Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Psc Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor describes House Bill 518 as a transparency measure after PSC denials; industry warns title is broad
Summary
House Bill 518 would limit the PSC’s ability to deny some class‑D and class‑A applications without a new public hearing. Sponsor Representative Brad Barker called it a transparency bill; the Montana Solid Waste Contractors Association cautioned the bill’s title could permit unintended changes.
Representative Brad Barker introduced House Bill 518 to the House Energy Committee as a transparency measure that would require public hearings when certain permit applications are denied, rather than allowing the Public Service Commission to issue denials without a hearing in some procedural circumstances. "This bill is essentially just a transparency bill," Barker said, asking the committee to consider amendments if members were concerned that titles or language were overly broad.
Barker explained the provision he seeks to change: when a territory sought by an applicant was previously the subject of a public PSC investigation and finding, the commission may currently deny an application in writing without holding a new hearing—unless an applicant can show material change. Barker said that applicants who have invested time and money should have the opportunity for a hearing if they meet application requirements.
E. J. Redding, representing Montana Solid Waste Contractors Association, reiterated industry concerns about broad bill titles and said the association acknowledges operational challenges that can lead to missed pickups but remains wary of legislative language that could be expanded beyond sponsor intent. "Our major concern ... is the wide open title," Redding said, while acknowledging the industry faces staffing and weather‑related challenges.
Trevor Graff of the PSC testified in an informational capacity, describing the commission’s rationale for the existing procedure. Graff told the committee the provision allowing denial without a hearing is intended to save time when the record already contains a previous public investigation and finding; the statute also requires a hearing if an applicant demonstrates conditions have materially changed since that prior investigation. Graff said the PSC could provide the committee with numbers on how many class D applications it processes and the staff time involved.
Committee members pressed for details about the distinction between class A, class D and the newer class E motor‑carrier types and asked about the fiscal impact of requiring hearings more often. Graff said class D applications constitute a substantial portion of the commission’s legal workload and agreed to provide further data on application counts and staff costs.
Barker closed by stressing the bill’s intent to preserve the public’s right to understand why an otherwise complete application was denied and said he would work with the PSC and stakeholders to refine the language.
The committee concluded the hearing on HB 518 without a committee vote, with members discussing potential clarifying amendments to limit unintended interpretations of the bill’s title and language.
