Montana PSC hears Black Hills–Northwestern merger testimony as commissioners deny intervenors' motion to dismiss

The Montana Public Service Commission on May 11 continued a multi‑day hearing over the proposed merger of Black Hills and Northwestern Energy, hearing lengthy testimony from Black Hills operations chief Marnie Jones about how the transaction would affect capital access, service reliability and corporate structure. Commissioners voted 4–1 to deny intervenors’ motion for judgment as a matter of law and allowed the evidentiary record to continue.

Jones, testifying for the joint applicants, told the commission the merger would improve the combined company's access to capital and yield economies of scale that make investments to meet growing customer demand more affordable. “As we think about this opportunity with Northwestern, it’s a very exciting opportunity to continue to bring two organizations who are very well run together,” Jones said, adding the companies’ combined scale would help finance and implement system investments.

Intervenor counsel pressed Jones on several specific points raised in the public record and SEC filings. On whether Black Hills serves large commercial loads such as hyperscaler data centers, Jones disputed a numerical claim about multiple gigawatts of served load and said the company does not disclose current served load publicly, characterizing prospective customers as a “pipeline” of potential load. She confirmed that within a franchise territory customers do not have a unilateral right to exit and said she would not accept a merger condition granting captive Montana ratepayers an ability to leave the utility’s system.

Commissioners probed operational protections and proposed conditions. Commissioner Penocci asked about proposed “performance penalties” and whether the commission needed to impose additional penalties if demand could not be met; Jones answered she did not believe extra penalties were necessary given existing regulatory oversight, calling the company’s obligation to provide safe and reliable service “our right and our obligation.” Commissioner Vukhachek referenced a Form 10‑Q item describing a potential 1.8 gigawatt customer in the Wyoming jurisdiction; Jones confirmed Wyoming Electric (Cheyenne Light, Fuel & Power Co. doing business as Wyoming Electric) is a vertically integrated utility and that a generation reservation agreement with a potential 1.8 GW customer exists, while detailed contract consequences were treated as confidential on the record.

Counsel for the joint applicants used redirect to emphasize the post‑merger corporate architecture: Jones explained that each operating company would remain a separate legal entity regulated at the state level and that the ring‑fencing protections negotiated for Montana would remain in place after the merger, a point Jones described as a “very large protection for the state of Montana and the customers of Montana.”

Separately, intervenor counsel moved for the commission to find the joint applicants’ case ‘facially inadequate’ and to dismiss the application as a matter of law, arguing the record at that point lacked the evidence required to show net benefits and no harms. Joint applicant counsel opposed the motion, saying the record contained voluminous testimony, four settlements and a proposed $10,000,000 customer fund. After oral argument the commission referred the matter to a vote by the full panel; the motion to deny the intervenors’ requested judgment as a matter of law carried 4–1, with Commissioner Molnar dissenting.

The commission’s ruling to continue the record let intervenors proceed with their case in chief; the hearing moved immediately to testimony offered by the Montana Farmers Union. The commission scheduled further hearings to resume at 8:30 a.m. the following day.