NorthWestern Energy rates are out of control
Barb Emineth of Laurel speaks about NorthWestern's proposal to put a natural-gas power plant in that town. (Photo by Darrell Ehrlick of the Daily Montanan).
Yikes. NorthWestern Energy has just outrageously imposed a 16.8% increase in electric rates for us captive customers without regulatory approval. This occurred before the June 9 hearing of the Public Service Commission where an 8.3% increase had originally been proposed. But, you may recall, NorthWestern received an increase of 28% a year-and-a-half ago.
What is going on? Are we Montanans being unfairly exploited?
To answer this question, let us examine incentives and responsibilities. NorthWestern Energy, a descendent of Montana Power, is a monopoly. With respect to the distribution of electricity and gas, it seems appropriate for only one energy corporation to be a provider. Otherwise, we might be beset by the chaotic mess of poles, wires, and pipes of competing companies. But with no competition, a monopoly can charge exorbitant fees, public welfare be damned.
To protect the more than 400,000 customers of NorthWestern Energy from predatory charges, the publicly-elected members of the PSC are legally granted the authority to approve or disapprove utility rates and what are essentially profit margins ('return on equity' is the technical name, but corporate profits are what's truly at play). Hence NorthWestern, a large investor-owned corporation, has the incentive to increase profits while the PSC, a governmental agency, has the responsibility of protecting public welfare.
Let's first examine who profits economically from the income NorthWestern is able to generate. The primary beneficiaries are corporate shareholders, most of whom do not live in Montana. The PSC has traditionally granted the utility profits of about 10% annually. What, 10%? Some large corporations, such as successful supermarket chains, are happy to receive a 1 to 3% yearly profit. Outsiders, rather than Montana citizens and our small businesses, are the beneficiaries of the current arrangement. (Large corporations and institutions are able to negotiate lower rates from NorthWestern.)
Further beneficiaries of profits are the corporate executives, most of whom reside in Sioux Falls, the corporate headquarters. It must be great to be Brian Bird, the CEO of NorthWestern. He earns about $2400 per hour. NorthWestern might claim that his compensation is in line with other energy CEOs, but that seems more like an indictment of unjust wealth distribution than a valid argument for such compensation
NorthWestern, with its army of lawyers, engineers, and public relations persons, seems like Goliath in relation to the PSC as David. To the PSC's credit, last year it applied a 7.24% decrease in the interim residential rates NorthWestern charged. But when the rates Montanans now pay are compared with the rates customers in other Western states pay, it is clear the PSC needs to do more to protect Montanans from outsourcing our wealth. For 800 kilowatts of power each month, Idaho Power charges customers $70. NorthWestern has charged $107, but with its imposed increase it will be $125.
NorthWestern's incentive to increase profits for shareholders encourages it to engage in expensive projects of expansion with little regard for prudent spending or even proper approval. A new rate increase would pass on to us consumers the costs of building and operating the Laurel methane-fired plant, brazenly constructed even when violating zoning laws and without approval of the PSC.
Its guaranteed profit means that NorthWestern ratepayers must cover all of the utility's expenses, even those spent on unwise and unapproved projects. We, not they, shoulder the risks. The PSC can restore balance by holding NorthWestern to reasonable standards with fair rates for everyday Montanans.
The PSC will hold a public hearing in Helena on June 9 to discuss how to respond to Northwestern's requested rate increases. PSC members need to deny these unjust rate hikes and thereby reduce NorthWestern's exorbitant 10.8% return on equity (profit). Granting an increase in rates legitimates NorthWestern's arrogant and risky actions that benefit shareholders but further stress local families and small businesses. Ratepayers and the PSC must stand up to this out-of-control monopoly.
Walt Gulick is a Montana State University Billings professor emeritus, NorthWestern Energy ratepayer, and Northern Plains Resource Council member.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
President Trump meets with German chancellor
WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) – President Donald Trump is hosting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the White House on Thursday. Trump and Chancellor Friedrich Merz have spoken several times by phone, either bilaterally or with other European leaders, since Merz took office on May 6. Merz hopes to keep the U.S. on board with Western support for Ukraine and tamp down trade tensions which threaten Europe's biggest economy. 'I'm very happy to be here again and offer our close cooperation with the United States of America,' Merz said. Merz said Germans 'owe the Americans a lot' and 'we will never forget about that.' The chancellor also noted Trump's German background and said it was a 'good basis' for consultation. Trump's father was born in Germany. German officials say the two leaders have started to build a 'decent' relationship, with Merz wanting to avoid the antagonism that defined Trump's relationship with one of his predecessors, Angela Merkel, in the Republican president's first term. The 69-year-old Merz is a conservative former rival of Merkel's who took over her party after she retired from politics. Merz also comes to office with an extensive business background something that could align him with Trump. This meeting kicks off a series of meetings between the president and European leaders. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Time Magazine
41 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Ukraine Just Demonstrated What AGI War Could Look Like
Bombers in flames on social media. Photos of trick shipping containers packed with drones. Defiant statements from both sides about the scale of the damage. targeted several Russian air bases using first-person view (FPV) drones, cheap aerial vehicles which are remotely operated by pilots using camera feeds. According to reports, Ukraine used machine-learning algorithms to guide the drones to the target area. The attack, dubbed 'Spider's Web', demonstrated the current hardware capabilities of modern warfare. And as companies and governments race to develop Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)—in which advanced artificial intelligence systems can quickly understand, learn, and apply knowledge—the operation also provides a glimpse into what the future of warfare could look like. Spider's Web and the impact of FPV drones The Security Service of Ukraine's (SBU) operation knocked out targets up to 8,000 kilometers (nearly 5,000 miles) from the frontlines. As the dust settles, analysts are starting to wonder whether anywhere is truly beyond the reach of FPV drones. Some reports suggest dozens of strategic bombers (some said to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons) were destroyed or disabled by 117 FPV drones, though Moscow countered that only a handful of planes were struck. Western assessments put the figure at no lower than 10. But the scale of the attack, while impressive, isn't its most remarkable aspect. After all, the operation follows a Russian drone attack at the end of May involving almost 500 unmanned aerial vehicles. Ukraine's attack may have been smaller, but it more than made up for it in logistical brilliance. First, the parts were smuggled into the country and the drones were assembled. Vasyl Maliuk, the head of the SBU tells the BBC that they were then loaded onto lorries with secret compartments and driven by unsuspecting Russian couriers to locations near air bases. When the shipments reached their destination, roofs on the lorries retracted to reveal the hidden hardware. And the drones took off. Spider's Web depended on three distinct but related capabilities: logistics to deliver the drones, deception to keep them hidden, and coordination to pilot dozens of them concurrently. Yes, the attack confirms that expendable drones are the weapon of the 21st century. But Ukraine's strike serves as a visceral example of how AGI will work as a warfighting tool—and how humans will work alongside AGI. War powered by AGI Make no mistake, AGI-fueled warcraft is coming. Over the past two years, the AI industry has increasingly invested in military applications of AI and gravitated towards 'security' as one of its organizing principles. Frontier labs are embedding themselves into the national security state. For instance, in June 2024 OpenAI appointed retired U.S. Army general Paul Nakasone to its Board of Directors. In December 2024, the AI-giant announced it had partnered with defense military technology outfit Anduril to develop drone defense systems. And Google, my former employer, scoped out 'national security imperatives for the AI era' earlier this year. The technology sectors' allusions to national security and AI have a certain shape-shifting quality to them. It's not always clear whether someone is referring to defensive or offensive AI capabilities, or whether it is even possible to neatly separate the former from the latter. In the context of armed conflict, things get even muddier. The idea that a sufficiently capable AGI system might eventually pilot drones is already on the minds of military planners, but Ukraine's strike on Russia gives us a much more specific picture of what to expect. Spider's Web had been in the making for eighteen months. During this time,150 small attack drones and 300 explosive devices were smuggled into Russia to stage the attack. Rather than one large shipment, the SBU likely engaged in piecemeal smuggling to avoid detection. Possibly bringing components across borders, using front companies, or bribing officials to pass through checkpoints. The fog of war is thick. We may never know for certain, but we do know that the final drones were packed into special mobile containers that looked inconspicuous from the outside. According to reports, the drivers of the lorries all told a similar story. A businessman approached them to pick up what seemed to be wooden cabins and deliver them to various locations around Russia. They agreed and thought little of it. Once the trucks were in position, the strike was launched. At the predetermined moment, each container's roof panels were remotely opened to release a swarm of drones (likely piloted remotely by piggybacking on Russian telecommunications networks). The future of warfare Spider's Web offers a window into how AGI could supercharge similar attacks in the future. AGI could analyse transportation routes to find the safest, fastest, and least conspicuous way to move cargo. It could plan truck routes that avoid busy checkpoints, choose transit times when border guards are understaffed, and even account for satellite overpasses or drone surveillance. Such a system could coordinate multimodal logistics (think planes, trains and automobiles) with timing that no human team could match. Not to mention it could crunch traffic patterns, rail schedules, and weather data to find the perfect moment for an attack. This hypothetical warfighting AGI could automatically generate corporate entities complete with registration documents, tax records, and websites to serve as cover. It could forge driver's licenses, passports, and employee IDs that pass automated verification—much faster than humans today could. Aside from paperwork, an AGI could manage a whole suite of deception technologies. For example, AGI could emit fake GPS signals to confuse satellite tracking or hacking into a facility's CCTV feed to loop old footage while operatives move equipment. When it's time to strike, AGI could guide each drone to its target as part of a single unified swarm, optimised to prevent collisions and spaced to maximize coverage. AGI may even make it possible to monitor the electronic warfare environment and switch frequencies if it senses jamming on the current channel. If an air defense system starts tracking the swarm, the AGI might command all drones to disperse or drop to terrain-hugging altitude to increase their odds of survival. As soon as the destination is in range, AGI could help drones autonomously recognise target types and aim for the most damaging impact points (say by guiding a drone to the exact location of an aircraft's fuel tank). The limitations, and dangers, of AGI To be sure, these are still predictions about what AGI may be capable of in the future. And there will likely be limitations. Precision hand-work like soldering detonators, balancing rotors, and packing warheads remains hard to automate at scale without a bespoke factory line. Robots can do it, but you still need humans to do the initial set-up. Plus, explosives sweat, lithium-ion packs puff, and cheap FPV airframes warp if left in non-climate-controlled depots. Periodic maintenance like changing desiccant packs or swapping bloated cells would likely still remain vital. A swarm of AGI-powered drones would probably still need caretakers who can move around without drawing attention. Finally, jamming-resistant links need spectrum licences, custom SIM provisioning, or pirate base-stations smuggled in-country. Deploying that communications infrastructure (like antennae or repeaters) requires boots on the ground. But even with a heavy dose of scepticism, I find it hard to see the Ukrainian strike as anything other than a postcard from the future. Problems might look insurmountable to us, but you should never bet against the machine conjuring up an unorthodox solution. I fear that the best case scenario ahead of us is one where attacks such as these can simply be delivered slightly faster. The worst case scenario is one in which a Spider's Web-style operation can be conducted orders of magnitude faster by just a handful of people. Thinking about the implications of AGI is useful in that it reminds us that power flows to whoever can orchestrate complexity faster than the adversary can comprehend it. Complexity is the strategic currency of war in the information age, and AGI is a complexity accelerator. If AGI finds its way into the wrong hands, it could become much easier to pull off a deadly attack. That is as true for the great powers as it is for rogue actors. This is the new strategic reality, and every military has to plan for it. What Ukraine's Spider's Web strike taught us is that the hardware for an AGI warfighter is ready. All that remains is the software.

an hour ago
UN nuclear agency members draft resolution accusing Iran of failing to meet obligations
VIENNA -- Western nations are planning to table a resolution at a meeting of the U.N.'s nuclear agency that will find Iran in non-compliance with its so-called safeguards obligations for the first time in 20 years, a senior western diplomat said Thursday. The move comes at a sensitive time as U.S. President Donald Trump's administration seeks to reach a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program. The two sides have held several rounds of talks, so far without agreement. A draft resolution, jointly tabled by France, the U.K. and Germany, known as the E3, together with the United States, was circulated today after a final sign-off by Washington. The State Department did not immediately comment. The draft resolution, which was seen by The Associated Press, says: 'Iran's many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran ... constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement.' The draft resolution furthermore finds that the IAEA's 'inability ... to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful gives rise to questions that are within the competence of the United Nations Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.' It requests IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi 'to continue his efforts to implement this and previous resolutions and to report again, including any further developments on the issues." The text of the draft may change before it is formally tabled, as board members have the opportunity to suggest amendments. Under the so-called safeguards obligations, that are part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is legally bound to declare all nuclear material and activities and allow IAEA inspectors to verify that none of it is being diverted from peaceful uses. In the IAEA's 'comprehensive report' that was circulated among members states last weekend, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said that Iran's cooperation with the agency has 'been less than satisfactory' when it comes to uranium traces discovered by agency inspectors at several locations in Iran that Tehran has failed to declare as nuclear sites. The IAEA has been seeking answers from Iran regarding the origin and current location of the nuclear material since 2019. Western officials suspect that the uranium traces discovered by the IAEA could provide evidence that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program until 2003. Iran denies ever having had a nuclear weapons program and says its program is entirely peaceful. The senior western diplomat called the resolution a 'serious step,' but added that western nations are 'not closing the door to diplomacy on this issue.' 'The objective of the resolution is for Iran to resolve the issue,' the source added, which is why the resolution will not immediately refer Iran's non-compliance to the U.N. Security Council to consider triggering more sanctions. 'They will have a window to finally comply and respond to all the requests that have been made over the last six years.' The board of governors 'stresses its support for a diplomatic solution to the problems posed by the Iranian nuclear programme, leading to an agreement that addresses all international concerns related to Iran's nuclear activities, encouraging all parties to constructively engage in diplomacy,' the draft resolution reads. However, if Iran fails to cooperate, an extraordinary IAEA board meeting will likely be held in the summer, during which another resolution could get passed that will refer the issue to the Security Council, the senior diplomat said. The three European nations have threatened in the past to reinstate sanctions that have been lifted under the original 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which expires on Oct. 18. Iran has previously retaliated to resolutions passed by the agency's board by further expanding its nuclear program and banning inspectors. Iranian deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi warned the IAEA against taking any 'politically-motivated action' by some board members, as this could undermine cooperation between Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog, he wrote in a post on X. —-