JOHN REPKE - PSC District 5

1.  Why are you running for the Public Service Commission (PSC)?

I am running to give the voters of District 5 the chance to elect a candidate to the important job of PSC commissioner who is competent, professional and honest.

2.  What experiences and qualifications would you bring to the PSC that makes you the best candidate for the position?

I am the best candidate because I am the only one with the experience, expertise, skills, work ethic, character, and integrity to do this job – and do it in a manner that is respectful to all Montanans.

The PSC oversees a regulatory process that should work for all Montanans; balancing the costs to ratepayers with the financial viability of the providers. In order to do this job effectively (and ethically) commissioners must have 1) the experience and expertise to properly evaluate the information presented*, 2) the integrity to be objective, serious and openminded, 3) the dedication to honest, full-time work, 4) the skills and character to promote a productive, healthy workplace for the staff, and 5) a commitment to engagement and transparency as principles of good leadership.

*Specifically I have (and am the only one who has) the technical experience and expertise necessary to do this job. I acquired this through two degrees in Finance and a 40 year career in business finance including with energy and tariff regulated businesses. I know how to evaluate company finances and know how to make sure the ratepayers are treated fairly.

3.  Define the primary role of the PSC?

As stated on its website, the PSC “strives to ensure that ratepayers have continued access to utility services that are affordable, reliable, and sustainable for the long-term.” The PSC goal is (or should be) to develop a consistent, thorough, and objective regulatory process that balances the economic interests of the ratepayers with those of the regulated utilities as well as to ensure that Montana is well prepared for future needs through the responsible approval of new investments in energy supply.

4.  Montana rate payers have an 11% charge for the assessed value of Northwestern Energy infrastructure added to their monthly utility bill. More commonly, energy companies charge 8% for infrastructure. What are your thoughts on this particular charge to Montanans? 

This is a great question and one that demonstrates why it is important to have experience in economics, finance, or accounting (as many states require) to effectively do this job. Without getting into the weeds, I would answer by saying that while rate of return calculations are pretty standard, judgement comes into play when setting the inputs. I have not done these calculations specifically for NWE, but based on my experience - including doing these exact calculations from the utility side in my career - I would say that it seems that 11% is generous (if not unjustified) given the interest rate environment and the risk profile of a regulated utility. This is something I will certainly dig into when reviewing the NWE rate case.

5. Northwestern Energy has requested a substantial rate increase with short notice to the public.  What do you believe the PSC should consider in response to this NWE request?

At this point the PSC has already approved the interim increase and look to be on their way to approve the full increase - unless something changes like I get elected. I see two paths to challenge the increase. One is the increase itself. I will look closely at the basis for increase. Costs that should not be passed on to consumers need to be excluded from the increase and, as I mentioned in question 4, the appropriate rate of return needs to be determined. I have the experience to dig into this and ask the right questions. Some things already jump out at me. For example, the top six executives at NWE were paid a combined $9 million in 2021. Compared to all NWE expenses, that number is a small percent, but it doesn't seem consistent with a company in desperate need of a increasing rates to its customers. The other side is the very short notice given for the very substantial increase. NWE may want (or even need) the increase very quickly, but I don't think its fair to push the full burden of the immediacy onto consumers. Family and business budgets often cannot be adjusted that quickly. NWE, and to some degree the PSC, are responsible for allowing the situation to become urgent - not the consumers. If given the opportunity I will look for ways to mitigate this - and prevent it in the future.

6. Many states have statutory qualifications for PSC candidates and they require that Commissioners not have other employment or sources of income during their terms.  Would you support statutory qualifications and no other employment? Please explain your answers.

Yes & yes. It makes sense to have certain requirements. PSC races are inherently low profile and many voters are not well informed. I believe Montana voters could benefit if all candidates meet some base requirements. The job of PSC Commissioner is narrow enough that requirements could easily be established as they have been in other states. Montana already pays its Commissioners enough for the job to be the only source of income. In my opinion it should go one step further and require that it be the commissioner's only job (as it is with pretty much every other job - private or public). The PSC job is too important to Montanans and the Montana economy for highly paid commissioners to give the job anything less than their full commitment.

7.  Montana is experiencing unanticipated population growth. With climate change and growth, energy demands will also increase. How might you direct NWE to address unexpected energy needs caused by extreme weather in order to maintain affordable energy to the citizens of Montana?

As I see it, there are two questions here - long term capacity and peak load requirements. For the longer term, growth driven demand, the PSC will need to play an active, responsive role in reviewing investments that come before it. The projects will need to be reviewed using the approach I have described above, ensuring that affordability and reliability are achieved. The portfolio of supply sources will need to include efficient generation plants for peak requirement. That said, the best way to minimize the pressure on the energy supply network is to reduce consumption. Investment in energy consumption reduction needs as much focus on the ways to generate more power.

8.  What is your opinion about small nuclear plants for use in Montana? Please discuss risks and benefits? 

I don't have enough knowledge about the latest technology in small nuclear production plants. They may play a role in future supply. Obviously there are many issues that need to be settled before nuclear projects would come before the PSC, but if/when they do, I will promise to evaluate those projects thoroughly and objectively with the best interests of the ratepayers in mind.

9.  What is your opinion about renewable energy sources for use in Montana? 

My opinion is that as the cost of renewable energy equipment continues to come down and the efficiency continues to go up, renewable energy production will represent a bigger portion our supply portfolio. The production paired with storage will make this an even more important component. In my opinion, renewable generation, such as solar, especially combined with storage will continue to grow (especially with a 26% rate increase from NWE) to the point where less centralized may be needed. If this occurs, the PSC will play a critical role in balancing the changing reliance on the grid.

Survey responses are published as received with no edits.  Both District 5 candidates running in the Public Service Commission race were invited to respond to this survey. We will add the other candidate's response when received, up until November 1.  Check back for an update!