While the PSC is a public agency, utilities have the option to seek a protection order and request documents be held confidential by the commission, but must make a showing to the commission that the information meets guidelines for protection as outlined in section 38.2.5007 of the state of Montana's procedural rules for public service regulation.
[5] Because the job is often complex and requires a thorough understanding of the utility industry, the commission relies on its staff for a wide range of research, data analysis and number crunching.
While the agency doesn't loan money, "It analyzes the company's financial statements for accuracy, examines its operating practices to ensure efficiency, and reviews known future events that may affect the business.
[8] While the job of regulating utilities can be highly technical, the five commissioners and dozens of staff employees review filings made with the agency.
[9] While the PSC has in previous years made headlines in Montana for its sometimes heated disagreements and personality conflicts,[10] one regulatory issue remained at the forefront of the commission's agenda since late 2013.
[11] NorthWestern Energy in November 2014 said it had completed the transaction to purchase the 11 hydroelectric facilities with a price tag of $900 million, which translates into a 5.2 percent increase in residential power bills.
[13] Kavulla wrote that he dissents from pre-approval of the utility's purchase "for two basic reasons," but that he concurred with some portions of the final order (56).
[14] Kavulla argued that he's "skeptical of NorthWestern's valuation of the 11 hydroelectric dams and one storage reservoir (the Hydros) it wishes to purchase.
[15] Kavulla further states in his dissenting opinion that had NorthWestern Energy been required to "stand by the predictions it is making" on the valuation of the assets, that his skepticism might be lessened (57).
[17] Still, Koopman said the utility had threatened to "undermine" the process by saying it would "walk away from the deal" if the commission sought to make substantive changes.
"This threat of termination was ubiquitous, and was expressed in terms that limited Commission prerogatives and afforded commissioners as little room to maneuver as possible" (52).