Re: img img Monday Summary | August 3

[Calliope Vasiliou]

Membership Enrollment Window Ends Soon – Complete Your Registration Today-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------img Monday Summary | August 3------------img Monday Summary | August 3----------------img Monday Summary | August 3--------------

Dear Commissioners,
Protect Rooftop Solar and Hold LG&E and KU Accountable
It's the Public Service Commission’s job to hold monopoly utilities accountable to the statutes and
regulations that govern them. We can not allow utilities to do whatever they want regardless of the
regulations that have been set forth.
* In the case of solar net metering that means ensuring customers have a “monthly netting period”.
* The legislature said credits should accrue over the billing cycle.
* Your original ruling said that LGE-KU should use the same netting period as determined in the
Kentucky Power case (monthly netting).
* The PSC should void the LGE/KU tariff and implement monthly netting.
The tariff being used by KU/LGE, so called “instantaneous netting” is not fair to solar customers, and
in fact it is not “netting”. The companies need to make it right by refunding the impacted customers
what is owed to them.
* This is actually two channel billing, in which people pay retail rate for all energy they take from the
grid, and are credited a reduced rate for energy they generate but do not immediately use. This
reduced rate should only be applied to generation that is in excess of use at the end of the month.
* This will make rooftop solar out of reach for most Kentuckians and it will make it incredibly difficult
for solar installers and any customer to adequately estimate the return on their significant
investments in rooftop solar.
* The PSC needs to do everything possible to avoid customer confusion and keep rate design as
straightforward as possible.
The public should be able to trust that commission’s rulings will be enforced- otherwise we not only
have to invest resources in the process of getting a ruling but also in following up to monitor the
enforcement
* Somewhere along the line the ruling has been misinterpreted and LGE-KU must be held
accountable.
Sincerely,


<!--App_START-->


Dear Commissioners,
Protect Rooftop Solar and Hold LG&E and KU Accountable
It's the Public Service Commission’s job to hold monopoly utilities accountable to the statutes and
regulations that govern them. We can not allow utilities to do whatever they want regardless of the
regulations that have been set forth.
* In the case of solar net metering that means ensuring customers have a “monthly netting period”.
* The legislature said credits should accrue over the billing cycle.
* Your original ruling said that LGE-KU should use the same netting period as determined in the
Kentucky Power case (monthly netting).
* The PSC should void the LGE/KU tariff and implement monthly netting.
The tariff being used by KU/LGE, so called “instantaneous netting” is not fair to solar customers, and
in fact it is not “netting”. The companies need to make it right by refunding the impacted customers
what is owed to them.
* This is actually two channel billing, in which people pay retail rate for all energy they take from the
grid, and are credited a reduced rate for energy they generate but do not immediately use. This
reduced rate should only be applied to generation that is in excess of use at the end of the month.
* This will make rooftop solar out of reach for most Kentuckians and it will make it incredibly difficult
for solar installers and any customer to adequately estimate the return on their significant
investments in rooftop solar.
* The PSC needs to do everything possible to avoid customer confusion and keep rate design as
straightforward as possible.
The public should be able to trust that commission’s rulings will be enforced- otherwise we not only
have to invest resources in the process of getting a ruling but also in following up to monitor the
enforcement
* Somewhere along the line the ruling has been misinterpreted and LGE-KU must be held
accountable.
Sincerely,

From: Pertel, Joseph
To: Gail Gordon; Peter Borresen; Lydia Garcia; William Kozicki; Shane Hixon; HHS.Commissions
Subject: Housing Commission - Agenda Items 3.b and 13 - Airport Housing Ballot Measure
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:52:01 AM
Attachments: 3-23-26 AC Motion (1).pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Chair Gordon, Vice-Chair Borreson, and Commissioners,
I am writing to provide input concerning your pending consideration of the above-referenced
items on your agenda for Thursday, April 2.
On March 23, 2026, the Airport Commission passed the following motion:
"The Airport Commission respectfully urges the City Council to:
1. Formally approve the Framework Plan as the guiding vision for the airport conversion project.
The Framework Plan represents a thoughtful, community-driven vision for the future of the
airport site that is consistent with the will of Santa Monica voters and the requirements of
Measure LC. It reflects years of public engagement, expert analysis, and careful planning to
ensure that this once-in-a-generation opportunity results in a transformative public asset for
our city and the broader region.
2. Reject any proposal to modify Measure LC prior to airport closure. Any effort to amend
Measure LC before the airport closes on December 31, 2028 risks splintering the broad
coalition that has made closure possible and could delay community-serving uses on the
site."
A copy of this motion was sent Mayor Caroline Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Zwick, and City
Manager Oliver Chi on March 25, 2026. (See attached.)
Regards,
Joseph Pertel, Commissioner
Santa Monica Airport Commission
Joseph A. Pertel
Supervising Staff Attorney
Loyola Project for the Innocent
4/2/26 Housing Commission Mtg - Compiled Written Public Comment Submitted before Noon on 4/2/26
Founders Hall 223
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
lls.edu | Privacy + Legal
Direct line: 213 252-7423
Cell: 310 503-5791
Email: Joseph...@lls.edu
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, City Council Members, and City
Manager Oliver Chi
Diane Reynolds, Chair, Airport Commission
March 25, 2026
Airport Commission Recommendation to City Council
On March 23, 2026, the Airport Commission passed the following motion (3 – 0, with 2
excused absences):
The Airport Commission respectfully urges the City Council to:
1. Formally approve the Framework Plan as the guiding vision for the airport
conversion project. The Framework Plan represents a thoughtful, communitydriven vision for the future of the airport site that is consistent with the will of
Santa Monica voters and the requirements of Measure LC. It reflects years of
public engagement, expert analysis, and careful planning to ensure that this
once-in-a-generation opportunity results in a transformative public asset for
our city and the broader region.
2. Reject any proposal to modify Measure LC prior to airport closure. Any
effort to amend Measure LC before the airport closes on December 31, 2028
risks splintering the broad coalition that has made closure possible and could
delay community-serving uses on the site.
Sincerely,
Diane Reynolds, Chair
Andrew Wilder, Vice-Chair
Joe Pertel, Commissioner
Santa Monica Airport Commission
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, City Council Members, and City
Manager Oliver Chi
Diane Reynolds, Chair, Airport Commission
March 25, 2026
Airport Commission Recommendation to City Council
On March 23, 2026, the Airport Commission passed the following motion (3 – 0, with 2
excused absences):
The Airport Commission respectfully urges the City Council to:
1. Formally approve the Framework Plan as the guiding vision for the airport
conversion project. The Framework Plan represents a thoughtful, communitydriven vision for the future of the airport site that is consistent with the will of
Santa Monica voters and the requirements of Measure LC. It reflects years of
public engagement, expert analysis, and careful planning to ensure that this
once-in-a-generation opportunity results in a transformative public asset for
our city and the broader region.
2. Reject any proposal to modify Measure LC prior to airport closure. Any
effort to amend Measure LC before the airport closes on December 31, 2028
risks splintering the broad coalition that has made closure possible and could
delay community-serving uses on the site.
Sincerely,
Diane Reynolds, Chair
Andrew Wilder, Vice-Chair
Joe Pertel, Commissioner
Santa Monica Airport Commission
From: Frank J Gruber
To: HHS.Commissions; SmHousing Mailbox; Shane Hixon; Lydia Garcia; William Kozicki; Gail Gordon; Peter Borresen
Subject: Housing Comm meeting April 2; Items 3.b. and 13
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 12:07:11 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Members of the Housing Commission
I am writing to ask you not to endorse the ballot measure to require that 25% of the airport
land be used for affordable housing when the airport closes. While I have long supported
measures to encourage housing development in Santa Monica, along with many other
longtime supporters of housing I believe that this measure is misguided. I’ve expressed my
opposition in detail in a blog post here:
Say no to ballot box planning (and support a
Great Park to replace Santa Monica Airport)
thehealthycitylocal.com
But in case you don’t have enough time to read this analysis, let me summarize by saying that
the airport land is not a good place to build the equivalent of a new neighborhood, and the
measure does not take into account nearly all of the factors that need to be taken into account
when planning 3,000 units of affordable housing. For instance, there is nothing regarding
schools or supermarkets. Nor is there any indication of how the project would be financed.
The likelihood is that this would end up being yet another failed project that doesn’t ever get
built.
Meanwhile, the City is pursuing planning for a Great Park. This park should be as large as
possible, to serve a local population that largely lives in apartments, and which is underserved
by parks. This ballot measure, with all its ambiguities and its lack of analysis, would stop
progress in the park planning in its tracks. Again nothing would happen for years if not
decades.
I want to disclose that I am a board member of both the Santa Monica Airport2Park
Foundation and the Santa Monica Great Park Coalition, but I am sending this email as an
individual resident of Santa Monica.
Again, I urge you to oppose or at least not support this ballot measure.
Thank you,
Frank Gruber
From: Ann Hoover
To: Gail Gordon; Peter Borresen; Lydia Garcia; William Kozicki; Shane Hixon; HHS.Commissions
Subject: April 2, 2026 Housing Commission Meeting - Items 3.b. and 13. - Please OPPOSE the airport housing initiative
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 12:31:13 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Chair Gordon and Esteemed Housing Commissioners -
I ask that you affirmatively vote tomorrow night to OPPOSE the proposed airport housing
ballot measure.
It disrespects the will of a decisive majority of the community expressed in the Measure LC
City Charter Amendment.
It disrespects Council's 6-1 vote on July 8, 2025 for an LC-compliant (no new
development) Great Park design.
And it disrespects the last two (2) years of intense surveying and community engagement
facilitated by the City's SMAC Project staff team and the Sasaki consultants, all of which
RECONFIRMS the Measure LC (park!) victory and disfavors development of the site - see
Slides 7 and 8 of the Framework Diagram staff slide show:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TlRXNUFqS4wL5qcletAu3AEOHpPkV40o/view
Further -
Serious environmental and human health concerns may accompany any proposal to put
housing on a contaminated site such as some or all of SMO may turn out to be. Required
remediation standards may render the SMO site unsuitable (or too costly to remediate) for
housing; office or park uses typically are subject to a lower environmental remediation
standard based on anticipated cumulative human exposure to toxins and carcinogens. I
refer you to the recent letter accompanying your Agenda Item 13. from Friends of Sunset
Park to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Santa Monica needs to be adding significant natural, green and open space, not sprawling
into it and building it up (see, e.g., the email today to you from the Santa Monica Great
Park Coalition, of which I'm a Board Member, on this topic).
Questions you might want to ask Ralph Mechur and Joan Ling on behalf of the public include -
Who do they intend will pay for all of the new infrastructure needed, e.g., sewer,
water, gas, electricity, cable, fiberoptics, streetlights, roads, trees, landscape, emergency
services, etc.?
What about additional police, fire, and many other City personnel (for trash
removal, recycling, road and street trees/landscape maintenance, etc.)?
Where will the water come from for these 3,000 units and what would the addition of
3,000 units do to increase water demand and pricing therefor, and what impacts will that
new demand have on the City's now ever-elusive goal of water self-sufficiency?
And where is the visual for your 3,000-unit proposal? That is, if they do not share one
in their presentation tomorrow night. 3,000 units on 50 acres of land will be an extremely
dense housing project. Standard of comparison - The Playa Vista development is about
5,800 units on 400+ acres of land. Here's a visual of Playa Vista -
Thank you in advance for your time tomorrow night considering this very important issue. Please
affirmatively vote to OPPPOSE.
Sincerely,



VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org


Dear Commissioners,
Protect Rooftop Solar and Hold LG&E and KU Accountable
It's the Public Service Commission’s job to hold monopoly utilities accountable to the statutes and
regulations that govern them. We can not allow utilities to do whatever they want regardless of the
regulations that have been set forth.
* In the case of solar net metering that means ensuring customers have a “monthly netting period”.
* The legislature said credits should accrue over the billing cycle.
* Your original ruling said that LGE-KU should use the same netting period as determined in the
Kentucky Power case (monthly netting).
* The PSC should void the LGE/KU tariff and implement monthly netting.
The tariff being used by KU/LGE, so called “instantaneous netting” is not fair to solar customers, and
in fact it is not “netting”. The companies need to make it right by refunding the impacted customers
what is owed to them.
* This is actually two channel billing, in which people pay retail rate for all energy they take from the
grid, and are credited a reduced rate for energy they generate but do not immediately use. This
reduced rate should only be applied to generation that is in excess of use at the end of the month.
* This will make rooftop solar out of reach for most Kentuckians and it will make it incredibly difficult
for solar installers and any customer to adequately estimate the return on their significant
investments in rooftop solar.
* The PSC needs to do everything possible to avoid customer confusion and keep rate design as
straightforward as possible.
The public should be able to trust that commission’s rulings will be enforced- otherwise we not only
have to invest resources in the process of getting a ruling but also in following up to monitor the
enforcement
* Somewhere along the line the ruling has been misinterpreted and LGE-KU must be held
accountable.
Sincerely,


wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq
wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq
wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq

Dear Commissioners,
Protect Rooftop Solar and Hold LG&E and KU Accountable
It's the Public Service Commission’s job to hold monopoly utilities accountable to the statutes and
regulations that govern them. We can not allow utilities to do whatever they want regardless of the
regulations that have been set forth.
* In the case of solar net metering that means ensuring customers have a “monthly netting period”.
* The legislature said credits should accrue over the billing cycle.
* Your original ruling said that LGE-KU should use the same netting period as determined in the
Kentucky Power case (monthly netting).
* The PSC should void the LGE/KU tariff and implement monthly netting.
The tariff being used by KU/LGE, so called “instantaneous netting” is not fair to solar customers, and
in fact it is not “netting”. The companies need to make it right by refunding the impacted customers
what is owed to them.
* This is actually two channel billing, in which people pay retail rate for all energy they take from the
grid, and are credited a reduced rate for energy they generate but do not immediately use. This
reduced rate should only be applied to generation that is in excess of use at the end of the month.
* This will make rooftop solar out of reach for most Kentuckians and it will make it incredibly difficult
for solar installers and any customer to adequately estimate the return on their significant
investments in rooftop solar.
* The PSC needs to do everything possible to avoid customer confusion and keep rate design as
straightforward as possible.
The public should be able to trust that commission’s rulings will be enforced- otherwise we not only
have to invest resources in the process of getting a ruling but also in following up to monitor the
enforcement
* Somewhere along the line the ruling has been misinterpreted and LGE-KU must be held
accountable.
Sincerely,


VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org

wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq
wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq
wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq
wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq

######
Dear Commissioners,
Protect Rooftop Solar and Hold LG&E and KU Accountable
It's the Public Service Commission’s job to hold monopoly utilities accountable to the statutes and
regulations that govern them. We can not allow utilities to do whatever they want regardless of the
regulations that have been set forth.
* In the case of solar net metering that means ensuring customers have a “monthly netting period”.
* The legislature said credits should accrue over the billing cycle.
* Your original ruling said that LGE-KU should use the same netting period as determined in the
Kentucky Power case (monthly netting).
* The PSC should void the LGE/KU tariff and implement monthly netting.
The tariff being used by KU/LGE, so called “instantaneous netting” is not fair to solar customers, and
in fact it is not “netting”. The companies need to make it right by refunding the impacted customers
what is owed to them.
* This is actually two channel billing, in which people pay retail rate for all energy they take from the
grid, and are credited a reduced rate for energy they generate but do not immediately use. This
reduced rate should only be applied to generation that is in excess of use at the end of the month.
* This will make rooftop solar out of reach for most Kentuckians and it will make it incredibly difficult
for solar installers and any customer to adequately estimate the return on their significant
investments in rooftop solar.
* The PSC needs to do everything possible to avoid customer confusion and keep rate design as
straightforward as possible.
The public should be able to trust that commission’s rulings will be enforced- otherwise we not only
have to invest resources in the process of getting a ruling but also in following up to monitor the
enforcement
* Somewhere along the line the ruling has been misinterpreted and LGE-KU must be held
accountable.
Sincerely,
######



VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org

wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq
wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq wztib.pncjq

VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org
VJOCR020FK65JDZ2KBIYQ2181K7...@tqvrtkcpucvz-spvngr.org

Dear Commissioners,
Protect Rooftop Solar and Hold LG&E and KU Accountable
It's the Public Service Commission’s job to hold monopoly utilities accountable to the statutes and
regulations that govern them. We can not allow utilities to do whatever they want regardless of the
regulations that have been set forth.
* In the case of solar net metering that means ensuring customers have a “monthly netting period”.
* The legislature said credits should accrue over the billing cycle.
* Your original ruling said that LGE-KU should use the same netting period as determined in the
Kentucky Power case (monthly netting).
* The PSC should void the LGE/KU tariff and implement monthly netting.
The tariff being used by KU/LGE, so called “instantaneous netting” is not fair to solar customers, and
in fact it is not “netting”. The companies need to make it right by refunding the impacted customers
what is owed to them.
* This is actually two channel billing, in which people pay retail rate for all energy they take from the
grid, and are credited a reduced rate for energy they generate but do not immediately use. This
reduced rate should only be applied to generation that is in excess of use at the end of the month.
* This will make rooftop solar out of reach for most Kentuckians and it will make it incredibly difficult
for solar installers and any customer to adequately estimate the return on their significant
investments in rooftop solar.
* The PSC needs to do everything possible to avoid customer confusion and keep rate design as
straightforward as possible.
The public should be able to trust that commission’s rulings will be enforced- otherwise we not only
have to invest resources in the process of getting a ruling but also in following up to monitor the
enforcement
* Somewhere along the line the ruling has been misinterpreted and LGE-KU must be held
accountable.
Sincerely,

--[BND1]1
Content-Type: image/jpg
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <wztib.pncjq>
Content-Disposition: inline

Dear Commissioners,
Protect Rooftop Solar and Hold LG&E and KU Accountable
It's the Public Service Commission’s job to hold monopoly utilities accountable to the statutes and
regulations that govern them. We can not allow utilities to do whatever they want regardless of the
regulations that have been set forth.
* In the case of solar net metering that means ensuring customers have a “monthly netting period”.
* The legislature said credits should accrue over the billing cycle.
* Your original ruling said that LGE-KU should use the same netting period as determined in the
Kentucky Power case (monthly netting).
* The PSC should void the LGE/KU tariff and implement monthly netting.
The tariff being used by KU/LGE, so called “instantaneous netting” is not fair to solar customers, and
in fact it is not “netting”. The companies need to make it right by refunding the impacted customers
what is owed to them.
* This is actually two channel billing, in which people pay retail rate for all energy they take from the
grid, and are credited a reduced rate for energy they generate but do not immediately use. This
reduced rate should only be applied to generation that is in excess of use at the end of the month.
* This will make rooftop solar out of reach for most Kentuckians and it will make it incredibly difficult
for solar installers and any customer to adequately estimate the return on their significant
investments in rooftop solar.
* The PSC needs to do everything possible to avoid customer confusion and keep rate design as
straightforward as possible.
The public should be able to trust that commission’s rulings will be enforced- otherwise we not only
have to invest resources in the process of getting a ruling but also in following up to monitor the
enforcement
* Somewhere along the line the ruling has been misinterpreted and LGE-KU must be held
accountable.
Sincerely,
--[BND1]1
Content-Type: image/jpg
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <wztib.pncjq>
Content-Disposition: inline