City of Great Falls v. Montana Department of Public Service Regulation
2011 MT 144
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Deregulation Act (1997) created choice in electricity supply; NWE became default supplier.
- 2007 Reintegration Act returned NWE to vertically-integrated status but preserved some customer choice from the Deregulation Act.
- City created Electric City Power (ECP) to purchase wholesale energy; PSC licensed ECP; NWE remained default supplier through 2007.
- Between Sep and Dec 2007, ECP sought to include certain meters belonging to the City, Benefis Health Care, and Meadow Gold Dairies under ECP, but NWE refused transfer.
- PSC Final Order (Dec. 9, 2008) held ECP could not supply the disputed meters, relying on a Tariff that defined 'customer' as an individual meter.
- District Court reversed, holding § 69-8-201(2), MCA (2007) requires treating 'customer' as an entity or person, not a meter, thereby allowing ECP to supply the meters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 69-8-201(2) define 'customer' as an entity or meter? | Benefis argues 'customer' means entity; supports ECP supply. | NWE/PSC argue Tariff requires meter-level interpretation to avoid overlap. | Yes; 'customer' means an entity or person. |
| Does Tariff defeat the statutory deadline and create an absurd result? | District Court favored statutory text over Tariff. | Tariff is controlling and creates separate classes by meter. | Tariff is inapplicable when conflicting with statute; statute controls. |
| Is Tariff notice provision binding after the Reintegration Act? | Tariff should not override the 2007 statute that preserved existing choice. | Tariff provisions were law and should be followed to transfer accounts. | Tariff notice provisions do not override the statute; Tariff is inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spoklie v. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 56 P.3d 349 (MT 2002) (plain language governs statutory interpretation)
- MM & I, LLC v. Bd. of Co. Commrs. of Gallatin Co., 246 P.3d 1029 (MT 2010) (plain meaning and context guide interpretation)
- Mont. Power Co. v. Mont. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 26 P.3d 91 (MT 2001) (deference limits on agency interpretations of law)
- Ray v. Mont. Tech. of the Univ. of Mont., 152 P.3d 122 (MT 2007) (standard of review for agency decisions)
- Doe v. Colburg, 555 P.2d 753 (MT 1976) (historic consideration of agency interpretations)