By Deanna Nussberger, EDF Legal and Regulatory Intern
Energy decisions profoundly impact communities, yet the decision-making process can feel opaque and inaccessible. Concerns surrounding the tangible impacts of energy infrastructure — who benefits, who bears the costs and how electricity bills are affected — are frequently resolved behind closed doors in highly technical and legally complex energy regulatory proceedings, leaving many feeling voiceless in choices that directly shape their lives.
To forge a more equitable and affordable energy future, customers need transparent information on their monthly bills, tools that let them manage usage and costs and an opportunity to meaningfully communicate with utilities and decision makers about their concerns.
Intervenor compensation: supporting public participation in utility decisions Share on XGiving communities a voice
To foster open communication and increase accountability and transparency from utilities, almost 20 states [1] have authorized intervenor compensation programs (though not all states have acted on this authorization). These programs are designed to provide funding for people to participate — or intervene — in public utilities’ legal proceedings.
Intervenor compensation programs enable consumer advocates, community members and other stakeholders to present in regulatory proceedings, ensuring their interests are heard in official venues where big energy decisions are made. Without funding for community experts and groups, legal counsel and other participation costs, only those with deep pockets get a seat at the table — creating a disadvantage for consumers.
State laws vary widely
Intervenor compensation programs vary widely across states, with differing criteria ranging from eligibility to funding caps, ease of use, and allowable expenses. Some states, like Colorado, have a Utility Consumer Advocate whose job is to bring community concerns to regulators and, under certain circumstances, allow other intervenors to receive payment. Other states, like Maine, allow funding for individuals, groups or organizations if they meet specific criteria. And some, like Alaska, have intervenor compensation programs on the books, but information about them is hard to find. Without readily available information, people cannot access these programs, severely limiting their intended effect.
Intervenor compensation programs have had some success. Multi-year advocacy led New York to pass the Build Public Renewables Act, aiming to replace expensive, privately financed energy with more affordable, publicly owned renewable generation. California also has one of the strongest intervenor funding programs in the U.S., resolving 40 claims and awarding $3.5 million to 14 unique intervenors already this year.
The path forward
By funding individuals and groups to engage in regulatory cases, intervenor compensation programs uplift community voices and empower consumer advocacy. This can lead to regulators incorporating new and different perspectives that were not previously considered during the decision-making process.
Effective intervenor compensation programs must be transparent, accessible, well-funded and inclusive, ensuring all customer voices are heard. Utilities should proactively communicate and engage with their customers to build trust and clarity, even outside of official proceedings. They must also meticulously track spending to guarantee funds are used appropriately.
Beyond compensation programs, states should explore additional ways to keep residents informed about how to save money on their electric bills. For example, states and cities can offer energy coaching and opportunities such as energy saver home loans or weatherization grants. States and utilities can meet their customers where they are by holding listening sessions to better understand concerns.
Communities need a real voice in energy decisions. Intervenor compensation and consumer education are essential tools to make that voice heard.
[1] Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York (Article 10 process), Oregon, Rhode Island (H 5815 is pending), Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin.