Montana PSC won’t repeal rule requiring utilities to reveal top exec salaries – yet

2013-08-27T13:48:00Z 2013-08-27T15:06:43Z Montana PSC won’t repeal rule requiring utilities to reveal top exec salaries – yetBy MIKE DENNISON State Bureau Helena Independent Record
August 27, 2013 1:48 pm  • 

The state Public Service Commission Tuesday backed away from repealing a 2010 rule that says top executive salaries at regulated gas, electric, telephone and water utilities in Montana are public information.

But the PSC, which regulates these utilities, indicated it may revise the rule, to clarify how some companies can ask to keep that information secret from the public.

“It’s a bad rule that just got everybody confused,” said Commissioner Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman. “It was basically a publicity stunt, to make it appear the commission at that time was creating more transparency.”

Commissioner Bob Lake, R-Hamilton, who this year initiated the move to repeal the rule, said Tuesday he plans to propose a new rule to clarify how a company can seek and obtain a “protective order” to keep the salary information from the public.

But on Tuesday, Lake said the PSC had received “an awful lot of responses” from the public against repealing the rule, and asked to shelve the repeal.

About 200 people submitted written comments on the issue, with nearly all of them opposing the repeal.

The all-Republican panel voted 5-0 on Tuesday to let the rule stand for now.

A Democrat-controlled PSC enacted the rule in September 2010, although the rule has never been enforced, blocked by a lawsuit filed by companies that oppose it.

Lake said Tuesday he hopes a revised rule will convince the Mountain Water Co. of Missoula, the Montana Telephone Association and Montana-Dakota Utilities to withdraw their pending lawsuit challenging the current rule.

Mountain Water, a privately owned company that provides Missoula’s municipal water, has consistently asked the PSC to keep the company’s executive compensation secret and opposed attempts to publicly reveal that compensation.

Commissioner Travis Kavulla, R-Great Falls, who supports the current rule, said he hopes the PSC eventually will vote to release the Mountain Water executive compensation.

He noted that California’s utility commission requires Mountain Water’s parent company to reveal its top executives’ salaries in that state.

“We know what the big bosses of Mountain Water are paid in California, but we don’t know what the Montana executives are paid,” Kavulla said.

“I think it would be helpful for the citizens of Missoula to compare Mountain Water’s executive salaries to those of executives at publicly owned water utilities,” he continued. “I can’t tell you what they are, because it’s still a secret, but I think people would be surprised to make that comparison.”

The lawsuit says the PSC has made no compelling argument for violating utility executives’ privacy rights.

The rule says when regulated utilities submit executive salary information to the commission, it is public information.

However, it also says utilities can ask for a “protective order” to keep that information from the public and “set forth the circumstances that may justify issuance of such an order.”

Publicly traded utilities like NorthWestern Energy – the largest electric and gas utility in Montana – aren’t affected by the rule, because they already release executive compensation in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ken Toole, the former PSC member who proposed the disclosure rule, said Tuesday he did so because he got tired of the PSC routinely allowing utilities to keep salary information secret, without any real justification.

The rule makes it clear up-front that the information is public – unless the company provides a good reason why it shouldn’t be, he said.

“It’s not confusing,” he said of the rule. “We wanted to leave (companies) the option of coming up with a bona fide business reason for the secrecy.”

Copyright 2016 Helena Independent Record. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. 2centsworth
    Report Abuse
    2centsworth - August 27, 2013 6:28 pm
    Can this get any more CONFUSING!!!!!!!!! Its upfront the information is public unless there is a reason why???? WTF.....
  2. turner
    Report Abuse
    turner - August 27, 2013 2:08 pm
    Good for the PSC for at least looking like it is going to do the right thing. Now finish the job. Very simply, just as demanded of the public sector and its employees by, for instance, the Montana Policy Institute and its progeny, there should be no expectation of salary privacy for public utilites regulated by the PSC. The public right to know outweighs any privacy interest and those who work for public utilities should know and understand that.

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick