Montana

For NorthWestern Energy, trust is a one-way street • Daily Montanan

Published

2 years ago

August 29, 2024

For NorthWestern Energy, trust is a one-way street • Daily Montanan

Trust us, says the state’s largest public utility company, NorthWestern Energy, as it made a historic rate increase request two years ago, only to have another large rate request wallop its Montana customers this year.

Trust us, says the same company which can’t even tell the truth in a pleading to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court when it says that a coal plant in southern Montana is the largest plant west of the Mississippi, even though it doesn’t appear to be in the top 3. And don’t even get me started on NorthWestern’s crocodile tears about having to update Colstrip when it has literally been planning to spool it down because of exorbitant pollution control costs, known decades ago.

Trust us, says NorthWestern as it rushes headlong into more fossil fuels, even while most other utilities invest in renewables, some building multi-million dollar projects in Montana to ship energy several states away.

So it’s probably not surprising that NorthWestern is asking to trust it again, as it wants to shut the public out of meetings where members of (*checks notes again) the public are supposed to help put together a plan for the utility company’s future in Montana.

The public, as it turns out, is a burden and inconvenience, but not so much that the utility company can’t turn around and squeeze a healthy rate of return out of us.

In fact, the public is held in such little regard by NorthWestern Energy that they’ve told the Montana Public Service Commission it’s “essential” to keep the public out of its meetings where the future of Montana’s energy landscape is being discussed. In fact, officials with the utility hold the public in such contempt that they won’t even disclose the members of their company who serve on the Electrical Technical Advisory Committee, mandated by law to be, well, public.

The Montana Public Service Commission has shown a renewed sense of independence lately and has both demanded answers about this clandestine committee, as well as publicly rebuked NorthWestern for its shoddy rate case proposal — twice.

Like all publicly regulated utilities, NorthWestern is guaranteed a reasonable rate of return (read: profit margin) in exchange for having the public involved in its business. There are likely many businesses which would take that deal — a guarantee of financial success, for a bit of public scrutiny.

The trouble is two-fold: NorthWestern has been historically used to getting whatever it wants at the Public Service Commission, by bluster or legal threat. And, the company is recoiling at the indignity of having to answer why it would rather close out the public.

But NorthWestern is learning the most basic rule of public participation. True, involving the public in commenting and participation guarantees a lengthier, messier process. It’s not as easy for companies or leaders to insist on their way. And, involving the public, even dissenting voices, means compromise, and sometimes consideration of inconvenient questions, like, for example, the role of burning fossil fuels in the sometimes catastrophic climate change taking place beneath the “Big Sky.”

I would suggest NorthWestern wants it both ways, though. It wants to dictate how and what it builds in the future, as well as demand the price it wants to extract from the captive customers who have no choice but to pony up. That, though, disregards the public part of public utilities, which is customers should have a say in what kind of power we want.

By intentionally not releasing information, even the basic kind which includes who sits on the committee and what are the topics discussed, NorthWestern creates its own public relations nightmare in which ratepayers, residents, and nosy columnists assume the worst because the utility company admits it’s purposefully hiding information that everyone else believes should be public.

It’s excellent that the groups which have brought this issue to the forefront continue to demand action. If we have to be held captive by a company whose future plans include taking us back to the days of coal, then transparency would be welcome. And, we’re encouraged that the Public Service Commission has embraced a more critical and even confrontational posture, literally putting the “public service” part back into the equation.

So when NorthWestern energy asks us to trust them, I’d suggest it’s time to turn the tables on them: When will it begin to start trusting the public?

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

7 hours ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing

02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing

03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing

06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing

21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing

28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

19 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link