Steve Fischmann rather than Ben Hall for the PRC

Our choice between Steve Fischmann and Ben Hall for the Public Regulation Commission is clear.

Fischmann is a smart former state senator who's spent years working for the public good on regulatory matters and fighting usurious interest charged by payday loan companies.

Hall, 82, has “good ol' boy” charm and a welcome bluntness. 

 

Fischmann understands our desperate need to use more renewables and for a functioning utility system that's fair to both the public and businesses – and considers environmental consequences.

Hall agrees we should move toward more renewables, but he's not so sure human activities have much to do with climate change.

Fischmann has a positive record as citizen, legislator, and businessman.

Hall's record is so full of financial and legal trouble that it won't all fit here. (Today's blog post has more details.)

Hall has littered his life with bankruptcies (one personal, and a business he denies he controls), liens (more than a dozen state and federal tax liens, and others filed by subcontractors or other creditors), and judgments. In 2015, Hall's ex-son-in-law won a $53,916.83 judgment against Hall, charging Hall never repaid a loan. Hall immediately declared bankruptcy. (Hall says the man lied, there was no loan, and Hall went bankrupt “so he wouldn't get a damned dime.”)

 

In 2013, the PRC paid $200,000 to Jocyln Gonzales, who in 2011 was standing by her car and was hit by a PRC vehicle Hall was driving. He admitted fault but said he was driving slowly.

Hall says the tax liens were forty years ago (despite significant liens in 1998 and 1999, and one in 2007 against Sierra Blanca Construction). He says Sierra Blanca Construction wasn't his company. (His wife and daughter were President and Secretary.) He added no one could be a contractor for forty years and not have some disputes. 

 

His 2014 PRC campaign apparently paid him and his lady friend. He reportedly claimed the Secretary of State had okayed paying himself. Secretary of State Dianna Durbin wrote him that Hall's campaign couldn't legally pay Hall. In October 2014 Hall told the Albuquerque Journal he paid Maria Cottom and himself $25 per hour, but paid himself only for campaign work after 5 or on weekends. To me, he said, “I didn't pay her any money, I didn't pay me any money,” and “I never paid anyone $25 per hour in my life, so I don't know where he got that.” The reporter stands by his stories, adding that Hall never sought or obtained a correction. 

 

Hall claims his initial campaign reports were wrong because “the girl who filled out my forms” was inexperienced. He says that once he filed amended reports omitting the self-payments, Durbin cleared him of wrongdoing. 

I also asked Hall if it was true that he gambles a lot at Casino Apache Travel Center. He replied, “I don't know as it's a lot,” adding, “I used my own money.”

Hall's extraordinary history of financial and legal difficulties doesn't qualify him to handle a bunch of our money, or make important public decisions. If he's “a thief and a liar” as one former adversary called him, that's a problem. If he's thoroughly honest but mismanages money, that's a problem. If it's all just bad luck, I'd still worry that his bad luck could affect the PRC. 

Fischmann's a strong candidate. Someone we need, as our climate changes. Hall's problems only make our choice even clearer. 

                                                    -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 21 October 2018, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL (101.5 FM).]


[Near as I can tell, Hall was untruthful or inaccurate with me on several points:

He said his tax liens were "40 years ago," which would be 1978.  In fact, he had tax liens in the 1980's and in 1991, 1992, 1998, and 1999; and Sierra Blanca Construction had one as recently as 1997.  (He denies that Sierra Blanca Construction is his company, and says he's just the qualified contractor.  His late wife, Wanda, and his daughter were listed as Sierra Blanca's President and Secretary, respectively.)  Hall's  one-time opponent, Bill McCamley, alleged that:

“ • From 1983-1998 there were 14 tax liens placed on Mr. Hall and his construction company totaling $356,233.89.

“ • 10 of these liens were for failure to pay Federal taxes, and 4 liens were for failure to pay State taxes.

“ … • From 1983-1998, there were 7 liens placed on Mr. Hall by individuals, subcontractors, and the Ruidoso State Bank totaling $112,681.59 for failure to pay for completed contracted services.]

[Hall denied paying himself or his significant other $25 per hour for campaign work in 2014.  He denied paying himself at all.  These statements contradict numerous campaign filings (eventually amended) with the New Mexico Secretary of State, a letter from the Secretary of State commenting on his paying himself, and his comments quoted in two 2014 Albuquerque Journal articles.

He denied making those comments, adding "I don't know where he got that."  The reporter, Thomas J. Cole, said the quotes were accurate, adding that Hall had not requested or received any kind of retraction or correction.  Further, the articles have indicia of accuracy.  "I don't see what the big damn deal is" is just the way Hall would phrase his response.  Secondly, there's an extra level of detail beyond what Cole would be unlikely to invent, in that he quotes Hall as saying he paid himself and Cottom but only paid himself for work after 5 p.m. or on weekends because of his PRC job.  It seems highly unlikely Cole would have thought to make that up.  He also quoted Hall as claiming the Secretary of State had told him it was legal to pay himself for campaign work.  (In a letter dated 29 October 2014, then Secretary of State Deanna Duran bluntly denied her office had told him any such thing.) That's another detail Cole wouldn't have likely invented.  (In addition, there were two separate articles . . ., suggesting more than one conversation -- without, apparently, any criticism of the first article; but that's my speculation.)  At any rate, Duran apparently absolved him of legal wrongdoing after the amendments.]


[Hall blamed the filings that mentioned payments to himself on "the girl who filled out my forms for me," saying that she was new and made mistakes.  That seems unlikely; and the filings persisted through several amendments, and correction was only made after the election and after earlier amendments (including Nov. 17 and Nov. 21] didn't make the change.  When he amend again on November 22, some put in entries claiming the payments to Cottom were reimbursements for expenses she'd paid.  But with other entries, there was no such change.  For example, the October 4 and 5 entries originally had payments of $500 (10/4) and $465 (10/5) to Hall and Cottom for "Campaign Work" (which at $25/hr. would have been 16 hours, or 8 apiece, of going from house to house campaigning).  The final amendment eliminates mention of Hall, keeps the amounts the same, and replaces "Campaign Work" with "Door-to-Door Advertising."  Unlike the 10/2 entry, for going door-to-door in Deming, where the entry switched from paying them both for "campaign work" to paying her but included the notes "Campaign Forum" and "paid to helpers," the 10/4 and 10/5 entries have the campaign paying her for going door-to-door  -- for 16 hours on the 5th and a little more than 12 on the 4th.  And the mention of the "forum" adds a new mystery.  The earlier entry seems to be paying him, in part, for attending the campaign forum.  But now with him out of the payment picture, the amount is the same, and part of what the campaign is paying for is her attendance at the forum.  A further amendment might be in order.

"The girl wasn't experienced and made mistakes" sounds a little like "the dog ate my homework"  -- or, as one of Grant and Tenya's grandkids had it on a T-shirt yesterday, "the unicorn ate my homework" -- and if I'd been employed at the secretary of state's office in 2014, I might have suggested an investigation. note: see below for images of the actual entries mentioned]

[He seems also to be lying either when he says he owns Sierra Blanca Construction or when he denies that!
In a 2018 candidate profile in the Albuquerque Journal, Hall says he "owned and operated a construction business for 40 years."  I think he's said that elsewhere.  And it seems probable: three construction companies, including Sierra Blanca, list as addresses either his residence or another address he's associated with.  (The other two are or were Hall Brothers Development, Inc. and ABC Building Corporation.)  To me, when I asked about Sierra Blanca's lien and bankruptcy, he said it wasn't his company, he was just the required "licensed contractor" associated with the business.  (His late wife was listed as the President and his daughter as the Secretary, I think.  He was not listed in the filings I saw.)   Without his years with Sierra Blanca Construction it's not clear how he'd have 40 years owning and operating a construction business. 
But maybe he lent his name to his wife's business, and worked for her a little, but also owned and operated something else for some of those years.]

2014 Second General Report -- October version

2014 Second General Report -- November 22 version

PRC II - Why I'll Vote for Steve Fischmann

Let's step back from the exaggerations and insults of political campaigns and imagine we're on the selection committee to pick between finalists for a job. Say, Sandy Jones and Steve Fischmann for Public Regulation Commissioner.

Both are smart and capable. Fischmann had a business career with Levi Strauss, then was a responsive and thoughtful state senator here. I met Jones years ago. He was congenial and clearly a problem-solver; and he's now had extensive experience as a PRC commissioner.

Whom I'd choose is related to the PRC's current situation (see last column) -- and not because I want to blame Chairman Jones for everything. Many problems preceded him, some are budget related, and others systemic. 

In my inexpert view, the key issues facing the PRC are: equalizing the conflict between huge utilities (and subcontractors) and ratepayers (and the public interest); moving rapidly toward greater use of renewables and a more distributed system; improving PRC morale; and increasing public trust in the Commission. 

On those, Fischmann seems the better choice. 

Fischmann advocates for the public (opposing usurious loan sharks), the environment, and PRC ratepayers. Jones has done some good things at the PRC but appears uncomfortably close to those he regulates. 

Jones criticizes Fischmann for contributions from intervenors, and also says Fischmann's campaign and independent PAC's collaborate illegally. Fischmann criticizes Jones for getting much of his campaign funding from folks who stand to benefit from PRC decisions, such as Affordable Solar. (The Secretary of State is referring these complaints to the AG. We may hear nothing before June 5.)

I'm not convinced either has broken the law; but given the tilted playing field that favors utilities, I'm less comfortable with Mr. Jones's contributors. Jones's campaign consultant in 2014 was a lobbyist for Affordable Solar. Jones recently voted to overturn a hearing examiner's conclusion that PNM and Affordable, without fair bidding, reached a deal that cost ratepayers too much. 

Jones says he favors solar. He's done some things to help make that happen, but also been instrumental in approving nonrenewable power plants that may not have been as necessary or sensible as the utilities convinced a PRC majority they were. Jones recognizes we're headed toward solar; but if I'm right that we're on the cusp of real change – a lot more renewables and decentralization, soon – I think Fischmann has the vision to help us get there. (Environmental groups, some from outside the state, concerned about climate change are contributing heavily to PAC's that support Fischmann. Jones says he's being significantly outspent. Ironically, he may well be.)

A National Regulatory Research Institute evaluation and some interviews indicate that morale is a serious problem. Part of that is funding (the Legislature's responsibility); but part of it is what the report calls perceived “lack of respect for staff by commissioners and others” and what another source says are too many decisions overruling hearing examiners in favor of utilities. And although I like Jones, I've heard very negative views from the (admittedly small sample of) people who've communicated with me. They may be malcontents; but his response to the NRRI evaluation is excessively defensive. I wish he'd let the Commission discuss the evaluation with the evaluator. 

It seems a time for change. Both men are effective. Fischmann recognizes the urgency of doing all we reasonably can do to diminish our collective energy footprint – and give ratepayers a fairer shake. And that's the job!

                                                -30-

[The above column appeared Sunday, 27 May 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (and streaming on www.lccommunityradio.org.)]

[Bottom line: I'll vote for Steve Fischmann, for the reasons stated in these two columns.  Also, here's something called the Energy and Policy Institute's take on this.] 

[I'm hoping to discuss some of the issues -- the PNM deal that's on appeal and the EPE proposal discussed below -- on my Wednesday morning radio show, "Speak Up, Las Cruces!" (on KTAL-LP) during at least part of the 9-10 a.m. hour with Mariel Nanasi, head of intervenor / watchdog New Energy Economy and a representative of Affordable Solar.  They'll both be telephone guests, which could make the traffic management a little complex, but I look forward to the discussion.  The 8-9 hour we'll discuss the various primary races.  Walt Rubel and I, and one or two others, and (I hope) phone calls from you, too.  (575) 526-KTAL (-5825)]

[Most recently, EPE has submitted a bid similar to the PNM bid that's on appeal.  New Energy Economy has intervened in protest.  Like the PNM deal -- in which PNM wanted the deal done on land it owned, so it could own the facility, and make a bigger profit by taking a percentage of the asset's value -- EPE would pay Affordable Solar a bunch of money to build the plant on its land.  A reasonable alternative would be to let independent power producers bid on supplying solar power through a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).  The Affordable Solar route is better for the utility; but the alternative would likely mean much lower rates for us.

What's the difference for you and me?  We can't know exactly; but EPE’s Affordable Solar 2 MW project would involve higher rates than the last Commission-approved solar project: In March 2018 the PRC approved Facebook’s  (non-utility owned) solar at $29.98 MWh.  Now, according to the "Notice of Proceeding and Hearing" filed by PRC Hearing Commissioner Ashley C. Schannauer this past Friday, the EPE’s Affordable Solar project is at $78.41/MWh.  Thus, it appears that rates estimated for the EPE’s Affordable Solar project will be 162% higher than the Facebook solar."  (How much "economies of scale" are a factor we don't know -- but we could if the bidding permitted PPA's.)  NEE says that five years ago, in EPE's First Solar project, an independent power producer sold generation to to EPE through a PPA at 57.90.MWh.  EPE didn't own the solar generation.  During the last five years, prices for solar have dropped considerably.  Yet the EPE’s Affordable Solar project (which it's now asking the PRC to approve) proposes rates 35% higher than EPE’s non utility owned First Solar Project five years ago. 

New Energy Economy calls this ridiculous and points out and lists three reasons for the "dramatic difference":  "1) the more the Investor Owned Utility charges the more profit it makes 2) [EPE and PNM pay their CEO's and senior management the highest] executive salaries in the State and these salaries are included in the price of generation costs, and 3) the IOUs are guaranteed a nearly 10% annual profit on all their assets, including generation assets."

NEE says "EPE's request for proposal (RFP) procurement process was rigged and anti-competitive against Independent Power Producers and their Power Purchase Agreements (PPA). Utilities should have to compete fairly against Independent Power Producers and their PPAs (contracts). If utilities can compete against these prices on an apples to apples comparison and win - more power to them. But they are not allowed to expand their monopoly and keep the Independent Power Producers out of the market place - that's anti-competitive and harms ratepayers because then ratepayers are not getting the lowest price available."  The nonprofit also points out that without competitive bidding from IPPs, we can't even know what the different options and costs would be.

 

"Independent Power Producers are satisfied with executive salaries in the $100,000 - $250,000 range not $4 or 5 million per year and they are satisfied with a 3-5% profit, not 10%. They are more often agile and trying to get the best price and reduce waste but for the utilities there is plenty of waste because there is an incentive to waste."]

The "Notice of Proceeding and Hearing" filed by EPE May 25, 2018, states in Paragraph 9 that "EPE estimates the levelized cost of the contract over the life of the project to be $78.31 per MWh."  (p. 4)

MERRIE LEE SOULES FOR PRC - HER OPPONENT'S RECORD MAKES THE CHOICE EASY!

PRC candidates Merrie Lee Soules and Sandy Jones present a sharp contrast.

Personally, I like them both.

I met Jones, a “good-old-boy” sort, while he was working for Sierra County. I was trying to solve a land problem there. He was cooperative, helpful, and quite knowledgeable.

I've heard Merrie Lee Soules speak several times, and have been impressed with what she said and how she said it. She appears thoughtful and knowledgeable.

Jones is “a New Mexico native” and Soules “grew up in Las Cruces.” 
 
But their qualifications, priorities, and reputations differ.

Jones has experience on the PRC. (He left in 2010 to run unsuccessfully for State Land Commissioner.) He's also run his own construction company in T or C for many years. While Soules spent much of her career elsewhere, Jones has remained in New Mexico continually.

Soules has extensive business experience, including 20 years as an executive with a division of General Motors. She also has an Electrical Engineering degree from Cleveland State and a Harvard MBA. Her background is an interesting mix of practical and theoretical. Soules has viewed the business and technical world from a variety of viewpoints, and likely has a broad perspective on issues.

Their priorities are clearly different.

Soules is a strong proponent of renewable energy, without short-changing the importance of oil and gas to New Mexico's economy. Her decades at GM suggest she's not some wide-eyed neophyte lacking practical business sense.

Jones is viewed as more of an “oil and gas man.” He's endorsed strongly by industry lobbyist Carla Sonntag. Folks whose top priority is maximizing utilities' profits and minimizing pesky environmental concerns apparently prefer Jones.

On the other side, former State Senator Steve Fischmann says he's consistently seen Jones “putting oil and gas interests over consumer welfare. He consistently voted to limit consumer access to cost-saving solar energy and threw up road blocks to energy efficiency proposals that would have resulted in a cleaner, less expensive electrical grid.” Not surprisingly, Fischmann backs Soules.

Former Commissioner Jason Marks recalls that he and Jones differed philosophically on whether the PRC's duty was merely “to keep industry within legal bounds” or “to promote policies in the public interest that the utilities might not be ready to adopt on their own.”

Jones “didn't support pushing utilities faster than they wanted to go.” Marks believed that solar “would be a huge part of New Mexico's future energy supply.” He and others sought to push the utilities to increase their involvement with renewable energy. Jones opposed them, and supported El Paso Electric. “He thought industry with its expertise should be permitted to make the decision. I believed we had a responsibility to look at the facts and come up with the public policies that were best,” commented Marks.

Marks notes that in 2007 New Mexico provided solar energy to about 60-100 homes. By the end of 2012, that number was more like 65,000 homes. Had Jones's position prevailed, the increase would have been a fraction of that.

Meanwhile, local Tea Partyists back Jones, perhaps because of his preference that the PRC defer more to the utilities.

Unfortunately, Jones is associated with a time when the PRC was so rife with scandal (and Commissioners so short on real qualifications) that in 2012 New Mexico voters enacted three reform measures.

Jerome Block committed crimes. David King (nephew of Bruce King) cost us $84,000 to settle a sexual harassment claim. Carol Sloan was convicted of felony assault but refused to leave office until the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered her to.

Jones was convicted of nothing.

Jones was criticized for hiring an assistant, Elizabeth Martin, who'd been convicted twice of embezzlement. He knew of the convictions, but praised “her work ethic.” (She must have had political connections most felons don't. Governor King pardoned her first conviction – and hired her as an administrative assistant. Ten years later she pled guilty to embezzlement again. Jones hired her two years after she was sentenced to months in prison and three years of supervised release. After complaints, Jones suspended her while the matter was referred to AG Gary King, but then reinstated her soon afterward, saying an AG ruling could take months.)

The hiring apparently wasn't illegal, although it didn't help repair the old PRC's reputation.

Folks who claim Jones was corrupt seem not to have first-hand knowledge or readily available evidence. Marks, who disagreed with Jones on some key issues, portrays Jones as “principled” and “caring about the State,” and says he believes Jones acted on his view of what would be best for the state. I discount the statements by unknown persons we can't cross-examine concerning Mr. Jones, as well as those suggesting we blame Ms. Soules for the fact that GM is recalling a lot of automobiles.

These two candidates who represent two very different points-of-view and backgrounds. Each may appeal strongly to one group or another.

The main points are that the PRC matters, and your vote matters.
                                                          -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, May 25th -- and treats Mr. Jones far more kindly than it would if I wrote it today.]
[Update 27May2014: the Albuquerque Journal and the Las Cruces Sun-News have now endorsed Ms. Soules in this important but often overlooked race.]
[Early Saturday evening our neighbor dropped by with a leaflet from Merrie Lee Soules.  Our neighbor had read it, thought Ms. Soules looked like a potential breath of fresh air on the PRC, and wondered what we thought.
Moments later I went out to the mailbox.  It contained a flyer from Sandy Jones.  The difference between the two flyers would tell any knowledgeable person all we need to know about why it's terribly important to vote for Ms. Soules, and keep Mr. Jones away from the PRC.
The Soules flyer is primarily about why she's a good bet for us.  She does truthfully state (as does my column, more or less) that "At one time four out of the five commissioners, including  current candidate Sandy Jones, were facing criminal charges or engaged in other questionable behavior."
The Jones flyer not only makes a stupid and misleading attack on Ms. Soules but says things about himself that are comically misleading to anyone with any knowledge.
On one side, he says Ms. Soules spent ten years managing a GM plant in Mexico and implies that (a) she did so to avoid worker-protection and U.S. wages and (b) somehow had the power to make that decision for G.M.
Among his howlers about himself, e writes that while on the PRC he "wrote the most aggressive renewable energy standards in the nation."  Even if he can show some tenuous connection to literal truth, this claim regarding renewable energy is a cynical joke when he knows he had his foot on the brakes as hard as he could.   
Meanwhile his suggestion that Ms. Soules is against worker protection and reasonable wages is thoroughly misleading.]

Some important aspects of Jones's record at the PRC

When Ms. Soules refers to the “old” PRC it's not necessary to any defined corruption, but to a way of doing business that needed to change.

If you read articles from back when Jones and the others were on the board, the PRC didn't operate in the way we'd want to – so much so that there was one proposed amendment to abolish it.

Four years ago, the PRC either violated the open-meetings law or used a loophole to evade it's purposes in a just-barely-legal way. The members met, sequentially, one at a time, with the Insurance Commissioner. There's no question they discussed public business. There's no question that having each discuss something in turn with one of their number, or another person, is legally as impermissible as having a joint discussion. There's no question that they supervised the Insurance Commissioner.

They claimed, though, that because the subject of discussion wasn't directly within their jurisdiction, they didn't violate the law. This was never legally tested, as far as I know. But Jason Marks, even then, said they were doing wrong. “My position on this is that even if we meet the legal requirements of [the Open Meetings Act] and IPRA [Inspection of Public Records Act], that shouldn't be our standard. Our standard should be to be as open as possible,” he was quoted as saying in 2010.

Sandy Jones said no such thing.

Jones did apparently take the lead in the PRC's effort to muzzle whistleblowers who leaded information embarrassing to the PRC but of public interest.

In September 2010, Jones pursued efforts to identify and fire the employee he believed had leaked an audit report published by the Santa Fe Independent. New Mexico Foundation for Open Government called his actions illegal. “Retaliation against such a person would be extremely unwise – if they win in court, they are entitled to double back pay, among other things,” NM FOG director Sarah Welsh said at the time. (The “other things” include the wrongly-fired-employee's attorney fees, which can mount up.)

In fact, the audit hadn't even been leaked. It had been procured through an IPRA Request, which legally mandated showing the document to the newspaper.

Jones, though, pursued trying to fire the person, showing questionable judgment, arguable disrespect for law, and a spirit far from the spirit of openness Ms. Soules says she wants to bring to the PRC. He wasn't alone. The PRC's attorney said it the document hadn't been cleared for dissemination but was in “mid-process.” But my own impression is that the document had to be produced under IPRA; and again, whatever the legal requirements, Jones's conduct didn't show a desire to maximize openness in government.

The PRC then argued the issue, and, according to a contemporary report, “During the meeting, Commissioner Sandy Jones demanded that Division officials 'name names' of employees who had access to what Jones described as a 'leaked' document.”

“'Who gave him the letter?' Jones demanded, referring to the audit report. 'Who has access to the letter? Name who has access to that letter. Who? Who? Who? What are the names? I want to know who gave the letter to the press.'”

Jones called for the employee to be identified and fired.

Not only was he arguably demanding that the PRC violate the law, a union official said Jones was coming very close to trespassing in personnel issues.

“I don't think the press has free and open access to everything done in government,” Jones insisted, arguing that because the document was marked “draft” it should not have been released. Commissioner Marks (and the law) disagreed. Marks said the “draft” stamp was no reason to avoid public discussion.

“This [audit] is not going to be changed,” Marks reportedly told the Commission. “We've been told to address it and the press has it already. Why are we trying to hunt down a leak and sweep this under the rug. What do you guys think your job is? Who do you think you work for?”

Reportedly, this discussion was mainly between Marks for open government and Jones against it, with the other three “remaining largely silent.”

Asked Marks, “Exactly why is this confidential, legally? And, as a policy issue, what are you guys trying to hide? The purpose of the Open Meetings Act is that the citizens to whom we're accountable know what their government is up to . . . The purpose of the law is not to protect us from being embarrassed.”

But Jones replied that the PRC needed “to protect the sanctity of the process.”

Does this sound like a guy we should be in a rush to put back on the PRC?

Not if we're proponents of open government. Not if we're proponents of strongly encouraging a shift to renewable and non-polluting energy resources. Not if we're interested in public servants who recognize the bounds of their power and are comfortable staying within those bounds. Or who place the public interest above their own convenience and avoiding embarrassment to the PRC.

Doing One Good Thing

A week or so ago we had solar panels installed on top of our garage.

The decision was a "no-brainer": 40% of the cost will be deducted from our federal (30%) and state (10%) taxes; we will not pay electricity bills; and El Paso Electric will effectively pay us 12 cents per kilowatt hour for the electricity we generate; and that 12-cent price is guaranteed for twelve years.

The system will pay for itself within eight years.

More importantly, we are contributing, in our small way, to solving one of this country’s many serious problems – and to a cleaner, healthier environment.

A recent opinion piece in the Sun-News, by a lady sympathetic to big energy interests, urged New Mexicans to repeal the program entirely. She trumpeted that coal and nuclear power are cheaper in the short-run, implying those are the direction New Mexicans should go. Coal is as dirty as power gets, and increasing our use of it would cost far more, in health and dollars, in the long run. Increasing use of nuclear power is simply idiotic.

Nuclear power plants are dangerous, as recent events in Japan should suggest. Further, their waste must be contained for tens of thousands of years. When we build and operate a nuclear power plant we undertake to safeguard its waste for several times the number of years (2011) since the death of Jesus Christ. No government or company has lasted even a small fraction of that time. A safety "guarantee" by the U.S., New Mexico, or the nuclear industry may sound good, but will any of them be around another ten or twenty thousand years? As our economy tanks and governments and companies cut corners, how can we have faith that either will continue to try their best? Even with the best intentions and careful planning, events (an unprecedented tidal wave in Japan; perhaps an unprecedented tornado in the U.S., terrorism, or a strong earthquake in a region that hasn’t had one for thousands of years?) happen.

New Mexico desperately needs to increase its use of clean and renewable energy.

Several points are unarguable:
1. The country must find energy alternatives that are safe, clean, and do not need to be purchased from other countries. With energy so critical to both our economy and our security, we need greater control over our supply of it.
2. We’re at a critical stage in human contribution to global warming and environmental pollution, and urgently need to be burning less and less oil and gas if we hope to bequeath our children and grandchildren a liveable world.
3. New Mexico is one of the two finest states in the nation for solar energy.

4. Most of the citizens of Doña Ana County could use the kind of financial break you get with solar panels – and, since loans are available if needed, most homeowners can do as we did. (The tax credits can be used over several years.)

However, if you are thinking of going solar, think fast.

If you go solar this year, you get a better deal than you will next year – and El Paso Electric is fighting tooth and nail to get the New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission to weaken the incentives for solar energy.
The case for solar is simple: it’s efficient, particularly in New Mexico; sunlight won’t run out this century, and the sun doesn’t charge us $100 or $200 every month for using its rays; and there’s little or no harm to the environment.

El Paso Electric is asking the PRC to reduce the price paid for solar energy to 10 cents per kilowatt hour (and to two cents for some) and reduce the term of the contracts from twelve years to eight. Last year, in a similar effort that failed, EPE provided figures indicating that their requested reduction would save the average customer . . . less than a penny month. Asked about that, an EPE witness testified that this was highly significant to people on fixed incomes – as if that, rather than its own business interest, motivated EPE.
Meanwhile, El Paso Electric also just announced a 43% increase in profits, comparing the second quarter of this year with the second quarter of 2010. EPE correctly points out that profits spiked partly because of the weather; but EPE, whose stock continues to rise and survived the recent stock-market madness, is in very good shape.

The PRC should resist EPE’s efforts to weaken the solar initiative in order to maximize already healthy profits. The New Mexico Legislature should act to strengthen a program that is proving quite successful. New Mexico can be a model for the nation – unlike Texas, where the oil and gas industry is paramount.

We’re in an unfortunate corner of the world as far as mounting political opposition to EPE: in northern New Mexico rate cases, the Renewable Energy Industry Association and other groups routinely intervene; in Texas, El Paso Electric serves a larger population than it does in southern New Mexico; but since only a small part of New Mexico buys electricity from EPE, we’re under the public-interest radar. Last year only one intervenor – Mark Westbrock of Positive Energy, a New Mexico solar power company – filed testimony and other documents with the PRC.

You can help. Write the Commissioners. Their addresses are readily available on the PRC’s web-site, www.nmprc.state.nm.us - just click on each commissioner’s picture.. (So are the parties’ briefs – you don’t have to take my word for anything!) "Our" commissioner is Ben J. Hall, but you should send all five commissioners a copy of your letter or e-mail.

[The above column appeared in today's Las Cruces Sun-News]

couple of other things for which there wasn't space in the column:

-- Ideally, you should visit with two or three local solar installation companies; we did, and learned a lot and felt all the more comfortable with our decisions; there are some issues and differences of opinion, and after hearing three perspectives we felt confident in our read on the issues and the people.

 

-- if you decide to go solar this year, do it soon; the solar installation companies aren't necessarily so backed up -- yet -- but the process isn't necessarily instantaneous: unless you are quite knowledgeable, a good company will want to analyze your past couple of electricity bills and talk with you before recommending a specific number of panels; then it can take a week or two to get El Paso Electric's signature on the contract, and you defnitely want that before you go forward.  In short, waiting until December could make it tough to get this done this year.

-- among the issues are:

a central inverter vs. micro-inverters, or a compromise (micro-inverters of some sort are definitely wave of the future, but they're also quite new, and produced by companies without much track record; and some of the apparent disadvantages of a central inverter are not as significant in our area as they might be elsewhere);

panels on your roof or on a free-standing array [free-standing allows for panels that track the sun, and are thus marginally more effective, but for most of us the roof is the better choice, since it doesn't screw up your view or take up space you could be using for garden or terrace or trees);

-- whether to get more panels than you need (beyond the number of panels that produces approximately the amount of electricity you need each month, you can still get paid for sending electrcity to EPE, but you get paid a good deal less; on the other hand, getting more panels than you need could, depending on your situation and roof space, (a) provide for future expansion, (b) be a reasonable investment on which there'll be a respectable return and which is highly "green."

An issue that -- regrettably -- wasn't much of a choice was whether to construct a system that would allow you to keep producing and using electricity even if El Paso Electric Company were completely disabled for weeks or months by some natural or other disaster.  For example, my friend Bud, who lives on our land just North of Doña  Ana County, has used a completely stand-alone solar energy system for more than a quarter-century, since his retirement as a professor at NMSU.  We're just too far from the nearest electric lines.  In thinking about getting solar here, I'd have liked, even at slightly more cost, to have a system that, if EPE went down, could function that way for as long as need be, with batteries; but it turns out that such a "dual" system just isn't cost-effective.  Rather than adding another ten or twenty per cent to your overall cost, it adds more like seventy-five or ninety.  This was my one disappointment in getting into solar energy, but was clearly true of all three companies we talked with.  I hope there's some change on this within the next few years; but I suspect there's not so much demand for it. 

-- It takes a couple of days for the actual installation, which may include making sure of the condition of your roof where the panels will be.  The folks who did our installation were businesslike, competent, and unobtrusive.   They were a pleasure to have around; and while I'm a complete idiot about such things, a neighbor who's more knowledgeable came by and took a look at their work and was impressed.