Order on LG&E/KU Rate Adjustment Motions

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of:

O R D E R On February 16, 2026, the Commission issued orders that, among other things, approved an increase in base rates for Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities Company (KU) (jointly, LG&E/KU). On February 26, 2026, LG&E/KU each filed updated pole attachment rates. On March 6, 2026, LG&E/KU jointly filed a 1 motion for corrections and clarification related to different issues identified by LG&E/KU. 2 On March 9, 2026, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Kentucky Solar Energy Society, Metropolitan Housing Coalition, and Mountain Association (collectively, Joint Intervenors) filed a motion for rehearing pursuant to KRS 278.400. On March 9, 2026, Kentucky 3

LG&E/KU’s PSA Rates Adjusted for Final Order (filed Feb. 26, 2026). 1 Joint Motion of LG&E/KU for Clarification and Corrections to February 16, 2026 Orders 2(LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections) (filed March 6, 2026).

Motion for Rehearing of Joint Intervenors (filed March 11, 2026). 3ELECTRONIC APPLICATION OF LOUISVILLE )

ELECTRONIC APPLICATION OF KENTUCKY ) GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR AN ) ADJUSTMENT OF ITS ELECTRIC AND GAS ) CASE NO. UTILITIES COMPANY FOR AN ADJUSTMENT OF ) CASE NO. RATES AND APPROVAL OF CERTAIN ) 2025-00114 ITS ELECTRIC RATES AND APPROVAL OF ) 2025-00113 REGULATORY AND ACCOUNTING ) CERTAIN REGULATORY AND ACCOUNTING ) TREATMENTS ) TREATMENTS )

Broadband and Cable Association (KBCA) filed a petition for rehearing. On March 11, 4 2026, LG&E/KU filed a notice that they were withdrawing from the Stipulation and Recommendation (Stipulation). On March 11, 2026, LG&E/KU also filed a joint petition 5 for reconsideration. On March 16, 2026, LG&E/KU filed a response to KBCA’s petition 6 for rehearing and Joint Intervenors’ motion for rehearing. On March 18, 2026, the 7 Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, by and through the Office of Rate Intervention (the Attorney General), Kentucky Industrial Utility Customers, Inc. (KIUC), Kentucky Solar Industries Association, Inc. (KYSEIA), and Joint Intervenors each filed

responses to LG&E/KU’s joint petition for rehearing. On March 23, 2026, LG&E/KU, 8

KBCA, and Joint Intervenors filed replies to responses to the requests for rehearing. 9 LEGAL STANDARD KRS 278.400, which establishes the standard of review for motions for rehearing, limits rehearing to new evidence not readily discoverable at the time of the original

KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing (filed March 11, 2026). 4 LG&E/KU’s Notice of Withdrawal from the Stipulation (LG&E/KU’s Notice) (filed March 11, 2026). 5 Joint Petition of LG&E/KU’s for Reconsideration of the February 16, 2026 Orders (LG&E/KU’s 6Petition for Reconsideration) (filed March 11, 2026). LG&E/KU’s Response for Joint Intervenors’ Motion for Rehearing (filed March 16, 2026); 7LG&E/KU’s Response for KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing (filed March 16, 2026).

The Attorney General’s Brief in Response to LG&E/KU’s Motion for Rehearing (Attorney General’s 8Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration) (filed March 18, 2026); Response of KIUC to Joint Petition’s for Reconsideration (KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration) (filed March

18, 2026); KYSEIA’s Combined Response to Joint Petition of LG&E/KU’s for Reconsideration of the February 16, 2026 Orders (KYSEIA’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration) (filed March 18, 2026); Joint Intervenors Response in Opposition to Joint Petition of LG&E/KU for Reconsideration of

the February 16, 2026 Order (Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration) (filed

March 18, 2026). Reply of LG&E/KU in Support of Their Joint Petition for Reconsideration of the February 16, 2026 9Orders (LG&E/KU’s Reply) (filed March 23, 2026); Joint Intervenors Reply to KU/LG&E’s Response to their Motion for Rehearing (Joint Intervenors’ Reply) (filed March 23, 2026); KBCA’s Reply in Support of Petition for Rehearing (KBCA’s Reply) (filed March 23, 2026).

-2- Case No. 2025-00114

hearings, to correct any material errors or omissions, or to correct findings that are

unreasonable or unlawful. A Commission Order is deemed unreasonable only when “the evidence presented leaves no room for difference of opinion among reasonable minds.” 10

An order can only be unlawful if it violates a state or federal statute or constitutional provision. 11 By limiting rehearing to correct material errors or omissions, and findings that are unreasonable or unlawful, or to weigh new evidence not readily discoverable at the time of the original hearings, KRS 278.400 is intended to provide closure to Commission proceedings. Rehearing does not present parties with the opportunity to relitigate a matter fully addressed in the original Order.

LG&E/KU’S MOTION FOR CORRECTIONS LG&E/KU jointly filed a motion for corrections related to the Commission’s

February 16, 2026 Orders. LG&E/KU stated that the items noted below are not overly substantive, but the requested clarifications and corrections should be made to ensure clarity for LG&E/KU, parties to these proceedings, and customers in order to facilitate the refund process. LG&E/KU noted that the filing was not made pursuant to KRS 278.400 12 and made the filing pursuant to 807 KAR 5:001, Section 5. 13

Energy Regulatory Comm’n v. Kentucky Power Co., 605 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. App. 1980). 10 Public Service Comm’n v. Conway, 324 S.W.3d 373, 377 (Ky. 2010); Public Service Comm'n v. 11Jackson County Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 50 S.W.3d 764, 766 (Ky. App. 2000); National Southwire Aluminum Co. v. Big Rivers Elec. Corp., 785 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Ky. App. 1990).

LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 1. 12 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 1. 13

-3- Case No. 2025-00114

Errors in Appendices

As discussed more fully below, the Commission grants LG&E/KU’s motion for

corrections, except for the Gas Meter Pulse correction, which is denied. For KU, the Commission finds that Appendix D from the Commission’s February 16, 2026, and as

modified by the Commission’s March 4, 2026 Order, should be stricken from the record

and replaced with the corrected Appendix D, which is attached to this Order in Appendix A. Additionally, for KU, the Commission finds that Appendix E from the

Commission’s February 16, 2026 Order should be stricken from the record and replaced

with the corrected Appendix E, which is attached to this Order in Appendix A. For LG&E Electric, the Commission finds that Appendix D from the Commission’s February 16, 2026, and as modified by the Commission’s March 4, 2026 Order, should be stricken from the record and replaced with the corrected Appendix D, which is attached to this Order as Appendix . Also for LG&E Electric, the Commission finds that Appendix E from the Commission’s February 16, 2026 Order should be stricken from the record and replaced with the corrected Appendix E, which is attached to this Order as Appendix A. For LG&E Gas, the Commission finds that Appendix D from the Commission’s February 16, 2026 Order should be stricken from the record and replaced with the corrected Appendix D, which is attached to this Order in Appendix A. The Commission also notes that in the LG&E Gas Order for Case No. 2025-00114, the ordering paragraphs 42 and 43 on page 169 inadvertently mentions Appendix E. The Commission finds that this error should be corrected to replace the mention of Appendix E with Appendix D.

-4- Case No. 2025-00114

The Commission also inadvertently did not include the rates for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Rider EVSE-R and its special contract rates in Appendix D in LG&E Gas, Appendix E for LG&E Electric, and Appendix E for KU. Those rates are corrected in the respective corrected appendices and attached to this Order in Appendix A. Return on Equity for the Retired Asset Recovery Adjustment Clause, Gas Line Tracker Adjustment Clause, and Pilot Generation Recovery Adjustment Clause. LG&E/KU stated that they understand that both the spirit and letter of the Orders finding that a return on equity (ROE) of 9.775 percent applies to base rates and 9.675 percent applies to mechanisms or riders, but argue that the Commission’s approval of the proposed tariff sheets for Retired Asset Recovery Adjustment Clause (Adjustment Clause RAR), Gas Line Tracker Adjustment Clause (Adjustment Clause GLT), and Pilot Generation Recovery Adjustment Clause (Adjustment Clause PGR) which refer to “base

rate” return on equity creates an inconsistency. The Commission finds that the request

for clarification is granted. Although the Order did not specify base rate when discussing the riders, the tariffs sheets for the Adjustment Clause RAR, Adjustment Clause GLT, and Adjustment Clause PGR should reflect the approved 9.675 percent approved ROE for these adjustment clauses. General Time of Day Service. LG&E/KU explained the following related to general time of day (GTOD) service: For KU, it appears that Appendix E to the KU Order transposes the rates for base hour and peak hour for GTOD Demand Service. Appendix E at page 3 lists the base hour rate as $15.08 and the peak hour rate as $5.82. In fact, it should be the opposite with the base hour rate being $5.82 and the peak hour rate being $15.08. For LG&E, Appendix E to the LG&E Electric Order at page 2 states that the GTOD Energy Three-Phase On-Peak Total Rate is $0.22628, which

-5- Case No. 2025-00114

is mistaken. The rate should be $0.26628 as noted for the Single-Phase On-Peak Total Rate on that same page. 14 LG&E/KU requested correction of this error. The Commission finds that the GTOD 15 service rates should be corrected to reflect this error. These corrections are reflected in Appendix A of this Order. Power Service. LG&E/KU requested correction of rates for power service (PS) stating that the demand charges for both KU and LG&E in Appendix E of the electric Orders are based on kW instead of kVA. LG&E/KU stated that they should be based 16 17 on kVA. The Commission finds that the PS service rates should be amended to correct 18 this error. The updated PS rates are included in Appendix A of this Order. Curtailable Service Rider. LG&E/KU requested correction of a failure to identify the $5.14 as a credit on customer bills due to the lack of parentheses around the $5.14 for Option A – Primary Voltage in Appendix E of LG&E Electric. The Commission finds 19 that Appendix E should be corrected to reflect this credit related to the curtailable service rider. This correction is included in Appendix A of this Order. Rates for Lighting. LG&E/KU requested to make the following corrections: In Appendix E of the KU Order, there appear to be two extraneous lighting rates of $4.53 and $4.91 on page 6 and another two extraneous lighting rates of $10.68 and $14.42 on page 7. These should be eliminated, which should make the remaining schedule line up appropriately. The same is

LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 2-3. 14 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 3. 15 KU Appendix E, pages 3-4 and LG&E Electric Appendix E, page 3. 16 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 3. 17 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 3. 18 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 3. See LG&E Electric Order, Appendix E, page 11. 19

-6- Case No. 2025-00114

true for Appendix E of the LG&E Electric Order. There appear to be two extraneous rates of $12.13 and $14.30 on page 5 when they are already listed on page 4. LG&E/KU request removal of these extraneous rates. Also, for KU, there is nothing in Appendix E for Restricted Lighting Service rate code 446; KU believes the rate should be $13.31. For LG&E Electric, there is nothing in Appendix E for the Lighting Service LN3 rate code; LG&E believes the rate should be $11.30. 20 The Commission finds that the lighting rates should be corrected. The Commission notes that the rates were not extraneous, but rather misaligned with the proper tariff code. As for KU’s Restricted Lighting Service rate code 446, the correct rate is $13.32 rather than $13.31. The corrected lighting rates are included in Appendix A of this Order. AMI Opt-Out Charge. LG&E/KU stated that in Appendix D of the LG&E Gas Order at page 3, the AMI Opt-Out charges are incorrect. LG&E/KU explained that Appendix 21 D stated an $80 opt-out fee and a $20 monthly fee and that the correct charges should be $85 and $9, respectively. The Commission finds that the AMI Opt-Out charges in 22 Appendix D of the LG&E Gas Order should be amended to correct this error. This correction is included in Appendix A of this Order. Small and Large Qualifying Facilities. LG&E/KU stated that in Appendix D in the LG&E Electric Order, pages 1–2, the tables appear to contain mistakes. LG&E/KU 23 stated that it seems that the tables mix up “without losses” values with “with losses” values

LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 3–4. 20 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 4. 21 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 4. 22 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 4. 23

-7- Case No. 2025-00114

and it appears that the “with losses” table used KU values instead of LG&E values. The 24

Commission finds that the errors in Appendix D of the LG&E Electric Order should be corrected to reflect the correct avoided costs for qualifying facilities (QF). Appendix A of

this Order reflect LG&E/KU’s requested corrections.

Excess Facilities Charge. LG&E/KU requested corrections because in the LG&E Gas Order, page 4 of Appendix D lists the values that LG&E requested in its original filing instead of the stipulated values. LG&E/KU stated that the 1.44 percent and 25 0.68 percent values should be 1.41 percent and 0.69 percent, respectively. For KU 26 and LG&E Electric, LG&E/KU pointed out that the Orders omitted the Excess Facilities charges and that those charges should be added. The Commission finds that the 27 excess facilities values in the LG&E Gas Order should be corrected to reflect the stipulated values. The Commission further finds that excess facility charges should be added for LG&E Electric and KU. The updated values and charges are reflected in Appendix A of this Order. Prepay Program. LG&E/KU stated that in approving LG&E/KU’s Pre-Pay Programs, Ordering Paragraph 56 on page 308 in the KU Order, Ordering Paragraph 53 on page 316 in the LG&E Electric Order, and Ordering Paragraph 33 on page 168 in the

LG&E Gas Order all require use of the word “member” in those approving paragraphs. 28

LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 4. 24 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 5. 25 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 5. 26 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 5. 27 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 5. 28

-8- Case No. 2025-00114

LG&E/KU requested a correction by changing “member” to “customer.” The 29 Commission finds this language should be corrected to strike “member” and replace it with “customer” in each Order, respectively. Gas Rates. LG&E/KU requested the following corrections related to gas rates: For the gas rates in Appendix D to the LG&E Gas Order, the rates for RGS (page 1), VFD (page 1), CGS (page 1), and IGS (pages 1-2) are stated as per 100 cubic feet, but it appears the values are per MCF. In that Appendix D at page 4, the charges on that page for Distribution Charge per MCF do not match the charges for CGS of $4.3764 (page 1), IGS of $3.0755 (pages 1-2), AAGS of $2.2009 (page 2), and DGGS of $0.3428 (pages 2-3) identified earlier in Appendix D. In that Appendix D at page 2, the SGSS Industrial rate is listed as $850 per day when it should be $850 per month.10 In that Appendix D at page 3, the DGGS Demand and Usage charges of $12.04 and $0.3428 seem to be in MCF rather than in cubic feet. If so, the decimal needs to be adjusted one place. Finally, in that Appendix at pages 3 and 4, the Gas Meter Pulse charges are listed twice with the page 3 charge being $31 and the page 4 charge being $33. The correct charge is $33. 30 The Commission finds that the errors and proposed corrections identified by LG&E/KU should be corrected. These corrections are reflected in Appendix A of this Order. Gas Meter Pulse Charge: Regarding the Gas Meter Pulse charge, the Commission finds that the $31 charge reflected in the LG&E Gas Order is the correct charge, not the $33 charge, and therefore, this request should be denied. The $33 charge is inclusive of the

LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 5. 29 LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections at 6. 30

-9- Case No. 2025-00114

inflation factor. However, the Commission removed this inflation factor from its calculation of the non-recurring special charges. 31

LG&E/KU’S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STIPULATION

As noted above, on March 11, 2026, LG&E/KU filed notice to the Commission and all parties that they withdraw from the October 20, 2025 Stipulation pursuant to Paragraph 10.6 of that Stipulation. The Commission acknowledges that LG&E/KU 32 have withdrawn from the Stipulation.

KBCA’S PETITION FOR REHEARING KBCA’s Arguments. KBCA argued that the Commission should grant rehearing

pursuant to KRS 278.400 to correct findings that are unreasonable and unlawful. 33 KBCA first argued that the Commission’s February 16, 2026 Orders approving KU and

LG&E’s rate is unreasonable and unlawful because neither the Commission nor anyone else can “evaluate the evidence” that might be unlawful because neither the Commission nor anyone else can “evaluate the evidence” that might “support” the utilities’ rate. KBCA

argued that LG&E/KU repeatedly failed to explain or justify almost all the numbers underlying their pole rate calculations. KBCA argued that if the Commission cannot 34

“evaluate the evidence, calculate the rate, and support its findings” it cannot conclude

that a rate is fair, just and reasonable. 35

See Case No. 2025-00114 LG&E Gas Order at 125. 31 LG&E/KU’s Notice. 32 KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 7. 33 KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 7. 34 KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 7. 35

-10- Case No. 2025-00114

KBCA argued that neither KU nor LG&E “provid[ed] justification” for the combined carrying costs they added into their pole attachment rates. KBCA also argued that the 36

Commission’s Orders approving KU and LG&E’s rates are unreasonable and unlawful because it imposes artificially inflated rates on attachers to KU’s poles, approximately

11 percent and 13 percent higher than the rates calculated based on KU’s forecasted costs. KBCA averred that the “fair, just and reasonable” pole-attachment formula 37

implemented in Kentucky is based in part on the “embedded cost of an average bare pole of the utility,” not on the cost of a conglomerate of utilities and that there is thus no lawful basis for charging attachers to KU’s poles an inflated rate to cover LG&E’s costs. 38

KBCA also argued that an anticipated merger is insufficient justification for imposing

artificially inflated rates on attachers to KU’s poles. 39 LG&E/KU’s Response. LG&E/KU argued that the approved Rate PSA rates are

reasonable, consistent with prior precedent, and supported by the evidentiary record. 40 LG&E/KU highlighted that they formulated Rate PSA rates in these proceedings using the same methodology they have used for multiple rate cases. LG&E/KU also argued 41 that the Commission’s approved Rate PSA rates are both reasonable per se and reasonable as part of a compelling overall Stipulation. LG&E/KU argued that if the 42

KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 8. 36 KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 8. 37 KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 8. 38 KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 9. 39

LG&E/KU’s Response to KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 2. 40

LG&E/KU’s Response to KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 2. 41 LG&E/KU’s Response to KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 5. 42

-11- Case No. 2025-00114

Commission does revise Rate PSA rates on rehearing, it must account for any revenue increase or decrease relative to the stipulated rates by reallocating that revenue increase or decrease across all other customer classes. 43

KBCA’s Reply. KBCA argued that KU and LG&E have never supported their pole

rate calculations with actual data, despite repeated requests to do so, and provided examples of where LG&E/KU failed to substantiate their rates. KBCA highlighted its 44 argument that the Commission cannot use pole- attachment rates to subsidize other rate classes. 45

pleadings, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Commission finds that KBCA’s request should be denied. KBCA presented arguments that the Commission previously addressed in its February 16, 2026 Orders and presented no new evidence for consideration. These Orders balanced the practical reality that LG&E/KU have indicated they plan to file a merger in the first quarter of 2026 when deciding that LG&E/KU’s 46 combined rate should remain. Changing LG&E/KU’s established practice for setting pole-attachment rates, only to potentially re-unify them would be unreasonable. Furthermore, the Commission specifically addressed the issue of allowing LG&E/KU to use combined costs in this manner in the past, and KBCA did not present sufficient evidence to require LG&E/KU to eliminate the combined carrying costs nor did

LG&E/KU’s Response to KBCA’s Petition for Rehearing at 6. 43 KBCA’s Reply at 4-6. 44 KBCA’s Reply at 6-7. 45 LG&E/KU filed intent to file an application for approval of a merger no later than March 31, 2026 46in Case No. 2026-00077, Electronic Joint Application of Kentucky Utilities Company and Louisville Gas and

Electric Company for Approval of Merger.

-12- Case No. 2025-00114

it cite to a change in circumstance or law that would require the Commission to deviate from its administrative Order or prior approvals for these utilities. The Commission also

addressed LG&E/KU’s lack of transparency in its pole attachment rates by putting both

utilities on notice that, going forward, it should use public information from annual reports and FERC filings. Therefore, the Commission finds that KBCA’s request for rehearing should be denied.

LG&E/KU’S FILED POLE ATTACHMENT RATES

On February 26, 2026, LG&E/KU filed its pole-attachment rates in response to ordering paragraph 42 in Case No. 2025-00113, and ordering paragraph 39 in Case No. 2025-00114 of the Commission’s Orders dated February 16, 2026. The Commission 47 finds that the pole-attachment rates are approved consistent with the Commission’s findings in its February 16, 2026 Order. The pole-attachment rates listed in Appendix E of Case No. 2025-00113, February 16, 2026 Order, and Appendix E of Case No. 2025- 00114 LG&E Electric February 16, 2026 Order are stricken from the record and replaced with the updated rates are listed in Appendix A of this Order.

JOINT INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING Joint Intervenors’ Arguments. Joint Intervenors argued that the Commission

should revise its Net-metering Service 2 (NMS-2) rates consistent with the updated qualifying facilities (QF) rates as the Commission has unreasonably deviated from this practice by leaving NMS-2 rates at their previous level, while adjusting QF avoided energy and generation capacity costs based on new evidence and updated information. Joint 48

LG&E/KU’s PSA Rates Adjusted for final Order. 47 Motion for Rehearing of Joint Intervenors at 5. 48

-13- Case No. 2025-00114

Intervenors highlighted that LG&E/KU and Commission both acknowledged in the preceding case that QF rates for fixed tilt solar should serve as the basis for the energy and capacity components for NMS-2 credits. Joint Intervenors argued that to reverse 49

course now, without justification, is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Commission’s

own findings, and would deprive NMS-2 customers of fair compensation for the value that they provide to LG&E/KU and grid based on the updated costs that LG&E/KU are in fact paying for energy and an immediate capacity need. 50

LG&E/KU’s Response. LG&E/KU argued that the Commission should deny the

Joint Intervenors’ motion for two reasons: (1) applying the Joint Intervenors’ own reasoning, the avoided generation capacity component of Rider NMS-2 compensation rates should be zero; and (2) the Rider NMS-2 compensation rates the Commission approved are reasonable. LG&E/KU argued that the Commission’s final Orders provide 51 that such energy is as-available energy for QF purposes and thus not eligible for rates

based on legally enforceable obligations (LEOs); only when “BTM [behind-the-meter] customers are able to commit part of their capacity” to the serving utility would they qualify

for rates based on a LEO. LG&E/KU cited that under the Commission’s QF regulations, 52 as-available energy qualifies only for avoided energy cost-based rates; only QFs providing energy and capacity under a LEO may receive capacity payments. LG&E/KU 53 argued that it would thus be inconsistent to assert that QF rates should apply to Rider

Motion for Rehearing of Joint Intervenors at 9. 49 Motion for Rehearing of Joint Intervenors at 9. 50 LG&E/KU’s Response to Joint Intervenors’ Motion for Rehearing at 1. 51 LG&E/KU’s Response to Joint Intervenors’ Motion for Rehearing at 2. 52 LG&E/KU’s Response to Joint Intervenors’ Motion for Rehearing at 2. 53

-14- Case No. 2025-00114

NMS-2 rates but not the QF framework that undergirds those rates. LG&E/KU 54 highlighted that the Commission acknowledged there was evidence in the record to support different NMS-2 component values and elected to keep all components at their currently approved levels. 55

Joint Intervenors’ Reply. Joint Intervenors stated that the Commission rightly

denied both LG&E and KU’s proposed rates and conditions for QFs. 56 highlighted that the Commission has consistently set the same rates for avoided generating capacity for QFs and NM customer-generators; however, it has not at any time imposed the same conditions for QFs and NM customer-generators. 57 also highlighted that the settlement did not include the sole party representing the interests of net metering customers. 58

pleadings, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Commission finds that Joint

Intervenors’ request for rehearing should be denied. Joint Intervenors’ post-hearing position was as follows “despite believing that even greater compensation is merited,

and that LG&E/KU continue to fall short of the requirements of the Commission’s previous Order, the Joint Intervenors recommend the Commission approve the provision of the proposed stipulation regarding net metering rates.” Joint Intervenors were not 59

LG&E/KU’s Response to Joint Intervenors’ Motion for Rehearing at 2. 54 LG&E/KU’s Response to Joint Intervenors’ Motion for Rehearing at 4. 55 Joint Intervenors’ Reply at 2–5. 56 Joint Intervenors’ Reply at 5. 57 Joint Intervenors’ Reply at 7. 58 Joint Intervenors’ Post-Hearing Brief at 48–49. 59

-15- Case No. 2025-00114

parties to the Stipulation; however, leaving the proposed net-metering rates at their current levels was recommended to by nearly all parties to this case. The Commission 60 required in its February 16, 2026 Orders of LG&E/KU that each utility should follow the

Commission’s previously approved methodologies when setting avoided cost rates and

they should file updated avoided cost components for NMS-2 along with its next QF filing. Unlike QF filings, which are required by regulation to be filed on a biennial basis 61 pursuant to 807 KAR 5:054, Section 5 (1)(a), there is no similar requirement related to net-metering rates. Therefore, Joint Intervenors’ Motion for Rehearing should be denied as they neither identified material errors or omissions nor findings that were unreasonable or unlawful that would compel rehearing. As discussed above, it is fair, just and reasonable for LG&E/KU to update their NMS-2 rates with their next QF filing.

LG&E/KU’s PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Stipulation Reconsideration. LG&E/KU’s argued that the stipulation is reasonable in its totality without modification, and that the Commission should reconsider the modifications. LG&E/KU highlighted that the difference in the revenue requirements 62 calculated by the Commission varies less than 1 percent across LG&E/KU from those in the Stipulation, so there is very little impact to customers, but that the stated impact to LG&E/KU is significant. LG&E/KU stated that when the Commission rewrites or rejects 63 nearly every material term of a negotiated stipulation, it eliminates any meaningful

Note that KBCA did not comment on this specific issue throughout the pendency of the case. 60 Case No. 2025-00113, Feb. 16, 2026 Order at 214; Case No. 2025-00114 (LG&E Electric) 61Feb. 16, 2026 Order at 222. LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 3. 62 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 4–5. 63

-16- Case No. 2025-00114

incentive for utilities and intervenors to pursue collaborative resolutions in future proceedings and that it jeopardizes the substantial, customer-focused benefits that are achievable only through compromise and negotiation. 64 Out-of-Record Information. LG&E/KU argued that the Commission’s decision to reject or modify nearly all the key terms in the Stipulation based upon uncertainty with regarding economic development and energy demand is perplexing. LG&E/KU took 65 issue with a footnote that cited to three sources regarding realities on the ground. 66 LG&E/KU stated that the Commission did not quote John Bevington, did not take issue with the projected revenues, and approved the Extremely High Load Factor (EHLF) tariff as reasons for the inconsistency. LG&E/KU argued that reliance on evidence outside 67

the record to alter the parties’ agreement has deprived LG&E/KU of the due process to

which they are entitled. 68 Sharing Mechanism Adjustment Clause. LG&E/KU argued that the sharing mechanism (Adjustment Clause SM) is essential to the stay-out. LG&E/KU stated that 69 they disagree that an Adjustment Clause SM review is akin to a full rate case and argued the latter requires considerably more time and cost by all interested parties. LG&E/KU 70 stated that the Commission should consider that (1) the alternative to Adjustment Clause

LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 6. 64 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 7. 65 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 7. 66 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 8. 67 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 9. 68 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 9. 69 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 11. 70

-17- Case No. 2025-00114

SM is at least one full-blown base rate case, and (2) the Commission has not authorized an ROE as low as 9.40 percent in many years, and LG&E/KU would not seek such a low ROE in a base rate case in what would otherwise be the stay-out period. LG&E/KU 71

explained that any potential bill impact would occur only if LG&E/KU’s financial

performance deteriorated to a level materially below the returns the Commission has consistently found reasonable in these and all other recent proceedings. LG&E/KU 72 argued that such an adjustment would not provide a windfall; it would merely prevent LG&E/KU from operating at returns the Commission itself has long recognized as inadequate. LG&E/KU averred that Adjustment Clause SM afforded LG&E/KU the 73 opportunity to delay any potential bill impact until after the stay-out period as any potential under-earning would be recorded but not billed immediately. 74 Adjustment Clause PGR. LG&E/KU argued that given that the Commission will review costs that are proposed to be recovered through the Adjustment Clause PGR, in addition to the monitoring requirements imposed in those certificates of public convenience and necessity cases, limiting the costs to estimations from prior cases (including estimates that are four years old) is unreasonable, unnecessary, and deprives LG&E/KU of the opportunity to recover their costs to serve customers. 75 Capitalization to Rate Base. LG&E/KU argued that moving from the capitalization method to the rate base method without adequate notice deprives them of cost recovery

LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 11. 71 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 11. 72 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 11. 73 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 11–12. 74 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 12. 75

-18- Case No. 2025-00114

and the opportunity to earn the authorized ROE. LG&E/KU argued that as implemented 76 by the Commission, this change, coupled with the cash working capital adjustments, results in the disallowance of $244 million of invested capital. LG&E/KU argued that 77

the Commission’s approach to implementing the rate base method is a material adverse

change that denies prudent cost recovery and is expected to prevent LG&E/KU from achieving either the stipulated ROE or the lower ROE prescribed in the final Orders. 78 LG&E/KU argued that the Commission has approved the capitalization method for more than forty years and no party presented a novel argument in these cases that capitalization is inappropriate. LG&E/KU averred that allowing LG&E/KU with a 79 reasonable period to prepare for and implement a fundamental shift away from that longstanding framework is necessary. 80 LG&E/KU explained that the problem is compounded by excluding Commission- approved regulatory assets and liabilities from rate base, while at the same time, including the associated accumulated deferred income taxes (ADIT). LG&E/KU explained that 81 this creates an unreasonable inconsistency: LG&E/KU are being denied a return while customers are receiving a return (on the associated ADIT). 82

LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 12. 76 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 13. 77 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 14. 78 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 14. 79 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 14. 80 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 15. 81 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 15. 82

-19- Case No. 2025-00114

LG&E/KU stated that unless the Commission reconsiders its orders, LG&E/KU will be denied an annual return of $11.0 million while customers will receive a return of $2.7 million. LG&E/KU described that if regulatory assets and liabilities are permitted 83 inclusion in rate base, an increase of $11.0 million is needed to the revenue requirement and if regulatory assets and liabilities are not permitted inclusion in rate base, an increase of $2.7 million is needed to the revenue requirement. LG&E/KU also argued that the 84

exclusion is inconsistent with the Commission’s prior treatment of the issue. 85

Mill Creek 2 Stay-Open Costs. LG&E/KU argued that the Commission’s disallowance of Mill Creek 2 stay-open costs incurred prior to its February 16, 2026 LG&E Electric Order is unreasonable and arbitrary and that the Commission has twice determined that continued operation of Mill Creek 2 benefits customers. LG&E/KU 86 argued that limiting recovery solely on the date of the Commission’s Orders lacks any rational basis and unnecessarily penalizes LG&E from making timely investments required to preserve the reliability of Mill Creek 2. LG&E/KU argued that the 87

Commission’s disallowance of the stay-open costs is similar to its disallowance of Kentucky Power’s transmission expense, which was held unlawful and unreasonable by

the Franklin Circuit Court. LG&E/KU argued that the Commission retains full oversight 88

LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 15. 83 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 15. 84 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 15. 85 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 18. 86 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 18. 87 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 18. 88

-20- Case No. 2025-00114

and authority with respect to all Mill Creek 2 stay open costs, regardless of whether those costs were incurred before or after the date of the Final Order. 89

Return on Equity. LG&E/KU argued that the reduction to ROE is unreasonable. 90 LG&E/KU argued that the evidence in the record does not support the Commission’s finding that the mechanisms reduce LG&E/KU’s risk. LG&E/KU highlighted that “The 91 Commission concluded that ‘any increased risk LG&E/KU is assuming for the volatility in the remaining costs it expects to incur over the next two and a half years does not warrant such an increase in its allowed return.’” LG&E/KU stated there is no explanation 92 regarding what such an increase represents. LG&E/KU argued that the ordered 93 9.775 percent ROE is also lower than ROEs recently awarded or approved by the Commission. 94 Paperless Billing. LG&E/KU argued that by rejecting the proposal to move all

existing customers with an email on file to paperless billing, LG&E/KU’s billing costs will

be approximately $761,526 greater than projected in the test year. It does not appear 95 that the Commission included this increase in the revenue requirements it calculated. 96

LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 19. 89 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 19. 90 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 20. 91 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 19 quoting the Case No. 2025-00113, Feb. 16, 2026 92Order at 134-135. LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 20. 93 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 20. 94 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 21. 95 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 21. 96

-21- Case No. 2025-00114

LG&E/KU argued that failing to do so is unreasonable because LG&E/KU should be permitted to recover the mailing costs associated with customer bills. 97 Restricted Stock Units. LG&E/KU argued that the exclusion of restricted stock units (RSUs) in the revenue requirement is unreasonable. LG&E/KU argued that the 98

Commission’s conclusion is unsupported by any evidence in the record and it rests on

conjecture about employee motivation as there is no testimony or documentation demonstrating that RSUs are tied to shareholder benefit. LG&E/KU argued that the 99 record establishes that the RSUs are time-based awards designed to promote employee retention. 100

IT Implementation Costs. LG&E/KU stated that despite noting the clear benefits of utilizing deferral accounting for the software implementation costs, the Commission— without explanation—approved deferral accounting “only for the amounts through December 31, 2026.” LG&E/KU explained that these costs will be incurred through 101 2029, and the customer benefits of amortizing these expenses applies equally to costs incurred in 2026 as those incurred in 2027 and beyond and asked the Commission to reconsider its position for all IT implementation costs incurred through 2029. 102

LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 21. 97 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 22. 98 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 22. 99 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 22. 100 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 23. 101 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 23. 102

-22- Case No. 2025-00114

Qualifying Facility Rates. LG&E/KU argued that the calculation of QF avoided capacity costs erroneously assumes baseload capacity will be avoided. LG&E/KU 103 argued that they do not have seasonal or peak avoided capacity costs, do not participate in Regional Transmission Organizations’ seasonal capacity auctions, and costs associated with capacity are the same in all hours. LG&E/KU argued that it is arbitrary 104 and unreasonable to deem LG&E/KU’s load growth projections unreliable for purposes of rejecting the overall Stipulation, while simultaneously treating those same projections as credible when rejecting LG&E/KU’s avoided cost calculations. 105

Job Benefits. LG&E/KU argued that the Commission should reconsider this portion of its final Orders and issue orders on reconsideration that correctly state its lack of jurisdiction over jobs benefits and rescind any obligation for LG&E/KU to consider such matters in future NMS-2 related cases. 106

Terminal Net Salvage and Miscellaneous Revenues. LG&E/KU stated that in

examining the Commission’s revenue requirement calculations, it appears the Commission may not have removed terminal net salvage amounts for KU’s Unit 3 at the

Brown Generating Facility even though LG&E/KU agreed to that removal as part of the Stipulation. LG&E/KU stated that it appears that the Commission may not have 107

considered the changes in miscellaneous revenues, including those resulting from

LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 23. 103 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 24. 104 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 24. 105 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 26. 106 LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 26. 107

-23- Case No. 2025-00114

changes in special charges ordered by the Commission, shown in Schedule M in each case when it calculated the revenue requirements for each utility. 108

The Attorney General’s Response. The Attorney General argued that the

Stipulation achieves reasonable rates. The Attorney General highlighted that 109

LG&E/KU serves most of the manufacturing sector of Kentucky’s economy. The 110

Attorney General stated that the Stipulation brings a measure of certainty to all ratepayers, but it is particularly important for industrial customers. The Attorney General also highlighted that this is an unprecedented time in the utility sector, requiring extraordinary capital spending by utilities. The Attorney General 111

stated that he understands, as he knows the Commission does, that utilities having “steel in the ground” is vital to meeting Kentucky’s energy needs. The Attorney General 112

argued that this need for new infrastructure must be balanced with rate stability. The 113 Attorney General explained that the overarching issue during the negotiations was to present the Commission with recommendations that would maximize ratepayer savings while at the same time maintaining rate stability. The Attorney General stated that as 114

LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 26. 108 The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 1. 109 The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 2. 110 The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 1. 111 The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 3. 112 The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 3. 113 The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 3. 114

-24- Case No. 2025-00114

a result of denying Adjustment Clause SM, a new base rate case will be filed sometime this year, and likely another one within the next three years. 115 The Attorney General averred that the Commission rejected material terms of the Stipulation, placing the bargained-for ratepayer benefits in jeopardy. The Attorney 116 General argued that the Commission should not substantially alter a settlement by cherry- picking the terms it likes and expect the utility to honor its bargain. The Attorney 117 General pointed out that this is the current situation; and LG&E/KU were justified in walking away from the Stipulation if the Commission lets its current order stand. The 118 Attorney General stated that the Commission must decide if ratepayers are better served with the Stipulation or without it. 119

KIUC’s Response. KIUC highlighted that the rate increases under the Stipulation

and the Commission Orders are nearly identical. KIUC stated that if LG&E/KU are 120 successful in their petition for reconsideration, then the rate increases authorized in the Orders may exceed those in the Stipulation. KIUC stated that LG&E/KU will have 121 significantly reduced incentive in the future to settle if their agreements can be completely

The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 4. 115 The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 3. 116

The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 4. 117

The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 4. 118

The Attorney General’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 4–5. 119 KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 1. 120 KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 2. 121

-25- Case No. 2025-00114

rewritten. KIUC also stated that the Commission never compared the Stipulation to 122 LG&E/KU’s pre-compromise litigation position. 123 KIUC also stated that a 2.5 year case stay-out incentivizes LG&E/KU to control costs and results in stable rates. KIUC highlighted that for the most recent 4.75 years 124

(2021 to the third quarter of 2025), KU’s electric rates increased by only 8.11 percent, and LG&E’s electric rates increased by only 10.51 percent. KIUC stated that KIUC’s 125

membership prefers the stability of a stay-out coupled with the Adjustment Clause SM, as opposed to more rate cases. KIUC also argued that the Adjustment Clause SM has 126 certain inherent advantages compared to three rate cases; Commission time, effort, and cost will be a fraction with the Adjustment Clause SM. KIUC also stated that Stipulation 127 makes the regulatory process more efficient for the Commission, LG&E/KU, and ratepayers and also promotes stability and predictability, which is reflected in credit ratings and the cost of debt. KIUC argued that if a settlement contains mistakes, then 128 the Commission must fix them, but on issues that are matters of degree, the Commission

KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 2. 122 KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 2. 123 KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 2. 124 KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 2. 125 KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 5. 126 KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 5. 127 KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 6. 128

-26- Case No. 2025-00114

should give settlements the benefit of the doubt. KIUC highlighted that this is FERC’s 129 position. 130

KYSEIA’s Response. KYSEIA argued that LG&E/KU’s request for unconditional

acceptance of the non-unanimous Stipulation is improper if not unlawful and should be denied. KYSEIA pointed out that LG&E/KU failed to identify through the Joint Petition 131 or otherwise point to any language in the Stipulation itself through which they reserved the rights to enforce a Stipulation from which they have unconditionally withdrawn. 132 KYSEIA stated that the Commission, through its initial Orders, supplied ample sound reasons why the Stipulation could not be accepted in its entirety and required modification to meet the requirements of KRS Chapter 278. KYSEIA highlighted that LG&E/KU’s 133 arguments concerning Adjustment Clause SM is without merit as it was a request to relitigate a matter addressed in the Orders, and highlighted that the Adjustment Clause SM was designed in the Stipulation, and not the application. KYSEIA argued that 134

LG&E/KU’s argument concerning alleged out-of-record evidence is a gross

mischaracterization of the Orders and is without merit. KYSEIA argued that the 135

Commission’s explanation does not adjudicate any specific issue concerning expected

KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 6. 129 KIUC’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 7. 130 KYSEIA’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 2. 131 KYSEIA’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 3. 132 KYSEIA’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 4. 133 KYSEIA’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 4. 134 KYSEIA’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 5. 135

-27- Case No. 2025-00114

demand; therefore, it does not fall within the scope of an adjudicative fact. KYSEIA 136

argued that LG&E/KU’s argument concerning QFs is without merit, and stated that

KYSEIA fully addressed and explained LG&E/KU’s current capacity need in its Combined Post-Hearing Brief, and it again asserts these arguments and incorporates them into this pleading by reference. 137

Joint Intervenors’ Response. Joint Intervenors argued that the Commission should reject LG&E/KU’s overarching rehearing request, as their request is an attempt to

relitigate the reasonableness of the Stipulation, they present no new evidence, nor do they correct any material errors or omissions. The Joint Intervenors also pointed out 138 that it was questionable whether the Commission could approve the Stipulation after

LG&E/KU’s withdrawal from it. Joint Intervenors stated that the Commission 139

reasonably exercised its discretion and authority. Joint Intervenors argued that the 140 Commission’s modifications to LG&E/KU’s authorized return on equity are well-supported by the record and generously compensate out-of-state investors. 141 stated that if the Commission were to grant rehearing on the issue of the appropriate ROE for such riders, the Commission should also set an appropriate schedule for submission

KYSEIA’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 5. 136 KYSEIA’s Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 5. 137 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 4. 138 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 6. 139 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 9. 140 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 9. 141

-28- Case No. 2025-00114

of testimony on that issue from all interested parties, and further hearing on related matters. 142 Joint Intervenors highlighted that, in the February 16, 2026 Orders, the Commission rejected the proposed Sharing Mechanism on several well-reasoned bases. Joint Intervenors pointed out that LG&E/KU now urge the Commission to 143 change its mind, but LG&E/KU did not address several of the core reasons why the Commission rejected Adjustment Clause SM. Joint Intervenors highlighted that 144 Adjustment Clause SM would improperly guarantee a certain level of ROE and LG&E/KU did not prove that Adjustment Clause SM is needed to maintain LG&E/KU’s financial position during the stay-out period. 145 Joint Intervenors argued that the Commission’s modifications of the Adjustment Clause PGR are reasonable, lawful, and adequately supported by the record, and that LG&E/KU have failed to identify any basis for reverting the Commission’s modifications. Joint Intervenors argued that the Commission should deny rehearing 146 and affirm disallowance of Adjustment Clause PGR recovery for Mill Creek 2 costs incurred prior to the February 16, 2026 Order establishing new rates. 147 argued that there is no principled basis to argue that LG&E/KU have suffered a loss, are

Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 17. 142 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 17. 143 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 18. 144 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 22. 145 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 22. 146 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 26. 147

-29- Case No. 2025-00114

entitled to special treatment, or are somehow being penalized. Joint Intervenors stated 148 that all the Commission has done with respect to 2025 Mill Creek 2 expenses is reasonably apply the filed rate doctrine. Joint Intervenors requested that if the 149 Commission grants rehearing, LG&E/KU must supply evidentiary support for claimed $7.5 million Mill Creek 2 costs at issue. Joint Intervenors also pointed out that the Mill 150 Creek 2 Adjustment Clause proposal and related costs were not part of the Stipulation, and contrary statements in the final Order should be corrected. 151 pointed out that the Commission’s February 16, 2026 Order inaccurately stated that Adjustment Clause Mill Creek 2 “was agreed to pursuant to the catch-all provision set

forth in the amendment to the Stipulation”; however, the “Stipulation specifically does not address” a Mill Creek 2 Adjustment Clause. 152

Joint Intervenors argued that the Commission properly recognized that at least so long as LG&E/KU have a capacity need, they must compensate QFs for avoided capacity value. Joint Intervenors also argued that the Commission’s orders to consider job 153 benefits is lawful, and already settled. Joint Intervenors argued that as LG&E/KU offer 154 no reason to reject the established precedent of the Commission reaffirmed in this Order,

Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 32. 148 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 32. 149 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 32. 150 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 33. 151 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 33. 152 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 34. 153 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 37. 154

-30- Case No. 2025-00114

and attempt only to relitigate an issue settled now for nearly five years, LG&E/KU’s petition on this matter should be rejected by the Commission. 155 Joint Intervenors averred that making awards of stock time-based does not make them independent of financial measures. Joint Intervenors argued that the 156 Commission properly rejected inclusion of the Long-Term Incentive Compensation in the form of Restricted Stock Units, and should reject the attempt by LG&E/KU to relitigate this issue on rehearing. Joint Intervenors also stated that record evidence supports the 157 Commission’s modifications to the stipulation, and a passing reference to a few news articles does not change that fact or render the proceeding unfair. 158

LG&E/KU’s Reply. LG&E/KU contested and responded to several of the points

brought up by the Joint Intervenors and KYSEIA, and reiterated its arguments in support of rehearing. LG&E/KU stated if the Commission grants LG&E/KU’s request to 159 approve the Stipulation as filed, the companies will comply with the Stipulation as filed, including its stay-out provisions and can do so either voluntarily or by agreeing to an amendment to the Stipulation with the Stipulating Parties. 160

pleadings, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Commission finds that

LG&E/KU’s request for rehearing should be granted in order to obtain additional

Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 39. 155 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 40. 156 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 41. 157 Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 42. 158 LG&E/KU’s Reply. 159 LG&E/KU’s Reply at 2. 160

-31- Case No. 2025-00114

information before rendering a decision on each issue. The Commission also notes that the granting of the request for reconsideration for the purpose of gathering additional information should not be construed as making a finding on the merits of the rehearing motion as it merely allows for further proceedings to investigate the allegations. To facilitate obtaining additional information, the Commission, on its own motion, finds that a procedural schedule should be established for the orderly processing of the rehearing request in this case. In reviewing the responses, the Commission agrees with the Joint Intervenors’ argument that the Commission’s LG&E Electric February 16, 2026 Order inaccurately stated that the Mill Creek 2 Adjustment Clause “was agreed to pursuant to the catch-all

provision set forth in the amendment to the Stipulation”; however the “Stipulation specifically does not address” this issue. The Commission finds that this statement 161

should be stricken from the record and replaced with “In relation to the Mill Creek 2 Adjustment Clause, the Signing Parties clarified in the Amended Stipulation that the Stipulation does not address or include Adjustment Clause MC2 and therefore the Signing Parties are not limited in the positions they may take in these proceedings regarding Adjustment Clause MC2. ” 162

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. LG&E/KU’s Motion for Corrections is granted in part and denied in part.
2. The Gas Meter Pulse correction is denied.

Joint Intervenors’ Response to LG&E/KU’s Petition for Reconsideration at 33. 161 Amended Stipulation, Section 11.2. 162

-32- Case No. 2025-00114

1. Appendices C and D are stricken from the record of Case No. 2025-00113’s
   February 16, 2026 Order; Appendices D and E are stricken from the record of Case No. 2025-00114’s February 16, 2026 Electric Order; and Appendix D is stricken from the record of Case No. 2025-00114’s February 16, 2026 Gas Order. All stricken appendices are corrected as shown in Appendix A, and shall replace the appendices stricken from the respective February 16, 2026 Orders.

2. In the gas Order for Case No. 2025-00114, the ordering paragraphs 42 and
   43 on page 169 shall be corrected to strike the mention of Appendix E and replace with a reference to Appendix D.

3. The Commission finds the tariff sheets for the Adjustment Clause RAR,
   Adjustment Clause GLT, and Adjustment Clause PGR shall reflect the approved 9.675 percent approved ROE for these adjustment clauses.

4. The Commission finds that ordering paragraph 56 on page 308 in the KU
   final Order, ordering paragraph 53 on page 316 in the LG&E Electric final Order, and ordering paragraph 33 on page 168 in the LG&E Gas final Order shall be corrected

striking “member” and replacing it with “customer” in each instance.

1. The Commission finds that the pole-attachment rates submitted on
   February 26, 2026 are approved consistent with the Commission’s findings in its February 16, 2026 Order as shown in Appendix A

2. KBCA’s petition for rehearing is denied.

3. Joint Intervenors’ motion for rehearing is denied.

4. LG&E/KU’s petition for reconsideration is granted.
   -33- Case No. 2025-00114

5. The statement that the Mill Creek 2 Adjustment Clause in the Commission’s
   LG&E Electric Case No. 2025-00114 February 16, 2026 Order on page 148 “was agreed to pursuant to the catch-all provision set forth in the amendment to the Stipulation” shall

be stricken from the record and replaced with “In relation to the Mill Creek 2 Adjustment

Clause, the Signing Parties clarified in the Amended Stipulation that the Stipulation does not address or include Adjustment Clause MC2 and therefore the Signing Parties are not limited in the positions they may take in these proceedings regarding Adjustment Clause MC2. ” 163

1. The procedural schedule set forth in Appendix B to this Order shall be
   followed.

2. LG&E/KU shall respond to all requests for information propounded by

Commission Staff, whether identified on the procedural schedule or otherwise, as provided in those requests.

1. This case is reopened and returned to the Commission's docket.

Amended Stipulation, Section 11.2. 163

-34- Case No. 2025-00114

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ___________________________ Chairman ___________________________ Commissioner ___________________________ Commissioner

ATTEST:

______________________ Executive Director

Case No. 2025-00114

COMMISSION IN CASE NO. 2025-00113 DATED MAR 27 2026 The following rates and charges are prescribed for the customers in the area served by Kentucky Utilities Company. This is the corrected version of Appendix E from

the Commission’s February 16, 2026 Order in Case No. 2025-00113. All other rates and

charges not specifically mentioned herein shall remain the same as those in effect under authority of this Commission prior to the effective date of this Order.

Page 1 of 9 Variable Total Variable Total RESIDENTIAL TIME-OF-DAY DEMAND SERVICE RATE RTOD-DEMAND RESIDENTIAL TIME-OF-DAY ENERGY SERVICE RATE RTOD-ENERGY $0.07373 $0.03853 $0.11226 $0.03788 $0.03853 $0.07641 $0.20017 $0.03853 $0.23870 $0.01702 $0.03853 $0.05555 VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE RATE VFD $10.78 $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 $4.17 $0.57 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE RATE RS

Page 2 of 9 Case No. 2025-00114 Total $0.11226 Variable Variable Total Variable Total Off- Peak Variable Variable GENERAL TIME-OF-DAY DEMAND SERVICE RATE GTOD-DEMAND GENERAL TIME-OF-DAY ENERGY SERVICE RATE GTOD-ENERGY $0.07373 $0.03853 $0.09789 $0.03873 $0.13662 $0.09789 $0.03873 $0.13662 $0.05661 $0.03873 $0.09534 $0.28884 $0.03873 $0.32757 $0.05661 $0.03873 $0.09534 $0.28884 $0.03873 $0.32757 $0.04414 $0.03873 $1.53 $2.44 $1.53 $2.44 $1.53 GENERAL SERVICE RATE GS

Page 3 of 9 Case No. 2025-00114 $0.07497 Total Variable Total Variable Total Variable Total Base Intermediate Peak Base Intermediate Peak $0.08287 $0.04414 $0.03873 $0.08287 $0.07497 $0.03860 $0.11357 $0.03860 $0.11357 $0.03876 $0.03781 $15.08 $15.08 $11.90 $11.97 TIME-OF-DAY SECONDARY SERVICE RATE TODS $5.82 $2.44 $5.82 $3.13 $5.14 $3.37 $4.12 $9.58 $7.89 $3.23 $9.67 ALL ELECTRIC SCHOOL RATE AES POWER SERVICE RATE PS Secondary Primary

Page 4 of 9 Case No. 2025-00114 Maximum Load Charge per Maximum Load Charge per Maximum Load Charge per Maximum Load Charge per Maximum Load Charge per Maximum Load Charge per kVA $0.03754 $20.45 $16.15 FLUCTUATING LOAD SERVICE RATE FLS kVA kVA kVA kVA kVA EXTREMELY HIGH LOAD FACTOR SERVICE RATE EHLF $0.03851 $0.03221 $0.03154 $0.03154 $0.03673 $13.35 $10.26 $74.00 $10.01 $74.00 $74.15 $7.32 $9.07 $7.39 $3.40 $8.31 $2.98 $8.12 $2.32 $8.78 $6.99 $3.07 $4.14 $3.07 TIME-OF-DAY PRIMARY SERVICE RATE TODP RETAIL TRANSMISSION SERVICE RATE RTS Primary Service Transmission Service

Page 5 of 9 Case No. 2025-00114 399 Colonial, 4-Sided, 4K-7K Lumen PK4 Post-Top Historic Fluted $16.19 $7.98 390 Cobra Head, 6K-8.2K Lumen 391 Cobra Head, 13K-16.5 Lumen 392 Cobra Head, 22K-29K Lumen 393 Open Bottom, 4.5K-6K Lumen KC1 Cobra Head, 2.5K-4K Lumen KC3 Cobra Head, 4K-6K Lumen KF1 Directional, 4.5K-6K Lumen KF2 Directional, 14K-17.5K Lumen KF3 Directional, 22K-28K Lumen KF4 Directional, 35K-50K Lumen PK5 Wood Pole KC2 Cobra Head, 2.5K-4K Lumen KC4 Cobra Head, 4K-6K Lumen 396 Cobra Head, 6K-8.2K Lumen 397 Cobra Head, 13K-16.5K Lumen 398 Cobra Head, 22K-29K Lumen KA1 Acorn, 4K-7K Lumen KN1 Contemporary, 4K-7K Lumen KN2 Contemporary, 8K-11K Lumen KN3 Contemporary, 13.5K-16.5K L KN4 Contemporary, 21K-28K Lumen KN5 Contemporary, 45K-50K Lumen KF5 Directional, 4.5K-6K Lumen KF6 Directional, 14K-17.5K Lumen KF7 Directional, 22K-28K Lumen KF8 Directional, 35K-50K Lumen KV1 Victorian, 4K-7K Lumen PK1 Cobra PK2 Contemporary PK3 Post-Top Decorative Smooth One-Time Monthly $197.14 $12.06 $14.27 $17.83 $10.75 $10.49 $10.87 $13.52 $15.66 $18.42 $25.68 $11.87 $11.27 $16.54 $22.16 $11.23 $13.99 $21.24 $21.23 $18.35 $16.76 $11.45 $1.56 $8.76 $4.53 $4.91 $6.10 $8.31 $9.40 $7.76 $9.26 $9.10 $3.27 LIGHTING SERVICE RATE LS Lighting Emitting Diode (LED) Wood Pole Light Emitting Diode (LED) Pole Charges Conversion Fee

Page 6 of 9 Case No. 2025-00114 452 Directional, 107800 Lumen $56.81 461 Cobra Head, 4000 Lumen 471 Cobra Head, 4000 Lumen 462 Cobra Head, 5800 Lumen 472 Cobra Head, 5800 Lumen 463 Cobra Head, 9500 Lumen 473 Cobra Head, 9500 Lumen 464 Cobra Head, 22000 Lumen 474 Cobra Head, 22000 Lumen 465 Cobra Head, 50000 Lumen 475 Cobra Head, 50000 Lumen 409 Cobra Head, 50000 Lumen 426 Open Bottom, 5800 Lumen 428 Open Bottom, 9500 Lumen 487 Directional, 9500 Lumen 488 Directional, 22000 Lumen 489 Directional, 50000 Lumen 450 Directional, 12000 Lumen 454 Directional, 12000 Lumen 455 Directional, 32000 Lumen 459 Directional, 107800 Lumen 451 Directional, 32000 Lumen 446 Cobra Head, 7000L 456 Cobra Head, 7000L 447 Cobra Head, 10000 Lumen 457 Cobra Head, 10000 Lumen 448 Cobra Head, 20000 Lumen 458 Cobra Head, 20000 Lumen 404 Open Bottom 7000 Lumen 421 Tear Drop, 1000 Lumen 422 Tear Drop, 2500 Lumen 424 Tear Drop, 4000 Lumen 425 Tear Drop, 6000 Lumen 460 Directional, 12000 Lumen 469 Directional, 32000 Lumen $10.68 $14.42 $12.06 $16.20 $12.34 $16.72 $19.29 $23.99 $30.35 $33.49 $17.34 $10.57 $10.69 $12.17 $18.57 $26.23 $19.47 $24.84 $32.66 $62.18 $27.29 $13.32 $15.77 $15.77 $17.85 $17.39 $20.18 $14.11 $12.08 $36.51 $43.30 $4.58 $6.05 $9.27 RESTRICTED LIGHTING SERVICE RATE RLS Incandescent

Page 7 of 9 Case No. 2025-00114 Two-User Wireline Pole Underground Conduit Three-User Wireline Pole Charges, Terms and

Attachment $0.94 470 Directional, 107800 Lumen 490 Contemporary, 12000 Lumen 491 Contemporary, 32000 Lumen 493 Contemporary, 107800 Lumen 494 Contemporary, 12000 Lumen 495 Contemporary, 32000 Lumen 496 Contemporary, 107800 Lumen 440 Acorn, 4000 Lumen 410 Acorn, 4000 Lumen 401 Acorn, 5800 Lumen 411 Acorn, 5800 Lumen 420 Acorn, 9500 Lumen 430 Acorn, 9500 Lumen 466 Colonial, 4-Sided, 4000 Lumen 412 Coach, 5800 Lumen 413 Coach, 9500 Lumen 467 Colonial, 4-Sided, 5800 Lumen 468 Colonial, 4-Sided, 9500 Lumen 492 Contemporary, 5800 Lumen 476 Contemporary, 5800 Lumen 497 Contemporary, 9500 Lumen 477 Contemporary, 9500 Lumen 498 Contemporary, 22000 Lumen 478 Contemporary, 22000 Lumen 499 Contemporary, 50000 Lumen 479 Contemporary 50000 Lumen 414 Victorian, 5800 Lumen 415 Victorian, 9500 Lumen Attachment Attachment $0.08554 $0.10345 $72.55 $20.97 $29.40 $60.91 $36.72 $45.40 $76.65 $18.93 $26.79 $20.32 $28.59 $20.58 $29.00 $13.31 $39.36 $39.47 $15.15 $15.26 $20.24 $22.77 $19.85 $27.69 $23.55 $35.95 $28.71 $44.46 $39.38 $39.46 $10.45 $10.71 POLE AND STRUCTURE ATTACHMENT RATE PSA $0.14 LIGHTING ENERGY SERVICE RATE LE TRAFFIC ENERGY SERVICE RATE TE Conditions

Page 8 of 9 Case No. 2025-00114 EVC-FAST Fee for Used per 1/10 standard Wireless Facility Company Maximum Load Charge per Maximum Load Charge per Pole Monthly Charging Unit Fee Networked Charger A Single Dual Networked Charger B Dual Non-Networked Charger Single EVC-L2 Fee for Use per kWh kWh kW kW Disconnecting Service Reconnecting Service Meter Pulse 1/10 AMR replacement $0.03876 $0.03781 ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT RATE EVSE $187.41 $323.59 $249.24 OUTDOOR SPORTS LIGHTING SERVICE RATE OSL $52.89 $83.33 $20.85 $16.60 $84.00 $82.00 $82.00 $22.00 $54.00 $94.00 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGE SERVICE RATE EVC $0.24 $0.25 $3.37 $2.83 $7.89 $2.42 $2.72 Single replacement $157.36 $74.00 Secondary Primary

Page 9 of 9 Case No. 2025-00114 3/0 standard Primary Voltage Service $(4.63) per kVA of Curtailable Primary Voltage Service $(8.40) per kVA of Curtailable 3/0 standard Transmission Voltage Service Transmission Voltage Service $(4.48) per kVA of Curtailable $(8.26) per kVA of Curtailable Non-Compliance Charge Non-Compliance Charge Basic Service Charge per day Option A Option B Non-Networked ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT RIDER ESVE-R $22.40 per kVA CURTAILABLE SERVICE RIDER-2 CSR-2 Billing Demand Single Charger $110.57 1/10 AMI replacement replacement replacement Capacity Reservation Charge Secondary Distribution Primary Distribution Period Single Charger Dual Charger Dual Charger $24.00 per Month STANDARD RIDER FOR REDUNDANT CAPACITY CHARGE RC $0.03154 $144.00 $159.00 $244.00 $140.62 $229.99 $155.65 $74.00 1.23% 0.52% $74.00 $36.53 $2.25 $1.65 STANDARD RIDER FOR EXCESS FACILITIES EF CURTAILABLE SERVICE RIDER-1 CSR-1 $22.40 per kVa Billing Demand Billing Demand Billing Demand

COMMISSION IN CASE NO. 2025-00113 DATED MAR 27 2026 This is the corrected version of Appendix D from the Commission’s February 16, 2026 Order in Case No. 2025-00113. TARIFF NMS-2 NET METERING SERVICE-2 All Excess customer generation, accumulated for the billing period, shall be credited for each month.

TARIFF SQF AND LGF SMALL AND LARGE QUALIFYING FACILITY Qualifying Facility Avoided Energy Rates for Transmission Connected Projects, without

Qualifying Facility Avoided Capacity Rates for Transmission Connected Projects, without Line Losses

Page 1 of 2 QF Avoided Energy (without line losses for transmission QF Avoided Capacity (without line losses for transmission Residential $0.07534 per kWh Other $19.55 $20.19 $20.48 Tracking Wind Other Tracking Wind connected projects) $31.52 $36.15 $37.35 $31.55 $36.23 $37.45 $30.62 $34.38 $35.48 $30.54 $34.80 $35.95 $34.27 $35.40 $35.90 $32.81 $33.89 $34.37 $17.24 $17.81 $18.07 connected projects)

Qualifying Facility Avoided Costs Rates for Transmission Connected Projects, without

Qualifying Facility Avoided Energy Rates, with Line Losses

Qualifying Facility Avoided Capacity Rates, with Line Losses

Qualifying Facility All-In Avoided Cost Rates for 2-Year and 7-Year Contracts, with Line Losses

Rates for energy purchases from seller on an as-available basis are based upon the applicable 2-year PPA. Page 2 of 2 Case No. 2025-00114

QF All-in Avoided Cost Rates (without line losses for Wind $32.07 $36.01 $37.17 QF Avoided Energy (with line losses) $64.36 $70.97 Tracking Other Tracking Other Tracking Wind Other Tracking Wind Other 2026/2027—Avoided Cost Rate 2026/2027—Avoided Cost Rate 2-Year/7-Year PPA QF All-In Avoided Capacity (with line losses) $33.02 $37.86 $39.13 $33.05 $37.95 $39.23 $31.99 $36.45 $37.66 $36.48 $37.68 $38.22 $34.92 $36.07 $36.59 $18.36 $18.96 $19.23 $20.81 $21.49 $21.80 transmission connected projects) $65.79 $50.08 $69.50 $67.98 $50.43 $52.79 $72.40 $55.71 $76.45 $74.92 $55.69 $58.70 Wind QF All-in Avoided Cost Rates $47.86 $52.87

The following electric rates and charges are prescribed for the customers in the area served by Louisville Gas and Electric Company. This is the corrected version of

Appendix E from the Commission’s February 16, 2026 Electric Order in Case No. 2025-

1. All other rates and charges not specifically mentioned herein shall remain the same as those in effect under the authority of this Commission prior to the effective date of this Order.

Page 1 of 10 Variable Total Variable Total $0.07476 $0.03886 $0.11362 $0.05291 $0.03886 $0.09177 $0.15286 $0.03886 $0.19172 $0.02406 $0.03886 $0.06292 RESIDENTIAL TIME-OF-DAY DEMAND SERVICE RATE RTOD-DEMAND RESIDENTIAL TIME-OF-DAY ENERGY SERVICE RATE RTOD-ENERGY $0.47 $0.47 $0.47 $4.32 $9.46 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE RATE RS

Page 2 of 10 Case No. 2025-00114 $0.22733 Variable Total Variable Total Variable Total Off- Peak Variable $0.07476 $0.03886 $0.11362 $0.09353 $0.03895 $0.13248 $0.09353 $0.03895 $0.13248 $0.05294 $0.03895 $0.09189 $0.22733 $0.03895 $0.26628 $0.05294 $0.03895 $0.09189 $0.03895 $0.26628 GENERAL TIME-OF-DAY DEMAND SERVICE RATE GTOD-DEMAND GENERAL TIME-OF-DAY ENERGY SERVICE RATE GTOD-ENERGY $0.47 $1.29 $2.05 $1.29 $2.05 VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE RATE VFD GENERAL SERVICE RATE GS

Page 3 of 10 Case No. 2025-00114 Variable Total Variable Total Base Intermediate Peak Base Intermediate Peak Maximum Load Charge per kVA $0.03078 $0.03895 $0.06973 $0.03078 $0.03895 $0.06973 $0.03887 $0.03807 $0.03877 $12.34 $12.34 $12.18 $11.85 $10.19 $1.29 $5.64 $2.05 $5.64 $3.00 $4.58 $9.44 $8.38 $2.58 $8.93 $6.58 $7.94 $3.83 TIME-OF-DAY SECONDARY SERVICE RATE TODS POWER SERVICE RATE PS Secondary Primary

Page 4 of 10 Case No. 2025-00114 $14.30 $12.13 $17.80 $10.85 $10.61 Maximum Load Charge per kVA 491 Cobra Head, 13K-16.5K Lumen 492 Cobra Head, 22K-29K Lumen $63.55 $1.77 Maximum Load Charge per kVA Maximum Load Charge per kVA Maximum Load Charge per kVA Maximum Load Charge per kVA 490 Cobra Head, 5.5K-8.2K Lumen 493 Open Bottom, 4.5K-6K Lumen LC1 Cobra Head, 2.5K-4K Lumen $0.03238 $0.03175 $0.03175 $0.04288 0.04351 $13.25 $10.50 $63.55 $10.11 $63.55 $19.98 $13.98 $10.02 $8.11 $2.57 $7.83 $2.04 $7.68 $2.43 $9.68 $7.39 EXTREMELY HIGH LOAD FACTOR SERVICE RATE EHLF TIME-OF-DAY PRIMARY SERVICE RATE TODP RETAIL TRANSMISSION SERVICE RATE RTS FLUCTUATING LOAD SERVICE RATE FLS LIGHTING SERVICE RATE LS Primary Service Transmission Service Lighting Emitting Diode (LED)

Page 5 of 10 Case No. 2025-00114 $10.97 $13.37 $15.45 $18.14 $25.29 LF6 Directional, 14K-17.5K Lumen PL5 Post-Top Historic Fluted $10.95 $23.61 LC3 Cobra Head, 4K-6K Lumen LF1 Directional, 4.5K-6K Lumen LF2 Directional, 14K-17.5K Lumen LF3 Directional, 22K-28K Lumen LF4 Directional, 35K-50K Lumen WPL6 Wood Pole LC2 Cobra Head, 2.5K-4K Lumen LC4 Cobra Head, 4K-6K Lumen 496 Cobra Head, 5.5K-8.2K Lumen 497 Cobra Head, 13K-16.5K Lumen 498 Cobra Head, 22K-29K Lumen 499 Colonial, 4-Sided, 4K-7K Lumen LA1 Acorn, 4K-7K Lumen LN1 Contemporary, 4K-7K Lumen LN2 Contemporary, 8K-11K Lumen LN3 Contemporary, 13.5K-16.5K Lumen LN4 Contemporary, 21K-28K Lumen LN5 Contemporary, 45K-50K Lumen LF5 Directional, 4.5K-6K Lumen LF7 Directional, 22K-28K Lumen LF8 Directional, 35K-50K Lumen LV1 Victorian, 4K-7K Lumen LL1 London, 4K-7K Lumen PL1 Cobra PL2 Contemporary Short PL3 Contemporary Long PL4 Post-Top Decorative Smooth Conversion Fee One-Time Monthly 252 Cobra/Open Bottom, 8000L 203 Cobra Head, 13000 Lumen $260.00 $11.79 $11.30 $16.52 $22.01 $13.63 $20.78 $25.19 $26.90 $36.44 $20.76 $27.83 $18.22 $12.90 $14.72 $8.39 $4.60 $4.96 $6.13 $8.29 $8.04 $7.53 $3.17 $9.35 $8.87 $4.62 RESTRICTED LIGHTING SERVICE RATE RLS Wood Pole Light Emitting Diode (LED) Pole Charges

Page 6 of 10 Case No. 2025-00114 204 Cobra Head, 25000 Lumen 209 Cobra Head, 60000 Lumen 207 Directional, 25000 Lumen 210 Directional, 60000 Lumen 201 Open Bottom, 4000 Lumen 470 Directional, 12000 Lumen 471 Directional, 12000 Lumen 474 Directional, 32000 Lumen 475 Directional, 32000 Lumen 476 Directional, 107800 Lumen 477 Directional, 107800 Lumen 473 Directional, 32000 Lumen 452 Cobra Head, 16000 Lumen 453 Cobra Head, 28500 Lumen 454 Cobra Head, 50000 Lumen 455 Directional, 16000 Lumen 456 Directional, 50000 Lumen 457 Open Bottom, 9500 Lumen 275 Cobra/Contemporary, 16000L 266 Cobra/Contemporary, 28500L 267 Cobra/Contemporary, 50000L 276 Coach/Acorn, 5800 Lumen 274 Coach/Acorn, 9500 Lumen 277 Coach/Acorn, 16000 Lumen 279 Contemporary, 120000 Lumen 278 Contemporary, 120000 Lumen 417 Acorn, 9500 Lumen 419 Acorn, 16000 Lumen 280 Victorian, 5800 Lumen 281 Victorian, 9500 Lumen 282 London, 5800 Lumen 283 London, 9500 Lumen 426 London, 5800 Lumen 427 London, 5800 Lumen 428 London, 9500 Lumen 429 London, 9500 Lumen 430 Victorian, 5800 Lumen $18.15 $37.00 $20.50 $38.37 $11.06 $17.61 $20.65 $26.92 $35.38 $51.31 $54.93 $24.32 $17.02 $19.93 $22.88 $18.11 $23.82 $15.17 $31.96 $35.22 $40.34 $19.57 $23.24 $28.24 $56.49 $91.70 $31.11 $32.72 $26.36 $26.94 $25.92 $27.51 $41.36 $43.63 $42.44 $43.68 $40.25

Page 7 of 10 Case No. 2025-00114 431 Victorian, 5800 Lumen 432 Victorian, 9500 Lumen 433 Victorian, 9500 Lumen 412 Colonial, 4-Sided, 5800 Lumen 413 Colonial, 4-Sided, 9500 Lumen 444 Colonial, 4-Sided, 16000 Lumen 415 Acorn, 5800 Lumen 445 Acorn, 16000 Lumen 400 Dark Sky, 4000 Lumen 401 Dark Sky, 9500 Lumen 423 Cobra Head, 16000 Lumen 424 Cobra Head, 28500 Lumen 425 Cobra Head, 50000 Lumen 439 Contemporary, 16000 Lumen 420 Contemporary, 16000 Lumen 440 Contemporary, 28500 Lumen 421 Contemporary, 28500 Lumen 441 Contemporary, 50000 Lumen 422 Contemporary, 50000 Lumen 318 Cobra Head, 8000 Lumen 314 Cobra Head, 13000 Lumen 315 Cobra Head, 25000 Lumen 206 Coach, 4000 Lumen 208 Coach, 8000 Lumen 479 Contemporary, 12000 Lumen 480 Contemporary, 12000 Lumen 483 Contemporary, 107800 Lumen 484 Contemporary, 107800 Lumen 481 Contemporary, 32000 Lumen 482 Contemporary, 32000 Lumen 349 Continental Jr, 1500 Lumen 348 Continental Jr, 6000 Lumen 950 Victorian/London, Old Town 951 Victorian/London, Chesapeake 956 Victorian/London, Westchester/Norfolk $41.04 $42.72 $45.52 $25.78 $26.66 $26.57 $26.23 $28.83 $30.66 $31.05 $33.69 $36.53 $43.43 $21.14 $37.87 $23.56 $41.01 $28.46 $47.74 $21.98 $24.85 $29.11 $16.08 $18.30 $19.45 $31.33 $54.69 $67.23 $26.35 $38.92 $11.59 $17.00 $4.10 $4.33 $4.19 416 Acorn, 9500 Lumen $29.06 Incandescent Bases Poles

Page 8 of 10 Case No. 2025-00114

Wireless Facility Company Pole $52.89 Charges, Terms and Conditions Two-User Wireline Pole Attachment Three-User Wireline Pole Attachment Underground Conduit Attachment $10.45 $10.71 $0.94 Single $77.00 $17.33 $3.32 901 Smooth 10' 902 Fluted 10' Monthly Charging Unit Fee Networked Charger A Single Dual Networked Charger B Single Dual Non-Networked Charger EVC-L2 Fee for Use per kWh EVC-FAST Fee for Use per kWh Maximum Load Charge per kW Maximum Load Charge per kW $0.08299 $0.09760 $0.03887 $0.03807 $186.87 $322.02 $155.61 $243.42 $12.24 $14.61 $25.66 $0.14 $0.24 $0.25 $3.00 $8.38 $2.17 $2.76 ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT RATE EVSE OUTDOOR SPORTS LIGHTING SERVICE RATE OSL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGE SERVICE RATE EVC POLE AND STRUCTURE ATTACHMENT RATE PSA LIGHTING ENERGY SERVICE RATE LE TRAFFIC ENERGY SERVICE RATE TE Secondary Primary

Page 9 of 10 Case No. 2025-00114 Option A- Transmission Voltage Option B- Transmission Voltage $(4.98) per kVA of Curtailable $(4.98) per kVA of Curtailable $(8.40) per kVA of Curtailable $(8.40) per kVA of Curtailable Option A- Transmission Voltage $(8.26) per kVA of Curtailable Option B- Transmission Voltage $20.00 per $(5.14) per kVA of Curtailable $(5.14) per kVA of Curtailable $(8.26) per kVA of Curtailable Service Billing Demand Option B- Primary Voltage Service Non-Compliance Charge $22.40 per kVA Billing Demand Disconnecting Service Reconnecting Service Meter Pulse 1/10 standard replacement 1/10 AMR replacement 1/10 AMI replacement 3/0 standard replacement 3/0 AMI replacement Capacity Reservation Charge Secondary Distribution Primary Distribution Service Option A- Primary Voltage Service Option B- Primary Voltage Service Non-Compliance Charge Service Option A- Primary Voltage Service Service $139.00 $154.00 $239.00 $84.00 $48.00 $48.00 $20.00 $49.00 $69.00 $89.00 $80.00 month 1.25% 0.53% $3.74 $2.98 STANDARD RIDER FOR REDUNDANT CAPACITY CHARGE RC STANDARD RIDER FOR EXCESS FACILITIES EF $22.40 per kVA Billing Demand Billing Demand Billing Demand Billing Demand Billing Demand Billing Demand CURTAILABLE SERVICE RIDER-1 CSR-1 CURTAILABLE SERVICE RIDER-2 CSR-2

Page 10 of 10 Case No. 2025-00114 Dual $244.63 Dual $166.02 Single Single $148.17 $116.91 Option A Option B Non-Networked $36.70 Charger Charger Charger Charger ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT RIDER EVSE-R $0.03879 $19.80

This is the corrected version of Appendix D from the Commission’s February 16, 2026

Electric Order in Case No. 2025-00114. TARIFF NMS-2 NET METERING SERVICE-2 All Excess customer generation, accumulated for the billing period, shall be credited for each month.

TARIFF SQF AND LGF SMALL AND LARGE QUALIFYING FACILITY Qualifying Facility Avoided Energy Rates for Transmission Connected Projects, without

Qualifying Facility Avoided Capacity Rates for Transmission Connected Projects, without Line Losses

Page 1 of 3

QF Avoided Energy (without line losses for transmission QF Avoided Capacity (without line losses for transmission Residential $0.07089 per kWh Tracking Wind Other $31.52 $36.15 $37.35 $30.62 $34.38 $35.48 $30.54 $34.80 $35.95 connected projects) $31.55 $36.23 $37.45 Tracking $34.27 $35.40 $35.90 $32.81 $33.89 $34.37 $17.24 $17.81 $18.07 $19.55 $20.19 $20.48 Other Wind connected projects)

Qualifying Facility Avoided Costs Rates for Transmission Connected Projects, without

Qualifying Facility Avoided Energy Rates, with Line Losses

Qualifying Facility Avoided Capacity Rates, with Line Losses

Qualifying Facility All-In Avoided Cost Rates for 2-Year and 7-Year Contracts, with Line Losses

Page 2 of 3 Case No. 2025-00114

$37.15 $38.39 QF All-in Avoided Cost Rates (without line losses for $35.69 $36.86 $37.39 $74.90

Other 2026/2027—Avoided Cost Rate $51.74 $57.53 Other $20.36 $21.03 $21.33 Tracking Wind Other Tracking Wind Other Tracking Wind Tracking Wind 2026/2027—Avoided Cost Rate QF All-in Avoided Cost Rates (with line losses) QF Avoided Capacity (with line losses) $32.40 $32.43 $37.23 $38.49 $31.47 $35.33 $36.47 $31.38 $35.76 $36.95 $34.17 $35.29 $35.80 $17.96 $18.55 $18.81 QF Avoided Energy (with line losses) transmission connected projects) $65.79 $64.36 $47.86 $50.08 $68.09 $66.59 $49.43 $72.40 $70.97 $52.87 $55.71 $73.40 $54.58

Rates for energy purchases from seller on an as-available basis are based upon the applicable 2-year PPA.

Page 3 of 3 Case No. 2025-00114

The following gas rates and charges are prescribed for the customers in the area served by Louisville Gas and Electric Company. This is the corrected version of Appendix

D from the Commission’s February 16, 2026 Gas Order in Case No. 2025-00114. All

other rates and charges not specifically mentioned herein shall remain the same as those in effect under the authority of this Commission prior to the effective date of this Order.

Page 1 of 4 FIRM INDUSTRIAL GAS SERVICE RATE IGS AS-AVAILABLE GAS SERVICE RATE AAGS Charge per 100 Cubic Feet Distribution Charge per 100 Cubic Feet Distribution <5000 cf/hr >5000 cf/hrCharge per 100 Cubic Feet Distribution On Peak Off Peak <5000 cf/hr >5000 cf/hrCharge per 100 Cubic Feet Distribution On Peak Off Peak Basic Service Charge per Month $0.63684 $0.63684 $0.43764 $0.38764 $0.30755 $0.25755 $630.00 $13.86 $29.69 $0.72 $0.72 $2.90 $6.53 FIRM COMMERCIAL GAS SERVICE RATE CGS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT RATE VFD RESIDENTIAL GAS SERVICE RATE RGS

Page 2 of 4 Case No. 2025-00114 Demand Charge per 100 cubic feet Basic Service Charge per Month Meter Pulse Non-FT/TS-2 $750.00 $113.00 $1.204 $31.00 Charge per Mcf Distribution Basic Service Charge per Month Demand Charge per Mcf Charge per Mcf Distribution Basic Service Charge per Month Demand Charge per Mcf Charge per Mcf Distribution Administrative Charge per Month Basic Service Charge per Month Distribution per Mcf Demand per Mcf Basic Service Charge per Month <5000 cf/hr >5000 cf/hrCharge per 100 Cubic Feet Distribution Administrative Charge per Month Demand Charge per Mcf Disconnect Reconnect Inspection Additional Trip Meter Pulse FT/TS-2 DISTRIBUTION GENERATION GAS SERVICE RATE DGGS $0.03428 $2.2009 $385.00 $0.4615 $850.00 $0.3428 $550.00 $750.00 $0.0558 $187.80 $850.00 $550.00 $0.0558 $170.00 $170.00 $12.04 $48.00 $48.00 $48.50 SUBSTITUTE GAS SALES SERVICE RATE SGSS $8.06 $9.07 $9.07 $2.76 $9.00 LOCAL GAS DELIVERY SERVICE RATE LGDS FIRM TRANSPORTATION SERVICE RATE FT Commercial Industrial

Page 3 of 4 Case No. 2025-00114 IGS, AAGS, IGS, AAGS, With replacement Administrative Charge per Month CGS IGS AAGS DGGS Total CGS IGS AAGS DGGS Monthly Charge per gas meter pulse generator FT and TS-2 Others Administrative Charge Administrative Charge Distribution Projects RGS, VFD CGS, SGSS DGGS FT, LGDS Transmission Projects RGS, VFD CGS, SGSS DGGS GAS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE/FIRM BALANCING SERVICE RIDER TS-2 $234.99 per delivery point $16.88 per delivery point $3.34 per delivery point $4.29 per delivery point $9.00 per month $0.00000 per Ccf $0.00000 per Ccf $0.00000 per Ccf $126.00 $4.3764 $3.0755 $2.2009 $0.3428 $5.1790 $3.8781 $3.0035 $1.1454 $31.00 $75.00 $75.00 1.41% 0.69% $9.00 GAS METER PULSE SERVICE RIDER GMPS $85.00 POOLING SERVICE RIDER PS-TS-2 POOLING SERVICE RIDER PS-FT GAS LINE TRACKER GLT EXCESS FACILITIES EF

Page 4 of 4 Case No. 2025-00114 Basic Service Charge per FT, LGDS Month Demand Charge per Mcf $0.00000 per Ccf $850.00 $0.3428 $12.04

APPENDIX B COMMISSION IN CASE NOS. 2025-00113 AND 2025-00114 DATED MAR 27 2026 All initial requests for information to LG&E/KU

shall be filed no later than .................................................................................. 04/10/2026

LG&E/KU shall file responses to initial requests for

information no later than..................................................................................... 04/24/2026

All supplemental requests for information to LG&E/KU

shall be filed no later than .................................................................................. 05/08/2026

LG&E/KU shall file responses to supplemental requests

for information no later than ............................................................................... 05/22/2026

Last day for parties to request a public hearing or submit a request for the matter to be

decided based upon the written record.............................................................. 05/26/2026

Page 1 of 1

*Angela M Goad *Honorable W. Duncan Crosby III *Joe F. Childers Assistant Attorney General Attorney at Law Childers & Baxter PLLC Office of the Attorney General Office of Rate Stoll Keenon Ogden, PLLC 300 Lexington Building, 201 West Sho 700 Capitol Avenue 2000 PNC Plaza Lexington, KY 40507 Suite 20 500 W Jefferson Street Frankfort, KY 40601-8204 Louisville, KY 40202-2828

*Ashley Wilmes *Thomas J FitzGerald *John Horne Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. Counsel & Director Office of the Attorney General Office of Rate Post Office Box 1070 Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. 700 Capitol Avenue Frankfort, KY 40602 Post Office Box 1070 Suite 20 Frankfort, KY 40602 Frankfort, KY 40601-8204

*Honorable Allyson K Sturgeon *Gabriel Thatcher *Honorable Kurt J Boehm Vice President and Deputy General Counsel- Attorney Senior Attorney at Law LG&E and KU Energy LLC Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry 220 West Main Street Department Of Law 425 Walnut Street Louisville, KY 40202 200 East Main Street Suite 2400 Lexington, KY 40507 Cincinnati, OH 45202

*Byron Gary *Hannah Wigger *Kyle J Smith Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP General Attorney Post Office Box 1070 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1 U.S. Army Legal Services Agency Frankfort, KY 40602 Washington, DC 20006 9275 Gunston Road ATTN: JALS-RL/IP Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-554

*Carrie H Grundmann *James B Dupree *Honorable Lindsey W Ingram, III Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC 50 Third Ave Attorney at Law 110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 500 Building 1310- Pike Hall STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC Winston-Salem, NC 27103 Fort Knox, KY 40121 300 West Vine Street Suite 2100 Lexington, KY 40507-1801

*Honorable David J. Barberie *James W Gardner *Lawrence W Cook Managing Attorney Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC Assistant Attorney General Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government 333 West Vine Street Office of the Attorney General Office of Rate Department Of Law Suite 1400 700 Capitol Avenue 200 East Main Street Lexington, KY 40507 Suite 20 Lexington, KY 40507 Frankfort, KY 40601-8204

*Honorable David Edward Spenard *Jody Kyler Cohn *Matt Partymiller Strobo Barkley PLLC Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry President 239 South 5th Street 425 Walnut Street Kentucky Solar Industries Association Ste 917 Suite 2400 1038 Brentwood Court Louisville, KY 40202 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Suite B Lexington, KY 40511

*Denotes Served by Email Service List for Case 2025-00113

*J. Michael West *Randal A. Strobo Office of the Attorney General Office of Rate Strobo Barkley PLLC 700 Capitol Avenue 239 South 5th Street Suite 20 Ste 917 Frankfort, KY 40601-8204 Louisville, KY 40202

*Honorable Michael L Kurtz *Steven W Lee Attorney at Law Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry 1100 Brent Creek Blvd., Suite 101 425 Walnut Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Suite 2400 Cincinnati, OH 45202

*Nathaniel Shoaff Sierra Club *Kentucky Utilities Company 2101 220 W. Main Street Webster St. , Suite 1300 P. O. Box 32010 Oakland, CA 94612 Louisville, KY 40232-2010

*Paul Werner *Sara Judd Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Senior Corporate Attorney 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1 LG&E and KU Energy LLC Washington, DC 20006 220 West Main Street Louisville, KY 40202

*Rick E Lovekamp *Toland Lacy Manager - Regulatory Affairs Office of the Attorney General LG&E and KU Energy LLC 700 Capital Avenue 220 West Main Street Frankfort, KY 40601 Louisville, KY 40202

*Robert Conroy *M. Todd Osterloh Vice President, State Regulation and Rates Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC LG&E and KU Energy LLC 333 West Vine Street 220 West Main Street Suite 1400 Louisville, KY 40202 Lexington, KY 40507

*Rebecca C. Price Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney 155 East Main Street Lexington, KY 40507

*Denotes Served by Email Service List for Case 2025-00113