UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`BEFORE THE
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
`
`
`Basin Electric Power Cooperative ) Docket Nos. EL25-92-000
`
` ) ER20-2441-000
` ) ER20-2442-000
` ) EL20-68-000
` ) ER21-768-000
` ) ER21-682-000
` (Consolidated)
`
` ) ER22-137-000
` ) EL23-12-000
` ) ER23-2970-000
` ) EL24-10-000
` ) EL25-16-000
` ) EL22-10-000
` ) ER23-194-000
` ) ER25-11-000
` (Consolidated)
`
`ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO REQUESTS FOR DEFERRAL OF
`TRI-STATE GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION ASSOCIATION, INC.
`
` Pursuant to Rule 213 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy
`Regulatory Commission (“Commission”),
`1 Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,
`Inc. (“Tri-State”) submits this Answer in Opposition (“Answer”) to the December 29, 2025 Joint
`Requests of McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“McKenzie”) and Basin Electric Power
`Cooperative (“Basin”) for Deferral of Commission Action to Accommodate Finalization of
`Settlement filed in Docket Nos. EL25-92-0002 and ER20-2441-000, et al.3 (“Second Requests for
`
`1 18 C.F.R. § 385.213 (2025).
`2 McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al., Joint Request for Deferral of Commission Action to
`Accommodate Finalization of Settlement, Docket No. EL25-92-000 (filed Dec. 29, 2025).
`3 McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al., Joint Request for Deferral of Commission Action to
`Accommodate Finalization of Settlement, Docket No. ER20-2441-000, et al. (filed Dec. 29, 2025).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`Deferral”). Specifically, Tri-State opposes: (1) any delay in resolving either matter, which unduly
`prejudices customers; and (2) any intimation that a settlement between McKenzie and Basin would
`resolve any pending rate or jurisdiction matter. Tri-State requests that the Commission reject the
`Second Requests for Deferral, act expeditiously, and require full disclosure of the settlement.
`I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
` The Initial (defined below) and Second Requests for Deferral represent requests for more
`than five months of delay in numerous matters pending Commission action, each with material
`cost and public policy implications dating back more than six years. Indeed, this is the second
`time Basin4 and McKenzie have requested material delay, to the detriment of customers and with
`no apparent benefit to resolving matters before the Commission.
`The instant Answer pertains to the Second Requests for Deferral filed in: (1) the Complaint
`Proceeding5 regarding Basin’s status as a public utility under Part II of the Federal Power Act; and
`(2) numerous Rate Case Proceedings,6 including an Initial Decision,7 in which the Commission is
`evaluating the lawfulness of Basin’s member rates back to November 2019. 8 Basin has filed
`motions to dismiss the Complaint and Rate Case Proceedings (prospectively and retroactively).9
`
`4 This is not, however, the first time Basin has undertaken efforts to delay. See Tri-State Answer at 4 n.11.
`5 See generally materials filed and issued in Docket No. EL25 -92-000 (“Complaint Proceeding”);
`McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc., Complaint, Request for Enforcement of the Federal Power Act,
`and Request for Emergency Stay, Shortened Answer Period, and Fast Track Processing, Docket No.
`EL25-92-000 (filed June 10, 2025) (“Complaint”).
`6 See generally materials filed and issued in Docket Nos. ER20 -2441-000, ER20-2442-000, EL20-68-
`000, ER21-768 -000, ER21 -682-000, ER22-137- 000, EL23 -12-000, ER23- 2970-000, EL24- 10-000,
`EL25-16-000, EL22-10-000, ER23-194-000, ER25-11-000.
`7 See Basin Elec. Power Coop., 187 FERC ¶ 63,021 (2024) (“Initial Decision”).
`8 See generally materials filed and issued in Docket Nos. ER20 -2441-000, ER20-2442-000, EL20-68-
`000, ER21-768 -000, ER21 -682-000, ER22-137- 000, EL23 -12-000, ER23- 2970-000, EL24- 10-000,
`EL25-16-000, EL22-10-000, ER23-194-000, ER25-11-000.
`9 See Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. ER20 -2441-000, et al. (filed
`July 17, 2025); Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Motion to Dismiss Complaint, Docket No. EL25 -
`92-000 (filed July 16, 2025).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`In September 2025, Basin and McKenzie filed requests to defer the Complaint and Rate
`Case Proceedings (“Initial Requests for Deferral”) 10 through December 28, 2025, asserting that
`Basin, McKenzie, and Upper Missouri Power Cooperative (“Settling Parties”) had reached a
`tentative settlement to “resolve McKenzie’s [C] omplaint”11 and the issues it raised in the Rate
`Case Proceedings.12 The settlement was described as “confidential,” among the Settling Parties (a
`small subset of the active parties), and unlikely to be disclosed to the Commission or customers.13
`The Initial Requests for Deferral were objected to by Tri -State14 and Wright-Hennepin
`Cooperative Electric Association (“Wright-Hennepin”),15 each of which explained that customers
`other than McKenzie have material interests in timely resolution of the pending matters and the
`justness and reasonableness of Basin’s rates. Wright-Hennepin argued that a “potential private
`settlement agreement among only certain parties to a series of litigated . . . proceedings does not
`form the basis for ” deferral , that delay is “highly prejudicial to the other parties,” and that
`McKenzie and Basin cannot settle rates applicable to all customers “even if certain of the Settling
`Parties decide they no longer wish to litigate issues.” 16 Tri-State further explained that: (1) non-
`
`10 McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al., Joint Request for Deferral of Commission Action to
`Accommodate Finalization of Settlement, Docket No. ER20 -2441-000, et al. (filed Sept. 29, 2025)
`(“Initial Complaint Deferral”); McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al., Joint Request for Deferral
`of Commission Action to Accommodate Finalization of Settlement, Docket No. ER20-2441-000, et al.
`(filed Sept. 29, 2025) (“Initial Rate Case Deferral”).
`11 Initial Complaint Deferral at 2.
`12 Initial Rate Case Deferral at 1 -2 (noting McKenzie’s settlement would “not address or resolve issues
`pursued by other intervenors” and thereby implying that it would resolve issues raised by McKenzie).
`13 See generally Initial Requests for Deferral at 2 (noting that the parties needed time to “finalize the
`settlement and submit appropriate documents to the Commission” (emphasis added) indicating that the
`parties do not intend to file the settlement and instead likely intend to file a simple withdrawal).
`14 Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., Answer in Opposition to Requests for
`Deferral, Docket No. EL25-92-000, et al. (filed Oct. 14, 2025) (“Tri-State Answer”).
`15 Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association, Answer in Opposition to Request for Deferral,
`Docket No. ER20-2441-000, et al. (filed Oct. 8, 2025) (“Wright-Hennepin Answer”).
`16 Wright-Hennepin Answer at 4-6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`Settling Parties are prejudiced by delay vis-à-vis accruing refunds and needed certainty regarding
`jurisdiction over Basin’s rates; (2) Basin and McKenzie cannot unilaterally settle or withdraw any
`pending matter per Commission rules (all rate and jurisdiction issues must be decided, irrespective
`of the settlement); and (3) the settlement raises transparency and broader rate issues (elimination
`of refund rights and cost shifts to other customers in unfiled rates) that do not support deferral.17
`On November 6, 2025, Basin filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer asserting
`that delay will not harm customers and, more importantly, confirming Basin and McKenzie’s
`intent to ignore non-Settling Party interests in the Complaint Proceeding. 18 Neither Basin nor
`McKenzie materially answered the concerns raised in the Tri-State or Wright-Hennepin Answers.
`McKenzie and Basin now file the Second Requests for Deferral asking for more than two
`months in additional delay. The Second Requests for Deferral make no mention of the issues raised
`in the prior answers19 and double-down on the notion that the Settling Parties do not intend to file
`the settlement with the Commission.20
`II. ANSWER IN OPPOSITION
` Tri-State reiterates its opposition to delay and any implication that Basin or McKenzie can
`unilaterally resolve any matter raised in the Rate Case or Complaint Proceedings.
`
`17 See generally Tri-State Answer at 3-10.
`18 Despite Tri-State, Wright-Hennepin, and Sierra Club having supported and taken unique positions in
`the matter, Basin argued that McKenzie is “the sole complainant,” suggesting that other interested
`parties are “not a complainant” and therefore do not have an interest in the matter, and suggest ed such
`parties file a new complaint, which would waste Commission and party resources. See Basin Electric
`Power Cooperative, Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer, Docket No. EL25 -92-000, at 2-4 (filed
`Nov. 6, 2025) (“Basin Answer”).
`19 E.g., the Second Requests for Deferral, unlike the Initial Requests for Deferral, noticeably avoid
`mention of the intent to resolve and eliminate issues being separately pursued by other parties.
`20 See Second Requests for Deferral at 1 (again noting that the parties intend to “finalize the settlement ”
`but only submit “appropriate documents” with the Commission); see also supra n.13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
` Contrary to Basin’s unreasoned assertion,21 delayed action on the Rate Case and Complaint
`Proceedings prejudices customer interests in just and reasonable rates and Commission jurisdiction
`thereover. All customers, not just McKenzie, have a direct interest in the timely resolution of more
`than six years of disputed rates and refunds (including issues raised by McKenzie).22 Customers
`also need immediate certainty regarding jurisdiction over Basin’s rates, prospectively and
`retroactively, to pursue rate issues (including the unfiled rate increase imposed on January 1, 2026)
`before the Commission or in alternative fora (e.g., should the Commission wrongly dismiss the
`Complaint or Rate Case Proceedings).23 Other customers are not party to the settlement, are not
`benefitted thereby, and have suffered years of “noncompetitive ,” “unduly discriminatory” rates
`causing “serious harm to the public interest.”24 Delay is unduly prejudicial.
` Further, delay serves no administrative efficiency purpose and is not consistent with
`Commission policy. A narrow settlement, among select parties, of matters subject to an initial
`decision, and which is likely to be opposed, is inconsistent with Trailblazer precedent and cannot
`bind non- parties.25 McKenzie also cannot unilaterally withdraw its pleadings per Commission
`rules.26 In short , the Commission must rule on all matters irrespective of the settlement.
`Commission policy does not support delay and no administrative efficiency is served thereby.
`
`21 Basin Answer at 3.
`22 See Tri-State Answer at 3-4; Wright-Hennepin Answer at 2-3, 6.
`23 Tri-State Answer at 4-5 and n.12.
`24 See, e.g., Initial Decision, 187 FERC ¶ 63,021 at PP 50, 51, 62, 65.
`25 See Tri-State Answer at 7 (explaining that a settlement must be uncontested or surpass the Trailblazer
`standard for review of contested settlements—which the instant settlement presumably could not, and
`cannot bind non-parties); Wright-Hennepin Answer at 4-6 (explaining that the Trailblazer precedent
`cited by Basin and McKenzie is entirely inapposite to the situation at issue here and that, despite the
`settlement, the “Commission still has a statutory obligation to address the outstanding issues”).
`26 Tri-State Answer at 7-8 (citing 18 C.F.R. § 385.216).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
` Last, since the Initial Requests for Deferral were filed, Basin continues to decline to
`provide its membership (i.e., its own owners) details regarding the settlement , which the parties
`continue to characterize as confidential and un likely to be filed. 27 Tri-State stands behind its
`arguments that “the prospect of a narrow and . . . confidential settlement . . . raises material
`transparency, cost-shifting, and regulatory evasion concerns ” and, “[i]n no event, absent further
`transparency and additional assurances to rebut the foregoing, should these facts inform a
`Commission decision to further delay already lengthy and problematic proceedings.”28
`III. CONCLUSION
` For the reasons set forth above, Tri -State respectfully requests that the Commission deny
`the Second Requests for Deferral, act expeditiously on the Rate Case and Complaint Proceedings,
`and, as extent necessary, ensure that any attempts to settle issues in these matters are transparent
`and do not override non-Settling Party interests or harm customers.
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Daniel W. Nugent
`Daniel W. Nugent
`Counsel to Tri-State Generation and
`Transmission Association, Inc.
`
`
`27 See supra n.13.
`28 Tri-State Answer at 10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person
`designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding in accordance
`with the requirements of Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
`Dated at Denver, CO this 13th day of January 2026.
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Daniel W. Nugent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`