Montana Consumer Counsel seeks biennial spending authority for $300,000 caseflow contingency

The Montana Consumer Counsel asked the Section A Subcommittee on Appropriations on Wednesday for increased spending authority in the 2027 biennium, including a $300,000 caseflow contingency to respond to unusually large or complex utility cases.

Jason Brown, director of the Montana Consumer Counsel, told the committee the agency’s mission is to “represent the interests of the consuming public, primarily before the Montana Public Service Commission,” and that contracted expert services for rate cases make up just under half the agency’s budget.

The Legislative Fiscal Division staff review presented by Mr. Bergen said the office’s requested appropriations for the 2027 biennium are about 13.3 percent higher — roughly $433,000 — than the fiscal 2025 base. Bergen said the package includes an operating-expense increase (about 18 percent) largely attributable to the proposed $300,000 caseflow contingency fund, higher debt service for rent, and about $120,000 in additional personal-services costs due to benefit and pay-rate changes.

Committee members asked how the contingency fund works and whether the authority would “roll forward.” Mr. Bergen explained that the contingency appropriation was approved as a one-time item for the 2025 biennium and must be requested again to appear in the coming biennium’s budget. “The caseload contingency was one time only last session,” he said, and the current request seeks appropriation authority to spend funds already collected in a state special revenue account.

Staff and committee members clarified funding mechanics. Miss Powell said the beginning fund balance is a cash balance but noted, “even though the cash stays there, the agency needs the appropriation, so you can't necessarily dip into that until you have the authority to spend that.” Bergen and Powell explained the Consumer Counsel’s fund is state special revenue generated through fees or a percentage tax imposed on regulated utilities and calculated by the Department of Revenue to match appropriation authority.

Committee members pressed whether the Department of Revenue autonomously sets the tax rate used to build the fund and whether the fees ultimately are paid by utility ratepayers. Brown and staff confirmed that the Department of Revenue sets the tax calculation and that those charges are recoverable through utility rates, meaning ratepayers bear the cost.

Committee members also discussed whether the contingency should be restricted or made part of the base budget. Bergen explained that designating it “one time only” would remove it from the base when analyzing the next budget; if not restricted, it would become part of the base going forward.

Several legislators requested follow-up details, including a clearer fund-table update (Bergen said he would correct typos and update the table), a breakdown of how often the contingency has been used historically, and more detail on operating-expense drivers when filings are low. No formal committee action or vote was taken during the hearing.

Ending notes: staff indicated they would provide corrected fund tables and additional follow-up on how the contingency and the fund balance have trended, plus any statutory questions about fee-setting authority that the committee asked the Department of Revenue to research.