Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Psc Federal Intervention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Service Commission asks for resources to contest MISO transmission cost allocation
Summary
Randy Christman, chair of the Public Service Commission, told the committee the PSC has filed a FERC complaint against MISO’s tranche 2.1 transmission plan—potentially a multi‑billion‑dollar build‑out—and said the agency needs more intervention funds and expert contractors to protect North Dakota ratepayers.
Randy Christman, chair of the North Dakota Public Service Commission, briefed the Government Operations budget committee on the PSC’s responsibilities, programs and recent legal interventions and asked for additional resources to support federal litigation and rulemaking participation.
Christman said the PSC regulates utilities, pipeline safety, coal mine reclamation and other programs; it processed several siting and rate cases in the last biennium and administers federally funded abandoned mine lands and pipeline safety programs. He noted federal funding represents a large share of PSC resources and that certain programs (for example AML and PHMSA support) are largely federally funded.
On federal intervention: Christman described a pending complaint filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) over tranche 2.1 of a planned transmission build‑out. "The North Dakota PSC has filed a complaint case against MISO specifically with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over MISO's transmission build out that they call tranche 2.1, which will cost in excess of $20,000,000,000," he said, arguing cost allocation rules could inappropriately shift costs to North Dakota customers (Randy Christman, SEG 2069–2076).
Christman told the committee the PSC received legislative support this biennium to raise its intervention fund to $475,000 (including $105,000 in ongoing authority and $250,000 one‑time authority), but that the intervention fund has been largely depleted by costs associated with the current intervention and related consultant/legal work. He urged the legislature to consider additional resources or interim funding paths to allow the commission to pursue expert consultants and litigation counsel in national proceedings.
Why it matters: Christman framed the issue as protecting North Dakotans’ low electricity rates. He cited Energy Information Administration statistics showing North Dakota consistently ranks among states with the lowest retail kilowatt‑hour prices and argued the PSC must vigorously defend ratepayers when regional operators or other states’ plans could force cost allocations that do not reflect local benefits.
Other PSC priorities: Christman also described AML mapping and reclamation work funded with a one‑time grant (House Bill 1008), including purchase of drone and LiDAR equipment to improve inventory and engineering data; he said the PSC had fully deployed that system for field work. On staffing, he said the PSC is fully staffed and has invested in professional development to preserve institutional knowledge and capacity for multistate and federal matters.
Representative questions and committee response: Legislators asked whether other states have joined the MISO complaint (Christman said several had joined), how the PSC plans to secure additional funds (options include the Attorney General’s Office or Emergency Commission), and whether the PSC will provide a concise briefing to clarify the case for members. Christman agreed to provide follow‑up materials and to work with individual legislators to explain the stakes and needs.
Ending: Christman summarized that the PSC is operating leanly amid significant regional regulatory change and reiterated the commission’s need for resources to engage effectively in federal proceedings.
