It’s hard to know where to start with all that it wrong with the Public Service Commission’s toadying decision to allow Wisconsin Power and Light give corporations a discount on their electricity rates.

Two of the commission’s three members voted to approve the plan, which is likely to result in higher utility rates for residential users. In its decision, the majority accepted flimsy evidence and indulged in some seriously flawed logic to give WPL and some of its industrial customers what they wanted. More on that in future postings.

Today’s topic is the way the commission slammed the door on full public participation in the rate-setting process. The Citizens Utility Board and Clean Wisconsin, groups that wanted to fully participate in the decision-making, were not allowed to do so. (Full disclosure – I’m on the board of CUB, which fights for reliable and affordable electricity and telephone service on behalf of Wisconsin customers. This post, though, was not vetted or approved by CUB and I’m not representing the organization here.)

There are a lot of big deals about this case. It’s a huge precedent – if corporations get rate breaks in WP&L’s service territory, you can bet your light fixtures they will be looking for them in other areas of the state as well. It’s also a big precedent procedurally – if the PSC gets away with its inadequate handling of this case, then it will be easily able to limit public participation in other cases that come before it. That would be a very, very bad thing.

The PSC did allow the groups to submit comments, but they were denied other powers that participation in a “contested case” would have allowed: legal discovery to determine the actual need for corporate utility rate breaks in the WPL service territory; development of expert testimony to identify concerns with the proposal, including potential harm to residential customers; and presentation of legal arguments.

The commission’s reasoning in limiting participation by CUB and Clean Wisconsin was ludicrous. From its final decision in the case:

Because the Commission has not yet officially voted to issue a notice for this matter, the Commission’s current review of WP&L’s proposed EDR (economic development rate) is neither a proceeding nor a docket….. the rules for intervention…do not apply until the Commission votes to open a docket.

Got that? The folks representing residential ratepayers don’t get to participate fully because the commission didn’t vote to open a docket, even though, by the way, the commission’s staff assigned a docket number. The commission also said that WP&L was simply requesting a rate decrease and that the commission traditionally has not opened a docket when a rate decrease is requested. That contention is bogus, though. WP&L was proposing an entirely new rate structure that only would reduce rates for some customers. That some, by the way, did not include residential ratepayers. You know, the people who have been out of work lately.

While those folks were muzzled during the proceedings, WPL was allowed to present its case fully, in several filings with the commission. And — surprise! — after giving full consideration to one side in the case, the commission issued a written final decision giving WPL what it wanted. Yet the commission contended in that decision:

In the case at hand, WP&L did not request the Commission open a docket when it filed its EDR proposal, and the Commission is handling this matter informally. As a result, the requests that CUB and Clean Wisconsin filed do not meet the standards for intervention….”

It’s unclear how such a formal final decision, complete with docket number, sprang from such an informal handled issue. It’s also unclear where the commission got the authority to informally handle the matter.

Commissioner Lauren Azar, in her dissent, to the decision said the informal decision-making process is not described in the laws governing utilities and the PSC.

“Because this is neither a docket nor a proceeding, the Final Decision concludes that the rules of intervention do not apply,” she wrote. “But, without knowing the legal framework and authority for an informal process, I do not know what procedural rules apply and whether the Commission followed them.”

CUB has sued the commission over the commission’s gift to WP&L’s business clients. CUB alleges in its suit, among other things, that the PSC should have allowed CUB to more fully participate in the proceedings that resulted in PSC’s kowtowing to the utility.

That suit seeks a reversal of the PSC’s decisions to slam the door in CUB’s face and to give rate breaks to business. Stay tuned.