HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-05-22 Correspondence - Comments to Public Service CommissionMontana Public Service Commission
1701 Prospect Ave.
P.O. Box 202601
Helena, MT 59620-2601
Re: Docket 2021.04.053, Rulemaking on Intervention
President Brown and fellow Public Service Commissioners,
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on Docket 2021.04.053 regarding the rules regulating
intervention in dockets before the Montana Public Service Commission. Missoula County, the
City of Missoula, the City of Bozeman, and our residents have a vested interest in Public Service
Commission proceedings, which impact the affordability of our energy and our ability to achieve
our common policy goals. We respectfully submit the following comments for your
consideration.
The Commission has noted the reason for this docket is to modernize and simplify the existing
intervention rules. MAR Notice No. 38-2-255. Generally, we support the goal of streamlining
processes and administrative language when prudent. We note that most of the proposed
language is a rewording or summation of existing administrative rules contained in ARM
38.2.2401 et seq, and further that the proposed language largely mirrors the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission’s existing federal code in 18 CFR 385.214 et seq. There are a few
notable exceptions, which we call to your attention.
The language used in Section 8 of the proposed rule raises several questions. It states:
(8)When necessary to avoid delay, unreasonable duplication of positions, or prejudice to
other parties, the commission, or hearing examiner may, for good cause and at any time
in the proceeding, limit or condition an intervenor's participation in the proceeding.
First, the use of the word “delay” to the process is unclear and concerning. Delay could be
interpreted to mean any number of things. To illustrate the point: the simple act of posing a
question would technically “delay” the proceeding compared to having not asked a question, but
asking questions is a pivotal part of PSC proceedings. A suggested remedy could be to qualify
the language as “unduly delay”. Second, this section uses the phrase “prejudice to other parties”
which is similarly unclear and undefined. Finally, the last clause uses the phrase “limit or
condition” without defining those boundaries. The original ARM language identifies these
boundaries (e.g. participate in cross examination, argue motions, and raise objections).
Regardless of intent, in practice Section 8 could give the Commission an undefined and
ambiguous amount of leeway to alter the participation of intervening parties. We suggest that
Section 8 be reworded to provide additional clarity and definition so that all parties involved
have a better understanding of the powers the Commission will have if limiting participation.
We also call attention to the proposed language in Section 3. We note that the language is nearly
identical to FERC’s 18 CFR 385.214(b), with one notable wording difference. We recommend
the Commission revise proposed Section (3)(b)(ii) to reflect the phrasing in federal code, as
noted here:
(ii) the movant has or represents an interest that is may be presently and directly affected
by the outcome of the proceeding, including any interest as a consumer, customer,
competitor, or security holder of a party; or…
Parties may not know the full extent to which they will be directly affected by an outcome of a
proceeding and should be allowed the opportunity to determine that extent through the discovery
process as an intervenor. The risk of that impact and/or harm should be a reasonable qualification
for intervention.
We acknowledge that the proposed language is intended to streamline what are usually very
technical and time-consuming proceedings. Despite this intent, the proposed language raises
concerns about limiting intervenor participation in a venue that has such important and far-
reaching impacts. It is our view that Public Service Commission contested case dockets are best
served by numerous and varied voices that can bring unique considerations and perspectives to
bear. To that end, we encourage you to consider how this new language may be inappropriately
used to limit what is otherwise appropriate, meaningful, beneficial, and legal participation in
PSC proceedings.
Thank you for your consideration of our input. We look forward to continuing to monitor this
rulemaking and your ultimate decision.
Respectfully,
CITY OF MISSOULA _______________________________ John Engen, Mayor
CITY OF BOZEMAN _______________________________
Cyndy Andrus, Mayor
MISSOULA COUNTY _______________________________ Juanita Vero, Commission chair
_______________________________ Josh Slotnick, Commissioner _______________________________
Dave Strohmaier, Commissioner
cyndy andrus (Aug 5, 2022 12:36 MDT)
PSC Comments Letter
Final Audit Report 2022-08-05
Created:2022-08-05
By:Heather Powers (hpowers@missoulacounty.us)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAPxGM9mRwYwr_6S629GqIbUQLIC64MTyK
"PSC Comments Letter" History
Document created by Heather Powers (hpowers@missoulacounty.us)
2022-08-05 - 5:22:29 PM GMT- IP address: 69.145.209.226
Document emailed to cyndy andrus (candrus@bozeman.net) for signature
2022-08-05 - 5:23:11 PM GMT
Email viewed by cyndy andrus (candrus@bozeman.net)
2022-08-05 - 6:35:55 PM GMT- IP address: 174.45.83.78
Document e-signed by cyndy andrus (candrus@bozeman.net)
Signature Date: 2022-08-05 - 6:36:09 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 174.45.83.78
Agreement completed.
2022-08-05 - 6:36:09 PM GMT