Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Psc Restructuring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana committee pursues PSC modernization; drafters tasked to prepare committee bill
Summary
Legislators on the Energy and Technology Interim Committee debated replacing Montana's elected Public Service Commission with a nominated-and-appointed structure that sets minimum professional qualifications, cooling-off and conflict-of-interest rules and staggered terms; the committee asked staff to draft a committee bill for stakeholder review.
Members of the Energy and Technology Interim Committee debated options for restructuring Montana27s Public Service Commission (PSC), and voted to ask staff to produce a committee-draft bill for stakeholder review.
Representative Carter and Senator Lammers described shortcomings of the current, elected five-member PSC structure and reviewed options used in other states, notably New Mexico27s 2019 constitutional amendment creating a smaller, appointed commission chosen from a nominating-commission slate. Committee sponsors proposed a nominating commission, defined professional minimum qualifications (accounting, engineering or law), conflict-of-interest limits including industry-wide restrictions, a cooling-off period to limit post-public-service lobbying and staggered six-year terms; one proposed element is a supermajority confirmation threshold in the state senate.
Public commenters and business groups were divided: the Montana Chamber of Commerce and a number of economic development leaders supported modernization to attract investment and provide technical capacity for regional negotiations; consumer advocates and Commissioner Brad Molnar (speaking as an individual) raised concerns about removing direct voter accountability and cautioned that appointments could concentrate political influence if selection mechanisms are not carefully circumscribed. Several participants urged conflict-of-interest safeguards and cooling-off periods.
Representative Perry moved for the committee to sponsor a drafting effort; the motion passed with the committee directing staff and drafters to prepare a draft bill that would be available for stakeholder review at upcoming meetings. Committee chairs urged rapid work because subsequent meetings must leave time for stakeholder review and amendment before potential introduction in the legislature.
What happens next: committee staff will produce a draft committee bill reflecting the core concepts discussed and circulate it for stakeholder feedback ahead of the next committee meeting. Sponsors emphasized the process remains open to changes and that a final statutory design will require negotiation on specifics including confirmation thresholds, nominating-commission make-up and the scope of any exemptions.
