Changes to PSC appeals process discussed

Senators began debate April 22 on a bill that would change appeal procedures for the Public Service Commission (PSC).

Under LB545, introduced by Fullerton Sen. Annette Dubas, PSC appeals would go directly to the court of appeals instead of the district court as currently required under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

Dubas said the proposed change would streamline the appeals process for highly technical PSC rulings.

“In practice, filing in the district court has proved to be very time consuming and costly for both the commission and participants in the proceedings,” she said.

A Transportation and Telecommunications Committee amendment, adopted 25-1, replaced the bill.

Under the amended bill, the court of appeals would review commission decisions to determine if they are arbitrary or capricious, whereas the district court conducted a de novo review.

Among other provisions, the bill also would:
• require that commission orders, except natural gas rate orders, may be reconsidered within 10 business days after the effective date of the order;
• suspend the time for filing a notice of intention to appeal pending resolution of a motion to reconsider; and
• allow parties to natural gas rate orders to file a motion for reconsideration within 30 days.

Omaha Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh supported the bill, saying most of the decisions on PSC rulings eventually come from the appeals court, so the bill simply would skip the first level of review and speed up the appeals process.

“I do understand the reason for this and I think it makes good sense,” he said.

Sen. Paul Schumacher of Columbus expressed concerns about the bill, saying other agencies that regulate equally complicated subject matter still must comply with the APA.

“We are breaking an entire regulatory scheme over one agency saying that they have a technical situation that somehow they want to settle in-house,” he said. “It appears that what the PSC would like to do is have its decisions subject to a very limited scope of review.”

Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers also questioned the bill, saying the apparent agreement between the PSC and the entities they regulate regarding the proposed change was cause for concern.

“There should not be an absence of tension between the regulator and the [regulated],” he said.

The Legislature adjourned for the day without voting on advancement of the bill.