Advocates press PSC, lawmakers for rate‑case transparency, intervener funding and quantifiable CLCPA tests

A coalition of consumer and environmental advocates urged the Legislature and the Public Service Commission (PSC) to reform the state’s rate‑case process, saying confidential settlement negotiations and short staffs limit public scrutiny of projects and inflate bills.

Lori Wheelock, executive director of the Public Utility Law Project (PULP), told senators the state’s turn toward negotiated joint proposals has widened resource gaps between utilities and community interveners. She recommended an independent office of public participation or a separate utility consumer advocate, restored and dedicated funding for intervenors, and procedural changes to allow litigated proceedings to run multiyear if parties choose.

Irene Weiser of Fossil Free Tompkins described confidential settlement talks as making proposed deals “invisible” to the public and called for mandatory reforms: independent mediators for settlement talks, a requirement that return‑on‑equity be fixed by evidentiary hearings rather than private negotiation, and increased staff and training at DPS. Weiser said confidentiality makes it impossible to verify whether proposed investments were cost‑justified and warned settlements are sometimes adopted as a fait accompli at hearing.

AARP, which represents many older ratepayers, said consumers lack a coherent voice at the table. AARP testified that large resources and expert witnesses typically represent utilities; consumers do not get comparable support. The group urged the Legislature to approve a standing independent utility consumer advocate and to provide intervenor funding to level the field.

Earthjustice and Environmental Defense Fund urged the PSC to apply CLCPA tests quantitatively in rate cases, not with the formulaic language the commissioners have often used. Earthjustice said section 7(2) of the CLCPA — requiring state agencies to avoid actions that would prevent achievement of greenhouse‑gas limits — needs numeric analysis in rate dockets; EDF noted repeated instances of similar, near‑identical CLCPA compliance statements in joint proposals that lack greenhouse‑gas accounting.

Recommendations made repeatedly during testimony included:

- Create an independent Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate (or Office of Public Participation) and fund it; provide intervenor funding for community groups.

- Require the PSC to publish and use a quantitative greenhouse‑gas emissions reporting framework for rate cases and joint proposals so the commission can assess CLCPA consistency with data.

- Review settlement guidelines and require settlement mediators/administrative‑law judge participation to reduce power imbalances and make agendas and evidence handling more transparent.

- Staff up the Department of Public Service to enable deeper independent review of large capital projects and improve public outreach materials explaining how to participate in rate cases.

Why it matters: Advocates said the current mix — growing program costs, aging infrastructure, rising property taxes — makes rate cases one of the most consequential venues for CLCPA implementation and for consumers’ pocketbooks. They argued the public interest would be better served by processes that allow independent analysis of long‑term capital commitments and enforceable affordability protections.

What advocates did not ask for: blanket repeal of settlements. Most witnesses acknowledged settlements can produce outcomes that exceed litigated remedies but said confidentiality and uneven resources distort results and make public oversight difficult.

Ending: Several witnesses proposed a blue‑ribbon review of modern rate‑making processes — a structured study to recommend reforms to balance expertise, access and accountability — while others urged immediate statutory action to create an independent consumer advocate and establish transparent CLCPA tests in rate proceedings.