Michael Sauers

February 5, 2026

Recently, PPL requested an overall annual increase in base distribution revenues of approximately $356.3 million. That is a nice chunk of change. I saw this advertised as a legal notice in my local newspaper. I was interested in learning more and, perhaps, participating in the process.

Clearly stated in the legal notice was a means for interested parties to access “Reasons For The Requested Rate Increase”. So, I called the listed number and asked for a hard copy of the “Reasons” to be sent to me. I was told that they were not “ready” yet. This was strange because the legal notice clearly stated that, “upon request” I could get a copy. It sure sounded like they were “ready”.

They referred me to a website at the Public Utility Commission but I explained that I preferred to work with a hard copy that they indicated was available. I tried three more times. Finally, two days before the hearing in front of the PUC, I got a copy. Needless to say it was too late for me to participate. The document was filled with considerable and copious amounts of “Reasons”. Too many for me to absorb and fashion into any reasonable testimony. Corporations tend to overload with legal and industry jargon.

My point is that PPL can’t have it both ways. They can’t, on the one hand, claim to be a proficient, well run corporation and, on the other hand, fail to deliver on simple, clearly stated points of action.

I’m not sure what my testimony would have been. Would I have participated in a civic duty? Would I have submitted a formal complaint?

Maybe next time if PPL can be more proficient.