Commissioner urges Missoula County to back FERC rehearing on Colstrip transfer

Commissioner Molar asked the Missoula County Commission on April 1 to submit a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission seeking reconsideration of a filing that would transfer and reclassify 370 megawatts from a Montana coal‑fired plant from rate‑based service to market‑based sales, potentially allowing the output to be sold to out‑of‑state buyers such as data centers.

Molar told the commission the case is docket ER26‑129 (ER26129‑2) and provided a sample comment and filing instructions. “All I’m asking for at this time is a letter of support filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission asking that they reconsider their decision that Colstrip’s 370 megawatt shares are not valued at zero,” he said, urging jurisdictions to submit comments before the deadline he cited (close of business April 30).

Why it matters: Molar argued the classification matters because rate‑based generation is embedded in local customer rates and market‑based sales let a utility sell to the highest bidder rather than serving local retail customers. He said filings indicate the utility could sell shares at prices as low as $16.30 per megawatt for some buyers while other customers are paying far more, and that shifting the units to market service would make low‑cost power unavailable to Montana residential and commercial customers.

Molar described the stakes in economic terms: if the cheap share instead moved to new, non‑local customers, he said, the average household could lose an estimated $50 per month of savings. He also raised procedural claims: that NorthWestern Energy treated the transferred shares as having been acquired for zero value in order to avoid additional FERC paperwork and that the transfer may implicate cross‑subsidization and disclosure requirements under FERC filings (sections 203 and 205, as described in his comments).

What Molar asked the commission to do: he asked the county to file a short comment asking FERC to rehear or reconsider the transfer and the valuation decision and provided a template and docket navigation instructions. He also said two commissioners (he and Commissioner Pinocchi) had pursued intervenor status and that other county commissions and municipalities were considering similar letters.

Responses and process: commissioners asked procedural questions and sought clarification that this was a request for a procedural rehearing—“not a vote on data centers pro or con,” as Molar put it. Commissioners said they would need time to review the sample letter and supporting exhibits and did not take a formal vote at the meeting. Molar warned that once FERC issues a ruling the opportunity to influence the record could narrow and encouraged prompt submission of comments.

Background cited by the presenter: Molar recounted prior West Coast divestiture orders, described how a transfer can move generation from rate‑based to market status, and said he has filed multiple exhibits and legal arguments to support a rehearing request. He said a prior PSC filing was withdrawn after private meetings with lobbyists and that individual commissioners and counties are pursuing comments where the PSC did not.

Next steps: the commission said it would digest the materials and discuss possible action at a later meeting. No formal directive or vote to file the county letter was recorded at this session.

(Reporting note: quotations and factual claims are taken from comments presented to the Missoula County Commission during the April meeting; docket numbers and procedural descriptions were provided by the speaker and are reported as stated.)