Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transmission Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Hears Bill Letting Utilities Seek Preapproval of Transmission Costs from PSC
Summary
A Senate bill would let utilities using defined 'advanced transmission technology' request certificates and preapproval of transmission costs from the Public Service Commission instead of relying solely on DEQ siting review; proponents said it provides regulatory certainty, opponents urged clarifying 'customer' to protect captive ratepayers.
A Senate sponsor presented Senate Bill 301 to the House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations Committee as an alternative procedure for large transmission projects that use specified "advanced transmission technology." The sponsor said the bill would let a utility request a certificate of public convenience and necessity and seek preapproval of transmission costs from the Public Service Commission (PSC) before or during siting work, while preserving DEQ's role in environmental and siting reviews.
Supporters told the committee that preapproval could reduce financial risk and encourage investment. Alan Olson, director of government affairs for Northwestern Energy, said the bill would provide "regulatory certainty" for utilities preparing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on transmission, allowing them to seek preapproval of cost recovery before construction. Anne Hedges of the Montana Environmental Information Center said the bill "keeps everybody in their lane," preserving DEQ responsibilities while giving the PSC authority to review costs after construction and require justification for cost increases.
Public Service Commission President Brad Molnar urged the committee to clarify the bill’s references to "customer access," arguing the term should refer to captive customers served within a utility’s Montana service territory rather than any recipient of energy that might pass through the system. Molnar warned that without a clearer definition, costs for interstate flows could be allocated in ways that shift burdens to local ratepayers.
Representative Fielder asked whether the bill’s definitional language for "advanced transmission technology" could effectively require particular pieces of equipment. The PSC president and other witnesses responded that the bill uses permissive language—"may consider"—and that practical technology choices are typically made mile by mile based on local conditions.
The sponsor emphasized that the PSC retains discretion to approve or deny certificates and to review post‑construction costs, and asked the committee for a due pass.
The hearing concluded without a committee vote on SB 301; the sponsor asked the committee to advance the measure for further consideration.
