Montana
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?
Montana
Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 4, 2026
The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at March 4, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Powerball numbers from March 4 drawing
07-14-42-47-56, Powerball: 06, Power Play: 4
Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Lotto America numbers from March 4 drawing
33-38-39-47-51, Star Ball: 07, ASB: 02
Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 4 drawing
01-07-08-27, Bonus: 12
Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 4 drawing
05-10-26-53-59, Powerball: 06
Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Montana Cash numbers from March 4 drawing
03-04-06-08-10
Check Montana Cash payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 4 drawing
12-13-36-39-58, Bonus: 03
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.
Montana
University of Montana president job draws high interest • Daily Montanan
The search for a new University of Montana president has drawn more than 60 applicants, according to a spokesperson for the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education.
“We do not have an exact count at this time, as several applications are still being completed and additional submissions are expected,” said spokesperson and Deputy Commissioner Galen Hollenbaugh in an email earlier this week.
In January, then-UM-President Seth Bodnar announced his resignation to pursue other public service. Wednesday, the final day of filing, he announced he was running as an independent for the U.S. Senate to try to unseat Republican incumbent Steve Daines.
Commissioner of Higher Education Clayton Christian earlier said that with the advice of AGB Search, a firm that’s helped the Montana University System conduct other executive searches, he would undertake an expedited process to appoint a new president.
Christian has been providing brief updates on a website dedicated to the search. Last week, he said he and AGB Search are reviewing applications, and the pool of candidates was “strong and diverse.”
The commissioner also announced he was convening a small working group to assist in the search, members who “represent a variety of perspectives to assist in vetting and narrowing this field of exceptional candidates.”
In an email this week, Hollenbaugh identified the members of the working group who are assisting Christian with application review as:
- Community member and former Regent Joyce Dombrouski
- Faculty Senate Chairperson Valerie Moody
- Staff Senate President Dominic Beccari
- Administration Representative John DeBoer (Vice President of Academic Affairs)
- ASUM (Associated Students of the University of Montana) President Buddy Wilson
Hollenbaugh declined to comment on the way the rest of the process would unfold or the role the working group members would play.
Christian earlier said he anticipated an appointment within one to three months, or as soon as early this month.
Montana
Montana Supreme Court allows ballot measure on initiative process to move forward
HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a proposed ballot measure intended to simplify the process for introducing ballot measures in the future.
Justices ruled 5-2 that the measure, currently called Ballot Issue #8, did not violate state requirements that a single constitutional amendment can’t make multiple separate changes to the Montana Constitution.
“We’re very grateful to the Montana Supreme Court for agreeing with us that the attorney general’s finding of legal insufficiency for Ballot Issue #8 was incorrect,” said SK Rossi, a spokesperson for Montanans Decide, the group sponsoring the measure.
Montanans Decide argues the Montana Legislature has passed laws making it harder for the public to propose and pass ballot issues. The Montana Constitution already guarantees the people the right to pass laws and amendments through ballot measures, but Ballot Issue #8 would expand that to include a right to “impartial, predictable, transparent, and expeditious processes” for proposing those measures. It would seek to prevent “interference from the government or the use of government resources to support or oppose the ballot issue.”
Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office argued the measure “implicitly amended” multiple provisions in the state constitution, including by limiting the “power and authority of public officials to speak officially on ballot issues that affect those officials’ public duties” and by putting restrictions on judges and on the Legislature. Montanans Decide, the group sponsoring Ballot Issue #8, disagreed – and the majority of justices sided with them.
“Its provisions operate together to define and protect a single constitutional right—the people’s exercise of initiative and referendum,” wrote Justice Katherine Bidegaray in the majority opinion. “They are closely related components of one constitutional design.”
Bidegaray’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Jim Shea, Laurie McKinnon, Beth Baker and Ingrid Gustafson.
Chief Justice Cory Swanson and Justice Jim Rice each wrote dissenting opinions, saying they would have upheld Knudsen’s decision to disallow Ballot Issue #8. Rice said the language restricting government interference with a ballot issue was not closely related and should have been a separate vote. Swanson agreed with Rice and said the measure’s attempt to fix a timeline for legal cases surrounding ballot measures was also a separate substantial change.
In a statement, Chase Scheuer, a spokesperson for Knudsen’s office, reacted to the decision.
“This decision only further muddies the courts’ jurisprudence on ballot issue questions,” he said. “This initiative would violate the separate vote requirement by amending multiple parts of the Montana Constitution, but the court contradicted its prior rulings. Attorney General Knudsen will continue to neutrally apply the separate vote requirement in his review of ballot initiatives.”
The court’s decision means that Knudsen’s office will now need to approve ballot language for Ballot Issue #8. Once that language is finalized, Montanans Decide could begin gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot.
However, last year, sponsors of another initiative went to the Supreme Court to argue that the ballot statements Knudsen prepared were misleading. If Montanans Decide object to their ballot statements, that could further delay signature gathering while the case plays out in court.
“Regardless, we’re going to push as hard as we can to get those petitions into the hands of voters and let them sign and support if they so choose,” said Rossi.
Rossi said the legal battle this measure has gone through – and the possibility of more to come – shows why Ballot Issue #8 is needed.
“The state Legislature, and also statewide elected officials, have taken every opportunity to create burdens and hurdles and rigamarole for campaigns to get through in order to just get to the signature gathering phase, and then to get through the signature gathering phase onto the ballot, and then get through the election phase,” said Rossi. “The reason we filed this initiative is just to make sure that the process is simple, that the timeline is clear, and that Montanans can have their will heard when they want to propose and pass laws that they deem worthy.”
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Wisconsin3 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Maryland4 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Florida4 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Oregon6 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks