Earlier today Minnesota's Republican Senate voted 29-37 (strictly along party lines) to reject the nomination of former DFL state Sen. Ellen Anderson to the post of Public Utilities Commission chair. Since Anderson was a recess appointment of DFL Gov. Mark Dayton last spring, the GOP majority essentially fired her today. I generally expect to disagree with the GOP on issues, but this action is beyond the pale and indefensible. Allow me to explain.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is a bipartisan body of five commissioners. By law, no more than three of the five commissioners can be of the same party. In that sense it is similar to the Federal Communications Commission and other federal boards. The commissioners' terms are staggered, with one term expiring every year (with a pause every sixth year since there are only five seats). Vacancies are filled by a nominating process where the governor nominates and the senate considers and approves the nominee. Recess appointments are allowed. Although governors (particularly two-term governors) can control which party is in the majority on the MN PUC board, it is essentially a nonpartisan body. Appointments are rarely if ever contentious.
In 2011, three of the five seats were held by Republicans. Thus when a DFLer on the Commission retired, Gov. Dayton was required by law to present the Minnesota Senate (with its newly Republican majority) a non-Republican to fill the seat. Dayton selected a sitting DFL senator, Ellen Anderson, to be chair of MN PUC. Dayton presented this nominee to the Senate in March, while the Legislature was still in session. But the Senate adjourned without taking a vote on Anderson's nomination. Gov. Dayton responded by making Anderson a recess appointment. Thus, Anderson has already served nearly a year on MN PUC.
So who is Ellen Anderson? She was educated at the University of Minnesota Law School, one of the best law schools in the country (#20). Anderson was a state senator until her nomination in 2011, and had served in that capacity since 1993 (18 years' experience). During her time in office, she was the chair of the Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee for many years. Part of this committee's responsibility is to conduct oversight on MN PUC, as well as to author relevant energy legislation. This alone would seem to qualify her for a Commission seat. But not only was she a committee chair, she also was an exemplary one. Most of the major new energy legislation in Minnesota during her tenure was authored or cosponsored by her. Most of this legislation was passed with broad bipartisan support. Further, these legislative accomplishments (conservation, renewable portfolio standards, etc.) were all signed by either Republican governors or independent Jesse Ventura, who is not exactly known as a crazy liberal. Not only is she qualified, but her record is exemplary. She can forge consensus and compromise and has done so over and over.
Today, Anderson was fired. I watched the floor "debate" on her confirmation vote. The GOP really outdid themselves. GOP Sen. Rosen introduced the vote as is required. She spent several minutes lauding Anderson for her time in the Senate: for her service, for her affability, and for her accomplishments. She mentioned no bills--introduced or passed--that would poison the appointment. She mentioned no votes from Anderson's time on MN PUC that she disliked. She mentioned no plans--announced or imagined--that would call into question Anderson's ability to be a fair and effective commissioner. Sen. Rosen instead said that she was worried that Anderson would be unfair to coal--which, per Sen. Rosen, is a "traditional" source of energy "that built this country" (how sentimental)--which apparently could mean higher bills for ratepayers.
This is rubbish. First of all, it has no basis in fact based on Anderson's statements and record. Second, if you know the laws--and Sen. Rosen should as chair of the Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee--then you know that state energy policy is determined by the Legislature, not MN PUC. MN PUC obviously has some discretion in regulating utilities--that's why it exists--but Anderson would have little power to change policy fundamentally. But even if MN PUC had the power to do so, Anderson would only hold one of five seats. And even if Anderson suddenly and inexplicably led a majority of radicals on the MN PUC board, MN PUC would still be reviewed by the courts for reasonableness: If MN PUC acts outside its legal discretion, or contrary to legislative intent, judges have the power to reverse Commission decision. Simply put, there is no danger of a sudden radical shift in policy eminently from the Public Utilities Commission. Sen. Rosen should know better.
Back to the debate. After Sen. Rosen gave an unreasoned and terse speech urging the body to fire Anderson (her former colleague), a series of DFL senators rose in favor of her appointment to a full term. At least half a dozen senators so spoke. The senators made a rational, but also personal, case for Anderson. They spoke of her sterling record, her expertise on the issues before the Commission, her time already spent on the job--where no division on the Commission was apparent and where 204 of 221 votes were unanimous--and of her ability to forge consensus.
I kept waiting for a Republican to rise and urge a "nay" vote. But this is the kicker: none of the rank-and-file--none--said anything. There was no debate! Apparently, the GOP caucus assembled, decided it would vote no, and decided it would give no reason for doing so. And how could they? Although she was in the other party, Anderson was a friend to many of the GOP rank, and worked with them many times over many years. How can you explain firing a competent and experienced friend? I would like to imagine the senators felt shame, yet none broke ranks. Did they look her in the eye when they did it? Cowardice and indecency at once. How can this be? How can a hitherto deliberative body reject the best candidate for the job, already on the job no less?
The only answer can be partisanship: blind, dumbfounding partisanship.. I'm not much of a partisan, but I'm not a big believer in bipartisanship, either. I think ideas and candidates should be judged by their merits, not by their respective origins and affiliations. I want to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt. I want to listen to them--I want to believe! ;) But when reason appears absent from their ranks--as Ellen Anderson's firing clearly indicates--what reason have I to try?
Read More
