Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Psc Intervention Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations panel backs higher PSC intervention pool and adds staff development in straw poll
Summary
Following arguments that specialized consultants and legal teams are needed to defend state utility and energy interests in federal cases, the House Appropriations Government Operations Division signaled support to raise the Public Service Commission’s intervention funding to $250,000 and add $25,000 for staff professional development.
The House Appropriations Government Operations Division signaled bipartisan support to increase the Public Service Commission’s federal intervention funding and to add a modest ongoing professional development increase for staff, following testimony that specialized legal and consultant work has helped the state prevail in recent federal cases.
During deliberations the commission’s members and staff laid out why federal intervention funding is used: to hire consultants and legal contractors in cases before federal agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Randy Christmann of the Public Service Commission told the committee the portion of the budget that pays for intervention work has been used in recent disputes and is essential to protect state interests: the commission “used [intervention funding] on a case where 1 of the really nationally known, environmental groups went after Basin Electric's coal plants,” Christmann said.
The committee conducted a straw poll and directed staff to reflect two changes in the draft amendment: increase the PSC’s federal intervention funding from the governor’s recommended $190,000 to $250,000 (a middle ground between the prior administration’s recommendation and the governor’s number) and add $25,000 in ongoing professional development funds to the PSC’s base budget. Members emphasized the increases remain subject to amendment drafting and to final conference negotiations.
Commissioners described intervention funding as a tool used in infrequent but technically demanding federal matters, such as FERC proceedings, regulatory interventions and disputes over national transmission or permitting decisions. Commissioner Sherry Hohenhoffer (listed in committee testimony) and other commissioners said specialized, often out‑of‑state legal teams are required for certain cases and that the PSC’s standing before FERC can make early action important.
Committee members also noted that the PSC maintains a rail rate complaint loan authorization (a line of credit through the Bank of North Dakota) that has historically sat at $900,000. Members asked staff to include the statutory provision authorizing that line in the bill’s bill text and discussed how rail and other large utility disputes have historically been financed.
What next: staff will draft amendment text that shows $250,000 in federal intervention funding and $25,000 more for staff professional development; the committee recorded the straw poll and will revisit the amendment at a future meeting and in conference.
