charges, or any other charge or fee, until it has submitted a rate structure which receives the approval of the Commission. Consequently, it becomes apparent that the only effect that portion of the Commission’s order, which prohibited the collection of the availability charges, really had was to restate, in an abbreviated form, the requirements of the Public Utilities Act. Hence, the Commission was correct in suggesting that the portion of the Commission’s order prohibiting the collection of the availability charges could be struck by the circuit court, based on its being surplusage.
We modify our original opinion to the extent that rather than agreeing with the contention of the appellee and cross-appellant that the circuit court had the power to excise that portion of the Commission’s order prohibiting the collection of the availability charges, we now find that that portion of the Commission’s order prohibiting the collection of the availability charges should be treated as surplusage.
We wish to emphasize that the basic underlying rationale behind our holding is that the plaintiff still has to obtain the Commission’s approval of a rate structure before it could charge or collect the availability charges. Therefore, we are in no way removing this matter from the Commission’s jurisdiction but instead are merely insisting that the Commission deal with the question of the propriety of the availability charges when the plaintiff petitions the Commission for approval of its rate structure.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
GUILD and RECHENMACHER, JJ., concur.