Energy man: Brad Molnar returns to the PSC
The candid Republican lawmaker and PSC veteran talks rate hikes, climate change and more.
Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter of candid conversations with Montanans of all stripes…plus some arts & culture reporting, too.
If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.
Last October, as you may recall, Montanans got some distressing news: our electricity bills were expected to see a 28% increase. Like many of you, my response was pretty knee-jerk: “WTF is going on?”
Much of the resulting anger and blame fell on the Public Service Commission (PSC), a five-member elected body that regulates many of the utilities that we use in Montana. In this instance, the PSC had approved a rate hike request, which came from NorthWestern Energy. Opponents described the increase as “devastating,” “rigged” and “opaque.” As Elena Evans, a Missoula-based geologist who ran for the PSC as an Independent this year (and lost) put it, “I’m a working mother with two kids, and I’m tired of politicians who refuse to stand up for Montana ratepayers.”
Few people are more qualified to offer a rebuttal than Brad Molnar. A Public Service Commissioner from 2005 to 2013, Molnar has additionally served a total of six terms in the state Legislature since 1993.
And now, he’s heading back to the PSC. This November, Molnar defeated Susan Bilo—a former specialist with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Gallatin College professor—to win the District 2 seat. The district extends from Bozeman to Billings along Montana’s southern border.
Beyond his decades of hands-on experience, Molnar has a reputation for candor, and for occasionally bucking his own party.
Our conversation (which spanned two separate interviews) touches on a wide range of energy-related topics. He and I agree on a few big points—namely, the imperative of affordable energy and a pragmatic approach to deploying renewables. Yet, as you’ll see, we disagree elsewhere—primarily about the threat posed by climate change, and the forces causing it.
Max: I saw that you studied journalism—what do you make of the state of journalism today?
Brad Molnar: I'm pretty disappointed in it. And that goes across the board. I listen to political stuff on the radio when I'm driving. In Montana, there is no left-wing radio talk show host. But in the more right-wing talk show stuff, as it regards Trump, it is almost all deflection and excuse-making when the truth is actually far, far more interesting. And I think the people deserve an unbiased view of their candidates, even if they're a Republican candidate.
Does it feel like the PSC has changed since you were last part of it?
It has. The two people, I think, that share credit for fixing that are in major part [outgoing PSC Commissioner and President] Jim Brown and [Commissioner] Jennifer Fielder.
It's my understanding, and that would have to be, bold underline understanding, that we were missing filing dates for court actions where various groups were suing us. So we lost in court by default. Well, that's millions of dollars that [ends up in] people's utility bills.
Jim, being an attorney, informed them that this was no longer an option. He did it with what I would like to call quiet professionalism. You didn't see him grandstanding or thumping his chest. He just informed people, there’s a new sheriff in town, you don't wanna screw with me.
You know, we still don't agree on everything. He's gotten so mad at me, he wouldn't even talk to me (laughs).
How do you describe the power that the PSC holds?
We have greater responsibility and greater capacity than the Legislature to affect the economic wellbeing of Montana's families and employers. Far greater.
You didn't see $495,000 [contributions] in the Supreme Court races1. You didn't see it in the governor's race. You didn't see in OPI, you didn't see it in any of the land board campaigns. You didn't see it scattered across the Legislature. The big fish, economically, is the Public Service Commission.
They recognize that is the most important seat they can buy, but the Legislature will never say, yeah, these guys are more powerful, important than we are. The governor will never say that. I'm probably gonna get beat up for saying it myself, but [the aforementioned $495,000 contribution] to me shows that my statement is accurate.
Elena Evans ran for the PSC this year on a message of affordability, and frustration surrounding the rate hike. Do you think there's merit to that argument, or do you think there's a disconnect between the PSC’s decision and how it translates to utility bills?
I think there's a lack of education on it. When I was pounding doors, I would ask people, “Are you aware there's been a 28% rate increase?” And quite a few of 'em said yes.
Okay. First place. It's not 28%. Not that it makes much difference, but the ask was 28%. PSC trimmed maybe $35 million out of it. And then you get down to 24%.
That 24% is over four years. So you divide the 24% by four and now you're at 6%.
Take out the automatic passthroughs [including NorthWestern Energy’s property taxes and court-related costs] and you're down to about 3%.
The discussion should focus on the 3%. The first thing you have to focus on, in my humble opinion, is that that is about the rate of inflation for those four years.
If [the rate hike] is so horrific, why did none of these NGO’s take it to court? Because the arithmetic is right.
So I'm not saying I would've voted for it. I'm not saying I would've voted against it. I'm saying nobody challenged it.
People don't understand this. The PSC is quasi-judicial. You don't see Supreme Court justices writing editorials after a particularly viral vote: “Here's why I did what I did, and you need to understand this.” No. It's done. And now you just take the beating.
Just like the Legislature has fiscal notes on bills that impact state income. I want to do fiscal notes on anything we do that has a fiscal impact on rate payers, so that once the case is over, people that are interested can take a look at the pure simple math and how it affects various groups. The PSC should do it as a public service.
I think that a changing climate is one of the biggest challenges and threats that we face. Do you see a changing climate as a significant threat?
I don't see it as the greatest problem facing planet Earth. I'm gonna assume you're on the pro-environmental side.
When it's done right, yes. And when it's not, no.
Well, it's basically not done well at all. I would counter that I am not an atmospheric scientist. I'm not a climatologist, But I see things the same as everybody else does. When I was a young boy in northern Indiana I could step over the energy distribution lines and the phone lines as I walked up to the corner to get on the school bus, because the snow drifts were so high. My brother's a retired teacher. His wife's a retired teacher. [They still live nearby] and they can't remember the last [time that happened].
So there's been a change. I would counter with, okay, it always changes. I could also say that the shift of tectonic plates is just now being viewed as to its impact on climate.2 We know it was huge in the past, we don't know that it's huge right now. We know sun spots play a role. And those last for ten years at a time. If they start again, you get another 10 years. Solar flares are huge, especially if you trapped the energy here.3
There's a lot of arguments that can be made, but the one that can't be made is that the solution put forward that has been implemented, has changed the equation.
We have more wind, more solar power, more hydro power; we have more energy-efficient vehicles. We have all these things far, far, far greater than ever in the history of man.
You see this as a problem. I don't see this as that big of a problem. Somebody born in the year 2030, when they turn 20 years old in 2050, that is the climate that they have always experienced. They're not gonna freak out because the oceans went up three centimeters. Take one step back, you'll be okay.
I consider myself a pragmatic professional. I will listen to people, I will take a look at their solutions. I will take a look at what they see as milestones being accomplished. I will check and see if it's accurate.
I picture the emissions that we emit like water gushing out of a bathtub faucet, and we've only lowered the rate of emissions by, like, 5%4. We haven’t made the large-scale changes that would show different results.
Right. Montana is 1/1000th of 1% of the contribution to global change, or climactic conditions or greenhouse gases. So if you move everybody out of Montana and all that's left is a giant buffalo commons and Missoula is sinking into itself and our only problem really is buffalo belches, we have affected this by 1/1000th of 1%. How much pain do you want to inflict to have zero change other than somebody feels gushy warm because they had everybody move?
I have a responsibility to the people, that their hopes and dreams will not be crushed in a meaningless effort with a meaningless success at the end.
Let's take the January [cold snap]. 22 below in Laurel, 35 below in Bozeman, 45 below on the Hi-line. If the environmental NGO’s have been successful and there was no electricity to buy in the Inter-Mountain West—and the reason it's $800 per megawatt is because there's little to buy—as they continue to be successful in shutting down base load and building windmills because subsidies are better than lawsuits, et cetera, et cetera, people across Montana would have died.
Do you support more renewable energy sources in Montana?
Montana code is 100% clear. The Public Service Commission may not include environmental externalities in their decision. So if I'm going to vote to include more renewable, it has to be for reasons other than environmental concerns. For example, I made the motion on the Diamond Willow Wind Farm, the first one, on the Bakken. It was small, 17 megawatts or something. I made that motion because where it would be used, and the reason for it being built, made good sense. It was a practical solution; at least it was a partial solution. It worked so well that eventually they built a much larger Diamond Willow 2.
So the constant irregularity of wind complimented the constant irregularity of the Bakken. It was a cost savings. It had nothing to do in my mind with “Wind is good because it's a green source.” It had to do with, at this location for this purpose, is this a proper application? And I said yes.
So a lot of this stuff that people think the PSC can do is dashed on the rocks of reality. We're not god-like creatures out there waving our little wand and making things happen (laughs). Whichever way we go, there's a good chance of being sued. We have to be able to defend our decisions.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
The ACLU invested $1.3 million in Montana Supreme Court races this year.
Research shows that plate tectonics does play a role in climate, but only on a scale of millions of years.
This statement is regularly disputed by climate scientists.
Whoops. I got this one wrong. US emissions have declined by about 17% compared to 2005 levels, but global emissions have effectively plateaued in recent years.