Did County Commission Do El Paso Electric a Favor?

El Paso Electric made an interesting announcement recently: its plan to request a rate hike in 2018 in southern New Mexico will be delayed.

It's going ahead as planned in El Paso; but not here.

We owe gratitude to Merrie Lee Soules, Positive Energy Solar, Allen Downs, Rocky Bacchus of One Hour Air-Conditioning, and Steve Fischmann; but also to the City of Las Cruces and the County of Doña Ana. All those folks filed as intervenors in EPE's most recent cases; they questioned and rebutted EPE's “facts” with a clarity the PRC wouldn't have managed without them; and EPE apparently doesn't want to see them again real soon.

So when you pay your electric bill each month, thank these folks that it isn't higher.

Sadly, the County Commission moved to make it a little harder for the County to intervene next time around – and there's always a next time with EPE. A publically-traded corporation exists to make a profit. The current system means EPE gets paid off for capital expenditures. So EPE will do its damndest to built new power plants on very flimsy excuses.

Tuesday the Commission passed a resolution under which each time there's a new rate case, it'll require a vote by the commission to intervene. That sounds innocuous enough, and maybe it won't be a problem; but it's odd. These are 4,000-page cases. I'm doubting the commissioners will wade through that.

The general interpretation of Tuesday's action was that it was meant to pull County Manager Julia Brown's chain. The effect is that if EPE's timing is tricky or it can influence a couple of commissioners, our county commission will fall silent when the utility tries to rip us off.

Commissioner Billy Garrett said the intervenors saved county residents $7.5 million recently. He and Brown pointed out that in complex rate cases things change rapidly, and that Tuesday's change could cause the County to miss important deadlines. I completely agree.

Interestingly, when Garrett proposed an amendment, under which the Commission would have been informed in detail every two weeks and could instruct Brown accordingly, Commissioner John Vasquez (who had proposed the resolution) saw the wisdom in that. Three others didn't. Commissioner Ben Rawson then moved Vasquez's original version, which passed 4-1.

The three new commissioners want to send Brown a message – but their chosen method could end up costing us money. One observer said Rawson might be trying to use the anti-Brown sentiment to help tilt the playing field to ease the utility's course. But Rawson, who voted for the 2015 resolution delegating the matter to Brown, said that when he asked about one matter there was confusion among county management about whether or not the County had intervened. Thus he felt the commission should tighten up control.

It seems sad, coming just days after folks at a Progressive Voters Alliance meeting had congratulated some of the intervenors, including the City and County. I hope the commissioners weren't acting in concert with the utility. I wonder if EPE will spend considerable sums to influence the results of local elections here. Electing commissioners and councillors who'd back off this intervention business could be real profitable.

Meanwhile, the Commission also looks poised to let Bowlin's sell fireworks. I hope Vasquez and Isabelle Solis recuse themselves from that vote. They might mean well, but collecting $2,500 in campaign money from Bowlin's, then voting for a dumb measure that would benefit Bowlin's, wouldn't look real good. 

During a local election in a rural county, $2500 is a lot of money. I hope EPE won't be asking what it buys.

                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 2 April, 2017, and also on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  KRWG also broadcasts a slightly shortened spoken version twice on Wednesday.]


[With regard to EPE's situation and rate-hike requests, see also Steve Fischmann's recent column
published in the Sun-News several days ago.  Some of the intervenors prepared a summary of issues with El Paso Electric.   This is the summary from February.  As that summary notes,

"EPE is a sophisticated, publicly traded corporation valued at nearly two billion dollars.  It has enormous resources at its disposal and a shareholder expectation that corporate managers will maximize profits. This is what EPE is doing, relentlessly and without shame, in every position it takes throughout the regulatory process."

Maximizing profits is, of course, exactly what a corporation's job is.  So EPE's highly-paid lawyers and press people are doing their job, full-time, to spin stories their way and camouflage or ignore facts that don't fit their version of events.  That's what they are supposed to do.   Meanwhile the PRC is not necessarily a group that will investigate fully and discover the well-hidden holes in EPE's reasoning.  The PRC does have staff; but it's important than when a $2 billion corporation is spending time and resources to make things look one way, we ought to have at least someone to examine the corporation's version of events and point out errors that could save customers money.  We'd sure like the County to continue participating in that effort.]

[With regard to Commissioners Soils and Vasquez and the fireworks issue, I do not mean to cast aspersions.  I'm not accusing them of anything.  I do not contend that they are legally required to recuse themselves.  On the other hand, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask public servants to go above and beyond the minimum legal requirements with regard to ethics.  I understand we'll never consistently get that level of ethical conduct from folks running for higher office; but we could try to ask it of local office-holders.]

[NOTE: Allen Downs has pointed out that while my column "focuses on County intervention in rate cases, but the point we interveners tried to make at the County Commission meeting is that it is important for the County to be involved in the cases that precede a rate case. It is during these other cases (renewable energy, Energy efficiency, IRP, CCN) where the decisions to spend money are made.  By the time a rate case rolls around most of the spending decisions have been made and the issue being decided is which expenses can be charged to rate payers and which rate group will pay what share of the increase (in the last rate case it was also determined that rate payers should NOT pay some of the expenses EPE was asking for, thus reducing the overall increase amount)."  In other words, the issue is much wider than merely rate cases; and (in my view) the fact that there are a variety of other varieties of cases, some of which may superficially appear insignificant, heightens the importance of allowing for the more flexible procedure in which the County can intervene without a formal commission vote.  County manager must report at each meeting of any intervention-related developments.  Commission retains control, of course.  If the commission disagrees with an intervention, it can vote to withdraw the intervention, limit it to particular aspects of the case, or simply not to file any substantive papers after the notice of intervention.  Much safer.]

The Undefeated - a Visit with Merrie Lee Soules

I had lunch with Merrie Lee Soules recently.

She wasn't wallowing in whatever pain she felt over losing a hard-fought Congressional Race to the oil-and-gas funded incumbent. 

She was already working on her direct testimony before the PRC opposing El Paso Electric's continued efforts to game the system in ways that cost you and me. EPE has plenty of money and plenty of lawyers. Citizens and customers have the City, the County, and four intervenors. She's one. EPE is expected to seek extra money for additional power plants. One source alleges that EPE has overcharged $100 million on fuel costs in the past three years. 

Ms. Soules spoke not of where she'd been but where we New Mexicans are going. She expressed concern that the Democratic legislature might be too accustomed to playing defense, and not quite ready to pass all the right measures and worry later about whether the lame-duck governor vetoes some of them. Or all of them. And she was a fount of useful ideas to get our economy going again.

These included taking full advantage of our potential as an international crossroads, rather than quivering in fear because we live near a border; ending oil and gas subsidies; getting money circulating to improve the economy, partly by improving the minimum wage; and legalizing marijuana, a much discussed boon to New Mexico's economy.

When I finally asked about the campaign, her beaming face confirmed her words, that she had “no regrets” – except that failing to win might have “let down” some folks. “It was a new adventure every day.”

What did she learn?

 “My heart really is in southern New Mexico.” She marveled at “how vast, how beautiful, and how diverse this district is.” She added that the campaign experience was so rich and varied, “I wished we could make a reality TV show out of it.”

What moments stood out?

The All-Pueblo Council of Governors. It struck her that “in this meeting of nations, there are the heads of sovereign nations meeting together to work together in the interest of their people, their culture, their lands. What an amazing privilege to be there!” 

A Mescalero Apache woman invited her to a Feast / Celebration. The day before the parades and dancing her guide escorted her into teepees and arbors set up to celebrate five young girls reaching womanhood. Ms. Soules was introduced to people and helped to understand what was going on and why. 

In Rodeo, a small boot-heel community, “There was a convention of 200 people there, to celebrate the life of a recently deceased herpetologist. They'd been out all day gathering samples. The main presentation concerned snake venom research.” 

She said that pretty much everyone she met while campaigning was deeply committed to doing the right thing for New Mexico – whatever they thought that might be. “We had big differences of opinion; but it wasn't good and bad, black and white. Everyone seemed intent on doing the best for their community and state – as they conceive it.”

She found our Congressional District “filled with people who have stories to tell, fascinating people, good people. It's been a blessing.”

Our talk increased my regret that we'd all lost the opportunity to have Ms. Soules representing us in Washington. (Vastly underfunded, she carried this county handily, but lost the election decisively.) That's our loss. She's a tough-minded businesswoman with a big heart, with our interests foremost.

The fact that she's wasting no time and is already deeply involved in her next fight on our behalf only illustrates the magnitude of our loss.

                                                      -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News (or so I assume, not having wandered out to the mailbox yet) this morning, Sunday, 27 November 2016, and will appear presently on the newspaper's website and the KRWG-TV website.]

Last Thoughts before Tuesday

We're hearing coyotes again, howling furiously before dawn and after sunset. Fewer hummingbirds are wintering over this year. The golden eagle visited with us for an hour Saturday. None care about the election; many humanoids don't either, for understandable reasons; but it will affect all of us.

Either you see the many serious ways that Donald Trump is an inappropriate and dangerous Presidential candidate or you don't. The lengthy New York Daily News editorial lists the grim facts better than I could.

Clinton is surely imperfect, but she's highly competent and experienced. And her girlish idealism still shines through sometimes.

Many decent people feel so aggrieved by their lives that they'll accept Trump's racism and sexism because he's a giant middle-finger they can give the system. If the system ain't working for you, why not toss in a huge monkey wrench? Mainstream Democrats and Republicans should learn from the huge support that folks gave a septuagenarian socialist from Vermont and a greedy, narcissistic TV clown from New York.

But Donald can only compound our problems.

A vote for Gary Johnson (a Koch Brothers' dream) or Jill Stein is a vote to risk a Trump Presidency that would set us back years. It's a vote for sexism and ethnic prejudice. It's a vote to keep ignoring climate change, and let corporations do as they like with our air, land, and water. (I wish hummingbirds and eagles could vote!)

James Comey's October surprises shouldn't influence you. There was no criminal prosecution over Hillary's emails because no one had intended to betray the U.S. or pass classified material to enemies. That won't change because the FBI reviews Anthony Weiner's copies of emails the FBI has probably seen already. 

Sure, Hillary violated a rule – as had previous secretaries of state; but Donald's whole life is a tapestry of greedy rule-bending, bankruptcies that hurt people, and prosecutions for racist actions. And he faces an imminent trial for defrauding students with the Trump University scam. 

I urge you to vote for Merrie Lee Soules. She'd be a breath of fresh air in Congress. 

Closer to home, Susana Martinez, Jay McCleskey, the oil and gas industry, and their allies are trying to give Martinez a pliable Legislature that will do her bidding without any critical thinking. Sadly, that's how the Republicans have behaved for six years. Unless you like her style – avoiding key issues and playing politics, without even trying to keep the State's credit rating from going down – you might wish to vote for the Democrats for the Legislature. 

There are strong reasons to defeat each of those Republican legislative candidates. Terry McMillan, reportedly a fine doctor, not only does the bidding of oil and gas but shortchanges us on a key part of the job, interim committees, because of the demands of his medical practice. Democrat Joanne Ferrary has a history of public service and is capable and experienced. McMillan's approval of the smear campaign against her is another point against him.

Democrat Nathan Small is a wonderful person capable of representing this area with particular integrity and ability, while his opponent, incumbent Andy Nuñez, faces a serious ethics investigation and seems to be compounding his problems with his frenetic efforts to deny everything and repeatedly amend his financial reports. 

Rudy Martinez was a strong representative in District 39. Current incumbent John Zimmerman follows the oil and gas playbook and gets terrible ratings on conservation. 

County offices? As I wrote weeks ago, I voted for Republican treasurer candidate Jill Johnson and Democrat Scott Krahling for clerk.

But whomever you like, do vote!

                                                  -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 6 November 2016, and on the newspaper's website, as well as (presently) the the KRWG-TV website.]

[I won't add a bunch of further comments here.  I do urge folks to vote for Merrie Lee Soules for Congress, Mark D'Antonio for District Attorney, and John Vasquez for the County Commission.  Ms. Soules mixes a businesswoman's skills with a progressive's heart, while the less said about her opponent, Congressman Steve Pearce, the better.  I don't know John Vasquez well, but he seems a solid sort of fellow, progressive but independent.]
[I think Hillary will win, both here and nationally; but FBI Director Comey's October Surprise has helped make it close.  While I understand the impulse to vote for an outsider, any outsider, rather than conventional leaders from the two political parties, I do fear a Trump Presidency.  Add his incompetence to his temperament, narcissm, greed, and impulsiveness, and you have a pretty poor choice to deal with the many problems of the world.    Add to that the folks around him -- from the "Alt-Right" extremist wing of the Republican Party -- and you have a mix for disaster, particularly if we also have a Republican Congress.  Too, we would get a disastrously one-sided Supreme Court and lose valuable time to mount a last-minute challenge to the worst effects of global weirdness.   It would also (although many, many Trump supporters are non-violent and non-haters) give license to some of the worst and most xenophobic elements of our society.  Further, the Russia connection is not a joke.  Putin is not only the leader of a major country we need to keep in check, but he's a vicious and greedy dictator who's stifled dissent and robbed his own people blind.  That Trump admires him is a further clue to Trump's own character; and that Putin is actively supporting Trump is significant.  I don't think he and Trump have talked to each other or connived together or anything; but I can guarantee Putin ain't supporting Trump because he has our national interest or the world's welfare at heart.  (If you haven't followed this, here's a recent piece on thehill.com called Why Putin Helps Trump and What It Means.  I have found thehill a useful source recently, because it has contributors from all over the political landscape, including some passionate supporters of Mr. Trump.  Some of its contributors infuriate me.  Some are highly credentialed.)  Whether Mr. Putin sees in Mr. Trump a kindred spirit who can be led if you play him the right way (which I see too) or simply fears Hillary I can't say; but Putin's clear interest in having us elect Trump is one more good reason not to!]

[And, again, the Democrats have a quite good set of folks running for the Statehouse.  The Republicans have folks who range from "mediocre but well-meaning" to outright bad; and what they have in common is a commitment to oil and gas (and similar) interests at the expense of the environment and the interests of average voters like you and me.]

[I just noticed that the Sun-News endorsed Pearce this morning.  (Note later in the day: my wife reminds me that this endorsement was made a few weeks ago, just reprinted today; I must have noticed it the first time -- although I've been awfully busy.  Senior moment, maybe?)  Much as I like and respect the Editorial Board (at least, two members I know and work with; I have no positive or negative opinion of the third, whom I haven't met), and grateful as I am to be a columnist, I obviously disagree, and inserted an on-line comment.  The Sun-News emphasizes that Pearce keeps getting elected and that he has more experience in Congress than Soules. 
Initially, the editorial is a little dishonest on one point.  The editorial purports to explain "why he keeps getting re-elected" but omits the key reason, which is the massive bankroll he gets from oil and gas and other such interests, from inside the district and elsewhere. 
As to experience, if I were trying to get to Santa Fe I'd prefer a relatively inexperienced driver over one who would capably drive me to Phoenix instead, and smoke in the car the whole way. Pearce's conduct regarding the budget (and being willing to stop the government, costing us a lot of money, to make a political statement he knows will be ineffective) shows the nation's interest and ours are not at the top of his priority list, and it ain't fiscal conservatism.  Further, Pearce is in effect a climate-change denier, following the old tobacco industry playbook by saying perpetually that "we need more study of the issue" then bringing in completely unqualified and discredited hacks to pretend they're scientists and spout the oil-and-gas script.   (Pearce also appears to be Trump supporter who's a little appalled by Trump but hasn't the political guts to say so.)
I don't know what the Sun-News folks were thinking of, but it's hard to believe good government was a major criteria.  But of course, I'd vote for my cat or a stray coyote against Pearce.]

A Vote for Merrie Lee Soules is a Vote for Southern New Mexico

U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce's extremism is out-of-step with his constituents, while Merrie Lee Soules promises us vigorous, competent, and thoughtful representation in Washington. 

Mr. Pearce consistently lets his ideological views outweigh our interest. He helped shut down the government, costing taxpayers at least $20 million*, simply to make a political statement he knew would fail, although Pearce poses as a prudent fiscal conservative. Even most Republicans in Washington can't stomach the nuttiness of Pearce and the “Freedom Caucus.” [* A friend informs me I was too kind to Pearce here, and that the official estimate by the Office of Management and Budge was that this senseless shutdown in 2013 cost us $2 billion.]

For someone who's taken an oath to defend the Constitution, he's way too cozy with the Bundys and others who oppose Constitutional federalism, sometimes violently, and put their personal interests above the public's.

The well-armed Bundy Bunch took over Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon last year. Already in default on public grazing leases, the Bundys wanted the refuge “returned to the state” so ranchers could do as they wished with it. (The group's slogans about freedom reduce to grabbing ranchers' freedom at the expense of birders', hikers', and environmentalists' freedoms.) That Malheur was federal land -- with authorities trying to balance the interests of campers, hikers, hunters, ranchers, and environmentalists -- meant nothing, because the Bundys loath the U.S. Government.

So, it seems, does Pearce, who voiced sympathy with the takeover: "[P]eople in the West are furious. They're furious going into this situation. We're fed up." (But he said he was “not taking sides on the Bundys”!)

In 2011, Pearce backed Otero County's dangerous and futile challenge to the U.S. Government's Constitutionally granted power to manage federal lands. Otero County threatened to “treat” 1,500 acres of National Forest, and to arrest any U.S. official who interfered.

Wyoming had unsuccessfully made the same weak argument to U.S. appellate courts in 2002. But Pearce egged these guys on, echoing their contempt for the U.S. Government and the Constitution. The U.S. sensibly caved on a minor point to avoid threatened violence, then won handily in the courts. Pearce irresponsibly boasted of his participation and encouraged “other local areas” to emulate Otero County – days before the Court of Appeal summarily trashed Otero County's legal arguments.

These are odd positions to take when you've sworn allegiance to the United States. The quaint legal positions of the Sovereign Movement make little sense and have been rejected by the courts. Even the Bundys, now being tried for their crimes, are mighty silent about their ideology. If I were a misguided “patriot” facing criminal charges, wonder how I'd feel about Pearce egging me on from the safety of the sidelines – then making political capital out of my passion?

Pearce's politics also trump his decency: Trump disparages Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, and Pearce has called Trump's comments on women “horrid,” yet Pearce supports Trump. He tries to save face with his constituents by claiming he doesn't “endorse” Trump, but merely “supports” him – whatever that means. More double-talk.

He says he can't support Hillary Clinton because of Benghazi. Pearce and his conservative pals cut budgets, endangered diplomats' security, then made Clinton their scapegoat.

Merrie Lee Soules is forthright, hard-working, and constructive. She's already fighting for us: her intervention in the El Paso Electric rate case helped save us millions. 

Soules brings progressive values and decades of real-world business experience to the possible job of representing us in Congress. She'll carry Las Cruces, and may appeal as well to politically moderate businesspersons who might be ready to exchange Pearce's costly shenanigans for a more thoughtful, evidence-based approach. 

Let's elect someone who'll fight for us, not banks and oil companies; who combines progressive values with business sense; and who weighs evidence rather than obeying ideological biases.

                                                        -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News and other newspapers today, Sunday, October 16, as well as on the newspaper's website and  on KRWG-TV's website.  I welcome comments, questions, and criticism here and/or on those sites.]

[I should note that I left messages for Mr. Pearce early Monday, inviting him to comment for the column, but never heard back from anyone.  There are questions I'd have liked to ask him, and I'd have liked to give him an opportunity to address what obviously seem to me problems with his candidacy; but his previous comments on these matters are a matter of record.]

[I mention the Otero County incident.  Otero County -- perhaps with reason -- disagreed about forest management.  That was a matter within Federal discretion.  Some in Otero County disputed that, even disputed Federal jurisdiction, and threatened to take action -- which could have led to violence.  The Feds compromised by allowing Otero County to take down some trees in a public "kickoff event," but only within a small area where the Feds had already marked some trees to be taken down.  This avoided potential violence while the case moved swiftly through the courts.
Pearce left no doubt where he stood: in a piece published in The New Mexican on September 26, 2011, he urged other local governments to "follow Otero County's lead so as to regain an alleged 20,000 logging jobs he claimed were lost when the spotted owl was listed as an endangered species."  His piece explained the law and the facts in somewhat idiotic fashion:

1. Despite the unambiguous Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, Pearce pontificated that "I  have continually said that forest management can only be done successfully if local government is an equal with the federal government."
FACT: The Supremacy Clause, for easy reference, reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives . . . both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

In short, legally the local government is not an equal to the federal government with regard to managing public lands.  The Constitution says so pretty clearly, adding that people in Pearce's position must support that Constitution.

2. Pearce wrote, "Recent events in Otero County prove that local governments are more than capable of managing their lands.  Their plan was legal and . . . initiated what will hopefully be the renewal of the timber industry in New Mexico . . . If we can get local governments to take the initiative and tell the federal government that enough is enough."
FACT: Some of his pals and allies threatened violence.  Had the Federal Government been less patient, people might have died or been injured.  Perhaps innocent people would have been hurt.  Showing more good-sense than Pearce and his pals, the Feds agreed under pressure to let Otero County officials do a symbolic "kickoff" in a one-acre parcel where the Feds had already marked trees for cutting.  Then the Feds quickly consulted the courts.

3. Pearce added "[T]he U.S. Constitution specifies which powers are given to the federal government.  The 10th Amendment of the Constitution states that all powers not given to the federal government belong to the states and to the people.  The right to determine how the forest should be managed belongs to states, counties or the people.  It is a local issue that directly affects our homes, our communities, and our safety."

FACT: Four days later, the 10 Circuit Court of Appeal rejected these arguments on summary judgment.  That means the court didn't even have to bother with an actual trial.  Pearce's legal arguments were that lame.  He should have known (must have known?) those arguments weren't an accurate statement of the law, because the 10th Circuit had tossed out exactly the same arguments in a 2002 case where Wyoming sued the U.S. (showing more cool-headed judgment right there than Pearce and his pals did), claiming the right to vaccinate elk to protect local herds of cows from bruccellosus.   The 10th Circuit explained that the Supremacy Clause means what it says.
So the question remains, why did Pearce incite and encourage all this anti-governmental rhetoric, which wasted court time and resources and could have wasted a few lives, when he must have known it was all legally frivolous?  (I assume he knew that because I give him credit for being smart enough to talk to a lawyer; but perhaps I err.)]

[Pearce also backed the recent Malheur Refuge takeover, at least implicitly.

It's worth recalling the "cause" that the Bundys and Pearce used to justify action: local ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond had set a fire to protect their land from an approaching fire, and had thereby damaged federal land (and endangered firefighters they knew were nearby).  Mandatory sentence for their conduct was five years' imprisonment.  A friendly judge reduced Dwight's five years to three months (and reduced Steven's I forget how much), which federal courts later rejected.
I loathe mandatory minimums.  Reading the account, it's easy at first to sympathize with the Hammonds; but the 2006 fire was their second known arson, as they had also started a fire (on federal property or their own, depending on whose view you buy) that burned 139 acres of public land.

Further, the elder Hammond apparently had assaulted a federal refuge staffer in 1994; had made death threats for years against refuge managers; repeatedly violated terms of permits and moved herds across the refuge without giving the requisite advance notice; often allowed his cattle to trespass on refuge streams for days, trampling new willow trees that crews had just planted; and evaded serious jail time only because of the intervention by the local Republican congressman.

In January 2016, Pearce voiced sympathy with the takeover, without actually condoning it: "[P]eople in the West are furious.  They're furious going into this situation.  Now I'm not taking sides on the Bundys.  I think that's a sideshow.  I think the Hammonds are the ones who have been badly treated, and that's what we're expressing in the West.  We're fed up."  It's worth noting that the tone and substance are sympathetic with the Bundy's, who are at that point committing crimes against the U.S. Government Pearce supposedly serves; and "I'm not taking sides on the Bundys" states flatly that he refuses to take the side of the U.S. Government against criminals. (Note that he did not say "I'm not taking the Bundy's side" or "I'm not taking sides with the Bundys.")

On January 7. 2016, Steve Pearce released a statement on the Malheur Refuge takeover stressing that "we understand their frustration with increasingly heavy-handed federal agencies that continue to violate the rights of hardworking American farmers and ranchers.  He stated that he did not condone the takeover; but as far as I can tell, he certainly didn't urge the out-of-state ranchers to abandon their illegal control of the Oregon refuge. 

At a NM Cattle-Growers Association meeting, a Pearce ally said of these eventa, "Two men accidentally burned 140 acres of tumblewoods and they are in prison in Oregon for five years mandatory for setting the fire." Pearce himself spoke moments later, saying "we are in a fight for our lives," adding that the government will not and cannot secure the border, they do not desire to secure it, and they have not secured it."
[FACT: the border protection is working much better than it did in the past.]]

[Few sane citizens realize there's actually a "Sovereign Movement" which holds that for some arcane legal reason having to do with the paperwork ending the Civil War, elected county sheriffs are actually the highest legitimate law-enforcement officers in the nation.  (Some county sheriffs tend to like that idea, and I learned about this stuff while I was looking into our previous sheriff's hiring of a gentleman named Seeberger.)


[If I were a Bundy cohort, or misguided patriot, pleading guilty to a crime, how would I feel about Steve Pearce egging me on from a safe spot on the sidelines -- then making political capital out of my passion and anger?]

As a citizen of this Congressional District I'll vote for Merrie Lee Soules with great delight.  She's so superior to Pearce that one friend of mine, after witnessing their recent debate in Las Cruces, said he "almost felt sorry for Pearce."  She's a longshot.  Pearce has an abundance of money from banks and oil and gas companies and the National Rifle Association.  But each vote counts.  And Pearce's support for Trump, who appalls even most Republicans, ought to weaken his credibility, particularly here.

Fight for "Customer Choice"

Help save us all money!

El Paso Electric (EPE) wants a humongous rate increase: initially $8.6 million, dropped to $6.4 million.

Recently, a hearing examiner's proposed decision (PD) recommended giving EPE about one-tenth of that, $640,000.

That was good. Credit intervenors, including U.S. Congressional candidate Merrie Lee Soules, One-Hour Air-Conditioning, and our City, County, and Attorney-General. 

But the PD, apparently a huge victory for customers, would actually be a devastating and expensive loss if allowed to stand! 

The relatively “small” overall increase is actually a huge increase to residential customers and a decrease for some large customers. Worse, most of the residential increase is to a “customer charge” that even the smallest customers pay, regardless of usage. Our poorest citizens get hit hardest.

Part of the reason we get hosed, and big companies get a decrease, is that they have a Time of Use rate and we don't. EPE determines rates mainly based on customers' “peak usage”; but while big customers can cut back to save on peak, EPE discourages residential customers from decreasing their peak-time usage. EPE doesn't give them a clear signal that shifting usage will save money. 

Each of us needs to write or call the PRC seeking “Customer Choice.”

Intervenors have proposed a wholly voluntary Customer Choice pilot program limited to 4% of EPE's customers. Customers could use less energy at peak times and save money, the way large users can. Demonstrating that we could adjust our usage would help both our wallets and our environment. 

Why would EPE oppose Customer Choice? Because if EPE can keep “peak usage” very high, it can sell the PRC on the idea that EPE needs to build additional huge (and wasteful) power plants so as to be able to supply the “peak usage” needed on the highest-usage day of the year. If usage gets evened out more, there's no such excuse. 

We're talking big money: EPE says it will build $1.1 billion in new assets over the next five years, possibly raising rates 40% – all to hit the “peak usage” need that doesn't have to occur! We're also talking urgency: EPE will file its next rate increase in early 2017.

Only by implementing the Customer Choice pilot program NOW can we help stave off this madness, by showing that many customers, if allowed, will choose to save money by washing and drying their clothes at a non-peak usage times. If we can't implement it now, we can't demonstrate that it works in time to forestall huge capital expenditures by EPE for unnecessary new power plants that we'll be paying for for decades.

It's a mystery why the hearing examiner proposes to deny us Customer Choice. The pilot program would be a small, sensible effort to gather accurate information. EPE might not want accurate information that could show its additional power plants would be a waste of money; but why should the hearing examiner or the PRC – our employees – oppose it? 

The PD claimed that there wasn't sufficient detail in the record; but Intervenors supplied huge boxes of data, including four years' worth of analysis, extensive data, and a detailed rate schedule!

The County Commission – led by Chairman Wayne Hancock and Billy Garrett – gave county attorneys clear orders to fight this; the City is doing the same. Please add your voice to the chorus!

My blog post today has further information and the Commission's address; but at least email and call Commissioner Sandy Jones at (505) 827-4531 / Sandy.Jones@state.nm.us. 

Ask that we be allowed to show what we can do. We need Customer Choice.

                                                           -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 28 February, and will appear later on the KRWG-TV website.  You may comment directly on this blog-post, on www.lcsun-news.com by clicking on Opinion and looking for this column, which will be under a different headline;, or by clicking on News then Local Viewpoints on the KRWG site.  I welcome comments, questions, and criticism.]

Please write:
Public Regulation Commission
1120 Paseo de Peralta
PERA Building
P.O. Box 1269
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Please call or email :
Karen L. Montoya    (505) 827-8015   KarenL.Montoya@state.nm.us
Patrick Lyons            (505) 827-4531   Patrick.Lyons@state.nm.us
Valerie Espinoza       (505) 827-4533   Valerie.Espinoza@state.nm.us
Lynda Lovejoy          (505) 827-8019   Lynda.Lovejoy@state.nm.us
Sandy.Jones               (505) 827-8020     Sandy.Jones@state.nm.us

Tell them "Customer Choice" makes sense for EPE's customers -- and for the environment -- and that it's only fair!

Mr. Jones is "our" Commissioner.  I'd suggested calling him, if you just call one; and if you send an email, direct it to him but "cc" the others.
[You might also "cc" County Commission Chairman Wayne Hancock and/or Mayor Miyagashima, to express support for their interventions, which helped decrease the rate increase 93% from what EPE filed for.]
[But the PD retains or even strengthens the unfairness of EPE's rates.  And I can only tell you that the closer you look, the worse EPE's conduct here smells!]

Vote! . . . . . . . . . . . Our Recent Primary

            If elections were graded, we’d fail.

            Most Doña Ana County voters would get suspended for non-attendance.  

            Some non-voter's say there's no one worth voting for; but that wasn't true here.  Merrie Lee Soules was an extraordinary candidate for the PRC, which matters to the average person far more than s/he imagines.   Alan Webber and Howie Morales both impressed me a good deal, and Lawrence Real seemed extraordinarily knowledgeable about how this state should be governed.   The race for county sheriff included at least three good candidates.

            And each vote does matter.  In the last general election, Joanne Ferrary lost to Terry McMillan by just eight votes, and this week Bill Gomez appears to have unseated long-time Representative Mary Helen Garcia by nine.   

            Equally fatuous is the excuse that the lines are long.   Where we voted, there were six or eight voting booths, all unoccupied.  (Admittedly, it wasn't lunch-time or after work.)

            If only this newspaper could eliminate from the “Sound Off” and “Letters to the Editor” communications from folks who don't vote!

            We did stumble into some correct decisions.   

            Norm Osborne consistently seemed a great candidate for Magistrate Judge; and when I saw him at the Democratic Party's forum, he stood out for his judicial bearing and his recognition that “Patience, patience, patience!” was the key to the job he sought.   Credit Rick Wellborn for campaigning hard to retain the seat Governor Martinez gave him.   This was another close race; and without any disrespect to Mr. Wellborn, I think we got it right.   

            I feel the same way about our retention of Beverly Singleman.   Next to Osborne, she seemed the most judge-like and patient among the candidates I saw at that forum.

            Writing this Wednesday, I don't know who'll face incumbent Ben Hall for a seat on the PRC.

            We may have allowed Sandy Jones to win the nomination through a flood of false and stupid advertising.  (He had plenty of money, of course, while Soules was limited by the public-financing option.  We don't yet know how much of Jones’s money came from industry folks who recall his deference to industry, and his lukewarm reaction to renewable energy, when he sat on the PRC.)

            In time-honored fashion, he found a uniquely tired-looking photo of Soules.  His charge that she was a poor candidate because GM recently recalled cars is like rejecting a candidate who served in the Viet Nam war because that war didn't go very well.  She had a responsible position in a huge organization, but she didn't make decisions about whether to put plants in Mexico, nor was she responsible for GM's overall production.   Yes, she worked for GM in Juarez for three years; but she didn't decide to put the plant there and at least during her tenure with GM, the plant observed the more stringent U.S. safety standards, regardless of local standards.   She never managed a GM plant in Mexico; she had nothing to do with the electronic ignition switches that caused the recent recall; and Jones’s ads showed a document she signed in 1996, as if it were relevant, that in fact concerned “Character Standard for Machine Vision Verification of Devices Used on Electrical Centers.”  (I'm guessing that Jones, like me, couldn't even tell you what that means.)

            On issues, qualifications, and record, Soules was a much stronger candidate, so credit Jones for using what he could to prevail.  If politics is a barroom brawl, he done good.  Unfortunately, his Republican opponent may argue that there were questions (fairly or unfairly) about Jones's ethics before the election, and that his misleading ads answer those questions eloquently.

            Jones might well be a better choice than Hall in the general election.  I haven't yet formed an opinion on that.  But Soules was what we all say we want, a new and honest voice, a non-politician with a high degree of competence and an open mind, an engineer and businesswoman.  If she wins, she'll be a far superior choice to Hall.

            Similarly King would probably be a better governor than Martinez has been.  (Unfortunately, so would our cat.)   He won not because of his accomplishments or brilliant ideas but because of his name – and that's the foundation for his claim that he'd be a stronger candidate than Webber in November.   That's practical politics, but damned sad.   

            I think any of 'em would be a long-shot.  Martinez will likely win, despite her poor record.  But Webber offered new ideas, and he hasn't spent his life in politics.  He seemed a refreshing choice for a state that’s seen too many Richardsons and Martinezes. He also came from nowhere politically, and ran a good race.   And I hope Morales takes another shot in four years.   

            Maybe the low turnout was just a result of there being (at least where I voted) no pretty stickers with which to announce one’s virtue.
                                               -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday,  8 June, under a title that suggested that I objected to results of the election.  I guess I did disagree with a couple of results, but I meant mostly to criticize non-participation.  Nor did I intend to suggest -- as folks so often do -- that results I didn't like were caused by non-voting.  I get tired of hearing that the "real" [but evidently non-voting] County dislikes progressives, didn't want a Monument, etc.]
[I received a flurry of email discussing the possibility of writing in Ms. Soules's name in the general election between Ben Hall and Sandy Jones for PRC commissioner.  I've been advised, but haven't actually checked, that the politicos in all their wisdom did away with the requirement to count such votes, except in an organized write-in-campaign for which the candidate has set on.  I regret that for two reasons: first, obviously, in a general election between two old-style candidates, a strong refusal to vote for either would make a useful statement; and, as a young reporter long ago, I always liked reporting after each election that Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse had gotten a few votes.]
[Looking ahead, I definitely do recommend voting for King rather than Martinez; and with regard to the PRC I guess I'll wait and see if Jones [or Hall, perhaps] articulates a really compelling reason to vote for him over his opponent.  If I don't hear one, I'll leave that line blank.  In an ideal election, while hundreds of thousands of voters turned out, and voted in other races, King would beat Martinez by about 12 votes to six, and the PRC race would be a 3-3 tie, with each candidate getting his own vote and two from family-members.]
[Meanwhile, we have a host of other important races with candidates well worth supporting -- and a few where a good candidate faces no opposition.]