Pike County Fiscal Court adopts resolution urging management audit of Kentucky Power

The Pike County Fiscal Court voted to adopt a resolution urging a management audit of Kentucky Power, following public comment from resident Zachary Tackett and supporting remarks from multiple commissioners.

Tackett, who addressed the court during public comment, said rising electric bills are forcing local families to choose between paying utilities, buying food or buying medicine. He asked the court to adopt a resolution that requests four actions: that the audit process be fully public and transparent; that the audit examine executive compensation, out-of-state spending and whether Eastern Kentucky customers are subsidizing projects elsewhere; that any savings identified be used to lower local electric bills rather than boost shareholder profits; and that the Public Service Commission consider suspending or reconsidering the recent rate increase until the audit is complete. “By passing this resolution, you ensure the voices of Pike County residents are heard in the decisions that affect their daily lives,” Tackett said.

Commissioners and the presiding judge aligned behind the resolution during discussion, citing the county’s population loss, lost coal jobs and regulatory incentives that can increase consumer rates. One speaker said regulators’ return-on-equity formulas can allow utilities to expand their asset base and thereby increase revenues, a dynamic he said particularly harms economically distressed areas. Another commissioner noted prior legislative efforts to change oversight and said action should start locally.

The court moved and seconded the resolution and approved it by roll-call vote with Commissioners Scott, Adkins, Lewis and the presiding judge recorded as voting yes.

The resolution, as described in public comment, asks the Kentucky Public Service Commission to make the audit process public; to review executive compensation and out-of-state spending; to direct any identified savings toward lowering customers’ bills; and to consider pausing or revisiting the recent 6% rate increase until audit findings are reviewed. The court did not itself order any regulatory action; it adopted a formal resolution asking PSC-level review and oversight.

Next steps identified in discussion included outreach to state legislators and coordination with other counties to press for regulatory or legislative reforms. The resolution does not by itself change rates or require a specific PSC action; it expresses the court’s formal request that the PSC and state lawmakers consider the audit and related remedies.