Comments are due Friday, April 26th at 5:00!
The Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) has proposed repealing a rule that requires public utilities to disclose the salaries and benefits of its three highest paid executives. In 2010 the PSC adopted the rule because it believed that the ratepayers, who pay utility executives’ salaries, should know how much those executives are making.
The PSC held a public hearing TODAY and is accepting public comments on the proposed rule repeal through this Friday, April 26th at 5:00pm.
It’s simple: ratepayers should have the same right to access public utility information as taxpayers have to access government information. These public utilities are regulated monopolies. The public doesn’t have a choice as to which company provides them with essential services like water and power.
Four of the five current PSC members say they support eliminating the rule under the guise of personal privacy. But, Mountain Water Company, a public water utility in Missoula, is likely behind the PSC’s attempt to repeal the rule. Mountain Water Company is owned by the California based Carlyle Group, a giant private asset manager that wants to keep its executive salaries secret.
Please submit comments and tell the PSC not to repeal rule ARM 38.2.5031. Article II Section 9 of Montana’s constitution guarantees citizens the right to know. How much Montana ratepayers are forced to pay for top utility executives should be public information. Montanans have a right to know where our money goes.
I demand that you DO NOT repeal ARM 38.2.5031, the section of the Administrative Rules of Montana that requires the public disclosure of the salaries of public utility executives. Executive compensation of public utility executives should remain public information. Ratepayers do not have a choice as to which companies provide them with essential services, and so public disclosure provides the public with a full accounting of the costs associated with providing those services.
As prior general counsel to the commission in the 70s, I do not see what benefit such a repeal would be to the consumers you, evidently, have forgotten you represent and have a duty to protect from corporate rate gouging. I can certainly envision unnecessary expensive litigation costs to the consumer citizens and taxpayers should you attempt this ill thought out plan.
Do your duty, act responsibly and keep ARM 38.2.5031 intact, to preserve an open and accountable process.
Terry J Hanson
Attorney
former Counsel to the Commission
Miles City, MT