PNM’s Withdraws Application for Gas Plant & Gas Pipeline Case In Response to New Energy Economy’s Opposition Filing & Expert Testimony Ratepayers Declare $100 Million Victory SANTA FE, NM – PNM filed a Motion to Vacate their (Second) Withdrawal of an Application for a 100 million dollar Gas Plant & Gas Pipeline Case pending before the NM Public Regulation Commission (PRC). New Energy Economy was the only party to file oppositional testimony. Attached herewith. Earlier this month PNM filed a Motion to Vacate the Procedural Schedule for their gas case following testimony from New Energy Economy that proved PNM’s proposal to add a natural gas plant and pipeline into rates was entirely unnecessary and unfounded, because in fact, they did not need MORE capacity (their own numbers didn't justify it). Also, New Energy Economy provided evidence showing that PNM never considered the risks inherent in this investment. PNM stated that it needed to reassess its own “load forecast” (meaning, PNM needed to refigure how much capacity PNM actually needs on its system to meet customer demand). PNM said it would review its load forecast and then either dismiss the case or file additional testimony on November 21st. New Energy Economy filed discovery (questions we have the legal right to ask) quickly after PNM filed its Motion to Vacate the Procedural schedule. New Energy Economy asked PNM for ALL internal documents relating to the reason that PNM filed their Motion to Vacate. Discovery is due Monday, October 31. Yesterday, in a sudden shift, PNM filed a Motion to withdraw its gas plant and gas pipeline case and asked to halt discovery, see attached. Why? Because PNM doesn’t want to answer the discovery questions asked. “We are thrilled that PNM is dismissing their gas plant and gas pipeline case. PNM’s request for more resources is wasteful, pure greed. PNM is trying to drive up shareholder profit on the backs of the poorest people in New Mexico, to the tune of nearly $100 million!” states Mariel Nanasi, Executive Director, New Energy Economy. New Energy Economy expressed outrage that PNM seeks to skirt answering legitimate questions about PNM’s past misrepresentations to the PRC about fictitious load needs. PNM is required under the law to provide a transparent basis for its resource requests to legitimate its needs and rate hikes. Under scrutiny, PNM could not meet this standard. “Unfortunately, PNM has a habit of misrepresentation, and the PRC rarely holds it accountable. PNM presented fabricated data about alleged “need”. In fact, consumer demand is actually going down, but despite this, PNM thought they could get away with even more bloat: $100 million for a superfluous gas plant and gas pipeline just to line the pockets of PNM’s senior management off the misery of the poor, Nanasi explained.” “There was no merit to PNM’s gas case – simply, it wasn’t warranted or necessary,” states Nanasi. “No other party even challenged PNM’s request, but PNM couldn’t stand the test, because PNM’s own numbers didn’t add up,” continued Nanasi. “New Energy Economy argued that PNM did not need this excess energy, because PNM’s customers are favoring conservation and solar which are both much less expensive, and PNM had to concede.” Eleanor Bravo from Food and Water Watch applauded the decision: “Tremendous thanks go to New Energy Economy for its successful challenge to PNM's inflated and unsubstantiated proposal. Their intervention and testimony on behalf of ratepayers won the dismissal of an unnecessary and costly new natural gas plant and gas pipeline proposal. New Energy Economy has become an essential watchdog for the public interest, helping to expose the truth and hold the corporate crooks accountable. With this victory, New Energy Economy has saved New Mexicans close to a hundred million dollars and curbed the seemingly relentless obsession with fossil fuels driving more drilling and fracking and causing untold environmental and health costs.” Said Eleanor Bravo, National Pipeline Campaigner for Food & Water Watch. This is now PNM’s second defeated application (16-00105-UT) for its Gas Plant & Gas Pipeline. Last year, New Energy Economy and other intervenors prevailed against PNM, in their last gas case, 15-00205-UT, which was rejected by the PRC because PNM failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their proposal. PNM’s Motion does not address the irreparable harm and cost to parties that have had to address both these filings (time, experts, discovery, etc). PNM should not be allowed to recoup “cost recovery” for the expenses related to both these withdrawn cases. PNM was suggesting spending $100 million on the gas plant and gas plant and admitted that the plant would only employee three (3) full-time employees. So much for the “economic development” argument. In a spate of downturns for the company, the PRC rejected PNM’s initial rate case,[1] then when PNM re-filed the rate hike the PRC Hearing Examiner recommended a 6% rate increase,[2] rejecting PNM’s nuclear purchases as “imprudent”. Even though the PRC overruled the Hearing Examiner’s recommended decision, the PRC Commissioners accepted the finding of “imprudence” but nevertheless granted upping the rate increase for costumers to 9.5%. This case is on appeal in the New Mexico Supreme Court, and a cross-appeal has been filed by numerous parties, including New Energy Economy.
Leave A Comment