This concerns a huge international company that seems to be a particularly bad actor and a rural state where a “professional” Public Regulatory Commission looks somewhat disastrous just now.
Some basics: judges (or administrative bodies that judge controversies) are meant to be impartial, and to follow rules to prevent even the appearance of bias. (See “Clarence Thomas?”)
Iberdrola’s subsidiary, Avangrid, sought to buy PNM, the investor-owned utility that provides most New Mexicans’ electricity. The merger would mean big bucks for PNM big shots. In 2021 the PRC rejected the merger, 5-0. Avangrid/Iberdrola’s bad record elsewhere was more than any Commissioner could stomach.
Avangrid appealed to the state supreme court. A consumer watchdog, New Energy Electricity, opposed the appeal. In March, with no warning, public comment, or open meeting, the “new” governor-appointed PRC announced it was joining Avangrid in withdrawing the appeal, then and would rehear the case with no new evidence! However, the appeal had deprived PRC of jurisdiction.
On April 19 we discussed on radio our puzzlement about how this could happen without improper PRC-Avangrid “ex parte communications.” At a public meeting that afternoon, before outraged citizens, the PRC, to its credit, did an about face. The two involved commissioners withdrew their agreement to rehear, conceded they’d used an inapplicable rule to justify their action, admitted (without the requisite detail) ex parte communications, and promised that if Avangrid tries to reopen the case, the PRC will hear everyone and respect due process. “Due process” – that you get to speak up against court or administrative actions that could affect you – is a key concept in our Constitution.
Credit NEE’s dogged opposition for the partial reversal. Avangrid’s conduct here has written in large red letters that Iberdrola is trouble. I hope Avangrid has sufficiently fouled its New Mexico nest even this PRC would see that.
Questions remain.
First, is there sufficient evidence of Open Meetings Law violations for the Attorney-General to prosecute and perhaps convict offenders? Commissioners cite the “discussion of litigation” exception to the law, which may apply; but even so, they acted unfairly and unlawfully. What they did would likely get a judge disbarred. Suppose in our lawsuit over our knife fight, the judge found me guilty but then, during my appeal, announced s/he was reopening the case to find for me, with no new evidence? But the PRC is not a judge.
Finally, aside from the due process and transparency issues, how did this happen? Did Avangrid convince the commissioners through persuasive logical arguments that NEE had no chance to rebut? Or did Avangrid use less savory means, either conning them into changing their minds, or using even less savory means? (Iberdrola is under criminal investigation in Spain over allegations that include bribery.) Or did our Governor, whom I mostly support, appoint only folks committed to ignore Iberdolaa improprieties that led former commissioner Steve Fischmann to comment, “There can be no good deal with a bad partner?” (She’s not alone. Some reputable environmental protection groups apparently think Avangrid’s abilities outweigh its dubious corporate character.)
Second, must we once more “reform” the PRC? And how? If elections don’t work and gubernatorial appointments don’t work ,. . . ? Former Commissioner Valerie Espinosa says the current commission has met in privately more often in four months than the PRC did in her eight years. That ain’t transparency.
It’s a mess. I’ll try interview the commissioners.
No comments:
Post a Comment