By Tom Schultz
A growing policy debate in Montana centers on a fundamental question of governance: should the state’s Public Service Commission remain elected by voters, or transition to an appointed regulatory body?
The discussion is expected to surface during the 2027 legislative session, where lawmakers are considering a proposal that would replace Montana’s five elected Public Service Commissioners with appointed regulators selected through a multi-step process. Under the concept being discussed, a nominating committee made up of legislative leaders, state agency officials, and tribal representatives would recommend potential candidates. The governor would then choose a nominee, who would require approval by a two-thirds vote of the Montana Senate.
Pros and Cons
Currently, Montana voters elect commissioners from five geographic districts to serve on the Montana Public Service Commission, the body responsible for regulating monopoly utilities and other services such as rail safety, taxi companies, garbage carriers, and certain water systems.
Supporters of an appointed model argue that a structured vetting process could emphasize professional expertise and stability in regulatory decisions. Critics, however, contend that moving away from elections reduces direct public accountability for decisions that significantly affect utility rates and energy policy. A study by economists Timothy Besley and Stephen Coate found electricity prices about 10% lower in states with elected regulators than in those with appointed regulators.
One of the candidates running for the commission is Jeff Pattison of the Glasgow area, a former state legislator and third-generation farmer and rancher seeking the District 1 seat. Pattison says the central issue is whether utility regulators should answer directly to voters.
“I’m running for the Public Service Commission for one simple reason: the people paying the bills should have a voice in how those bills are made,” Pattison said during a recent interview. “My slogan is ‘power to the people.’ It means keeping power with the people and keeping people in power.”
Pattison argues that elections provide a direct line of accountability that could be lost under an appointment system. While acknowledging that some states use appointed commissions, he raises concerns about political influence and the possibility that regulators could become disconnected from the consumers affected by their decisions.
“History shows that when leadership is bad, things can go wrong quickly,” Pattison said. “When officials are elected, voters can choose who represents them.”
Data Centers and Energy Policy Priorities
Pattison describes Montana as one of the most energy-rich states in the country, with resources including coal, natural gas, hydropower, and the potential for emerging technologies such as small modular nuclear reactors.
Among the issues he says he hears about frequently from voters is the growing demand for electricity from large industrial users such as data centers. Pattison believes residential customers should remain the priority.
“Montana ratepayers should be first in line for affordable power,” he said. “Data centers should pay their own costs. Ratepayers shouldn’t be last.” ~ Jeff Pattison
As lawmakers continue exploring structural changes to the commission, the debate highlights a broader question facing Montana policymakers: whether energy regulation is best handled through direct electoral accountability or through a more technocratic appointment system designed to emphasize expertise and vetting.
