View:
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(a) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Filed by the Registrant [X]
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant [ ]
Check the appropriate box:
[ ] Preliminary Proxy Statement
[ ] Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted
by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
[ ] Definitive Proxy Statement
[X] Definitive Additional Materials
[ ] Soliciting Material Pursuant to Rule 240.14a-11(c) or Rule
240.14a-12
KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
(NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
[ ] $125 per Exchange Act Rules 0-11(c)(1)(ii), 14a-6(i)(1),
14a-6(i)(2) or Item 22(a)(2) of Schedule 14A.
[ ] $500 per each party to the controversy pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 14a-6(i)(3).
[ ] Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules
14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11.
(1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction
applies:
(2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction
applies:
(3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction
computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11:
(4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
(5) Total fee paid:
[X] Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
[ ] Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by
Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for
which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the
previous filing by registration statement number, or the
Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
(1) Amount Previously Paid:
(2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
(3) Filing Party:
(4) Date Filed:
[Article taken from
Ottawa Herald newspaper
Tuesday, April 23, 1996
Page 6]
Editorial by Jay Bemis
Fight, not switch
Light a Bic in honor of Kansas City Power & Light. These
guys aren't going down without a fight.
KCPL's board of directors voted unanimously Monday to reject
an unsolicited takeover bid from Western Resources Inc., saying
the deal wouldn't be in the best interests of KCPL stockholders.
The board could have gone further by saying that any deal
that increases the unfair monopolies already enjoyed by utility
giants aren't in the best interests of consumers.
Western is the giant that socks it to some hundreds of
thousands of customers in Kansas with over-inflated gas bills
shortly after Christmas and doesn't relent until a hard winter --
it hopes -- has passed several months later. It's the same giant
that fought Kansas Pipeline's attempt last summer to enter the
Kansas City area natural gas market. Seems little Kansas
Pipeline claimed the competition with Western would reduce gas
rates paid in the region. It's surprising there hasn't been an
unsolicited bid made for Kansas Pipeline for using that dirty "C"
word. The reason may be that Kansas Pipeline's attempt to enter
the Kansas City market has been moved from the Kansas Corporation
Commission arena to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
where it could languish for months.
When one claim for the unsolicited bid by Western is that
the merger with KCPL could land the two companies more than $1
billion in savings, consumers can only wonder how much of their
winter money is squandered in the name of gas greed.
KCPL's board claims a proposed deal by UtiliCorps United,
which was proffered before the hostile Western offer, would be
better for KCPL stockholders.
Granted, the UtiliCorps deal also would combine two
monopolies into a greedier one. However, it's still the best
one, because it would keep some of that greed out of Kansas, at
least for now.