The PUC Feels Very Pro-Forma to Me

Impressions can be wrong but... they can also be spot on.

So I was listening to a PUC hearing (not the most exciting part of my day) and a couple of things hit me. First, take a look at the video:

They’re all remote. The PUC wall behind commissioners Blank & Gilman - it’s an identical photo. They’re not at the PUC, just pretending to be. The commissioners are making decisions about billions of dollars in what we ratepayers will pay and they can’t be bothered to meet in person.

I’ve found face to face is worlds better when discussing important issues that you want to get figured out. Remote is less vibrant. Participants are more restrained. The discussion is choppy. If the goal is to truly evaluate issues and get the best out of each participant, you want it in person.

Second, their decisions are loose to say the least. Watch this from 1:00:20 - 1:17:05 and see if you can state unequivocally what they agreed to. It started with a 4 minute description of what they are going to do from Chairman Blank, that included 30 seconds where his connection was lost but he was unaware they couldn’t hear him. He then repeated some of it. So officially they are supporting something where two of the commissioners did not hear the full proposal.

Later on Commissioner Plant said “Procedurally I’m not sure exactly what the best way is to do that, but I would support that approach.” What the fuck does that mean? So you’re approving an approach where you don’t know the best way to proceed? Does that mean you approved any procedure?

And there was never any “all in favor, all opposed” nor was there a clear motion they were voting on. Instead the poor state employees at the PUC need to try to figure out from that 17 minutes what they think the commissioners all approved.

I watched another meeting and in that one each again would speak their piece and at the end say that they were in favor of it. So here, unambiguous that they all agreed. And in those other cases what they approved was clear. But no final vote call.

This is very loose. I was CEO of a small-ish software company and in any meeting, when we made a decision, it was finalized with asking each attendee “yes/no?” On decisions a lot smaller than what they are handling at the PUC. There’s something about asking each person to just state yes/no that reminds each person they own their decision.¹

Commissioner Blank often seems to be discussing an issue, at great length, rather than listing arguments for or against it. It’s more a speech than a proposal. There should not be this level of sloppiness, not for something this important.

Blank is essentially the CEO/President of the PUC. One of his fundamental responsibilities is to set a good example. When he sets a poor example, it sets the tone for the other Commissioners and the PUC staff.

And the staff and other attendees then jump in as needed to either ask for clarification or provide the needed details. They’re doing their best to make up for the Commissioner’s shortcomings.

Then Commissioners Gilman & Plant speak to the issue (which is good) and agree, always agree,² with Chairman Blank, sometimes offering a suggestion.

I went through every proceeding for 2024 and the vote on every one was either 3:0 or 0:3.³ There was never a split vote. How on earth do the three agree 100% of the time? I don’t agree with myself 100% of the time.

It’s like Kabuki theater in my opinion. There is no substantiative discussion that I found in any of the meetings I watched. There’s no disagreement. And the giant sign of the unimportance of the votes - it’s more speeches, not substantive discussion.

And by the way, this is not a part time volunteer gig. Each Commissioner is paid $169,776/year. We deserve, at a minimum, that they come to these meetings prepared, up to speed, and with clear concise motions and amendments. And that they discuss the issues in depth with thoughtful well reasoned arguments.

Questions for the Commissioners

They declined my request for an interview⁴ so here’s my questions for them:

1. What exactly did you approve in that 17 minute segment?

2. As the specifics of your decisions are often unclear, what is the process for PUC employees to follow up and verify that they reduced the decision to specifics accurately?

3. Can you point to a meeting where you had a substantive discussion on an issue and where there was disagreement between the three of you?

4. Can you point to a meeting where the vote was not 3:0?

5. Why don’t you meet in person?

1. I had one executive who really struggled to deliver that yes/no at the end. He was not a keeper.

2. In each meeting I’ve watched.

3. Commissioner Plant missed two votes. Those were 2:0.

4. You would think Gilman or Plant would have the time - it’s not like they are doing anything else.