The GOP's new dominance of the Montana Public Service Commission: implications for coal, oil, and the Montana Bakken

I'm most gratified to see our friend (and fellow former Yellowstone County GOP chair) Kirk Bushman with a small but comfortable lead in the PSC district that encompasses Billings and its surrounds. Granted, there is a lot of vote to be tallied, due to problems with machines, but let's hope that the vote continues to break Bushman's way. Couldn't happen to be a better guy, and given Bushman's broad political interests, it will be good to have him on the Republican bench for possible future statewide races.

While all three races are tight as of the current vote tallies, and things could change, it is looking like the GOP could sweep all three PSC races, going from a 3-2 majority to a "clean sweep" 5-0 majority. As Brad Molnar (who was the sole Republican for a time on the Commission) can attest, a big majority makes a big difference, since a Republican commissioner can defect on any given vote without ultimate negative consequences. Bob Lake, from what we remember of him, is a very solid sort, and he is to be commended for being able to unseat an incumbent Democrat in a tough district for a Republican to win. As to Roger Koopman, granted, Montana Headlines is not exactly a fan club site. But congratulations to him all the same for being able to unseat an incumbent Democrat. May he prosper on the Commission and discover a talent for moderation, restraint, and rhetorical discretion... Everyone has it inside them -- you just need to dig deep and find it. And think about it -- if you stand in just the right place and squint your eyes just right while looking at the Montana PSC, it is like seeing (to steal a phrase from WFB) a dream walking: a solid majority of reasonable conservatives to make up the governing majority, and an extreme right-winger to play the obligatory role of the neutered opposition...

For the last couple of years the Montana PSC has had a 3-2 Republican majority, but much of the proceedings seem to have been overshadowed by fighting between Republicans Brad Molnar of Laurel and Travis Kavulla of Great Falls. I don't know Kavulla, but he seems like a very sharp and ambitious young man. He was formerly on staff at National Review, which speaks well of his general political disposition and intellectual capacity.

Brad Molnar I do know personally, and he was always very good to me and most helpful during my time of political involvement. And things are never boring when Molnar is around! (My interview with Molnar back in 2008 still holds the record for being the most-read post in the history of this site.)

At one point, Molnar (a Ron Paul supporter) and I (a McCain supporter because of his being the presumptive nominee and because he had overwhelmingly won the Montana primary election over Paul) tried to team up to broker a compromise between Ron Paul supporters and the McCain people in order to avoid a floor fight at the 2008 Montana GOP convention. We were ruthlessly shot down by the McCain honchos, for whom nothing but total victory for their side was an acceptable outcome, but it was fun trying.

I haven't spoken to Molnar since these problems erupted on the PSC, but the bottom line is that with the GOP in control of all 5 seats, we can expect that reasonable decisions favorable to traditional energy development will be produced, regardless of inevitable intra-party disagreements. We also have every reason to hope that the interests of Montana consumers will trump theoretical green energy benefits.

What exactly can the PSC do to promote traditional energy development in Montana? Not a lot directly. One thing it can do is to restore full accountability and honest accounting when it comes to telling Montanans about the true cost of green energy requirements for Montana utility companies. There are those who believe that there has been smoke and mirrors used to cover up the true cost of wind energy in our state, and the Commission will be able to address that -- laying out the numbers in front of the public and asking Montanans if they think the cost is worth the benefit.

The suspense is over -- Sen. Baucus is running for re-election

So, our senior Senator is, after all, going to run for re-election. We were pretty certain that he was going to do so when he was aggressively shaking down all of those K-street lobbyists for big bucks with the help of Leo Giacometto. But you never know until the candidate actually pays the filing fee. So far, neither Republican candidate -- state Rep. Mike Lange or Kirk Bushman -- has formally filed, but they will certainly do so.

Here we are in a season of "change" and Montanans are having to decide whether to send Sen. Baucus back for his 6th term with the help of an unprecedented amount of out-of-state lobbyist money. Hm. I wonder how the Democratic Party in Montana is going to nuance their campaign theme: "Vote for change in Washington! Except when we say not to!"

Many will point to his senior position on the Senate Finance Committee as a reason to re-elect him. That's a good reason -- except that it's not. First of all, the Finance Committee doesn't decide on spending in Montana, as many mistakenly believe -- that's the Senate Appropriations Committee, and we lost our seat on that committee when we traded in Sen. Burns for Sen. Tester.

No, what the Finance Committee chair is really, really, really good for is raising lots of money from certain sectors -- namely, sectors that are regulated by decisions made by the Finance Committee. Why else did Baucus manage so easily and quickly to raise $9 million and counting, with nearly all of it from outside of Montana? Probably not because all of those corporate types are concerned about the needs of Montana. More likely because they expect to get something.

Actually, the fact that Sen. Baucus is a long-time Finance Committee member, and for years now his party's ranking member, is a pretty good reason not to re-elect him. After all, the Finance Committee is responsible for the solvency of things like Social Security and Medicare.

And is Social Security more secure today than it was when Sen. Baucus became the ranking Democrat on the committee? Hardly. It is more imperiled than it ever was, and it is hard to escape the notion that Sen. Baucus has been asleep at the wheel on the Senate Finance Committee -- fiddling while Rome burns (to mix metaphors.) In fact, America may thank Montana for voting out Baucus so someone else can head up that committee.

Sure, one can blame Republicans on that committee, too -- but what has Baucus done to boldly change course during his time as chairman? The only Senators who are willing to propose some bold ideas about entitlement reform right now are Republicans like Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint -- and unfortunately they are a minority even within their own party. But at least the Republicans have some people on the field -- Baucus hasn't even suited up yet when it comes to entitlement reform. Should we give him another 6 years on Finance? We're not convinced.

We realize that Sen. Baucus is the overwhelming favorite in this race, barring something really, really unexpected. Yes, he took money from Abramoff, he has Leo Giacometto helping him raise money from lobbyists, and he has been in Washington too long -- but we doubt that those slogans will be as persuasive to Montana Democrats in 2008 as they were when they used them against Burns in 2006. In fact, in the past we have gotten some indignant responses from Democrats when we have made these comparisons.

Well, hidden somewhere in Baucus's $9 million, doesn't there have to be at least an aggregate of a couple hundred thousand from people who are getting something pretty sweet from our senior Senator? Just taking a wild stab on the odds. And if Burns was there too long when running for his 4th term, then how much more so would that be true for a guy wanting to check in for a 6th? Just asking.

So what kind of really, really unexpected event would be necessary to make the race close? Oh, maybe something like lots of hard-hitting investigative journalism, going through that $9 million with a fine-tooth comb. Coming soon to a Montana newspaper near you.