time: 9:30 a. m. place: pera building floor …nmprc.state.nm.us/docs/older docs/11-17-11 om...

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR OPEN MEETING

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION November 17, 2011

TIME: 9:30 a. m. PLACE:

A quorum was present as follows:

Members Present: Commission Chairman Patrick H. Lyons Commissioner Vice Chair Theresa Becenti-Aguilar Commissioner Jason A. Marks Commissioner Ben L. Hall Commissioner Douglas R. Howe

Members Absent:

Staff Present Johnny Montoya, Chief of Staff Robert Hirasuna, General Counsel Bob Parker, Associate General Counsel Rick Blumenfeld, Associate General Counsel Carol Rising, Legal Division Director Arthur Bishop, PIO Marc Montoya, Legal Division Roy Stephenson, Utility Division Director Larry Lujan, Transportation Division Director Nancy Burns, Legal division Mary Howells, OGC Bruno Carrara, Utility Division

Others Present Carl Boaz, Stenographer

CALL TO ORDER

PERA Building 4th Floor Hearing Room 1120 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

The Regular Open Meeting was scheduled at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to proper notice under NMSA 1978, 10-15-1 (C), and the Commission's Open Meeting Policy. Commission Chairman Patrick Lyons called the Regular Open meeting to order at 9:30 a.m., in the Fourth Floor Hearing Room, PERA Building, 1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

A copy of the sign-in sheet for the Regular Open Meeting is incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit 1.

A copy of the Agenda for the Regular Open meeting is incorporated herewith to these minutes as Exhibit 2.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. INTRODUCTIONS

There were no introductions.

3. MISCELLANEOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS

• Recognition of the Employee of the Month of October

Mr. Marty Burney from Fire Marshal's office was recognized as the employee of the month for October. Chairman Lyons read the certificate of appreciation for him and he was presented with the certificate. Mr. Bishop took pictures.

Chairman Lyons announced that he received a resignation letter from Mr. Hirasuna as of December 15, 2011. He said the Commission would miss him and would deal with details later.

Mr. Montoya made a presentation in honor of Mr. Fidel Archuleta. The Commission received a recognition from the National Guard regarding Mr. Archuleta's service.

Mr. Bishop took pictures with Mr. Archuleta and the award.

The Commissioners thanked him for his help in getting the award.

4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Chairman Lyons asked to postpone the corporation bureau's presentation and add the LFC budget review.

Mr. Hirasuna noted many people were present for the hearing and asked if we could do that first.

Commissioner Hall moved to approve the agenda as amended, postponing the Corporation Bureau presentation, adding the LFC Budget Review and with 8 and 9 moved up on the agenda. Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting November 17, 2011

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

6. CONSENT ACTION

A. Transportation Division

11-00202-TRM IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SUPERIOR AMBULANCE SERVICE INC. FOR LEASE OF CERTIFICATE 26770 OF CITY OF ROSWELL (Robert Parker)Order

Commissioner Marks moved to approve the order as presented. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote. So Ordered.

7. HEARING MOTION TO ST A Y IN CASE 11-00430-UT IN THE MATTER OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO'S AMENDMENTS TO ITS LINE EXTENSION POLICY MADE BY ITS ADVICE NOTICE NOS. 428, 429, 50 AND 51.

At 9:42 a.m. the Commission went on the record. This portion of the meeting was transcribed by a court reporter and not as part of these minutes.

The public hearing was concluded at 11:10 a.m.

8. REGULAR ACTION

A. Utility Division

11-00430-UT IN THE MATTER OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO'S AMENDMENTS TO ITS LINE EXTENSION POLICY MADE BY ITS ADVICE NOTICE NOS. 428,429, 50 AND 51. Robert Hirasuna Prder

Mr. Hirasuna didn't have an order to present to the Commission because he didn't know who was going to be present or what was going to be said. He had planned to draft one immediately after this meeting and have it signed by the Commissioners if that would be the pleasures of the Commission.

Commissioner Marks moved to grant a stay for 9 months and for the HE to conduct necessary proceedings and return with an RD on this matter.


He thought that action was in order and the Commission was aware that this was part of the final order but home builders and other parties were not. The Commission had evidence in front of it from Mr. Harlan that explained the facts of the issue both ways.

But as it was pointed out by the first witness in the hearing that due process was a concept of the law. But the notice of PNM 15 months ago said all tariffs were on the table. Even so, the Commission should have given them an opportunity to weigh in on this. The Commission didn't know at the time that this would be a 30% increase. But the total was a $5 million cost of service impact. So about $800 million was material over time.

Chairman Lyons asked when the Commission knew about it.

Commissioner Marks said it was in the minutes of October 28th so it must have been discussed in the previous meeting where Mr. Hlrasuna saw no downside. But it was complicated. It didn't affect this rate base but it would in the future.

The more important problem was that it didn't matter if it was in the stipulation or not because the homebuilders didn't know about it.

Chairman Lyons didn't know about it either. They had no time to digest it all.

Commissioner Hall asked if it would be appropriate to totally rescind it.

Mr. Hirasuna said PNM's position was a little vague but in order to do that, his recommendation would be to suspend it for 30 days and allow time for briefs to be filed with proper notice. Then allow responses for at least another 30 days.

Commissioner Howe said the recommendation was to vacate. It seemed to him that one of the down sides was that if the Commission decided to reverse the policy it would cause an increase in general

Mr. Hirasuna agreed.

Commissioner Howe thought perhaps to bring it back in a general rate case.

Commissioner Marks thought Mr. Hirasuna misunderstood. It was neutral to PNM.

Commissioner Howe agreed but not to consumers.

Commissioner Marks said the PNM rates reflected the old rate base and the ADIT accumulated. The result of the next rate case would be affected by this period. The current rates reflected the old way because PNM incurred that cost as a working cost for the rate base item. So they had a rate base item that the Commission had to recognize. The decision the Commission would make today or whenever wouldn't have an impact on PNM's ability to recover their cost of service. What this did was going back to July when the order said stop accumulating that fee in the rate base and have it on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting November 17, 2011 Page4

The longer they delayed on the line extension tariff, the longer before they made it right. So if they continued for a year the way they were doing it, it would be there to deal with in a year.

,.:,fter a fuller record the Com miss en might decide if it shou!d go on - but that would diminish the rate bases and they would be lm-ver next time.

rvir. Hirasuna said if the Comrniss O'l wanted to proceed with a stay, it would reduce costs to homebuilders immediately and then the additional cost would be imposed at the next rate case.

Commissioner Howe said that was not his question. He didn't think the Commission wanted to let this stand. His question was on the impact now.

Chairman Lyons made a substitute motion to rescind the tariff and refile it in a year. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion and it passed by majority (3-2) voice vote with Commissioner Marks and Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar voting against. So Ordered.

11-00218-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A STANDARD METHOD FOR CALCULATING THE COST OF PROCURING RENEWABLE ENERGY, APPLYING THAT METHOD TO THE REASONABLE COST THRESHOLD, AND CALCULATING THE RATE IMPACT DUE TO RENEWABLE ENERGY PROCUREMENT. (Rick Blumenfeld) Order

Mr. Biumenfeld preseniea information regarding this T!atter to the Commission This was a continuation L~- '--· :-ek of sending - · - ~--~--;cd rule to guide.---,..:-> _..::::ulating the co_~_ ~-- . _,,_·Nable energy and stay within the RCT. On Monday he sent an amended draft and Commissioner Marks revised his and incorporated the other version and melded it with his. So what the Commission decided on they would send out.

Commissioner Hall asked if he merged the two versions or tried to.

l • - ' f Id 'd h " .. ~ . . M ' . ' ' ' ' ' . b f b' ' h t T 'd 1v1r t::Slurien e sa1 e mec to. r,;orrm1ss1oner arKs a,a a Detter JO o com 1rnng t e wo. o avrn confusion, they were both given as exhibit one.

Commissioner Howe pointed out that one example gave spread sheets. It was safe to say it was an incredibly complicated subject and easy to get lost on where the dollars flow and not so much on how RECs should be treated by the utility. Where it got complicated was when the utility decided to buy or build a renewable facility and put it into the rate base and how that should be treated in the RCT.

There were a couple of areas where there was a sharp difference between Commissioner Marks's draft and the utilities - specifically levelized long term accounting. There were two ways - either a cash flow basis or on a revenue requirement basis. The second was that it ultimately ievelized those costs for the asset.

Staff was advocating the levelized approach. He was not sure what Commissioner Marks's advocated

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting November 17. 2011

because it said you could levelize it or not.

Commissioner Marks said his intent was to put staff's material in there. His own approach would not be to levelize but by 572.D the Commission was required for them to recover the cost of the asset over time. ~: ._: •- _._:,~ .. •ut "should" rat'• ·• - · · -- -, "but he though'"·'- :. -- ·::l..at staff's version wou\ · l ·o so that - . .

interested parties could comment on the appropriateness of 1evel zation.

Commissioner Howe assJmed the 25% difference was between cash basis vs. levellzation.

Commissioner Marks said the 25% was not for levelization. The utility might come in with a PPA and pay 2% over the twenty years.

Commissioner Howe never interpreted that staff said that. With a PPA you would pay whatever the cost was for that year.

Mr. Blumenfeld said it was soecified in Section 12, paragraph 8 that if the utility intended to recover cost througr, an approved pp;, i: was separately stated and accounted for here. The utility had to keep track of the fuel clause so we know from year to year what happens on it.

Commissioner Howe said if they spent $50 million on the PPA, that was what would show up for the RCT and the next year if it was $60 million, that was what would show up. So he wondered what this was saying here.

Commissioner Marks asked Cc'llrn ssioner Howe what his specific recommendation was so it would

Commissioner Howe said it would be better if the whole :eve!ization was explicit to have a utility put their assets in the rate base. Where it got confusing was when the Commission entertained the utility building a renewable resource, e.g., a wind farm. He asked how they would take account of that. When it went into the rate base it would be levelized. If the RCT was a percent of revenues, then the Commission ought to compare apples to apples on it. He thought it they did it a different way, they might be obligated to have the utility obligate consumers 20 years out.

Mr. Hirasuna said the cost impact would rise instead of having the declining base.

Commissioner Howe disagreed. With straight line depreciation, you put in all of these other costs. In the end in a general rate case there would be a sense of cost per KWH done by levelizing.

Mr. Hirasuna said that would be true if it didn't come in for another rate case. But if it did, the rates would be lower because they depreciated the asset.

Commissione~ Howe asked if New Mexico changed rates for depreciai:on each year.

Minutes of the Regular Formal Open Meeting November 17, 2011 Page6

I

'

Commissioner Marks said depreciation was constant so the rates wouldn't change.

Commissioner Howe understood but in the end, what they would end up with was a levelized rate base.

Mr Hi,asuna said one issue repeatedly in here was whether it was better to use a PP/;., or to build their ov,1n faci!ity. With a PPA the cost was staight across but with an irvestment the utility wou!d compare the original cost with depreciat:on over time. So a levelized approach aLowed one to compare a PPA with a facility. vVhat staff was proposing was to use that for RCT purposes and to give rate payers a clear picture of costs of renewables and also for rate making purposes. That was the overall concept.

Commissioner Howe said that was where he was going with it too. Looking only at one year could get them in trouble. They had to look at the lifetime impact of this. Mr. Hirasuna agreed. It had to use what was called !ife cycle costs.

Commissioner Howe said riovv much should be put in was complicated. He asked if a 100 MW wind farm was the same as 30 ivWv of ccn ventional generation. He asked if it would be offset just for a year or two or for the entire life. That was not an easy answer. He would support in the NOPR some kind of combination of the two and say the Commission had different views and invited comment.

Commissioner Marks said in the draft he circulated, he proposed to change 12.D on page six and quoted it to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Howe said his problem with that was that f he was a capacity planner at PNM, he wouldrft know what the Commission wanted him to do.

Commissioner Marks suggested the then change "may' to "should" to comply with the RPS and strike the 25%. They should say "rate-based assets" and then change on page 11-D-6 on interim reports and add to where it said - instead of saying "cost recovery mechanisms" to say "The Commission shall consider the impact to the RCT in the present year and future years when determining whether to approve a request for a procurement plan."

Cornrnissioner Howe had one other item. In 6B, he asked if the Commission had discussed or talked to the utilities about increased costs of renewable energy and how it would be part of the RCT.

Commissioner Marks agreed it has been part of the discussion.

Commissioner Howe asked if he would be willing in B to just say increased costs and associated costs.

Commissioner Marks said it was supposed to be symmetrical. He was fine with rewording that. They could put that nto 6B.

Commissioner Howe said that with those changes he would support Corr missioner Marks' version to put out and ask for cornr-,-,ents on them. He 1vanted something put in a preface that they really wanted comments regarding avoided costs.


Commissioner Marks said his version assumed they were talking about avoided costs.

Commissioner Howe acknowledged that and it gives one a headache very quickly.

-:-: _ 1 · ::n Lyons inform:·' L ·: ,L -• •'-e Commission'::'''-'-:: .. ;'·: last June. It w-r --~M•-,J by the AG. He had a !ct of questions to ask now. rie noted in Commissioner Marks' version he taiked about incrernenta! costs in several p1aces and asked where that was in the legislation.

Commissioner Marks said he could look it up. The Renewable energy Act allowed the Commission to set the RCT.

Chairman Lyons said that was in 62.13.3 but there was no definition of incremental costs. He didn't know why tr,e Commission was using that word.

Commissioner Marks sa:d 1n 16 4. it said the Commission shaii establish a Renewable Cost Thresho d above which a pubLc utd:ty srculd not be requ,red tc add renewable energy to portfolio and should taKe into consideration the price of renewable energy at tr1e point of sale.

Chairman Lyons said the word used was impact. If this said "incremental cost" there should be a definition in there.

'"\,; : · joner Marks s - :· :, · · - , ·newable procu··-::-· ---r 'rom 2005 forw--..l ·:: ... -- 'hey looked at the RCT they referenced the avQided costs. The AG, utilities. ad-✓ocates and staff i"',ad ail understood there was an avoided cost that you would have because of the act

Chairman Lyons noted ir P-2 he used avoided costs. increrrentai cost was not in the iegisiation.

Commissioner Marks said levelization wasn't in the legislation.

Chairman Lyons said it was under purposes of the act. But incremental was not in there.

Commissioner Marks thought it was good to put this rule out fo, recovery of a rate-based item. He would !\ke to hear arguments beth ways He always thought the 1mpact on rates took into account the avoided costs. Utilities had calculated tre difference in several cases.

Mr. Marc Martinez said the REA allowed the Commission to establish rules for the utilities to recover the costs. The Commission had authority to establish the RCT but also discretion over the rates. If there were costs, the RCT could be raised.

Levelization was implied cost recovery it attempts to equate the utilities· cost with how rate payers would pay for it

Commissiorer Marks said just because ieveiization didn't appear \n the act didn't mean the Commission cou1d not address it. He said he cou!cJ add a definition for incremental costs although he didn't


think it needed further definition. He read from 16-4-1-2 retarding the RCT and said when they talked about "additional" they meant incremental. It was the amount attributed to RPS. And it said it could not exceed 2%.

Chairman Lyons and Commissioner Marks continued to discuss the wording used.

Commissioner Marks said the purpose of the rulemaking was to provide clarity to the parties and thought the proposal he prepared would be useful in doing that. The Commission needed to put something out there and define that so parties could comment on it and try to get some consensus on how to do that.

Mr. Blumenfeld pointed out that in the history there had been a lot of disagreement on how to deal with that difference in costs.

Commissioner Howe thought there was an argument that if the addition of renewable energy actually caused a reduction in revenues then the only way he could see it was if the utility had to cut back on it.

Commissioner Marks referenced a PNM case two years ago on difference in costs using a wind farm.

Commissioner Howe said that compared the renewable cost with the cost of a gas CT - a standard sized peaking plant. He argued that he was comparing capital costs.

Commissioner Marks disagreed and said he was comparing capacity.

Commissioner Howe said if they were looking at capital costs they needed to look at the life span. He was willing to agree that the Commission should put this out but should also say that the Commission didn't agree about it. He was still troubled by the avoided costs. He didn't see how one formulation would work.

Commissioner Marks and Commissioner Howe continued discussing it further.

Commissioner Marks felt they were most focused on capacity. As a compromise, he would get rid of the other language on it but have them calculate costs.

Chairman Lyons went back to the REA 62-2B regarding the limited percentage and read the four points in it.

Chairman Lyons announced they had to quit the meeting at 1 :00.

Commissioner Marks moved to table this case until Tuesday. Commissioner Howe seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote.

11-00397-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF ESTIMATED BILLS IF RESIDENTIAL METERS ARE NOT READ ON SCHEDULED SA TU RDA YS DURING THE NOVEMBER THROUGH JANUARY 2012 BILLING CYCLES.


(Rick Blumenfeld) Order

Mr. Blumenfeld said PNM had agreed to provide some additional information about how meter readers were going to be paid, etc.

Ms. Lucy Bettis (PNM) introduced and Mr. Wayne Prior, Director of Marketing and Customer Service, to answer the questions.

Mr. Prior explained that the meter readers were paid time and a half for overtime work on Saturdays.

Commissioner Howe asked why PNM could not arrange to have more contract meter readers.

Mr. Prior said the situation really centered around the holiday season with two holidays in the week.

He explained that they used staff to read the meters but if some didn't come to work or couldn't come to work, they needed backup readers and to have some as back up. Having that flexibility required paying overtime. He explained it further and said this request was for a worst case scenario if it ended up that they did not have enough readers to cover all the meters on the days they had to be read.

Commissioner Howe asked what had changed this year for this holiday season.

Mr. Prior said it arose in January. Nothing had changed in the contract but the argument was unresolved with the union representative. They didn't have time to enter into arbitration before the holidays.

Commissioner Howe asked if this was a one-time request and that PNM wouldn't be back here in January asking it again.

Ms. Bettis agreed. She said they were engaged in working it out so it would be resolved soon.

Commissioner Hall asked if in the past PNM had paid a lot of time and a half.

Mr. Prior said in order to reduce Saturday needed work this year, PNM changed the meter reading schedule. There was some still required but not as much.

Commissioner Hall asked if in the past when PNM had some sick or not willing to work they had enough substitutes to read them.

Mr. Prior agreed.

Commissioner Hall asked if PNM was short staffed for meter reading.

Mr. Prior said they were not and the schedule changes had no impact on reader staff.

Commissioner Hall asked if this was just for December and January. Mr. Prior agreed.


Commissioner Marks moved approval of the order. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote. So Ordered.

APPLICAT!ON OF EL PASO ELECTRiC COMPANY FOR APPROVAL TO RECOVER REGULATORY DISINCENTIVES AND INCENTIVES ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. (Robert Hirasuna) Order

Mr. Hirasuna presented information regarding this matter to the Commission. The case had been heard before. This was a certification of stipulation for EPE. The stipulation would resolve matters concerning the adders for EPE's energy efficiency and load management programs. The AG went to Supreme Court and the Court ruled that certain adders that were approved by the Commission were not cost-based and it vacated the rule. The proposed adder here would not be affected by that ruling and were based on the evidence in the case. They wouid generate revenues that wou!d recover the $800,000 per year for the $700,000 in costs for these programs and would give EPE about S100,000.

The Commission back then didn't feel it was in a position to approve the certification because of the question of earning a profit on the programs. It was an important question to answer. None of these programs involved a capital investment. In the meantime, the Commission answered the same question in PNM's case. The EUEA didn't restrict the Commission to consideration of repaying only on capital investments but to avoid expenses in the normal operating costs. Because of that determination the order before the Commission that there 'Nas ro reason not to consider the precedent here for that return, even though it didn't have capital i1vestrrenrs.

in a previous EPE case the $100,000 incentive would give EPE a return 3.8% on its costs, His order would disapprove that as being excessive because the needed revenue was being provided contemporaneously by the rate payers. The bottom line was what they needed was very small. The order suggested a 2% return. The difference in dollars was about $30,000 to $40,000 which was a drop in the bucket.

He aisc made some cha1asd :o the RD. The RD had recommended that the TRC for the total - ,..;- - -- -

programs not fall below 1 ard Mr Hirasuna changed that to make sure the TRC for each program not fall below one just to make sure that each program was cosi effective

The HE had recommended granting variances to certain sections of the energy efficiency rules but those rules were vacated by the Supreme Court so that provision was unnecessary.

Thirdly he recommended that the Commission modify the stipulation that EPE implement the adder as approved, to comply with the advice notice.

Finally he recommended, as drafted that the s!:pulated adder wouid ccntnue until the Commission has approved the new energy efficiency program tha~ EPE already filed fc,

Commissioner Marks noted that this had a 2% margin and PNM's case was complicated but had a


higher margin. It was not properly before the Commission but he asked if they could bring back an inquiry on that order since they shouldn't treat PNM customers differently.

Mr. Hirasuna said PNM was bringing new programs to the Commission also. So he could look at it.

Commissioner Marks said for EPE the $699,000 was for a year based on the actual costs. So they would be in effect for 2012 but that was not the lifetime KW of those measures. Mr. Hirasuna agreed.

Commissioner Marks thought the 4 mils was based on lifetime however. Mr. Hirasuna agreed.

Commissioner Marks thought they would be on more solid ground if they were just looking at the lost fixed costs and not buying into the $4 but looked at the $700,000 plus a 2% return.

Mr. Hirasuna agreed and said that was what it was.

Commissioner Howe asked if the Commission got this yesterday. Mr. Hirasuna agreed.

Commissioner Howe felt it was too complex an issue to just have one day to consider it. There were a lot of numbers involved.

Mr. Hirasuna said it could be acted on later.

Commissioner Marks moved to table this matter until Tuesday. Commissioner Howe seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (5-0) voice vote.

8. COMMUNICATIONS WITH GENERAL COUNSEL, ROBERT HIRASUNA

There were no communications with General Counsel.

9. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, JOHNNY MONTOYA

• Presentation by Corporations Bureau - Stacey Starr-Garcia and Matthew Lovato.

This presentation was postponed to a later meeting.

• Discussion on LFC Budget Presentation

Mr. Lovato reviewed the printed presentation of the PRC Budget for the LFC meeting.

He said they wouldn't present the last portion unless asked.

Page 3 listed the PRC accomplishments including a website that was more user friendly; a


management study that Mr. Montoya would talk to them about; capped salaries; a revised vehicle policy; centralizing of the fleet; increased checks and balances; and hiring practices.

Commissioner Marks asked if the Commission had seen the management study.

Mr. Montoya said it was his meeting with David Abbey on how to make changes rather than having the legislature do it for us. He did a SWAT analysis on staffing to figure out what changes were needed to make things work better. They looked bureau by bureau.

Mr. Lovato said page 4 went into the staffing and how important each position was. They examined every position. They would seek permission to fill vacancies.

Page 5 went into the request. They were requesting $48.6 million which was a $3.9 million increase, primarily in the PCF fund balance. The rest was only $319,000 based on instructions from DFA to move vacant refills at midpoint.

Mr. Montoya said page six was what they would look at and it showed basically a flat budget over the years.

10. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS

Commissioner Marks passed out a few copies of a draft on the last item to change the Efficient Use of Energy Act that would be legal and still work for the customers of the utilities. He thought the Commission should ask to amend the statute so that the incentives had to be cost based ..

Chairman Lyons asked to have that put on the Tuesday agenda. Commissioner Marks agreed.

11. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

Pursuant to 1976, Section 10-15-1.H(2) NMSA to discuss limited personnel matters.

This matter was postponed until Tuesday.

12. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Hall moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Becenti-Aguilar seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous (4-0) voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 1 :05 p.m.


ATTEST:

Carl Boaz, Stenographer

BEN L. HALL, COMMISSIONER


DATE:

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

OPEN MEETING

SIGN-IN SHEET

/~ c vem b:u- J 1-. ·7-0 1 l J

BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION

REGULAR OPEN MEETING Thursday, November 17, 2011

9:30 A.M. PERA Building, 4th Floor Hearing Room

1120 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, NM 87501

AGENDA

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. INTRODUCTIONS

3. MISCELLANEOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS

• Recognition of the Employee of the Month of October

4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

6. CONSENT ACTION

A. Trans ortation Division 11-00203-TRM IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SUPERIOR AMBULANCE Robert Parker SERVICE, INC. FOR LEASE OF CERTIFICATE NO. 26770 OF CITY OF

ROSWELL.

7. REGULAR ACTION

A. Utility Division 11-00218-UT Rick Blumenfeld

Regular Open Meeting Agenda Thursday, November 17, 2011 Page 1 of 3

----- ·····-···············----------

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A STANDARD METHOD FOR CALCULATING THE COST OF PROCURING RENEWABLE ENERGY, APPLYING THAT METHOD TO THE REASONABLE COST THRESHOLD, AND CALCULATING THE RATE IMPACT DUE TO RENEWABLE ENERGY PROCUREMENTS.

EXHIBIT 2 PRC 11/17/11

11-00397-UT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATIONOF PUBLIC SERVICE Rick Blumenfeld COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE

OF ESTIMATED BILLS IF RESIDENTIAL METERS ARE NOT READ ON SCHEDULED SATURDAYS DURING THE NOVEMBER THROUGH JANUARY 2012 BILLING CYCLES.

10-00266-UT APPLICATION OF EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR APPROVAL TO Robert Hirasuna RECOVER REGULATORY DISINCENTIVES AND INCENTIVES

ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

Order

. --···----.-----·- ·---·--

8. HEARING

MOTION TO STAY IN CASE 11-00430-UT IN THE MATTER OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO'S AMENDMENTS TO ITS LINE EXTENSION POLICY MADE BY ITS ADVICE NOTICE NOS. 428, 429, 50 AND 51.

9. REGULAR ACTION CONTINUATION

Utility Division 11-00430-UT Robert Hirasuna

IN THE MATTER OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO'S AMENDMENTS TO ITS LINE EXTENSION POLICY MADE BY ITS ADVICE NOTICE NOS. 428, 429, 50 AND 51.

10. COMMUNICATIONS WITH GENERAL COUNSEL, ROBERT HIRASUNA

11. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, JOHNNY MONTOYA

• Presentation by Corporations Bureau • Stacey Starr-Garcia and Matthew Lovato.

12. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSIONERS

13. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to 1978, Section 10-15-1.H(2) NMSA to discuss limited personnel matters.

14. ADJOURNMENT


I

The Commission will make reasonable efforts to post the agenda on the Commission's website 36 hours before the open meeting but the inability to do so within the 36 hours prior will not require the Commission to delay the meeting or to refrain from taking action on any agenda item on which it otherwise could act.

At any time during the Open Meeting the Commission may close the meeting to the public to discuss matters not subject to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. The Commission may revise the order of the agenda items considered at this Open Meeting.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING SHOULD CONT ACT THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OF THE COMMISSION (827-4084) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE OPEN MEETING.


time: 9:30 a. m. place: pera building floor …nmprc.state.nm.us/docs/older docs/11-17-11 om...

Documents