A Minnesota law enacted a year ago is opening new opportunities for various organizations to engage with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) by providing financial support for expert testimony in utility-related cases. The law’s goal is to amplify a diverse range of voices, enabling them to contribute to discussions previously dominated by larger entities. Advocates believe that as awareness of this law grows, more organizations will seize the chance to participate in utility rate cases and other proceedings.
The Minnesota law builds on legislation from 2007 that allowed smaller nonprofits to secure financial compensation for expert testimony in utility rate cases. This newer law expands eligibility to cover pilot programs, infrastructure projects, and performance measures. The change is notable given previous years like 2019, 2021, and 2022, during which no payouts were distributed under the old program. The financial backing for testimony now spans a wider array of cases, reflecting a shift towards more inclusive regulatory processes.
How does the compensation process work?
Nonprofits must meet specific criteria to qualify for compensation. These include having a payroll under $600,000 and fewer than 30 full-time employees over the past three years. Successful applicants are reimbursed by the utility company involved in the case. The law sets annual caps on how much utilities can pay, varying from $1.25 million for large firms like Xcel Energy to $100,000 for smaller ones. Despite the broadened scope, many awards in 2024 still involved Xcel Energy, illustrating the ongoing importance of major utilities in this process.
What challenges do organizations face?
Although the law facilitates some cost recovery for participants, organizations still find it challenging to cover the full expense of preparing testimony and organizing community engagement. For instance, Community Power and Minnesota Interfaith Power & Light received less compensation than requested, highlighting the limits of the current framework. Despite these hurdles, leaders like Julia Nerbonne from Interfaith Power & Light acknowledge the effort made by the PUC to balance diverse interests.
The Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota, which received significant compensation, emphasizes that their decision to intervene is not swayed by the prospect of reimbursement. Instead, they focus on influencing PUC decisions. This stance underscores the importance of participating organizations having the expertise to navigate regulatory complexities. For new entrants, adapting to these demands can be daunting, as reflected in the cautious approach of many first-time participants.
Energy CENTS Coalition, which secured funds for advocating a low-income discount, underscores the law’s potential for expanding advocacy beyond just rate cases. The organization aims to leverage this support in various dockets, enhancing consumer representation in broader PUC discussions. However, participation remains limited partly due to the need for specialized knowledge, which is often scarce among smaller organizations and tribal entities.
The Minnesota PUC is tasked with presenting a report on the law’s impact by July 2025, a move likely to provide further insights into its effectiveness. As more groups become aware of this opportunity, the potential for reshaping Minnesota’s utility landscape to include diverse viewpoints grows. This evolution could lead to more balanced policies that reflect a broader spectrum of community needs.
